Author Topic: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad? (Read 51469 times)

click_click · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2010, 14:10 »

Quote from: leaf on February 12, 2010, 13:55

...Maybe Sean was playing the opposite game with you, like he often likes to do.

Maybe, maybe not.

I believe footage is not over-hyped.

It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2010, 14:17 »

Quote from: click_click on February 12, 2010, 14:10

It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.

I don't disagree. There will be need in the future. What I am commenting on is everyone running around yelling "shoot video, stills are dying, it's the only way to feed your family! buy a Red One, now!" That's the overhype.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2010, 14:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 12, 2010, 14:17

Quote from: click_click on February 12, 2010, 14:10
It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.

I don't disagree. There will be need in the future. What I am commenting on is everyone running around yelling "shoot video, stills are dying, it's the only way to feed your family! buy a Red One, now!" That's the overhype.

Yup.

click_click · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2010, 14:50 »

Who said to shoot video because stills are dying?

If some newbie with 20 clips in their port and no photos in their gallery because they can't meet the acceptance criteria, I'd be hesitant to take that "advice".

However, if long standing big shots of film making would make such a statement, it would make me reconsider whether to move more towards motion rather than stills.

ap · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2010, 21:49 »

Quote from: Perry on February 10, 2010, 08:40

I think video is a big thing, but still I don't want every image to blink and move.

Still images are somehow more "economical" than video. A Great photo can sometimes tell a story in just two seconds, a video wastes much more viewer's time.

I think there is room for both still and video imagery.

even when puruising editorial stuff, i really avoid video stories. you can watch something for 20 seconds or more, and still not get what the point was. a good photo establishes that for you in a blink of an eye. as for commercial videos, don't we channel surf just to avoid them?

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2010, 22:05 »

Technology changes, society changes, but the human perceptual system stays the same. And video next to text doesn't work.

Remember when every web page had a madly blinking ad banner at the top? Remember when Detroit found out we didn't want talking cars?

Albert Martin · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2010, 22:12 »

Yup... Next will be 3D video - 3D TVs available from about $2000... So hurry up and buy your new 3D HD cameras!

[ADDED:] http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=342750

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2010, 23:35 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 13, 2010, 22:05

Remember when Detroit found out we didn't want talking cars?

Speak for yourself!

gbalex · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2010, 13:43 »

Quote from: RT on February 10, 2010, 09:51

It's an alternative media, I don't think it will ever replace stills because of the reasons already stated but I do think we will see more and more of it.

One thing for sure is that right now you'd be mental to invest too much money to produce video for stock, Hollywood and major ad companies are using Canon (and probably Nikon) dslr cameras to shoot video so the quality is high enough for any marketplace and therefore nearly everybody with a modern dslr has the basic equipment and could provide some simple stock footage.

Of course if you don't know what you're doing you could hire a production team to shoot and edit it for you, but that would be a huge waste of money if video does take off because the market will suddenly get swamped and you'd probably never get a return for your investment.

After what has happened to the stills side of stock by microstock it's inevitable the same will happen for video.

I predict that a few will see that there is substantial money to be made by offering books and workshops to the volumes of people buying vid capable Dslr's with no vid experience. The learning curve is dropping because many are willing to share info between each other and that info is easy to gather on the net to incorporate into money making endeavors.

adijr · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2010, 23:58 »

A little about short-sightedness: an article in newsweek from 1995

Not to claim that if you don't agree with video as the future you're wrong, but when you're wrong, you can be very wrong...

Suljo · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2010, 00:53 »

We gat that bRole

Michael Lancaster · « **Reply #36 on:** May 05, 2010, 07:53 »

How about selling stock footage that was recorded using the H.264 codec?
There is an intresting article to read about

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html

A lot of the new DSLR cameras has the H.264 codec that required a license for using commercial.

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** May 05, 2010, 08:52 »

I think there will be a need...and some people on the ground floor like sjlocke will do well, especially when they are already successful stock photographers and know what and how to shoot for stock.

Generally, I think it will become just like microstock stills soon...everybody and their brother submitting a bunch of useless stuff just to earn a few bucks because it's being hyped and they think they will become millionaires.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #38 on:** May 06, 2010, 16:06 »

Quote from: zanzi on May 05, 2010, 07:53

How about selling stock footage that was recorded using the H.264 codec?
There is an intresting article to read about

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html

A lot of the new DSLR cameras has the H.264 codec that required a license for using commercial.

Sigh... People are still bringing this old article up...

The owners of the H.264 patent have already put out a press release after this article came out that they have no intention of going after camera owners for selling their footage. Canon, Nikon, etc.. have ALREADY PAID the licensing fee for use of the H.264 codec and they are fully aware that if they were to go after individuals, they'd cause the whole industry to switch to a new standard which would cost them millions of dollars.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** May 06, 2010, 16:23 »

Would you like to post a link? I've not seen anything like that.

hqimages · « **Reply #40 on:** May 06, 2010, 16:54 »

Since flyers and whatnot don't actually play video, I would say the still image is still needed

But yeah, why not shoot video? Technology now allows it on ur dslr, and since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot, it's just diversifying ur portfolio, and getting another customer in there that needs video, or offering video to your existing clients that dabble in some web work..

I welcome the opportunity to learn more about how this video thing works, now that technology is allowing me..

As for it being a fad, I think a lot of web designers will use it, especially with html 5..

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:13 »

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 16:54

what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting. Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well. It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

VB inc · « **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 17:13

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 16:54
what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting. Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well. It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

Thats the reason ur successful, but microstock is filled with people that just pushes buttons.

hqimages · « **Reply #43 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 17:13

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 16:54
what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting. Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well. It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

Ever the ray of positive sunshine and joy I see

I like this article for anyone making the first steps from commercial stills to combined commercial stills and video in one shoot: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i38514fc7c3e49c476a2e817a0aa249a4

“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:42 »

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:26

“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”

Well, that wouldn't be "shooting some video as part of a usual shoot", would it? That would be a concentrated effort to have multiple lighting scenarios, as well as talent that is proficient in acting, as well as a director who is skilled in motion.

Or you could just push the button.

hqimages · « **Reply #45 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 17:42

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:26
“We planned for a really long day, and alternated back and forth between still camera/strobes to video/hot lights,”

Well, that wouldn't be "shooting some video as part of a usual shoot", would it? That would be a concentrated effort to have multiple lighting scenarios, as well as talent that is proficient in acting, as well as a director who is skilled in motion.

Or you could just push the button.

It is shooting some video, as part of a still shoot (as in, they shot BOTH still images and video with the same model, on the same day), as a photographer that is not used to doing video.. that's what it is.. why you feel the need to dig/poke/antagonise people that are sharing information.. well, you must have a very fragile ego that needs constant reassurance.

Yes you're right Sean, well done.. now let's get back to sharing information and ideas in a positive way.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 17:13

Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting. Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well. It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

^^ This is the reason I haven't strayed into video yet. My photo shoots already last an average of 5 hours, with many going over 6. No time in there to completely change lighting setups and add video.

Maybe some people are managing to do it, but for my work flow I would need to do separate shoots for video, not to mention the time it would take to learn a whole new skill set.

hqimages · « **Reply #47 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:46

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 17:13
Because the lighting for photo with strobes is 100% different from video lighting. Also, there is the question as to whether still models can perform for video, and also if the contributor can direct video as well. It isn't just "hey, I'll push the video button on my camera".

^^ This is the reason I haven't strayed into video yet. My photo shoots already last an average of 5 hours, with many going over 6. No time in there to completely change lighting setups and add video.

Maybe some people are managing to do it, but for my work flow I would need to do separate shoots for video, not to mention the time it would take to learn a whole new skill set.

Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #48 on:** May 06, 2010, 20:44 »

Quote from: hqimages on May 06, 2010, 17:57

Wouldn't you be tempted to do still shots after going to all the trouble of model/styling/make-up etc for a video shoot?

I'm still not sure why you think it is so simple.

I'll elaborate, once again. You said "a usual shoot". A usual shoot involves strobe lights, and, for most, shooting handheld, going solo. A video shoot involves hot lights, numerous pieces of hardware, like a tripod and a glider or a boom, plus, possibly people to do follow focus and audio. As well as talent who can not only smile and look good for 1/125, but can successfully act to convey a message. And other things.

So, you said "since you have the studio/model set up anyway, what's the biggie to shoot some video as part of a usual shoot". There, I told you "the biggie". I'm sharing information. That should make you happy, right?

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #49 on:** May 06, 2010, 21:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2010, 16:23

Would you like to post a link? I've not seen anything like that.

I'd have to find it again... I thought this was laid to rest over a month ago.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad? (Read 51469 times)

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

Elenathewise

click_click

ap

stockastic

Albert Martin

Sean Locke Photography

gbalex

adijr

Suljo

Michael Lancaster

cathyslife

dnavarrojr

Sean Locke Photography

hqimages

Sean Locke Photography

VB inc

hqimages

Sean Locke Photography

hqimages

lisafx

hqimages

Sean Locke Photography

dnavarrojr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors