Royalty Free Stock Video

[David Rice]

Kevin,

The first footage I am uploading to give away, is from a Panasonic GH2- 1080 30p at 26-28 mbps. I edit in Sony Vegas Pro and render to a mp4 file at 28 mbps. Vimeo renders to a 720p file for better viewing. However, my original 1080p mp4 file is available on Vimeo for download.

I am not sure how I will deliver the clips taken with my old Canon A1. Some are 1440 and some are 1920.

I have owned many cameras over the past nine years. The cinematographer, not the camera, makes the shot. I have seen some of my past video clips on the Animal Channel, and Public TV, and those particular video clips were obtained with a $1,000 Canon HV40.

Dave

[Kevin Duffey]

David,

Thanks for the reply. Very interesting. I actually thought stock footage (at least the kind you can charge for) had to be uncompressed or raw format so that the buyer could then do whatever they wanted to the clean video, then render it out to whatever format they want. In your case it is free, so take it or leave it really, it does look fantastic, but my original understanding of stock footage would be video in a clean editable format as opposed to a compressed format. Part of the reason I thought (think) that is my thirst for clean raw video footage to offer the ultimate clean video to work with. In my mind, if the video you get is already highly compressed like h264, avchd, etc, then rendering it again is a 2nd level of compression. I am being picky I suppose, because even 3 or 4 lvls of compression still look comparable to dvd i most cases.

[Rick L. Allen]

Kevin, you are correct. Most clients prefer to receive footage in it's original format or a high quality format such as ProRes HQ. H.264 clips are highly compressed and good for final delivery but not for editing.

[David Rice]

Wow

Raw 4k, Red, Canon C500, Sony ClineAlta, Arri Alexa, ProRes HQ. H.264, Apple Editing System, Final Cut Pro, great, wonderful. I agree, the best!

But how does a retired disabled person living on a small pension, and living in a 1970's Kit Trailer obtain such things?

No, I am not a professional, nor do I make myself out to be one.

Within a month or so, I will be uploading my Alaska Brown Bear footage to Free Stock Video Clips. No, I did not take the bear footage with a Red, EX3, or C300. Nor did I stand on a safe, and protected wooded platform at McNeil River, with all the other professionals. Nor did I film my Brown Bear close-ups at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center in Portage, and call it wilderness filming.

I obtained my Alaska Brown Bear footage by stalking Alaska Brown Bears. Stalking the bears alone, unarmed, in a true wilderness setting with my unprofessional Canon A1. Near my home, our bears are wild, and they kill. Last fall a man was killed just north of my community. By the time he was found, all of the soft flesh tissue on his body, had been eaten.

No, I'm no professional.

[Kevin Duffey]

David,

Wow.. that's crazy talk! You are a brave soul.

I don't disagree with you that what you shoot is fine. My only thought in 2013 with today's technology, would be that stock footage should be compression free, if possible uncompressed and/or RAW to allow maximum usage during editing.

That's not to say however, that your video isn't good enough, no doubt it is. Funnier though, is that while we're about to hit 4K TV (and already camera) euphoria, it wasn't that long ago that your footage would be higher quality than anything possible to play on. It's amazing how fast we've progressed (in many areas actually) such that a compressed yet great quality 1080P video isn't good enough in some cases.

Anyway, I am being picky.. partly because I am still learning how to shoot video and my video typically comes out like crap.. and when I re-render it again, the final result is just not impressive to me. I wish my HDMI out hadn't died on my T2i, so I could use my BM Shuttle 2 finally to record in DNxHD 220. I wonder if DNxHD 220 is good enough for some stock footage sites? Is it good enough for green screen even?

[Tim Paynter]

Stay away from Digital Juice. I paid a big price to "join". When I could not get the "Juicer", a program you need to render their products, to work, I sent them an email...and waited, and waited, a few follow up emails later, I sent them a stronger email. "Hey guys, if you can't give better customer service I am going post about your product on the video forums".

I got an immediate response. "You are not a good candidate for our 'experimental members only program' (I am paraphrasing), we will send you your money back. My emails explaining all I wanted was some help getting the shots to work was finally answered, "sorry, you can buy in at full cost when we are done with'Beta testing'".

It took a long time for the refund to go through.

These guys have no sense about customer service and don't explain what they are charging for is a "beta test", or that, as soon as you pay the money for 'members only pricing' they would send me another offer for "lifetime products".

Some people may have great luck with this bunch, I found out how little I counted.

[Tim Paynter]

The vimeo link does not work. Would love to see some of your bear stuff!

[Eugen Brinzoiu]

Same thing about digital juice....
Stay away.
Spent a ton of money for nothing.
Stupid me.....

[Andrew Smith]

It's not all to waste with your Digital Juice experiences. Last year (I think, or the year before) Zaxwerks were doing a promo email about Digital Juice (whom you would agree look okay and legitimate on the surface).

I was able to alert them to the absolute stinker issues with DJ (which they were unaware of) and supplied them with links to various discussion threads at DVinfo. I'm fairly sure they would have then immediately ceased doing anything with DJ as I haven't seen anything since.

Andrew

[Eugen Brinzoiu]

Andrew
You're the best.
I spent 300$ and now I'm not even allowed to sign in.
I have to buy another package.
Thanks

[Brian Alves]

I think that is great!