Why isn’t everybody uploading H.264 codec?

I am new to stock video, so bear with me…

In my research to develop an efficient workflow, it appears to me that saving footage to intermediate H.264 for upload has an advantage due to the smaller file size when compared to ProRes 4:2:2 and PhotoJpeg.

Most of the top sites accept this codec except iStock, but they are proving to be a less desirable agent with the new pricing/commission model.

All of the DSLRs are shooting native H.264 and it is easy to transcode during import into Final Cut Pro X and I assume others.

It appears that PhotoJpeg is the most common codec for stock video since it works well on Mac and PC platforms. And iStock accepts them as well as all others. But those are MASSIVE files compared to H.264.

I find, bogging down my broadband for hours uploading huge files is a burden that I can avoid with smaller H.264 files.

And do buyers prefer PhotoJpeg? Does the H.264 codec limit sales?

Does this make sense or are there holes in my logic?

Thanks for your thoughts...

h.264 is a delivery codec whereas ProRes and Photojpeg are editing codecs, it is true that Final Cup will easily transcode h.264 to ProRes on import and also increase the colour space from 4.2.0 to 4.2.2 so for 4K I have started uploading h.264 as Photojpeg is too big for my broadband in 4K. All my HD have been in Photojpeg and average 300 to 500 MB which is twenty minutes per upload. I have also switched my HD to Prores 4.2.2 as I have recently switched to a Mac system. I'm hesitant to put HD into H.264 at this stage as I have pretty good sales at larger file sizes.

thanks norm stock

seems like buyers would like the smaller delivery codec of h.264 for faster download as well.
would be good to hear from buyers about how important the codec is.

Using H.264 codecs seems to me a lot like using .jpegs for stock digital photos for uploading and downloading due to the smaller file size -- and then anyone can convert it to a .TIFF of .PSD file for retouching.

Am I missing something here?

I've switched to uploading in h.264 also for the reasons you stated. Personally I don't really understand why it would be a problem. My camera shoots h.264 and I deliver it. If someone wants to transcode to something else, it's not like if I deliver it in ProRes or photojpeg it would make the clip better.

In the beginning of times, the agencies and their lawyers believed that H.264 was a proprietary codec. Sort of copyrighted thing where you needed special permit to use it. It was only allowed for clips where their native codec was H.264. After a while the agencies stopped enforcing this rule, but still pay a fortune to store PJPEG. PJPEG is always one generation demoted than the H.264 that created it.

Same like zanyzeus: "My camera shoots h.264 and i deliver it".

All my HD clips are PhotoJPEG (in case I want to throw a few clips iStock's way -- which I probably won't do anymore). All of my 4K clips are H.264 -- mostly due to the size issue with 4K.

Like others said, since my cameras shoot H.264, it'd be pointless to artificially inflate the files to ProRes or PhotoJPEG quality. If the buyer wants to edit ProRes, them converting my H.264 after downloading would be no different than me doing it before uploading.

Think of it this way: if you have 1 gallon of water to deliver, would you want to carry it in a 1 gallon milk jug or a 50 gallon barrel? Both do the job, but the 50 gallon barrel requires much more effort for the same end result.

I always try to upload ProRes422HQ whenever possible. I worked for a big broadcast company and they do prefer edit friendly codecs. H.264 is avoided at all times - only if the footage is very important and not available in other formats then they will buy it.

If I have to shoot with an HDSLR I use a professional workflow for finishing 8Bit footage. And it's not just inflating the filesize you really get a better quality and remove these nasty H.264 artifacts.

Though I don't know what to do if I begin to shoot 4K material because filesizes will increase drastically in 422HQ. Maybe getting a 1 Gbit/s upload line? A former colleague told me that the new H.265 is not as good as they market it and for a professional workflow it's lousy.

I still don't understand why someone purchasing a h.264 clip would find it so arduous to transcode to whatever they are using in their project. I can't believe that if they are buying random clips and out shooting their own material that all their material matches. If I shoot a jpeg and then deliver a TIFF of that image is that image somehow better just because the TIFF can be edited multiple times without loss? If the end user can't see the difference then I wonder about his/her abilities. If I buy a jpeg I will convert to a TIFF for my project. I know to do this. If I buy a h.264 clip and the rest of my project is in some high brow codec, wouldn't I transcode to that same codec? It wasn't that long ago we used to delver all our digital photos to agencies as TIFF. For all the wrong reasons I might add and they (the agencies) got tired of dealing with these monsters. Seriously? a 50M file that takes up 50M? Nonsense. Some very very smart people have developed codecs and compression algorithms that work. Clips, like photographs, are about content. Yes they have to be technically adequate but they have to have content.