Footage with no movement which could be stills ?
Marbury
29 Apr 2014 09:50
I am a bit miffed why some buyers would pay $60 for footage of a stationery object,landscape,building when they could get a cheaper stills image. Why would anyone shoot anything with no movement at all ? Just curious.
BunFest
29 Apr 2014 10:32
There is different of a still image and a no-movement footage!
Cloud, air, leaves in landscape/building is moving all the time (even one second long only). Take a closer look and you will find out the different.
Don't you not happy when buyer buy your still footage and not a stock image from $1 dollar download?
Why buyer buy $300 clip and not $10 from our Mr. T! I have no complaint about that at all.
Cloud, air, leaves in landscape/building is moving all the time (even one second long only). Take a closer look and you will find out the different.
Don't you not happy when buyer buy your still footage and not a stock image from $1 dollar download?
Why buyer buy $300 clip and not $10 from our Mr. T! I have no complaint about that at all.
wideweb
29 Apr 2014 10:44
Someone on this site has sold moving image (literally) for $450.
It was an image from electron microscope, that by nature only produces stills.
They have used the Ken Burns effect.
It was an image from electron microscope, that by nature only produces stills.
They have used the Ken Burns effect.
NorwayStock
29 Apr 2014 11:16
This is the big wonders and woes of the stock footage business! You never know what will sell!
A large part of my portfolio is wildlife footage. And many of them are different sequences of the same species. I am often surprised what buyers choose over the others, even if the price is the same.
A large part of my portfolio is wildlife footage. And many of them are different sequences of the same species. I am often surprised what buyers choose over the others, even if the price is the same.