All Activity

RPPC via eBay - Fair Use Santa Barbara was a big oil production site in CA. Most people would know anything about this without the photo postcard. <><><><> Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

BUMP 39.000

... and another thing. I'm sick of videographers putting their hands up to do work for free. Videographers and filmmakers, and anyone who's shelled out hard cash to make movies of any sort: refuse, and i mean point blank refuse, to shoot any more gigs for anyone for free. Take your clips off the cheapskate clip sites, if you can. Cut the cheap bastards off from their footage. Every time you shoot something for free you're killing cinematography as a profession.

Yeah. To hell with that, as they say. The clip companies can take a flying F.

Hi, I’m looking at getting my set of Zeiss Superspeed Mkii’s rehoused at TLS. Wondering what people’s thoughts are on keeping the original 7 blade iris, or swapping it out for a circular iris, from an aesthetic point of view? These are also going to be housed at my local rental house, so just trying to gauge a general opinion. Thanks!

Don't let that stop you. I never know if my metadata tags are useful or effective. Getty provides zero feedback about the metadata I create. However, I have a spreadsheet of all my clips and the metadata tags that I used for each clip. Once the clip has been published, I go back to the public listing of that clip and include tags that Getty has added by themselves to the clip. That helps me understand what they feel is important to customers. It's not direct feedback, but it's helpful. I've found that it's not enough to think like a content creator. You also have to think like a business person.

Yea it's a niche market you found, which I guess others could also get into if they wanted. Gotta be in it for the long haul tho, and as you said, it's all about flooding the site with content. The problem I always had was metadata tagging. You need to do it as a full time job.

The secret is to stop trying to sell your own stock footage. Instead, try uploading vintage public domain films. I've been a Getty Images contributor for 20+ years. I specialize in automotive footage. I shot footage at the Detroit Auto Show for 20 years. That footage is still for sale on Getty's site, and it earns peanuts compared to vintage car films, industrials, commercials, etc. I've made $137,000 since 2009, and the vast majority of that income has derived from the vintage public domain stuff. The secret is volume. If you have a vintage 10-minute industrial, you might be able to yield 10 or 20 clips from that film. The more clips you offer, the greater the chance to earn passive income (aka royalties). It's true that you earn lower royalties than you used to. I've found that's true since Getty started offering premium memberships to high-volume customers. Many of my monthly royalty statements are filled with a few dozen 50-cent or $1.09/per clip royalties, but there's usually a shot (or two) in there that licenses for $100, $200, or $300. That little jackpot is enough of an incentive to continue uploading vintage material. Pivot away from shooting your own material. Upload vintage public domain material. Niche down to a topic that you can specialize in. Be resilient. Rinse and repeat.

Hercules The common Internet expression, “What a hill to die on!” (i.e., what a questionable hill to die on) —has an equivalent in Euripides, Heracles, 155 : τοῖσδ᾽ ἐξαγωνίζεσθε? This is your fight? spoken in the same manner, with the same scepticism.

I stopped selling anything on Shutterstock couple of years ago because they launched the new very low price licenses and the royalty was so low per purchase that it did not even cover the costs of checking the page from time to time if anything had been sold. It is, when there is the possibility to pay ultimate peanuts for the lowest quality license ( I think it cost like 2 bucks per clip to buy them at the time) then 95% of people buy exactly that and when getting about 30% of royalties per purchase it is really not worth it at all. One cannot cover even the hard drive costs to store the raw material, let alone the costs to shoot it in the first place. Nor the work to process the clips, to upload them and catalogue them correctly, etc. I was just, screw this I don't need this bullsh*t in my life, better to delete the whole collection for it becoming cheaper than try to keep it generating losses 🤢 About 10 years ago it was very different, people often paid the medium priced or highest priced license for a clip and I could get about 100usd in royalties PER CLIP PER PURCHASE. that compare to the current days when getting 0.6usd or something like that AT BEST. I think the issue is just the customers being cheap ass pos, they got what they asked for when always paying the lowest price for everything, no one wants to shoot material for them then 😝

https://www.stocksy.com/ideas/film-stock-footage-why-super-8-16mm-still-rule/

All those stock video clip sites have reams of very similar shots, all in glorious 4K. Gimbal tracking shots of inner city buildings. Drone city scapes and interesting geological features. Shots of people sipping chardonnay at street bars or whatever. Drone shots and uber slow motion shots of people in the surf. Slow mo of wedding couples hand in hand. It's all the same stuff. Much of the most interesting stuff is shot with a drone. I don't know why they keep accepting clips because they already have more than enough. Almost no one is going to need Super 8 or 16mm B roll.

Yes, it is the same camera.

Yes, I've been thinking about it. I guess it makes sense that, really, who is going to want to buy any Super 8 or 16mm footage of anything? I'm not being satirical. It makes sense that content creators are going to want digital stock footage because, let's face it, a lot of video production is very shallow, glib, commercial .... call it what you want but, whatever it is, standard video production doesn't interest me in the least. I'd literally rather be a bus driver than try to make a living as a wedding videographer for instance. Or a 'corporate videographer', whatever that actually is (everyone says they do corporate videos on their websites haha). So, all these video content creators really just want shallow, commercial-looking clips to insert into their boring videos that look exactly like every other content creator's boring videos. I'm not being cynical or negative, I'm telling it like it is. But just who would actually buy Super 8 or 16mm clips? Maybe once a blue moon you might sell a very cheap clip to some teenager making a music video. But that's total peanuts. Not worth the time to upload the clip.

unfortunately it probably wouldnt do very well stand alone. which is too bad, cause one imagines there are at least some cases where some show might want cineon log footage. Hell, you'd think there'd be a (admittedly small) market for landmarks filmed with super 8 alone

Perhaps some enterprising individual should start up their own film footage only stock clips site.

Hmm, sounds like they don't reeaalllly want film footage despite hinting that it's cool to shoot film clips on film. Looks like it's on to plan G (or is it plan M, somewhat down the list from plan B and plan C) for making a buck from shooting film.

Apocalypse Now : Shakespeare’s King Lear Gloucester. The King is mad. (4.6.308) * First line as Thematic Fundament Kent. I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall. The play’s first line evokes dissension and error and uncertain loyalties. (“I thought he liked one more than the other.”) And so on. * Parody of the Revenge Tragedy While characters of the play actively conspire revenge—for example : Cornwall. I will have my revenge ere I depart his house. (3.5.1) Gloucester. Edmund, enkindle all the sparks of nature, to quit [ requite ] this horrid act! (3.7.105–6) —the old mad King is enmeshed in a deteriorating structure and can only bluster : Lear. No, you unnatural hags, I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things,— What they are, yet I know not, but they shall be The terrors of the earth! (2.4.320–4) Lear. But I will punish home. (3.4.19) Lear. And when I have stol’n upon these sons-in-law, Then, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill! (4.6.204–5) In the end, Lear revenges himself on no one. * Henry James Positive-Negative Statement Edmund. How malicious is my fortune, that I must repent to be just! (3.5.9–10) * Self-referential Goneril. [ Speak ] No more; the text is foolish. (4.2.46) Kent. My point and period will be thoroughly wrought, Or well or ill, as this day’s battle’s fought. (4.7.111–2) Fool. She that’s a maid now and laughs at my departure Shall not be a maid long, unless things be cut shorter. (1.5.50–1) * Apocalypse Relatable? Gloucester. ’Tis the times’ plague, when madmen lead the blind. (4.1.54) Albany. Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile: Filths savour but themselves. (4.2. 47–8) * Albany. If that the heavens do not their visible spirits Send quickly down to tame these vile offences, It will come, Humanity must perforce prey on itself, Like monsters of the deep. (4.2.57–61) “Only a god can save us now.”

I've tried to sell clips to stock footage companies for years, I've been rejected 8 times out of 10. They have some odd QC engine that finds issues within the clips and auto rejects them based on those issues. With film clips, it's a nightmare because any flicker or even fast pans which create a motion blur, can cause it to be rejected. This is why when you look at the stock footage sites, nearly all of the footage is heavily stabilized and almost overly squeaky clean. It's hard to get 16mm and super 8 to look THAT clean.

The perforations are all over the place. There is no consistency.

What's the reference to the original, or do you have the rest of the article?q

That tuner is certainly something I would want to rent and play around with. I'm looking forward to it getting more out into the market. As for the original question; my biggest concern would be re-tuning the lens if needed! Honestly, for the price to de-tune you might as well rent something else and if the lenses aren't rocking with what you like, maybe a better idea to sell and buy up some that are. Lenses are nice in that they really don't seem to loose to much value despite how old they are (and in fact the older ones seem to be worth more).

$12,500

I never abhorred the answer merely stated I am not technical in understanding what you described. Thank you for taking the time to answer I appreciate it very much.