Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

digitalchaos · Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 268 Location: Toronto, Canada

Hello everyone, I've decided to share my personal method and knowledge for encoding and uploading HD clips to Shutterstock as there seems to be an increase in the number of users uploading HD clips now. Please note before I begin, the following steps I outline are what I've personally found works best for myself and may not exactly be the best choice for your setup. Anyhow getting on with it...

Live Footage
From HDV Interlaced Source:

1) Edit and export your final clips from your editing application as HDV m2v, m2t or mov files (depending on if they have audio or not) My HDV clips export 1440x1080 with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.333. Note: Having you clips in this format takes up a lot less space and is great for storing or archiving if you plan on building a personal stock clip library.

2) Now to convert your files to a format Shutterstock will accept. Convert to .mov "Motion JPEG B" files using the free program "MPEG Streamclip" by Squared 5. I've found the batch mode works great as I usually have multiple files to encode. Note: I personally prefer the "Motion Jpeg B" codec due to the fact it is a little bit of a newer codec but Motion JPEG A should work just the same. Also remember that if your original HDV clips your converting from are progressive and not interlaced you're probably going to want to encode to the "PhotoJPG" codec.)

3) The Settings:

90% Quality (Files get huge if any higher number)
Uncompressed Sound (If applicable)
1920x1080 Resolution
Upper Field First
X/Y: 1 (Refers to Pixel Aspect Ratio)
Interlaced Scaling & Reinterlace Chroma: ON (These should be selected as you are encoding from an interlaced file, if your not encoding an interlaced file, use the Photo JPEG codec) Note: Make sure you have lots of free Hard-drive space as these HD files you'll be making take up very large amounts of space.

4) Now your 'simply' going to want to upload your clips to Shutterstock using a FTP client that can preferably batch upload.

I've found this method to be the quickest, If anyone has any corrections I've missed or video information I am not informed of please do tell, and I encourage others to share their methods! Thanks

Julian.

digitalchaos · Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 268 Location: Toronto, Canada

Grabbed this from a previous post, With some useful info.

From Varius:

M-JPG A vs. M-JPG B: Doesn't make a difference at all these days. It used to make a difference with certain hardware editing tools (big money studio type). Some whould only accept A, the other only B. In modern PC/MAC based systems you can use them as equivalent. People tend to use B because they think it's the newer version. ;-) (Which is true, but only by a few days.) The quality is the same.

Why 95% quality and not 100%: The difference is in the way the colors are coded. With 100% the colour coding is 4:4:4 - which means each and every pixel has all colours stored. Sounds great, but only very high end cameras record that kind of colour informations (think $40K+). Anything between 99% and 75% is recorded with 4:2:2 colour coding. While every pixel has luminosity information, only every second pixel has colour information - that is what the better prosumer cameras record. So, coding that with 100% only adds information that simply wasn't there in the first place. Coding with 100% makes sence for some animations though, especially when they are meant to be color keyed.

M-JPG vs. Photo-JPG: Use M-JPG for interlaced clips. It only compresses horizontally (PER LINE) in order to keep the lines intact and you don't get the information from one odd line to bleed into the next odd line (without touching the even line between them - or vice versa). M-JPG will keep your frame and field info intact. It's not very effective though. Photo-JPG on the other hand compresses PER FRAME. It's the best thing you can do for progressive footage, but it would have strange effects on interlaced footage.
"

varius · Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:10 am

Could someone stickify this please?

Julian, you might want to add:

1.5) Cut, Edit, Check for quality and legal issues.

freefly · Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:38 am

This is exactly what I have been looking for...many thanks to both of you!

Now to try it out....

Cheers,

Nick

loren · Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 157 Location: Connecticut

Julian,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

These last 3 weeks - getting introduced to video with an HV20 and Vegas 7 has been like trying to drive a car from NYC to LA without clear directions. You've offered a simple map.

I submitted a couple of clips last week and am still waiting to hear from SS, but I'm now a little more comfortable about the rendering process after reading your post.

digitalchaos · Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 268 Location: Toronto, Canada

Glad to offer some sort of starting place, for all those who are new to HD.

despain · Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 155

Same here, the HV20 is great and I was getting HUGE file sizes even at 15 seconds. In fact 15 seconds are still giving me 500,00 kb. The biggest problem is the slow upload.

When using business speed DSL and using FileZilla and two clips are being UL's they slow down to about 25 Kb/sec. An all night and then only a handful sent.

Thanks for the directions too

freefly · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:15 pm

Ok, so....

My original HDV M2T file (1440x1080i) is 14 seconds, 48mb and plays beautifully on my laptop.

When I convert using the EXACT same method above I (understandably) end up with a 272mb .mov file that when played, is quite jittery and nowhere near the quality of the M2T file.

Is this normal or have i done something wrong?

My camera is the Sony HDR SR1 and my laptop is the Sony VAIO AR21s HD (Blu-ray) Dual core 2 duo.

Incidentally, earlier I managed to create an MPEG HD file that looks absolutely stunning and is only 54mb!

If it is 1080i HD and looks fantastic...will that suffice? I have uploaded it and am waiting for approval...

EDIT: I just "re-converted" the same file using 1440x1080 and a pixel ratio of 1.333 and the clip is now 187mb and MUCH clearer.....but still not close to the original quality.

EDIT 2: Now I deinterlaced it and it is much better again...just jittery with no "lines" during movement but 236mb.

This Video lark is a massive learning curve...hats off to you pros out there!

EDIT 3: Well, finally, I used my newly found way of making small MPEG HD files and the quality from the same clip is EXACTLY the same as the original at just 43.5mb...outstandingly clear....I am flummoxed (is that a word?)

The method is this...

The VAIO came with ULEAD BD (Blu-Ray) Disk Recorder 2.5. I simply load the M2T file in and it immediately and automatically appends the file and throws out an MPEG file in about 4-5 seconds!! Amazing and as I said, the qulity on the 1920x1200 screen is outstanding...

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Cheers,

Nick

varius · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:13 pm

1) It is ENTIRELY NORMAL that the file size is that large and play jerky on a Quicktime Player, even on high end MAC.

2) Interlaced footage should stay interlaced. It looks like shit on a PC in full size, that's ok. Interlaced video is for interlaced screens and PC screens are NOT interlaced. That's why Pros use real preview monitors that can display the footage correctly.

3) Keeping your footage in original HDV format (pixel aspect ratio of 1.333) could be ok, since it's the original format, BUT:
a) It displays strangely distorted on SS which might reduce your chance for sales.
b) If you want to make it available for full HD editors (square pixels only), it would be best converted DIRECTLY from the original M2T file.
Your choice though...

I trust that Shutterstock reviewers have Pro equipment to check the footage. So... if it's jerky because of your system, it won't be on theirs. If it's jerky because you did something wrong, they will find out.

That doesn't mean that we should "use" the reviewers to check our conversion process, but if you think you did everything right, it might work out for now.

freefly · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:23 pm

Thanks for your reply Various. I was probably editing my post with number 3 as you posted.

I see what you mean about the image possibly appearing "squashed" when hosted online but do you have any thoughts on my latest findings?

If the original M2T file is just 48MB with exceptional clarity, and these mpeg2 files I am producing keep the same 48mb, the original 1440x1080 pixels and the same clarity and smoothness....do you think these will work?

Thanks for your help. Once I/we all get it, this will be a walk in the park...maybe!

BTW, it isn´t playing on a quicktime player...it is playing on the windows classic media player I just installed as recommended by Streamclip.

Just out of interest...here are the properties for 2 files...one HDV M2T file (left) and the converted MPEG file (right).

I may be being stupid but would the mpeg2 file on the right be suitable for stock? It plays and looks exactly the same. I guess my main thought is if the original file at 48mb is HD and looks great on a high def TV, why does it need to increase in size so much for Shutterstock when my mpeg file looks the same?

Don´t worry, once I have this figured I will hassle you all no more...I am such a noob!

varius · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:19 pm

I'd have to see them side by side on a true HD monitor to answer that - not that I'd have one at home - yet. ;-)

You still have that potential problem of a distorted preview.

I try to avoid the MPEG codecs. They are great for playback, especially from DVD, but working with those files - editing, especially colour keying, is a nightmare. If your clip is basicly for unedited playback you might be fine. If you expect editors to play with the clip a bit more than just cuting it, you might want to try MJPG. Even if it's that much more data.

But probably I'm just spoiled by working with DVCPRO-HD. ;-)

freefly · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:04 pm

Thanks Varius. It all helps and I appreciate your feedback. Am now uploading a quicktime.mov file to see where that gets me too.

Thanks again,

Nick

freefly · Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:57 am

Well, staying on my "theme" earlier, I have just had both my .mov file and HD MPEG file accepted and the 1440x1080 mpeg file doesn´t appear distorted in any way. Here is the original SD 720x576 mpeg version...

http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-30512-row-of-small-fishing-boats-or-trawlers-on-calm-sunny-morning-mediterranean-sea-or-ocean-in-spain.html

...and here is the 1440x1080 HD .MPG version

http://footage.shutterstock.com/video.html?id=35690

I can´t emphasise enough how clear and similar to the original this HD MPG version looks. If it has the same file size (i.e. 48MB) as the original M2T file, why would editors have difficulty in editing it over a much larger .mov file?

If this way of keeping them as smaller mpeg files works, the quality is the same as the original and the files come out at a fifth of a .mov file...am I still better off uploading .mov QT files?

If you pause the clip when the boat is fully zoomed in, you can see that the orange life belt hanging up is less saturated and more "raw" looking on the HD MPEG too...maybe that means something?

Thanks for any help,

Nick

artmannwitte · Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 1:44 pm

I'm working with HD clips too. Please excuse me because I will now write in german to Varius. My english is not good enough for specific problems.

Hallo Varius,

Bei SS lade ich meine HD-Clips als mpeg2 hoch. Meine Original-Files im Computer sind m2t von der Sony HC1. Diese Files konvertiere ich mit Streamclip nur zu mpeg, weil ich die meisten Clips nicht bearbeite. Nach meiner Meinung biete ich damit dem Kunden die Qualität, die ich von der Kamera erhalte. Außerdem habe ich eine kleine File-Größe, die sich schneller hochladen läßt.

Wenn man z.B. Farbkorrekturen vornehmen will, kann man diesen Clip immer noch in ein anderes (größeres) Format übertragen, weil man bei mpeg nach zwei oder dreimaligen Rendern mit größeren Qualitätsverlusten rechnen muss. Das ist mein bisheriger Wissens- und Erfahrungsstand.

P.S. Ich habe einfach mal die Endung .m2t in .mpg geändert. Danach konnte ich mit Playern, die m2t nicht lesen konnten, meine Clips in gleicher Qualität anschauen. Deshalb glaube ich, dass wenn ich die Dateien mit Streamclip in mpg konvertiere, kein Qualitätsverlust entsteht.

Varius - falls Du der Meinung bist, dass meine Ausführungen für andere interessant sind, kannst Du vielleicht ein paar Worte dazu in englisch schreiben.

Zum Schluss stellt sich mir aber doch die Frage. Was ist für den Kunden am Besten? mov oder mpeg2?

digitalchaos · Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 268 Location: Toronto, Canada

You should PM him instead of post. Probably get a better response.