Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

rolffimages · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 1605 Location: Just to the left

I know you are all very busy and I thank you all for the work you are doing. However I spent quite a long time uploading files that a number of which seem to me to have been rejected inappropriately.

It looks as though the reviewer was in a hurry and did a quick broad dismissal. The files I uploaded were all under 60 secs, under 1 gig, and no larger then twice the minimum pixel size as stated in the footage submitter guidelines.
The rejection reason for quite a number of them was "too large to review". This seems incorrect if only for the fact that other clips of the sames sizes and dimensions and types were accepted.

The bulk of the rest of them were rejected for "noise, artifacts or hazing at full size". This too is strange as other clips some of which include the same content that was accepted in other clips.

I looked at the clips and did notice that some could have been seen as pixelated when the images are paused. However while in motion they all look good. And as I said others with the same content were accepted.

I would like to request that these clips be reconsidered.

rolffimages

rolffimages · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 1605 Location: Just to the left

** sound of crickets chirping **

Hello....hello... hello... hello...

varius · Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:11 am

I guess you'll have to write an email to support to get an official answer.

rolffimages · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 1605 Location: Just to the left

Yes. I think I was just venting at the time. This was the wrong way to request a review. I will most likely make new. I am sure they have been deleted from thier system anyhow.

jubalharshaw · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 310

Even though acceptable file sizes may be stated as up to 1 gig, that's still awful large. The vast majority of my clips, even the longer ones are under 50 megs (0.05 gig). Of course, they are compressed, but IMHO, some compression will probably eventually be required. I use Quicktime.

Noise and artifacts can be very troublesome. "Shimmer" has been especially intractable and can be common in some earlier DV cameras. I finally had to move to a newer camera. Noise can be managed with Neat Video or some of the filters in Virtualdub
Jubal Harshaw

rolffimages · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 1605 Location: Just to the left

badboo · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Posts: 361 Location: Miami

Let me handle this...

"We can't say anything unless you post a %100 uhhhh wait a minute... - lol

Well I had a similar rejection concerning file size and I was stupid to upload uncompressed avi files. One of my 30 seconds clips made to the 670 MB which I believe is too much to deal with for most people unless you are a quality freak.

I started rendering everything in Quicktime, resulting in more than acceptable quality (quality setting %100) and considerable small file sizes.

It's hard to get a file rejected because of this especially at this early stage where submissions are not in the thousands, daily. But eventually I think it will be tough for SS to handle tens of Terrabytes daily if everyone would solely upload in uncompressed formats. So, I somewhat understand why they would reject files in really huge dimensions - and propably it was not because of the content...

I would resubmit it with a different compression.

Good luck!

rolffimages · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 1605 Location: Just to the left

Thanks for the input badboo. Believe it or not most of them were compressed files. They were twice the minimum dimension, 60 sec long. They were rendered as quicktime files. All being animations. Some were very moderately complex.

Anyhow I am going to just redo and reduce the length and dimensions.

badboo, can you post a link to some of your clips? I am interested in seeing what you have.

Jubal Harshaw I would be interested in seeing your clips as well. Can you post a link to some of your clips?