[Ivars Berzins]

Here is the response I have received from Pond5

“First I must say these are amazing shots. Clearly you took these with care, and quality was your focus.

Please know when your customer purchases this clip, they demand the option to layer in their own sound. Creating an additional step for your customer is a big detractor for sales, and could prove difficult for your customer without the right software. As a policy we are moving away from footage with sound. Please resubmit without the sound track, and I’ll be more than happy to request a secondary review of your clips.”

(The bold font is my emphasis)

They are kidding right, removing audio is one the simplest things you can do in post, as opposed to creating audio from nothing.
Surely even a guidetrack could be useful. Huh?

_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe.

[Ivars Berzins]

I know its crazy, but certainly not loud, or over-modulated at all.

If I was cutting this I would want audio on the shot, even if turned right down.

But they were able to accept a shot with the fountain at Oriental Bay with audio of the fountain and some street sounds. Inconsistent.

_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe.

[Ivars Berzins]

Pond5 have just rejected two clips of mine that were taken in historic Cathedral Square in Christchurch, New Zealand before the devastating earthquakes that changed the Square forever in 2010.

And the reason the clips were rejected? Because the audio track was “distracting and not useful”.

I find this absolutely laughable as the shot features pictures and sound of a streetcar (tram) wiping through frame to reveal the Cathedral. Theres no other audio other than street atmos, and tram sound. Theres nothing distracting at all, just audio of whats in the images.

Sure I could easily strip off the audio and sell it as a mute track, but why on earth would anyone buy a shot of a tram without audio? I’m trying to give them choices here, not take them away before the client has made up their own mind.

I’ve asked for a second opinion from Pond5, otherwise I will have to go shopping for a site that better understands tv post production.

_______________________________________________
I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe.

[Ivars Berzins]

[Gary Huff] “If you’re saying you think it’s meant to work by using a LUT, well, not really. LUTs are a really a poor way to color correct. Going your own way with color correction on a Log image is the best way to do it.
“

Ok thanks, going my own way is the way I have always done it with great success. I did think I must be missing out on something when I hear others talk about the ease of using LUTS.

Its good to hear others experience.

[Ivars Berzins]

Yes I agree Todd, I’m a glass half full guy and you’re right, nothing has been lost.

I’m just a bit confused as to why there is such a big difference in the looks achieved by apllying the same standard c-log LUT between View Assist and FCPX?

Maybe its a question on the FCPX forum as you suggest.

I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe.

[Ivars Berzins]

Thanks Todd for your reply. I have been ignoring it and just working my own way, but I realise this is not how its meant to work.
I guess I’m wondering if this is a common problem, or just peculiar to my set-up?
The whole idea of using a LUT is the convenience of pressing a button to make an image look good quickly, but it doesn’t seem to work that way for me.

I specialise in shooting, editing and uploading quality footage from New Zealand for clients all over the globe.