I literally just replied to your ticket . Unfortunately though, I reviewed the video myself and have to disagree with you about the faces visible in the shot. We do actually accept quite a lot of videos that are fast timelapses with blurred faces. The issue with your shot is that the faces were all very centralized and visible for more than one or two frames. So when the people turned towards the camera, it was on screen long enough that it was clearly visible that their faces had been blurred out. Causing the usefulness of the overall shot to be less.
Yes, if you write into support to have your items looked at, please make sure to include the rejected footage. So you could upload it temporarily to Youtube, Vimeo, Google Drive, or Dropbox and send a link to access it. And then just provide the marketplace links to the accepted items from the same set.
Technically that item should not have been approved, but it’s possible that the reviewer was unaware that the file was made up of already approved items so he/she accepted it. Since it has a sale, I think we’ll just leave this file up for the time being to ensure your buyer does not lose access to the file.
For your second question, we have a separate policy for resolution variations that is different from the 3-variation policy. We’re actually in the process of updating the author section of our Help Desk to include this information, so it should be live shortly.
Basically, we allow 2 versions for Stock Footage & Motion Graphics, based on resolution. One HD version and on UHD version. The HD version must be a minimum of 1920×1080 and the UHD version needs to be a minimum of 2K.
So long story short, you couldn’t submit 2 files, with one being 4K and the second being 2K. Similarly we wouldn’t accept a 2K version and a 720p version. But 4K + 1080, or 2K + 1080 would both be acceptable.
Please note that when you submit a second version based on resolution, it’s probably best to add a note to the reviewers explaining that you already have a 2K version live in your portfolio and this is the HD version.
You are correct, we recently brought on a few new reviewers. They have all been trained fully, but there’s always a short learning period that occurs for a few months, where new reviewers begin to understand our quality standards. Until everyone gets on the same page, there’s a small chance things can go awry.
It’s an inconvenience for you guys so I completely understand the frustration. When situations like these happen, I’d like to ask you to create a support ticket and send examples of files from a set that were approved, to compare against the files from that same set which weren’t.
If there’s a quick answer to the issue, I can provide it immediately. If we made a mistake, getting the information from you through the Support system will not only allow me to fix the issue, but also use it as a training source to help get the newer guys up to speed faster. .
I’m very sorry for the confusion regarding the bundling of your own items. Each marketplace has it’s own policy for item bundles/packs. Unfortunately VideoHive does not permit packs of existing items at this time.
The pricing issue was actually a mistake, and as we recently discussed, the incorrectly priced items have all been corrected.
Hi I have submitted a new entry with watermark for After Effect project file. It has a high risk of theft in the preview. But sadly I have forgot to mention it in reviewer massage. What Should I do? Please Suggest.!!:(
Since the file has been uploaded very recently, you’re best bet would be to just delete the project from the queue and then resubmit it.
The link to download the watermark is still working for me. You should be able to access it directly from here: http://marketplace-knowledgebase.s3.amazonaws.com/videohive/videohive_watermark.zip
Clarecomm and I have been chatting behind the scenes and I’ve run a number of tests myself to try and get to the bottom of this.
Unfortunately I’m left with more questions than answers. For some reason FCP X seems to handle transparent PNG images oddly, displaying them much brighter than they actually should be. Simply placing the watermark above the video and rendering is not really an option within Final Cut because of this. Through testing, I’ve found that reducing the opacity within FCP X (when the watermark looks too bright) down to something like 35% – 50% depending on the brightness of the footage below it seems to produce close to normal results. It isn’t ideal since each video needs to have the watermark’s opacity settings adjusted, but it will get the job done if you’ve got nothing but FCP X to work with.
Clarecomm also had promising results using Apple Compressor after playing around with the settings within the H.264 profile and Entropy Mode. So if you’re having difficulty using FCP X, you might want to look into Compressor.
I personally use Adobe Media Encoder, and was able to setup a pretty nice workflow using presets and a watch folder. It’s completely automated and produces consistent results without having to change any settings. So that’s another option for authors with access to AME.