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.
I download many times the watermark and i think is the same please review the link and the archive inside.
If you’re visiting the article and then downloading the watermark, you’re getting the right one. Here’s the direct link to the watermark that I just downloaded and confirmed to be correct: http://marketplace-knowledgebase.s3.amazonaws.com/videohive/videohive_watermark.zip.
I wanted to quickly jump in here to address some of the points in hopes of clearing the air.
The new watermark is actually based off of the old one, with some slight changes to the styling that should make it less intrusive, while also ensuring one watermark can be used for both light and dark videos. When your file was first received, the watermark looked a bit fuzzy around the edges, larger than it should be, and much more white, vibrant and overpowering than it should look. I’m guessing this is what made the original reviewer assume you were using the old watermark. So the file got soft-rejected.
When the file was resubmitted, occasionally there’s a very short period of time (while the server encodes the MP4 version) where the file’s available to be reviewed, but we cannot see the changes. In this case though, since you used the new watermark the whole time, the changes were not apparent. You weren’t using the old watermark like reported by the reviewers, but it still did not look right. So again, the file was rejected because the reviewer could not see any changes, so he/she must have assumed that no changes were actually made. This was a simple mistake and while I don’t mean to make excuses, we never intended to suggest that you were lying about making the update. So again, I’m very sorry for the mis-communication and confusion.
The approved file is using the new watermark (as it was the whole time) but it does not look as clear and sharp as it should. It also still looks scaled up and is much more bright and vibrant than it should be. As its mentioned in the upload instructions, the watermark should be applied exactly how it’s been provided without modifying it in any way, shape or form. I took a second to apply the watermark to your video without changing it at all and you can see in the screenshot below, it looks much clearer. Protecting the video, while not overpowering it.
In the future, please make sure to apply the watermark without modifying it at all to avoid any issues with your files not being accepted specifically for watermark-related problems. I’ll also have a chat with the team to make sure anytime a watermark is not applied correctly we use clear messages to help explain the problem. In hopes that we can avoid situations like this from happening again.
I’m very sorry for the inconvenience, and hope this makes more sense now.