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.
What’s happening?We’re making a slight change to the minimum duration requirements for Stock Footage. Historically we’ve required Stock Footage submissions to be a minimum of 10 seconds in total length. We’ve grown to realize that Stock Footage under 10 seconds can be both useful and valuable.
So effective immediately, we’re going to lower the minimum duration requirements for Stock Footage down to 5 seconds. And we’ll be closely monitoring files that fall into this new duration to determine if any additional policy tweaks are needed in the future.
When is this happening?Today.
Additional informationAll Stock Footage authors should be mindful of submission usefulness and commercial utility. Just because we’re allowing submissions that are between 5 – 10 seconds long, it doesn’t mean we’re going to accept anything and everything. All submissions will still be reviewed against our normal, standard quality standards.
Authors should always try to curate their footage library. Shooting for one hour could produce 720 5-second clips, but its unrealistic to assume that every single 5-second block of footage will be useful, valuable, and serve a real commercial utility. For this reason, its very important authors are always attempting to submit footage that has been pre-screened and hand selected from all available shots. This will help ensure your files have the best possible chance of being approved.
Using the new watermark is optional until August 24th. Starting the 25th, we’ll be requiring it so for the time being your files will not be rejected for using the incorrect watermark. You might as well start using the new watermark for any future submissions though .
I’m writing today to announce the latest iteration of the VideoHive Stock Footage & Motion Graphics watermark.
The existing watermark has served us well for many years, but with the growing number of Stock Video submissions we quickly realized our watermark was not ideal for all situations. The existing watermark didn’t work so well when placed over the top of light colored or bright footage. We have always allowed authors to invert the watermark in these cases, but there’s never been clear instructions about how and when the inverted watermark should be used and what the acceptable tolerance level is.
The new watermark should remedy this, allowing for one standardized watermark to be used for all situations. The new watermark will remain visible for both light, and dark videos. A small example can be seen below.
The new watermark can be downloaded via watermarking instructions article and can be used immediately. Starting August 25, 2014, this new watermark will be required for all Stock Footage and Motion Graphic submissions. Any files not using the new watermark on or after that date will be soft-rejected and asked to use the new watermark instead.
Thanks for understanding and for your cooperation!
Hey guys, there’s never really been an official policy on this subject. For a long time we urged authors to just include the highest resolution they had which would give buyers the opportunity to render out a smaller resolution if necessary.
Although this means that if buyers only want a 1080 version of the file, they’d have to pay for the higher resolution file to get it. It’s less than ideal.
I’m going to be discussing this internally and will try to work on some way to make it work for the time being. I don’t really know what the future holds so I can’t make any promises, but a system to allow for different resolutions to all live within one file and allowing customers to pay the price for only the resolution they want would be great to have. Again, I have no idea if this is slated or being planned but I’ll make sure to pass the suggestion along.