The panelists explained that stock footage has not quite had its day yet because the costs remain too high.  They point out that a fully accessorized High Definition (HD) footage camera can cost well over $100,000. One panelist showed a list of over 50 possible formats currently used for moving imagery. In addition, as one would expect, footage requires far more band-width and storage space than still photography and required at least a 17” monitor for viewing.  They pointed out, however, that equipment costs have declined rapidly and will continue to do so while footage work-flow continues to be refined. Final Cut Pro, a footage editing software, is now accessible to everyone, is cost effective and easy to use. They all agreed, it is only a matter of time before the expense barrier to producing and using stock footage disappears altogether. Presently, the capabilities of the customers’ systems determine the deliverability of HD footage.  Here, again, prices will inevitably drop for the equipment required at the client end to use stock footage. 

Regarding the actual production of stock footage, several of the panelists explained that they “double shoot,” meaning they arrange productions for simultaneous still and motion shooting.  With models, art-directors, lighting equipment, etc. budgeted for the day, producers make more efficient use of the set-up by having both a motion photographer and a still photographer on location to get the most out of a shoot.  While setting up the more complicated equipment for the footage production, the still photographer can make the most of the models and location.   According to one panelist, a shoot that might yield 400 to 600 still images might yield 60 to 80 fifteen-second motion clips.  (Obviously, outputs will vary drastically depending on the set-up.)

Several nationally known newspapers have supplied their photographers with digital video cameras to replace still cameras.  The panelists explained the practical reasons for this move will also eventually apply to commercial photography.  At multiple frames per second, shooting footage effectively results in a series of stills that can be used as such.  In fact, producing stills using motion cameras ensures the creator will capture that split-second moment, for example, when all seven models in a board-meeting shoot have their eyes opened and appropriate expressions on their faces at the same time.  The panelists remarked that where a still shoot with many models can take hours to get the right shot with all subjects in the right pose at the same time, shooting with a motion camera can get that just-right frame in a matter of minutes.

Using motion equipment to create still imagery, however, is still cumbersome.  The number of still images (or frames) requiring editing will exceed that generated by a still camera many times over.  Editing these huge quantities of frames, which will in effect become numerous series of close similars, will, naturally, add much more time to the process.

The panelists went on to discuss the market for stock footage. Currently ad-agencies and corporate users (in-house) make up the majority of clients. They use the footage for television broadcast purposes and so called “industrials,” films used for in-house purposes at large corporations. They added that new motion imagery display technology has begun to replace billboards and transit posters, once the exclusive domain of still imagery.  The oft-reported decline of print newspapers and magazines and the ascension of digital sources of news and information also points to an increasing market for motion imagery.  Clients will be the direct marketers in the new media delivery environment.

The panelists report that they license clips most commonly in eight- to twelve-second increments, but clients generally use only one to two seconds.  At Getty, the license fees for footage roughly match those for still imagery.  Prices for RM uses of commercial uses of single clips can run to $2000 per clip and for documentary or educational use, $300 per clip.  RM footage prices fall in the range of $800 for a CD of 20 clips to $299 for a single clip. One panelist, who produces both RF still and RF moving imagery, says his prices for footage are double those for still imagery.  He believes footage suppliers should charge higher prices because of the much higher production costs and he has found clients understand this and are willing to pay the higher fees.

The panelists agreed that the skill levels and costs that go into footage production will prevent micro-stock footage sellers from making much of a dent in the market.  One attendee pointed out that many made the same prediction about RF still photography, fifteen years ago.

The panel discussion left little doubt that motion stock’s day will come and footage will assume a more prominent role in the stock image industry.  But it will not only simply become another product for distributors to sell to the market.  Still photographers will find they have to master footage shooting in order to stay competitive.  Distributors will have to invest in the necessary equipment and software, master the nuances of the digital work-flow and storage of moving imagery and then learn how to sell, license and deliver the product to the new media customers who will demand it.  How quickly this all happens is anyone’s guess.  The way things seem to go, these days, I put my money on sooner rather than later.