Jump to content
BublikHaus

Huge issues with Noise Rejections

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, 

I am starting this topic to ask for your advice. Lately 70% of my footage has been rejected for Noise/Artifacts reason.

And by lately I mean the last 4-5 months. We've been submitting videos for more than 4 years, and we always improve the quality of our color grading and the equipment we shoot on.

Right now we are even downscaling from 6k footage to 4k. We've been trying to tackle the issue by using more denoiser in Da Vinci and filming with more light, but SS reviewers still cut us short on every upload. 

I understand that lately the policy been to decrease the amount of low quality content, not trying to sound pretentious, but I feel like with our multiple shots being on first pages of different category best sellers proves that we take time and pride in creating and editing our content.

To add the cheery to the cake, we even uploaded a video which was a static shot, and only a small piece in the center was moving. Call it cinemagraph if you want. And then that shot got rejected for noise. How can you have noise if the image i not even moving?

1766690671_ScreenShot2020-03-20at14_49_15.thumb.png.2275fe2f645645ddd7d8ad999baafabd.png

 

Have you had similar issues? Did you manage to get someone proper to talk to and not an AI?

I don't know who to tag, but I guess @Alex Shutterstock and @Kate Shutterstock can explain why SS is black listing their "veteran" contributors. 

It honestly makes me very sad, taking into account how much effort we put in, and how well our content is accepted on other platforms.

 

Stay safe and healthy! Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this is now a conman rejection for footage, I too get loads of rejections for so called noise, again I believe this is the work of AI, I don't care what statement SS gives out on this, when this first started to happen reviewing times were within minutes of submission, for nearly everyone, as the AI has 'learned' in time the review times slowed. Problem issues is footage that appears to be under exposed on the waveform, if you can spread your levels on the waveform yo will get a better chance of passing this process, again it seems that what or whoever is looking at the clips, they are using aids rather than their eyes to review clips. If the AI assumes the clip is under exposed is also assumes noise will be present in the footage.

That's my experience with my footage uploads :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BublikHaus said:

To add the cheery to the cake, we even uploaded a video which was a static shot, and only a small piece in the center was moving. Call it cinemagraph if you want. And then that shot got rejected for noise. How can you have noise if the image i not even moving?

 

Movement has nothing to do with noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems that there is no AI involved. At least that what @IM_VISUALS was told.

My point is that I understand the strictness that is needed to make sure they only get the good non repetitive stuff. But it seems very excessive and there is no real explanation. Multiple files through this period were rejected and they were perfect.

We are looking to change the compression settings to save more dynamic range.

In any case, SS is making life incredibly hard, and I thought we were over it after the first year on the platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BublikHaus said:

Have you had similar issues?

Yes, and by 70% rejections you are lucky. My go more to over  90%.

 

 

1 hour ago, BublikHaus said:

Did you manage to get someone proper to talk to and not an AI?

I did not try, as I do not know anybody who was able to talk to a human being at SS. 

I sometimes doubt, if SS even exists in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, geogif said:

I sometimes doubt, if SS even exists in the real world

We live in the matrix 🤦‍♀️

 

Also sorry for creating the unnecessary new topic. It all just bottled up and gave me an anger attack. If those are even real :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BublikHaus said:

An update. File rejected this morning by SS, got sold by Adobe this afternoon...

Lol that is a lot of experience with me and my video footage rejections, if I can't get them on here Adobe always pulls through with sales that ShutterStock didn't want. As regards to compression settings, you could render a 3D animation in a 16bpc pipeline and deliver it in ProRes 10bit HQ and believe me, that could even get knocked back for noise on here. I try to upload footage twice before giving in, as you say other sites are glad to have high quality video content in there portfolio :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geogif said:

Yes, and by 70% rejections you are lucky. My go more to over  90%.

 

 

I did not try, as I do not know anybody who was able to talk to a human being at SS. 

I sometimes doubt, if SS even exists in the real world.

thanks geogif for making me smile so necessary at the moment to find lighter moments to distract the mind...but can totally understand the need to share frustrations with each other on the forum...all in this together chaps!! btw never sold a video as not my forte but had loads rejected now for noise, out of focus and focal point not liked by the 'reviewer'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just put everything in as Editorial as it is real Humans who review them, hence the longer waiting times! ;) Jokingly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, geogif said:

I sometimes doubt, if SS even exists in the real world.

Yeah, back when all the insane disputes and bans were going around, I mentioned to someone that it felt like SS was just a bizarre social experiment, where everything that happened was pretty much the opposite of how it should have gone in the real world.

The stuff with the footage noise rejections is just a continuation of that, I think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi-

A lot of us are experiencing this, and have complained. I rarely post here--though I am more often, for this very reason. I am at a loss about what to say or do. I've been with SS for about four years. Until recently I uploaded 20-40 photos weekly. These were carefully edited pictures--no garbage. That number has dropped due to your complaint: a sudden and unfounded rejection rate. I tried speaking with a human. I tried raising the issue here. I got nowhere. Meanwhile, ironically, what work I can get past reviewers-- be they human or AI--sells. 

I wish I had some advice to share. I have none, except to say you aren't alone. 

 

Diane 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BublikHaus said:

Lately 70% of my footage has been rejected for Noise/Artifacts reason.

And by lately I mean the last 4-5 months. We've been submitting videos for more than 4 years, and we always improve the quality of our color grading and the equipment we shoot on.

Right now we are even downscaling from 6k footage to 4k. We've been trying to tackle the issue by using more denoiser in Da Vinci and filming with more light, but SS reviewers still cut us short on every upload. 

 

7 hours ago, CH Digital Media said:

Unfortunately this is now a conman rejection for footage, I too get loads of rejections for so called noise,

A case for @Doug Jensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked in Broadcast for over 25 years, I know what is acceptable and what isn't as regards to compression, noise etc, it's ShutterStocks implementation of what is considered noise that is the real issue, even when there is no noise to speak of, whether it is sensor noise, compression artefacts, banding, warping etc, the system will still knock back footage for ridiculous reasons,  common sensor noise gets lost in broadcast anyway, if anything it should be illegal colours and out of range whites that should be knocked back on video files if they want to get really serious about quality files that can be used for broadcast. pristine footage is not very attainable for stock, where the average royalty payout for footage is $23 if you are lucky. The camera work I get to work on are mostly 8bit highly compressed footage which is used for TV shows and the likes, very very rarely is this de-noised in the on-line edit because it isn't necessary, we don't look at video beyond 100% scale to see if there is any artefacts in the footage, and if you want to get really picky, just look at the film grain embedded in the big Movies on Blu-ray out there. What ShutterStock want is overkill in terms noise suppression. 

I do manage to get the files through that are regarded as 'noisy' the second time around, but it is so random there isn't any real formula to go on, apart from clips that could appear under exposed on the scopes, as I said before pulling out your levels so you have a wider scattering of Luminance in the scopes will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oleschwander said:

 

A case for @Doug Jensen

I haven't had time to submit very much new material lately so I can't really comment if noise rejections are more frequent or not for footage that doesn't deserve it.  I seem to recall having a few clips rejected last December for noise and I didn't agree with it so I resubmitted and they went through the second time.  At the time it seemed that anything with fog, clouds, or rain was particularly in danger of being rejected.  Also there was a 50/50 chance anything shot with my Hero8 was would be rejected for noise no matter what the content was, but I don't really expect to sell anything from a GoPro so I didn't care.  I submitted 20 editorial clips two weeks ago and three were rejected as similars but none were rejected for noise.  I have 10 commercial clips awaiting review right now that have clouds, smoke, fire, sunrise lighting, and full dark. If SS is truly getting picky about small details in video that isn't really noise these should trip the breaker.   I'll come back and report what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diane Leach said:

A lot of us are experiencing this, and have complained. I rarely post here--though I am more often, for this very reason. I am at a loss about what to say or do. I've been with SS for about four years. Until recently I uploaded 20-40 photos weekly. These were carefully edited pictures--no garbage. That number has dropped due to your complaint: a sudden and unfounded rejection rate.

I could totally see how AI would interpret the texture of your frying pans and counter tops as noise and pixellation. But we are told there is no AI review.

I had a clip rejected for noise that was shot at ISO 80 in bright daylight. Accepted everywhere else, as well as here on second attempt. Made me wonder whether AI stumbled over texture of rusty fence that was in the shot, or if my camera is truly suddenly not good enough anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BublikHaus said:

To add the cheery to the cake, we even uploaded a video which was a static shot, and only a small piece in the center was moving. Call it cinemagraph if you want. And then that shot got rejected for noise. How can you have noise if the image i not even moving?

1766690671_ScreenShot2020-03-20at14_49_15.thumb.png.2275fe2f645645ddd7d8ad999baafabd.png

 

 

As someone else pointed out, movement has nothing to do with noise. From this freeze frame the clip does look dark, so it's possible there is noise in the shadows. What was your ISO?

Also the white balance seems a tad on the green side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Milo J said:

As someone else pointed out, movement has nothing to do with noise. From this freeze frame the clip does look dark, so it's possible there is noise in the shadows. What was your ISO?

Also the white balance seems a tad on the green side.

 

That floor texture would be a prime candidate for AI to deem it as noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is simply an echo of what everyone has already said. It's been HUGELY frustrating. That coupled with editors making seemingly arbitrary judgement calls--refusing an image because of intentional camera tilt or off-center focus ("main subject out of focus" is the reply), and other "not able to think outside the box" judgement calls. What one editor accepts, the another refuses. There is little consistency. "In the day," when I was with Black Star, and then Tony Stone. Gamma and Getty, managed rights meant getting royalty checks for $140 - $2,400 PER license fee. Now it's nickles and dimes. A lot of work for so little return, not to mention the frustrations along the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

same here. past few months I submit a batch and about 100% rejected due to noise. this is iso 100 video shot daytime on 1" or mft or full frame sensors. I'll resubmit the same batch and all accepted a few hours later presumably by another reviewer. I contacted support and they moved it up to higher up staff but no answer for months. resubmitting a batch of 50 videos takes a bit of time unnecessarily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Milo J said:

Made me wonder whether AI stumbled over texture of rusty fence that was in the shot, or if my camera is truly suddenly not good enough anymore.

Both SS and Adobe dont like fog, waterdrops and certain textures, so it makes me wonder about human vs AI. But why should they lie about it ..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too much of a coincidence that now happens so often when these features are in the photo...as said before could the initial inspection be AI which seems to filter these out and hasn't build up 'the human eye and brain factor' to make a sensible decision and work out what is in the image, reduce reviewer load and slow upload to data base...just my own thoughts though as the consistency rate for many here has increased substantially these past months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one way to find out, but risky, if say 10 contributors uploaded the SAME identical image or video but with different tilling and keywords and uploaded at the same time, if it was AI at work all 10 items would be rejected for the same reasons, if say a few passed then it is most likely a human being that is reviewing because AI would not deviate from it's instructions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...