Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Message aimed at video screeners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dmmoore
    replied
    It's very difficult to publish a specific requirement list because a taxi only video's is "USUALLY" of very little interest BUT there can be exceptions:
    1. A unique livery "MAY" be of interest "IF" it's not a repeat of previously published video's.
    2. A video of an aircraft taxing or parked at a gate or a hard stand "MAY" be acceptable "IF".......

    In other words, if it's unique enough, it "MAY" be acceptable. "BUT" the screener is making that determination based on his/her knowledge of existing videos.

    One or two video's of an A380 taxing is more than enough. One video of a A320 or 737 is too many, unless there is something unique about the specific aircraft / video.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    Rohan

    Sorry if I seemed full on. I got a bit caught up in the case and temporarily lost touch.

    On another note thank you for saying something I had suspected. Taxi/Static videos are OK but only as long as certain criteria(s) are met. It would be appreciated if these were published.

    As for me this is my last post in this thread and on this subject as I have nothing new to add.

    Leave a comment:


  • rohank4284
    replied
    Originally posted by G-TTIC View Post
    You're saying about the fact of old aircraft and/or promotional liveries. I got Blue Air's YR-BAE (737-400) at the time is was sporting its Bucharest festival livery. That got rejected for no reason other then "not enough action". I also go a static video complete with interior clips of G-BDXJ the 747-200 at Dunsfold which starred in James Bond - Casino Royalle. That was rejected as well (not enough action).

    A week before upload of G-BDXJ I uploaded an EasyJet taxiing to the gate and Ryanair taxiing to the runway both at Berlin and they get accepted although the EasyJet one is complained about in the 2nd post even though it was accepted. How does that work out.

    I just don't understand what makes this lot tick and what does not. I really wonder if the rules are made up as they go along.

    The best thing this website can do is say this is the rules for any video uploaded after this date (earliest date possible and stringently stick to it). That way we all will read of the same hymn sheet so to speak.
    Calm down! I was trying to be helpful, I understand that you're upset and let's see if I can try and explain why. Many of these videos were taken 1-3 years ago, the standards for Jetvideos.net have become more strict.

    The reason why you're Ryanair and Easyjet videos got accepted were because the planes were near the runway or had a lot of other planes in the background, which gave the video enough action to be accepted. I'm NOT a videoscreener, so maybe one of them can give you the exact reason why.

    My guess is that taxi videos are basically in a hit or miss category, some will make it, some will not, based on subjective reasons, basically it's completely up to the screener. It's the same way for some types of photos on JP.net. Even many other aviation photo sites often must use subjective criteria for some categories of photos (how much clutter in front of an aircraft is okay for a gate photo, is an example).

    Try flightlevel350.com or other aviation video sites, to see if your videos are accepted there and then you can best judge whether it's your videos or the site that's the problem.

    Regards,

    Rohan

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    You're saying about the fact of old aircraft and/or promotional liveries. I got Blue Air's YR-BAE (737-400) at the time is was sporting its Bucharest festival livery. That got rejected for no reason other then "not enough action". I also go a static video complete with interior clips of G-BDXJ the 747-200 at Dunsfold which starred in James Bond - Casino Royalle. That was rejected as well (not enough action).

    A week before upload of G-BDXJ I uploaded an EasyJet taxiing to the gate and Ryanair taxiing to the runway both at Berlin and they get accepted although the EasyJet one is complained about in the 2nd post even though it was accepted. How does that work out.

    I just don't understand what makes this lot tick and what does not. I really wonder if the rules are made up as they go along.

    The best thing this website can do is say this is the rules for any video uploaded after this date (earliest date possible and stringently stick to it). That way we all will read of the same hymn sheet so to speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • rohank4284
    replied
    Originally posted by G-TTIC View Post
    Clearly you have not read my full last post (only sections). I shall now go into great detail about the gross inconsistency that is currently present.

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1164

    Video above not owned by me (taxi only)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1087

    Vdeo above not owned by me (another taxi only one)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1017

    Video above not owned by me (both staic and periods of taxiying)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=991

    Video above features both idle and taxi (no take-off) not owned by me.


    I'm sure there are more and I can look for more links if you so wish for me to. I fail to see how anyone can try and state there is no inconsistency after reading this and watching the videos.

    I have no problem going elsewhere for taxi related videos in the future. What i do have a big problem with is inconsistency.
    I'm not taking sides, but I took a look at all of those videos. Did you notice how all of those planes had either a new livery (Air India), were unique (the AF concorde), or had a special livery (the Cathay 777 and ATA 727). Basically, that's why they got accepted, judging from the screeners responses, they don't want taxi movies of regular planes.

    I think the main reason for your complaint is that you would like to have your movie on the internet. Why not try flightlevel350.com, another popular aviation video site, or putting the video(s) on Flickr.com or youtube.com, that way they would have a life on the internet.

    Remember that you're not the only one who has experienced these same frustrations. I remember the first batch of aircraft photos I took, which got rejected. My first response was basically "how DARE you reject my photos."

    I was really pissed off because I thought that I wasted my time and effort to try and get good airplane shots and they got rejected. I later realized that JP.net wants only the very good and best aviation photos, which is difficult to achieve. I used to feel frustrated because I could only get airplane photos when I flew, I have never gone on any spotting trips. Then I realized that I had some decent to good quality shots, so I put them on flickr.com.

    My advice keep trying and realize that rejections happen to everyone, if you're unable to produce a Jetvideos.net quality video, try some other sites on the internet. Since you do go spotting, why not try making the journey to Heathrow, or maybe try taking photos of planes taxiing by.

    Rohan

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    No sorry Wednesday is my usual day to go spotting as Mondays Tuesdays and Thursdays I am busy. Would have been nice to be able to go though. Thanks for the offer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaggy
    replied
    G-TTIC can I take it you wont be coming to Heathrow?

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    LX-A343 you are perfectly welcome not to watch the videos. The only problem you have is if you do not then you have no right to say there is no inconsistency as you have not taken the time to see the evidence for yourself. How can you possibly say there is no inconsistency without gathering the facts and properly analysing the whole story.

    Like I said in the last post I "accept defeat" for want of a better phrase about uploading taxi videos and have no future plans to do it any more and haven't uploaded here and a couple of days. The inconsistency bugs me though and this I will continue to fight it through the mediation.


    (by the way if you don't like watching the videos just look in the description as many of these videos do state taxi or static only. That way you can satisfy yourself that there is an inconsistency present without watching)

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Sorry, but I won't take a look at the videos, as I'm really not into videos. In my opinion, you got your answers here an on other occasions. Those answers seem pretty spot on to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
    So, I don't see the inconsistency point here.
    Clearly you have not read my full last post (only sections). I shall now go into great detail about the gross inconsistency that is currently present.

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1164

    Video above not owned by me (taxi only)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1087

    Vdeo above not owned by me (another taxi only one)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=1017

    Video above not owned by me (both staic and periods of taxiying)

    http://www.jetvideos.net/video/view.php?id=991

    Video above features both idle and taxi (no take-off) not owned by me.


    I'm sure there are more and I can look for more links if you so wish for me to. I fail to see how anyone can try and state there is no inconsistency after reading this and watching the videos.

    I have no problem going elsewhere for taxi related videos in the future. What i do have a big problem with is inconsistency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaggy
    replied
    I'm not one for mediation, cos generally I don't give a sh1t, that said, why not come down to Heathrow next Thursday with your moving picture machine (bloody technology) and get some montage's of Landings and Take Off's.

    I am even buying Coke and Doughnuts.

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    I truly believe this site is in favour of those with enough cash to fly either every week or every other week to get the "action shots".
    Your interpretation, certainly not mine. also, as far as I can see, you have been informed several times, that this site wants action videos. So, I don't see the inconsistency point here. Chris and he screeners told you he wants action videos, so upload action videos.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    "I can onlly shoot taxi vides, so accept them"


    This simply is not the message I am trying to give. I know I can't just barge in demanding what I want. This is why I'm trying to politely prove Chris Kilroy and to the other members of the team that "taxi videos are boring" simply is not true. I truly believe this site is in favour of those with enough cash to fly either every week or every other week to get the "action shots".

    Also if this site really does not want taxi videos it should be stated clearly where all can see. Maybe it would not be a bad idea to clearly state what this site does want and does not want including a list of acceptable rejection reasons. It currently appears that there is no real rules as such and I believe there as some degree of inconsistency. I can prove this and if you wish i can provide video URLS of videos on JV thats are static/taxi only and not mine.

    My point is if you don't accept Static/Taxi videos you don't accept them period.

    Look forward to hearing you're response

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    If there's no chance of getting action videos, as requested here apparently (as mentioned, I don't have anything to do with videos), why even bother? either take videos for your personal collection or upload them somewhere else. I don't get the point in "I can onlly shoot taxi vides, so accept them".

    Leave a comment:


  • G-TTIC
    replied
    Money is a factor due the the fact at many larger airports here in the UK you cannot get too close to the perimeter fence without getting hassle from Airport Security or Airport Police (whichever gets to you first). Manchester from what I've heard is an exception and there are a few that do not hassle you. If you want take off videos from the others you now have to fly from that airport to get one.

    Videos from inside the aircraft do seem to be the most popular and there are a few users who have a ton of these videos. My point is not everyone has enough money to fly every other week.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X