Andrew Reid

Phones are aimed at a much bigger mainstream market. If they are to put in HDMI inputs, taking up valuable space, or even make USB C capable of video input, they would need to license ProRes and RAW codecs, all adding to the cost of the phone for the normal guy on the street to no benefit for him.

I don't think anyone really needs a Ninja.

Codecs are good enough in-camera these days to do without the hassle.

Looks great, no clipping and very deep shadows.

Amazing find for that price!

It was an absolute beast of a sensor.

Was almost as big as your motorhome 🙂

I still have my 808 somewhere.

Might get it out and see if it will do 8K 24fps 😆

Size benefit of crop sensor cameras vs full frame has truly gone out the window lately hasn't it?

7 hours ago, tupp said:

At the date the RED patent application was filed, there was absolutely no novelty nor innovation in specifying internal or external recording, so it was meaningless to do so (and even detrimental to RED), unless they were trying to appease an examiner who had no clue.

Right so let's get this straight Tupp.

You are saying that when you patent a cinema camera, there's no point describing how it works.

Internal recording, external via some cable to a separate box, all academic.

Frame rate... don't need to mention!

9fps, 16fps, 24fps all the same to a lawyer!

RED should just have saved themselves the bother and drew a picture of a square with the word CAMERA inside.

7 hours ago, tupp said:

I sense that the patent is weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be successfully defended.

Patent wins vs Apple, Sony...

Weakness detected!

Any faster and it looks like YouTube, that's what they were thinking in the 20s.

Patents are about defining an invention.

You can't patent a car without mentioning whether it has 2 wheels or 4.

44 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

It actually turned to a good discussion: what exactly defines a cine camera?

24p for one.

Which is why they mention it in the patent!

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Guys,
the thread has derailed into a wall-to-wall nonsense.

You can say that again!!

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Actually, if the patent has withstood for years several lawsuits filed (not by my mother) but by the likes of Apple & co., it means that it is evidently well written. Mind you, I am not agreeing with Red. This is a classic case where the current patent system demonstrates all its limitations and actually prevents technological progress to the detriment of users.

At present, the only real question that makes sense to ask is: 

Is it possible that a company like Nikon went off the rails in this matter without taking into account the history of previous lawsuits (perhaps misguided? She tried?) or is Nikon in posses of information that we do not have?

The best case scenario is:

RED has infringed multiple important Nikon patents.

Nikon gets compressed RAW in a settlement agreement.

Worst case is:

Nikon pulls the firmware update and cannot ship Z9 in future with the infringing feature.

And I agree the patents system does prevent technological progress and is to the detriment of competition and consumers.

But people on this thread seem to be blaming RED for this when it is actually a much more complicated issue akin to the upsides and downsides of stuff like copyright.

You would patent a movie camera without mentioning 24fps?

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, we as humans are attached an extra special meaning onto 24fps over 23fps

It's not about "feelings". One is a worldwide standard and one isn't.

Having a standard frame rate for cinema is important otherwise people would mix 22,23,24,25,26 all on same timeline depending on camera brand.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just like we've attached extra special meaning to the resolution of 4096 × 2160

But fundamentally, there is no great technical difference between 4096 × 2160 and 4000 × 2100

One is a standard, one isn't.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just like there is no great core fundamental difference between 23fps and 24fps 

Let's step away from filmmaking for another example instead, let's say this was the early days of electrical vehicles. If someone created an EV with 230km range, and then you asked for an EV with 240km range instead would you response with "no way, a leap from 230km to 240km?? That's would require a total technological revolution, worthy of a patent!"

Or to view it from the other direction: if someone tried to patent EVs which go 240kms or further, should that patent be given? And if it was granted, would a prior car that could do 230km be sufficient to invalidate it? 

You have to describe a patent with numbers and figures, and can't be wooly about it.

You have to pick a standard.

If you are designing a cinema camera and the standard for cinema is 24fps, why the fuck would you not mention that in the patent?

The EV range analogy is a load of bollocks nonsense, complete irrelevance to the topic.

A better analogy would be 50hz vs 60hz electricity as that is a fundamental difference in the supply standard.

Thus if you were patenting an electric vehicle you might want to mention some fundamental numbers.

3 hours ago, lebigmac said:

What about this fella? 200 € seems reasonable for a start into phone raw. Seems to have a quite recent Snapdragon. Does anyone have experience with it?
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08Y8MDMF4/?coliid=I3AZGVYDI6P390&colid=35QJ5W1J5CG75&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

I gave it a try the other day.

It works, very good sensor in it. There's also the Xiaomi Mi 10 which will give you 6K/24p RAW due to faster processor so maybe worth paying $300 for one of those on eBay instead.

Redmi Note 11 is a bit more responsive than the Note 10 and same price. That's got a much smaller sensor though, but it seems to work well.

Be careful of some of the budget handsets like Oppo Reno6 5G Stellar. It's got a lovely camera and 4.6K RAW but I couldn't get more than 16fps out of it in the app.

Be aware that all the Xiaomi devices have slow USB C ports (2.0 speed crippled shit) so off loading the RAW will be slower than wifi and you can't use external SSDs for recording, so watch the internal memory size... 64GB not going to cut it.

In my opinion looking like best devices are...

Xiaomi Mi 10 (6K RAW)

Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra (huge sensor and 5x periscope optics)

OnePlus 8 Pro (I liked the RAW stills from this sensor and lens combo too)

Whereas Samsung non-Snapdragon models in EU don't work properly and Huawei is a complete non-starter.

Redmi / Poco phones seem to have some milage as best value for money

But you can get a Mi 10 for 300 euros used nowadays.

No difference here to you then....

OK IronFilm I await your 23fps digital camera.

Let's see how it sells!

The other thing with Mi 11 Ultra, amazing sensor though it is (and you can record 4K RAW on the ultra wide and 5x optical periscope zoom camera too) is that the USB C port is USB 2.0 speed!

The app allows you to plug in a Samsung T5 SSD or such, and record RAW video directly to that. So worth rigging one up but only if your phone doesn't do something stupid like not having full speed USB 3.1

On 12/10/2021 at 12:20 PM, slonick81 said:

Some DR tests on rare sunny winter days - raw images vs. native camera app video recording. No detail enhancements for raw (no NR, sharpening, dehazing and such), just shadows/highlights and gamma curve adjustments in ACR to get the better idea of what's going on. All shots are in native resolution, 1:1, no scaling.

I'm still not confident about exposure settings because of live feed high contrast. I tend to check the overall image with AE on and then dial manual settings to nearly same looking picture. Native video is shot in auto mode. It actually represents well in terms of contrast the image you see in live view shooting raw.

So, as you can see there is no big difference in DR (like you may expect comparing raw and "baked-in r709" footage from cinema camera). "Bridge" scene got a bit overexposed in video compared to raw, I have a feeling that it was possible to bring back overexposed building in the back without killing shadows with minor exposure shift. What makes the difference for me is highlight rolloff - it is natural and color consistent, just look at snow in front in "hotel" shot and sun spots on the top of "bridge" shot. Shadows are more manageable for me, too. Yes, there is a lot of chroma noise but it's easily controlled by native ACR/Resolve tools, luma noise is very thin and even, so you can balance between shadow details and noise suppression up to your taste.

But the most prominent difference is due to zero sharpening. Just check small details like branches, especially on contrast background. It's not DR related, but I can't avoid mentioning it.

Is raw a necessity for such result? Dunno. Maybe no postprocessing, log profile and 10bit 400Mbps h26x instead 8bit 40Mbps will give comparable results. If you have a phone that is capable of such recording modes I would love to see the compare. 

How do you find screen brightness on the Poco now summer is here?

On the Mi 11 Ultra, I can barely see what I'm recording even with screen at maximum brightness.

I think the phone has a bug where it isn't using maximum nits, and Motion Cam has a very dim live view for RAW video.

I might try it on a few other phones as well, although really happy with the image quality on the Mi 11 Ultra.

What's the general consensus on best bang for buck? Oneplus 8 Pro?

It would be great to try it on a few sub-£300 handsets (going by used prices).

Closest we can get to a Digital Bolex this side of 6 grand!

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I am skeptical about that claim but open. Do you have a reference? I’d did a quick check:

#1 MrBeast - 1DX mk2

#2 Jake Paul - a7s ii

#3 Markiplier - a7 iii

#4 Rhett and Link - maybe a6500 couldn’t find definitive 

#5 Unspeakable - newer Sony lines

Who cares what Jake Paul uses? Let's focus on the RAW video app Motion Cam for Android in this topic please.

Thanks.

On 6/5/2022 at 5:19 PM, webrunner5 said:

Andrew your tweet is sort of going against what you are defending. That is what I don't like about the patent, it stifles people's choices. I think it is Way too broad.

https://twitter.com/EOSHD/status/1533123090552594433/photo/1

It's a completely different argument. Me merely wanting it to be different doesn't make things different!

I want things to be freed up but at same time you have to point why things are as they are.

If the RED patent was too broad when it was granted 15 years ago, it would not have been given.

If the prior inventions at the time did internal compressed RAW at 2K or higher then it would not have been given.

If the invention at the time wasn't novel then again it would have been too obvious to patent, but it wasn't.

I am no great RED defender. I think the way they treated Bruce over Jinnimags was absolutely wrong and anti-competitive. But in this topic we have people arguing that apples are oranges.

- Having a Dalsa camera being first to record 4K RAW is irrelevant, because it is uncompressed RAW to an external recorder. The RED patent didn't patent that. That's why you can still do it today via an HDMI cable.

- Having prior patents from Nikon over RAW on a stills camera doesn't make it an obvious evolution to a movie camera, and they are different concepts. It was like pulling teeth and got me nowhere, but as I said to Iron Film there is a difference between 9fps burst modes and 24fps continuous recording on the market and in patent terms. One is a stills camera, one is a movie camera. Patents are very specific. They don't cover such a broad basis for a product. The difference between 23fps and 24fps is also a valid one. One is a worldwide movie standard. One isn't.

If anyone has any actual facts that will invalidate it then let me know.

I mean come on guys we can do better than this.

I am all ears.

Otherwise we'll get nowhere.

I would be really interested in hearing from someone with actual knowledge.

All this conjecture from the arm chair is a waste of everybody's time on this forum.

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Well, it is 100% relevant to the post in this thread to which is was directed

So?

It isn't relevant to the patent though.

You go off and argue with the judge about it if you like.

"Objection!"

"It is a relevant prior invention because.... It was mentioned on a forum in the same thread!"

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Not sure how that is relevant to my post nor to any patents in question here -- there is nothing novel nor innovative about incorporating a recorder into a camera.  Camcorders had existed for year prior to the release of the Dalsa camera.

*Sigh*

Have you even noticed that external recorders are allowed to do compressed RAW without violating the RED patent?

The patent only covers internal compressed RAW recording where the hardware is all integrated in-camera.

Having an off-board recorder makes the system outside the scope of the RED patent.

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Nevertheless, RED was not the first "to do 4K raw" -- that honor goes to Dalsa.

We're not talking about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.

The RED patent is not about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.

Have you actually RED the RED patent?

I suggest you give it a RED!

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But that's not at all what I'm saying. 

I'm saying their patent for 24fps should not exist, just like if they had tried to patent 9fps (or 23fps, or 25fps, etc.. the number they used doesn't matter! Any number would be wrong) that also should not exist.

Starting to get into real head banging on wall territory for me here dude.

24fps is the cinema standard. Lower numbers are not. It matters. It isn't considered motion by the standards of the film industry if it is lower than 24fps. Otherwise we would still be shooting in 20fps on the original Canon Rebel 500D.

So if you are going to apply for a patent for motion, you determine 24fps minimum.

If you apply for a patent for stills, you are talking single frames or bursts and not continuous motion for hours.

A patent that applies to a single frame or 9fps, or whatever, has different claim to one targeting motion picture cameras.

RED patented the codec as part of a video camera patent.

That's why it applies to video cameras.

You're saying it shouldn't exist because other cameras before it did compressed RAW for stills.

This is nonsense.

Stills are stills. It isn't continuous motion for 2 hours.

Even if the burst rate is above 24fps, it is still a complete different concept to a movie camera.

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Dalsa was the first company with a 4K raw cinema camera.

Yes and it's 100% not relevant to the RED Patent on compressed RAW.

The Dalsa used an off board recorder for RAW. Equivalent to using an external HDMI recorder today.

The RAW was also completely uncompressed.

Says right there on your Wiki link:

"The camera outputs raw data to an off board storage unit at a rate of approximately 400 megabytes per second"

I don't think they did.

What would be nice on mirrorless cameras is something like this for £300 instead of 2 grand.

https://cvp.com/product/kippertie-str-nd-strata-pl-nd-mount?gclid=CjwKCAjwy_aUBhACEiwA2IHHQDU-KnAcNoXGjiCHNjT1x0A7rRa6a2GwXIA80LVdDw0Gt-z4I1ciYBoCa7YQAvD_BwE

It even has a clear setting.

The paid version of the app is now out for £12.99 on PlayStore.

It is really worth it.

Here is the result. So good it gives Blackmagic pause for thought.

Download original Cinema DNG frame on me:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hi-MaSjA8tC_5zOmp1yXk09xV6XZg-_s/view?usp=sharing

Stuff I like:

Can select all manner of quirky frame rates and see if they work. 120p was an option on my Mi 11 Ultra! 24p was officially supported but 25p was in the list of quirky unsupported frame rates. Hopefully it will work along with 50p and 60p as well.

Total sensor output is 4080 x 3072

As you can see this is open gate 4:3!

The app controls to crop width and height are really handy. Reduces file size too. Above frame was with 44% vertical crop to give me close to 2.35:1 cinemascope style, and results in 7MB/frame.

There is option for compressed RAW and multi-frame noise reduction plus in-camera playback and clip management.

The RAW containers can be converted in-app to Cinema DNG format or even MP4!

Noise grain and detail absolutely tip top.

They described a cinema camera shooting 24fps or more at 2K or more.

You are suggesting they write the patent in an unclear way, and that just isn't how it's done.

If they had not defined a SPECIFIC minimum frame rate and resolution, the claims of the patent would be legally unclear.

I don't see how this is hard to comprehend even for a non-lawyer.

You don't get it do you.

Patents have to be specific and you have to draw a line at specific numbers and features.