Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Waynes

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Happy new year. Pretty soon you will be able to print large format 30cm+, sensors. Imagine what youtubers would do with that. Certainly would give the best YouTube talking head videos. ?
  2. No 8k? Look at mode 8C on the chart. It is an extra wide 9.576k mode at 30fps, which you can extract a wide format 8k out of. In sensors they can use the option to window out the resolution you want at higher frame rates. However, a manufacturer could lock out this function and just give set modes. Now, can we have something on Red? Like how there patent survives? I think there might a patent lawyer around here who could access and write it. Hey Video Hummus. New Sigma Foveon camera is coming. Anyway, what is the point of the Sony, without 8k, 12 bit 4:2:2/Bayer and 17 stops HDR rec2100 video? What is the use of even better low light stars, unless it can show us planets around them aswell?
  3. Vested interests change Wikipedia pages, and officially so too. Even pointing out wrongs you get stone walled. Things are written in medical pages from the standpoint of certain people aswell, reinforcing certain conspiratorial conservative behaviours. The BBC are very left wing biased. If you are left wing they look neutral, but it has gotten so bad that right wing people loose sight of the non biased things, seeing balanced neutral reporting as even biased. What's happening in, America, is an indication of how broken it is, particularly the right. Bernie Sanders looks a credible opportunity, but he is on the margins there, in a country too right and big business, rather than him being just left of central politics, or a bit left of centre (I don't know enough about him, but he seems to be caring about actual Americans). Just remember that to Hitler, Starlin, and many dictators, 90% of everybody else looks like extremists, because they were extremists.
  4. Thanks Emanuel. Open up one with a title "Patent! Patent! Patent!". But just put .. in the main body, and see how fast one gets banned for life. They have done various things (but maybe imports) but just don't follow through a lot. A cheap fixed cinema camera I was talking to them about, wasn't so innovative, but new came out. The redray codec, the laser projector, world's most complex camera asic (more record). Hydrogen, bought in display.
  5. I think it read (haven't glanced it in a whe) that it covers different CFA patterns. That thee was some specific color manipulation for the compression, which should be the start of the only thing protectable in that way. Meaning that only the unique, new, unobvious process applied that way should be patentable. Everything is is dross. Adding obvious stuff like resolution and compression ratio is unpatentable. In general, trying to force unpatentable obvious sections, I would expect to be a nonunique process manipulation. No, it's ok, I dig actual work, I'm not a jealous person who equates mere true statements and assessment as something bad rather than just an observation about a truth of something. But it is very hard to follow what parts of your sentences are referring too. So, sorry, I get lost sometimes. Something is up with that page, it says something like 308 days ony phone, Yah!
  6. Different jurisdictions rejecting stuff, based on evidence, is evidence! They should go out and give it a try, and find all markets where something was rejected, or was never accepted.
  7. It's worse, applying jpeg2000 to Bayer is obvious and at video rates rediculously obvious. Plus we discuss using jpeg2000 for Bayer at video rates looking to the higher than 2k resolution era publicly before Red patent or even existence I think, so that in itself would make it unpatentable, as prior public knowledge. Stuff, I'm the one that suggested to them 4k, do I get to patent everything 4k, of course not! They only get to patent one particular type of new Bayer compression algorithm and the unique, new unobvious differences in it. That's how it is suppose to work.
  8. You have to be careful in how you state things, in business, not to sound differently from what you intend. I'm not saying whatever was intended here. People could reinterpret things as they like, even potentially misinterpret and ask about the definition of collusion. You see, it's very difficult in business and you have to be careful in how things are stated. So, has there ever been a challenge to this patent that gets to actual re-examination of the terms and context we are interested in. There is no real victory without that happening on all contexts of relevant objections. Here, the panel criticised the submission for not enough, and Apple had an professor expert in Bayer lined up, I thought I read. Sony settled put of court too, didn't they? This process should also include an examination for likely problems with a whole patent upon submission of objection independent of the submission but before and after it has been examined, a close check to be sure, then all the notes and conclusions be passed onto the examiner if successful.
  9. I am talking about others. I'm an inventor, and we could develop a wireless connector that hovers in the port magnetically but does not touch the device. I know how it can be done and how to no physically keep it in the port. Considering the nature of the patents relation to prior art it would be a stretch on a stretch to not allow it. I've been considering designs for a camera case for a phone years ago to contact Google about, and it just occurred to me I could use it for wireless recording. But yeah, I think I can totally get around these requirements using my tech propsal from maybe up to a decade ago. They violated one of the rules of patent writing, probably because they couldn't see it. You are talking figuratively?
  10. Yeah, been looking at these to use as a little camera, but only 5mp and who knows what sensor. :). Bought another phone instead.
  11. Lol, I remember those times. Somebody published a nighttime comparison shot between the scarlet fixed and a Canon, and it was OVER they lingered on and then claimed their lens wasn't good enough, and something about not soocer mums, and cancelled the fixed at the last moment and substituted a much more expensive scarlet epic like. Boo! I was waiting to buy that thing for years. Everytime I wait to but something of theirs, they cancel it, every ..... Time. What is up? Killing it, literary.
  12. Yep. What they can do is challenge the patent in other pragmatic jurisdictions. If there is no valid patent in a market, or Europe or Asia, others can sell cameras there, and it is evidence there is question in order to look at it. Ok, Kinefinity licensed cineform raw early on. Did they cross into this patent earlier?
  13. Joema, thank you. This is the problem, instead of the claims covering a specific implementation, they can cover everybody else's obvious workmanship. If it was up to me, there would be jail for certain overreach in patents for everybody, and compensation. It's ugly. I'm really sick of the patent system producing outcomes that restrict competition. Now, let's look at it, they use obvious terms like resolution and frame rate to define their patent, because it's obvious it is based on prior art as far as compressing Bayer images, so it is obvious that it is obvious. The judges should have let them through on that grounds alone, and I do hope they try again. The use of resolution etc to make out its new is rediculous. It's like patenting walking above 2 kilometres an hour. If being able to walk just a bit faster was nonobviouse to the human race, we shouldn't have a patent system to patent it in the first place, we wouldn't be able to figure patenting out. You could try that argument on having prior art as non patentable, and one "obvious" pixel increase in resolution more as suddenly patentable, which if you put in percentage terms, is less than 20, 000th of a percent on top of the natural obvious progressing of increasing resolution. Strike that part. This is the issue with the system, once in there, people can claim something, even if that is not strictly what was meant to be claimable by the examiner, and examination has been rubber stamped, and sort it out latter. If Apple can't get to the point of getting it looked at, then what is the use of doing it that way. But people have taken out what were obvious patents before and stalked business, even big business, who can't afford to overturn it. There is even a way of adding things to a patent then use that to extend the whole patent. That is evil. This thing of resisting thorough review of a patent should be allow a preliminary review, in a new way not tried before, then verify and approve a deeper review. If there is question of wherever the proposed review us on a new way or not, or should be refine, then it goes before the panel. Once a preliminary review is successful, the deeper review, and preliminary, should be financed by the Patent office, as their mistake. Now, let somebody figuratively go and patent walking above the speed of 1km an hour relatively straight upright posture, and demand cameras be put in everybody's houses to clock if they are walking more than 1km an hour after they get up in the morning... So, that means you can record raw wirelessly then? Well, not really if they keep the size below their 'specs' in the patent. So, they might possibly divide the image up into two of more separately recorded side by side images. Which is how CCD's were reading higher resolution images to get around transfer issues producing heard, or how initial Sharp 4k monitors were reading images as four 2k images. Red may force the issue, but somebody like Apple could protect it.
  • Create New...