Waynes

On 8/18/2020 at 9:55 PM, Andrew Reid said:

 

Are you sure it stopped because of overheating Andrew?  That wine bottle next to it looks a bit empty.  Put a cameraman in a fridge with wine bottle, you know!   With artificial intelligence in cameras these days...

Here's an idea.  Using a beam primary splitter to three vertically stacked frames idea above, could a superior picture to modern film.  This, even without customising the chemical formulation of each primary sub frame in the frame.  Film is heavily formularised in layers with HDR tricks.  I imagine film production buffs in big studios might like to spend the extra film in order to produce a feature that matches any current cinema popular camera plus some more?

How come they.dudnt do it in 16k 120fps, or 32k?  People in the know, will know what I'm hinting at.  It's easy to upscale by making a fine delimitation point around a pool of visual information (boundaries, including hard edges but also soft edges in toning movement).  You apply the same approximation of boundaries to faster frame rates to produce frames inbetween and in the existing ones   This allows you to go to  whatever K resolution and frame rate, but lacks the missing detail.  However, it's hard to use regular AI well.  They waste huge amounts of energy for more advanced routines, which could be replaced by economic procedural programming.

Now, Intel had a nice upscaling routine many years back.  It used to be a hour or so, or a hundred hours a frame (I forget which?).  With today's hardware and even custom hardware, that could be much faster.  Now, onto modern TV AI upscaling.  I have read comments it is very cartoonish.  Another accidental upscaler is fractal video codec.  Anyway, the upscaler I envisionaged doing, would be designed to restore real detail quickly.  So, thanks for the memories here (maybe me grandfather in on the train platform) but I'll pass on this as far as real detail goes.

An interesting thing noted on the video comments, is that the train color is wrong, and it should be a more vibrant green.  Setting aside the possibility this may actually be a color deviation from the normal color, in real life, some monochrome film had problems with various color.  This film might have had problems strongly registering the bright green.

Lol.  It almost looks rolling shutter on that train.  How they decide the color?  That is one of the difficult things in the industry.  I was looking at doing a technique to extract original colors in the 80's or 90's, but the information needed wouldn't survive the post process.  But the his AI thing is a bit garbage.  There are deterministic ways of restoring film for decades, and I looked at doing so in the 1990's/maybe 1980's.  If only they had a prism splitter to put little primary colored images of film in between the sprocket holes that would help colorisation and could have been used as the basis of future primitive colour projection grading.  But, then again, I'm over one hundred years ahead of them.  You know, they could have simply done a long frame split up three or more times to use a splitter to give the primary colour very accurately in the 1800's.  I wonder if that would actually enhance film now?  Extra wide formats are used regularly now, that's nearly a 4:3 sideways frame.  IMax of the old days, OMax.

And I don't even work at Red! :)

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.  ?

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? 

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.

.

15 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Waynes, apart my non-native English, I'll try to apply for the best of my plain English : D

Apple's lawyers work in this case is perfectly shitty if we discount the agreement settled. Let alone when compared with RED's legal team strictly under their own IP protection task force.

That's where the whole problem resides IMO.

A competent legal work would break and kill those RED RAW patents as clear as I hope these words may sound to you now !

; -)

Thanks Emanuel.

14 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The case is so sensitive that the thread I had opened a couple of hours ago on reduser should have beaten the record because vanished from the air right away... LOL ; -)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?179183-RED-patents&p=1875811#post1875811

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. 

9 hours ago, EspenB said:

The basic problem with RED.com is that they are a one hit wonder. Thanks to the US patent office.

As far as I can tell they have done nothing to continue to innovate further.

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.

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Yes. Or record with a width of less than 2k pixels. Or use a CFA with different RGB ratios. There are lots of ways around the patent which imply that it really isn't the thing holding companies back from implementing raw of some kind in hybrid cameras.

(Note that HD is less than 2000 pixels wide.)

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.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Exactly the point and what I meant in my text. 'Through' means to apply from there. A service available from any country's IP office in order to extent it worldwide.

Of course, that's why I've been questioning about their legal team in these pages... Sorry folks for my lack of modesty, but as professional either as producer or legal expert, I take my job up to limit. I am always unsatisfied with the outcome of my effort. I think pretty mediocre what I see from theirs. Lame.

They should start to hire some better staff indeed. As far as I know and I've realized, this has been one of the secret ingredients by RED since ever : -)

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.

1 hour ago, EspenB said:

Days until RED patent expires. ?

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/party?p0=840&iso=20280411T00&year=2028&month=4&day=11&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&msg=RED.com RAW patents expire&ud=2&csz=1

Something is up with that page, it says something like 308 days ony phone, Yah!

18 hours ago, Emanuel said:

You're right Waynes : )

There is some other issue involving 24fps which is a standard* adopted for almost a whole previous century along and a standard wide known and used by the industry for decades, which impedes to recognise the innovation attribute any patent claims to be.

Thus, some restrictions must apply. The exclusion is there and coverage or patent range only partially extent at least.

I am pretty sure a better legal work in different jurisdictions would kill such claim, IMHO as post graduate precisely to comprehend this legal field as well : -)

 

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate#History_of_frame_rates_in_cinema

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.

3 hours ago, Waynes said:

 

14 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Of course! Sounds ridiculous right?

 Just swap “car” with “camera” and “engine cylinders” with “resolution” and “speed” with “frames per second” and you have essential what the RED patent is.

Bayer sensors existed before RED

Bayer data existed before RED.

The jpeg2000 Compression existed before RED.

Hence adding “two more cylinders” is the same as RED adding “Bayer compression” to existing technology and then essentially getting a patent for “cars with certain sized engine going faster than X speed (a camera recording at 4K Bayer resolution at least 23 fps).

All that shit existed before except the jpeg2000 compression to Bayer data. I have no problem with that part.

Putting OBVIOUS things like FPS and resolution gives RED a blanket patent on compressed BAYER data 4K and up at 23 FPS and up. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

If the patent instead said 4K and up at least 23FPS using X unique algorithm implementation then that’s fine.

REDs patent is a blanket patent on ANY implementation. What if I have a better algorithm that improves on jpeg2000. Nope, RED by defaults owns that space from 4K to infinity and 23 FPS to infinity. It’s complete bullshit. 

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.

How come I can't re-edit so soon after?

6 hours ago, Jimmy G said:

Hrm, it's looking like things are being conveyed as being rather warm-and-cozy between the two parties here...

<<

According to RED’s president, Jarred Land, this was a part of a standard due diligence process performed by the two companies so they can proceed further with development. As stated by RED: “We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge. RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well, and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited about the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow. To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future”.

>>

...from here...

RED REDCODE Patents Withstand Apple’s Petition - Y.M.Cinema - News & Insights on Digital Cinema:

https://ymcinema.com/2019/11/10/red-redcode-patents-withstand-apples-petition/

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.

10 hours ago, joema said:

That might be a grey area. The RED patent describes the recorder as either internal to the camera or physically attached. Maybe you could argue the hypothetical future iPhone is not recording compressed raw video and there is no recorder physically inside or attached outside (as described in the patent), rather it's sending data via 5G wireless to somewhere else. Theoretically you could send it to a beige box file server having a 5G card, which is concurrently ingesting many diverse data streams from various clients. Next year you could probably send that unrecorded raw data stream halfway across the planet using SpaceX StarLink satellites.

However it seems more likely Apple will not use that approach, but rather attack the "broad patent" issue in a better prepared manner.

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.

9 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Yep.

Or Ferrari had the genius idea to add two more cylinders to a 6 cylinder engine and was granted a patent for “internal combustion engine with no less than 8 cylinders and a speed of at least 80kph”

No other car could now go as fast as 80kph unless they had an engine with less than 8 cylinders.

Its madness 

 

You are talking figuratively?

On 11/10/2019 at 2:27 AM, BTM_Pix said:

The Acsoon Cineeye and a cheap Android phone could give you that sort of thing.

It has a lot of good features like grayscale, RGB, monochrome, false colour, focus peaking, LUT loading etc and the signal can be monitored by up to 4 devices simultaneously.

Decent range and latency as well.

I'm going to do a quick write up about it sometime in the week as whilst my primary interest in it was live view remote with my app for the Pocket4K it has some potential for the FP as well.

With the Cineeye, these 2.5inch £50 Android phones could potentially be combined with a loupe to make a wireless self powered version of the LS300 lash up that I did.

Just need to make sure that the phone has enough grunt to run the Cineeye app, which I doubt will be an issue but the resolution might be.

Yeah, been looking at these to use as a little camera, but only 5mp and who knows what sensor.  :). Bought another phone instead.

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.

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Any decision is taken by men. On Apple's claim. As of now. That's it. Nothing more. Even Jarred's statement is very prudent and none of showing off other than their humble right to try their own property protection.

 

Okay, Common Law system where US realm is based means legal precedents to follow up further at a certain point later on.

But...

Which doesn't literally mean that any other compressed RAW cannot be taken as valid to coexist along RED's patents.

I guess it is only a matter of solid grounds and innovate approach on their contenders' filing if any.

 

Without mention where exactly RED patents are covered?

And under what authority jurisdiction to somehow stand same position/opinion for the subject matter on analogous claiming?

 

That said, by some other words, IP management and their rights are far to be restricted exclusively to US authorities no matter what office the records have been made. As much as the whole planet doesn't belong to US jurisdiction or attained under their officers, institutions and Courts. Or perhaps Thomas Edison claim to charge royalties over any operator using his invention would have prevailed as effectively did not by any chance ; )

What I see here is the nonobservance of a lot of variables to explore by any other player with a good team of experts and lawyers team to handle the task. As simple as that.

I'm sorry I can sound too plain on topic but all this has been addressed in a much strict standpoint. The issue and myriad of possibilities are beyond that.

Made in China a few of moralists are always ready to jump on is the utmost example of that. The world and the way business works is much more complex than apparently seems. For the market's sake itself.

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?

2 hours ago, joema said:

That seems to be the case.

Other issue: despite the hardware-oriented camera/device aspect, it would seem the RED patent is more akin to a software patent. You can patent a highly-specific software algorithmic implementation such as HEVC, but not the broad concept of high efficiency long GOP compression. E.g, the HEVC patent does not preclude Google from developing the functionally-similar AV1 codec. 

However the RED patent seems to preclude any non-licensed use of the broad, fundamental concept of raw video compression, at least in regard to a camera and recorder. Hypothetically it would cover a future iPhone recording ProRes RAW, even if streaming it for recording via tethered 5G wireless link to a computer.

In RF telecommunications there are now "software defined radios" where the entire signal path is implemented in general-purpose software. Similar to that, we are starting to see the term "software-defined camera". 

It would seem RED would want their patent enforced whether the camera internally used discrete chips or a general-purpose CPU fast enough to execute the entire signal chain and data path. 

If the RED patent can be interpreted as a software-type patent, this might be affected by recent legal rulings on software patents such as Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International

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...

3 hours ago, joema said:

Apparently correct. While the RED patent has sometimes been described as internal only, the patent clearly states: "In some embodiments, the storage device can be mounted on an exterior of the housing...the storage device can be connected to the housing with a flexible cable, thus allowing the storage device to be moved somewhat independently from the housing".

The confusion may arise because most implementations of compressed raw recording use external storage devices. Hence it might appear these are evading the patent. But it's possiable external recorders merely isolate the license fee and associated hardware to that additional (optional) device so as not to burden the camera itself, when a significant % of purchasers won't use raw recording.

Edit/add: Blackmagic RAW avoids this since their cameras partially debayer the data before internal recording, allegedly to facilitate downstream NLE performance. BRAW is now supported externally on a few non-Blackmagic cameras, but presumably licensing is handled by Atomos or whoever makes the recorder. 

So, that means you can record raw wirelessly then?

16 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Big bummer. The RED patent also poses a threat to MagicLantern as MLV is compressed RAW video.

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.

18 hours ago, kye said:

Careful..  someone will read this and take it one step further and we'll end up with some 2-bit cinema camera company.  We've had those before and they only leave broken promises and heartbreak in their wake!

Maybe It's too late:

10 hours ago, Brian Williams said:

No one wants that.

I was joking around.  But yeah, like Lars was saying, two read out modes would help.  It looks like a little thin pocket Red Epic that way.   But then you have to rotate the screen.  

Why don't they do a rotating sensor so you can use it vertically without unnusual rolling shutter issues?

21 hours ago, kaylee said:

suggestion: emulators

 

Was that shot on a 4 bit Cinema camera? 

We need more 4 bit Cinema cameras.   BM please give us  4 bit Cinema Cameras?

BM would have to license it, but Sigma could make dng act like Braw easily, a little bit of noise reduction processing can be left out, the dng can be put in a container with linear storage space, and meta file and what ever else.  They could do dynamic compression on different parts of the image to save on one area and give more to others.  You can do the multiple log thing.  Put in the latest jpeg format with double the compression efficiency.  They just have to put the work on.

11 hours ago, Brian Williams said:

I'm sure they didn't do those thing you mention because it can't handle it, just like almost every other camera out there. You're disappointed that a $1900 Fullframe camera that shoots raw video can't do 6k raw at 50fps??

I'm a realist.  Don't believe people that sell you value added that has nothing to do with costs.  If it has 6k sensor, and can scale it at 30fps, it should be able to do 6k at 30fps. But who knows what's hobbled in the parts.  If it can do 6k 30fps, windowing an extra wide and overclocking, it might get to 50fps.  You think companies always give you the best?

It you run the processing of compression the same rate, you get little extra heat, but a compression quality hit.  But there isn't much of an cdng on camera to start with.  12 bits would be great.  But we see certain cameras like the JVC s35mm did firmware upgrades to add extra performance, one of the few.   JVC was one that usually stepped up in advance.

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You can bet your house that when we have 8K 120fps, people will be disappointed.

What no 240fps 16 bit Raw 3D Andrew?

Just hand over the 60fps 8k please!