Video Hummus

Wow, they didn’t contact you about it? Even to see if they could get more details about that aspect? Pretty lazy.

There was no decision by the court. They by all accounts reached a settlement outside the court. Gizmodo picked up the story with even the details about what happened in 2010 with regards to Andrew. It’s a good summary of what’s going on with a bit of speculation as to why this is happening. https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/why-is-apple-flexing-on-high-end-camera-company-red-ove-1837302653/amp Apple doesn’t like to pay royalties on its smartphone products because they like their fat juicy margins too. They sued Qualcomm over it. Which makes me think this lawsuit is about some kind of royalties Apple doesn’t want to pay for selling its products. Wether that is the new Mac Pro cheese grater, ProRes Raw, or RAW recording on an iPhone or all of the above.

I don’t have both cameras, but unless you desperately need IBIS, I don’t see the point. The XT3 is also a small camera and would probably work a treat on smaller gimbals like a Ronin-S.C. or Weebil lab. It is a better photo camera with nice Fuji colors and film emulations. Does great video and has more reliable autofocus.

Seems people are more split on image quality.

Didn’t something like this happen with Prime Day. A few people got a EM1X for $99.

That brings S1 body down to only $2200. With a 24-100 F4 it’s 3000. Not bad.

But did Kinor already have a working camera that was compressing Bayer data with a wavelet compression before RED in 2002-2003? It was shown at NAB allegedly.

Maybe Nikon and Atomos felt that RAW over HDMI isn’t RAW over SATA interface as described in ‘314 patent? Kinda weird Nikon started selling video creator kits with a Ninja V right after they announced it and it’s been so long and not a word from either company. Apple has lots of money. Why wouldn’t they just strike a licensing deal and move on? I think there is more to it than that. And since Sony and Red settled out of court we don’t know what the agreement was. Maybe Sony lost and RED was facing their own infringement of Sony’s patents so they settled out of court and went their separate ways with NDAs in hand.

I don’t think anybody disputes REDs contribution to digital cinema. What is being discussed is their subsequent behavior revolving around a questionable patent (Apple thinks so anyway) that they use to suppress innovation and competition unfairly (if the patent isn’t valid of course). Also if the patent is for compressed raw recording internally in camera how is Atomos infringing when they don’t sell cameras? Is RED claiming their patent covers any device that stores compressed RAW data from a sensor? Maybe sigma thinks cinemaDNG to an external storage device is not infringement. I don’t think so. They have a great sensor, color science, and brand loyalty and following. Just like every other camera manufacturer without compressed RAW capability. ARRI being highly successful. People choose their cameras on many different aspects.

I’m sure Vitaliy is willing to help out with any legal fees that are inquired in this “crusade”.

Only if you want to edit in 1080p only. Pretty sure you need the studio version for 4K. Studio version is totally worth it. It’s underpriced really.

I bet you made that ToF device because your complete rubbish a manual focus. Loser!

Lost revenue for RED. Upset brand loyalist. Possibly RAW capture in prosumer devices, maybe even (i)phones. Maybe a new CEO for RED.com INC. All speculation of course.

Yes, essentially. They are arguing the two prior patents (Presser and Molgaard; among others) represents prior art and show the lack of novelty in RED’s patent. Whether the PTO finds it obvious enough we shall see.

I would encourage everybody to read the Patent Repeal filed by Apple. It’s incredibly detailed (like a lot of this patent language is) but even as a non expert they layout very clearly that there was prior art to REDs patent and even some of the language is clearly and unambiguous similar.

? @Andrew Reid It was posted by Ed_David already. It listed in the documents as well. Also this: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/claus-m-lgaard He seems to specialize in digital image processing, basically.

I can clearly see an opening for which light can pass through...so maybe.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. One of the patent holders being cited as prior art now works for Apple. Im really wondering if this has something to do with the new Mac Pros acceleration chips and ProRes RAW. If RED decided they were going to try and block it with their patent. They did the same with Atomos and they aren’t selling cameras...just recoding devices. Hence the foul cries of overly broad patent and this patent examination request by Apple.

A billionaire suffers mental anguish because a blogger didn't have nice things to say about his product or company? Said billionaire sues Reid and gives him 48 hours to sign or proceed with being sued in a court thousands of miles away? I wish you had better availability to a lawyer back then.

Or maybe they realize RED users will pay $1500 for $40 of overseas parts and want in on the action that is the insanity of the cinematography market. I think they just want to push ProRes RAW as the default in the industry so they can sell $50,000 Mac Pros to studios and ProRes RAW in their phones.

Atomos. After they were threatened by RED for patent infringement. Guess who gets royalties with ever sale of an Atomos device that can record compressed RAW?

Licensing fees, agreements, whatever you want to call it. Obviously RED has a patent on compressed RAW data and apple has a compressed RAW coded as well. Doesn't take a much to connect dots. And you joined 28 minutes ago to write that single comment.

Rabbit hole goes deep.

Maybe a project for someone on EOSHD when the dust settles? ? Yes, and this simply might be a cause of a bully (RED) getting taken to court by another bigger bully (Apple). Apple does it's homework and has probably weighted the cost of this court fight with what it could possible get out of it (even if they lose the case). I mean, look at the fight with Qualcomm. Apple lost and had to pay 4.5 Billion dollars (pocket change to them when they have almost a quarter of trillion dollars in cash!) but they got the company a six-year global patent licensing agreement with Qualcomm. I have a feeling this is the same thing with regards to compressed RAW. RAW is an essential component going forward with high resolution sensors because it's simply more efficient to compress the RAW bayer data and to work with it later. That hooey is highly irregular.

I don’t know details but my guess is RED was getting greedy with license fees. Apple has a lot of cash this would be scary for RED.