Jump to content
Andrew Reid

RED respond to Apple in compressed RAW patent battle

Recommended Posts

RED-patent-exhibit-2003.jpg

In Apple's attempt to overturn RED's claims over visually lossless compressed raw video, the US Patent Office has published documents submitted by RED. These explain their side of the story with particular regard to REDCODE.

If RED can continue to prove that the approach to their codec was novel, RED will win and Apple will have to compensate RED or make a deal in order to sell ProRes RAW in our devices and cameras, such as the Nikon Z6.

Read the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Andrew, are you under pressure from outside (the older Red threads seem pulled down) ?  It is difficult to be objective when we are not lawyers, so I hope the line between keeping the story apart from those just stirring the pot proves possible.  ☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can say about compressed raw is:  

Stills cameras had a form of compressed raw already before Red made it version.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/raw-file-size-on-d70.95856/

I used to have a Nikon D70 and the Raw files were compressed.

So what I try to understand is what makes the compression on a series of stills at 24 frames per second so different than the single images?
It is the same single compressed frame just more of them.

So In my view the patent should not have been granted.  

only the compression algorithm could perhaps have been awarded a patent.
But if this was just a form of jpg2000 I don't see why they would even need to get a patent for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the article. The stuff Graeme says is clever but IMO not novel.

Raw mosaic image data is just 3 single channel images that go together in a way that is described by the mosaic pattern(Bayer or something else).  Much like audio you don’t need to reinvent the wheel to store 10 channels of audio vs 2 or 1 with any codec.  Same with image data. As far as the image processor is concerned you have 3 (black and white single channel) images to compress. It’s up to the de-mosaic code later to assemble the image into a viewable form on a traditional pixel display.  Prior art, obvious, stills cameras doing it already for decades.

As for the preprocess curve again it wasn’t anything new. Digital stills cameras and video cameras were doing the same thing by applying a curve/LUT to the image prior to compression in order to give more data to a specific luminance range while taking it away from another.  And that technique isn’t limited to capture devices either it’s used in all manner of signal transmission technologies going back decades.  Remember Dolby on cassette tapes?

 

Again, very good use of technology. Just not novel.  Not defensively so anyway IMO.

 

Red wasn’t successful because they were innovative. They were successful because the rest of the industry was lazy and protective and not forward looking.  They deserve some sympathy for sure but that’s going to wear thin to none in light of their aggressive misinterpretation of their product spec, ‘R&D’ costs/wastes excuse, media suppression and general obnoxious ‘tech bro’ attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the contributions above guys.

For brevity, the article doesn't explain everything Graeme says in the defence.

You can download the full thing here

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01064

One interesting passage is below...

Where RED contests for example the Presler prior art used by Apple's consultant Mr Reader:

***

Presler Does Not Qualify As Prior Art

Petitioner relies on Presler as its primary obviousness reference for all three asserted grounds, arguing that Presler has a 102(e) priority date of April 13, 2007. Pet. at 10-11. Petitioner also argues that the ’299 patent is not entitled to the April 11, 2007 filing date of its earliest provisional application. Pet. 3-5. However, as demonstrated in the sections below, RED’s reduction to practice of the Boris and Natasha RED ONE motion-picture cameras by March 2007 disqualifies Presler as prior art to at least 25 of the 29 challenged claims of the ’299 patent.

Moreover, as shown in Sections II.A.2-3 above, the inventors Messrs. Jannard and Nattress knew by at least March 2007, based on their own successful testing of the Boris motion-picture camera, that their invention worked for its intended purposean understanding that was further bolstered by director Sir Peter Jackson’s use of Boris later that month to successfully shoot a motion picture. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 25; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶¶ 11-16; Ex. 1002 at 393-94 (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4); Ex. 1002 at 418 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶ 6).

Finally, RED’s successful reduction to practice is corroborated by photographs, documentation, the testimony of current and former non-inventor employees who had direct personal knowledge and involvement with the RED ONE project, and the testimony of Academy Award winners Sir Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh. Indeed, with respect to their qualifications to assess the visually lossless nature of the video produced by the Boris and Natasha cameras, Messrs. Jackson and Soderbergh have few peers as Oscar-winning directors. Their formidable professional reputations are staked upon the visual quality of their films. Artifacts from digital compression are simply unacceptable. Tellingly, both Messrs. Jackson and Soderbergh are profuse with their praise of, and steadfast in their loyalty to, RED digital video cameras, and believe the RED ONE technology embodied in Boris and Natasha to have been pioneering. Ex. 1002 at 394-95 (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 5-10), 419 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶¶ 15-16).

Under a rule-of-reason analysis, the weight of the totality of the evidence and corroboration of RED’s antedating reduction to practice – that occurred over ten years ago – provides a sufficient basis for, and lends credibility to, Messrs. Jannard and Nattress’s testimony. In the interests of judicial economy and conservation of Office resources, the Board should deny institution of the present Petition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Also I didn’t mean “banned” in the sense you thought but as in no longer allowed to discuss the matter until it ends. I will make sure to be careful though. Don’t want anyone here getting in trouble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been present at NAB when RED was first introduced, it seemed at the time to be “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” vapor ware. I worked in cinema advertising at the time, specifically post production. The Quantel eQ and iQ Pablo 4K I used to create content captured up to 4K left eye/right eye uncompressed in real-time with real-time (no render) color grades and parallax adjustments.

The Pablo cost $440k. It wasn’t portable. It’s drive arrays were 10 gig Ethernet SANs.

In 2008, when dealing with .r3d files, import into Quantel workstations allowed for one-light color grading on import with white balance and ISO control among other typical RAW parameters.

There was nothing like RED in terms of a capture device in 2008. NOTHING.

Whatever the legalities, Sony, Panasonic, Canon and anyone else made nothing like it. RED was an upstart. It killed Digital Intermediates (scanning film to DNG for dust busting, color grading and editing, then outputting the sequence of final DNGs back to film for theatrical exhibition on film projectors.)

Now, cinema projectors play back encrypted Digital Cinema Packages, containing JPEG frame sequences, made from graded and edited RAW files. Digital end to end. The entire motion picture industry production, post production and exhibition industries all transformed because of RED.

While I kinda want RED to lose the patent fight with Apple much the same way as I want generic medications to replace brand name due to the expiration of patents and the resulting cost savings—RED deserves credit.

Just not enough credit to be aggressively litigious, and be the sole beneficiaries of the compressed raw concept forever.

Let Nikon and Panasonic users benefit from internal compressed raw without owing RED prohibitive licensing fees. (But don’t let Canon or Sony because I don’t like them.)

My 2¢.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder why they are fighting this so hard, is the internal RAW really so important to the success of Red cinema cameras ? I can't see people shooting big budget stuff turning up with a Z6, they are already sniffy about Blackmagic stuff apparently!

Is this why no digital cameras ( like the A9 ) shoot higher than 20fps ? Is there a legal difference between video and a sequence of stills, because I couldn't see one in the documents. 

(Andrew: Have you thought about putting this forum into a separate legal entity from your blog ? I would be sad to see the information contained in this forum lost to a legal battle.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What may ultimately work in RED's favor is technological ignorance, regardless if they are in the right or the wrong. Even as some one that knows quite a bit about cameras, reading their patents and descriptions makes my head spin/ache. Their opponents, if they have a case, will need to be able to make their case easy to digest for a judge to make sense of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Otago said:

I do wonder why they are fighting this so hard, is the internal RAW really so important to the success of Red cinema cameras ? I can't see people shooting big budget stuff turning up with a Z6, they are already sniffy about Blackmagic stuff apparently!

Is this why no digital cameras ( like the A9 ) shoot higher than 20fps ? Is there a legal difference between video and a sequence of stills, because I couldn't see one in the documents. 

(Andrew: Have you thought about putting this forum into a separate legal entity from your blog ? I would be sad to see the information contained in this forum lost to a legal battle.)

REDs continued existence relies almost entirely on the redcode patent.

Alas, patents only last 20 years so the existence of the RED patent will continue to delay "raw video" until the patent expires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Otago said:

I do wonder why they are fighting this so hard, is the internal RAW really so important to the success of Red cinema cameras ? I can't see people shooting big budget stuff turning up with a Z6, they are already sniffy about Blackmagic stuff apparently!

Is this why no digital cameras ( like the A9 ) shoot higher than 20fps ? Is there a legal difference between video and a sequence of stills, because I couldn't see one in the documents. 

(Andrew: Have you thought about putting this forum into a separate legal entity from your blog ? I would be sad to see the information contained in this forum lost to a legal battle.)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this goes way beyond just compressed RAW; compressed RAW is merely what Apple is concerned with. 

As I understand it each patent builds upon RED's previous patents, so in theory if those initial patents were found to have been obtained through deception then every patent that built upon those initial patents would probably be illegitimate. 

That's why it could affect everything from REDCODE to their Mini Mags and other "proprietary" accessories. If you compare it to a house of cards, if you take one card away you risk bringing the entire thing crashing down. 

It's a very fascinating case and the implications are quite huge given it has given RED a significant advantage over their competitors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is ANYBODY on Earth that wants the RED pattent to hold up in court.....its Atomos.

If that pattent dies, everybody will do ProResRAW without Atomos.in camera.

Atomos wants to be the sole ProResRAW ecternal recording vendor....and they NEED this for their future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Laser Blue said:

The Quantel eQ and iQ Pablo 4K I used to create content captured up to 4K left eye/right eye uncompressed in real-time with real-time (no render) color grades and parallax adjustments. The Pablo cost $440k. It wasn’t portable. It’s drive arrays were 10 gig Ethernet SANs.

Thanks for that post, very interesting.

Were you aware in 2006 of the Russian Kinor camera with similar sensor to the RED ONE at the time?

Same question regarding Pavavision's development of the Genesis, or was that only started later on?

How about the very early digital cinema work with Lars Von Trier of Anthony Dod Mantle who pioneered digital cinematography in the industry. Peter Jackson didn't, in my opinion. Anthony Dod Mantle did. Was RED and Peter Jackson's approach novel in light of the cameras Anthony Dod Mantle used? I can't say as not a patent lawyer but food for thought.

35 minutes ago, Laser Blue said:

In 2008, when dealing with .r3d files, import into Quantel workstations allowed for one-light color grading on import with white balance and ISO control among other typical RAW parameters.

There was nothing like RED in terms of a capture device in 2008. NOTHING.

How about the Sony Cine Alta range. F35, etc.?

Panavision Genesis? Early Panasonic stuff?

SiliconImaging?

Kinor?

35 minutes ago, Laser Blue said:

Whatever the legalities, Sony, Panasonic, Canon and anyone else made nothing like it. RED was an upstart. It killed Digital Intermediates (scanning film to DNG for dust busting, color grading and editing, then outputting the sequence of final DNGs back to film for theatrical exhibition on film projectors.)

Now, cinema projectors play back encrypted Digital Cinema Packages, containing JPEG frame sequences, made from graded and edited RAW files. Digital end to end. The entire motion picture industry production, post production and exhibition industries all transformed because of RED.

While I kinda want RED to lose the patent fight with Apple much the same way as I want generic medications to replace brand name due to the expiration of patents and the resulting cost savings—RED deserves credit.

Just not enough credit to be aggressively litigious, and be the sole beneficiaries of the compressed raw concept forever.

Let Nikon and Panasonic users benefit from internal compressed raw without owing RED prohibitive licensing fees. (But don’t let Canon or Sony because I don’t like them.)

My 2¢.

I agree with you, Graeme Nattress and the team deserve credit for disrupting the market.

We want affordable compressed RAW and open source codecs to play nicely in the same industry alongside RED and they aren't keen on it happening, so that loses them some support from me, as I am, writing EOSHD and waiting for the Nikon Z6 raw firmware update.

What about Cinema DNG 3:1 as it is under the 6:1 minimum compression in the RED patent... Can't that pass without infringement, I wonder?

Magic Lantern 10bit lossless maybe?

Or even just plain old 1080p uncompressed RAW?!

Must be a way to give us something in the current cameras, without having to pay RED for the license to do so.

6 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:

If there is ANYBODY on Earth that wants the RED pattent to hold up in court.....its Atomos.

If that pattent dies, everybody will do ProResRAW without Atomos.in camera.

Atomos wants to be the sole ProResRAW ecternal recording vendor....and they NEED this for their future.

Interesting take, cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this goes way beyond just compressed RAW; compressed RAW is merely what Apple is concerned with. 

As I understand it each patent builds upon RED's previous patents, so in theory if those initial patents were found to have been obtained through deception then every patent that built upon those initial patents would probably be illegitimate. 

That's why it could affect everything from REDCODE to their Mini Mags and other "proprietary" accessories. If you compare it to a house of cards, if you take one card away you risk bringing the entire thing crashing down. 

It's a very fascinating case and the implications are quite huge given it has given RED a significant advantage over their competitors. 

My understanding is that patents deemed improperly filed or invalid result in the patent concept becoming public domain and permanently unpatentable in perpetuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...