Jump to content
Andrew Reid

RED respond to Apple in compressed RAW patent battle

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

RED will lose this battle.  Apple has been down this road before and it says a lot the they are going after RED in the courts. 

Remember RED suing SONY?

Atomos has said ProRes RAW is coming later this year.   The screen capture from Atomos was dated Aug 1, 2019

Nikon also outlined what the first few firmware updates would be and they've stayed on schedule.  

The lack of a more locked down date does concern me.  

prores-atomos.jpg.91c82a4771dc2b782a18f5269fdcc76d.jpg

As I'm intrigued by all this I felt the need to register and take part in it.

Nikon India is trying to say something.

https://nikonrumors.com/2019/08/16/new-nikon-india-video-teaser-nikon-has-something-exciting-for-videographers-and-filmmakers-a-revolution-is-coming.aspx/

 

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

Did you know Nikon compress highlights in nef files? Nothing in this patent is new. 

BTW,

"Control over the use of one's idea really constitutes control over other people's lives; and its usually used to make their lives more difficult."

Richard Stallman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Display Name said:

As I'm intrigued by all this I felt the need to register and take part in it.

Nikon India is trying to say something.

https://nikonrumors.com/2019/08/16/new-nikon-india-video-teaser-nikon-has-something-exciting-for-videographers-and-filmmakers-a-revolution-is-coming.aspx/

 

My bet is after they open up ProRes RAW on the Z6 they also announce 10 4:22  4K internal and 4k 60p external.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that a few vocal members of the forum, @BTM_Pix and @Ed_David to name a couple, have both been silent on this thread since the Red threads were taken down. I hope they are ok. I understand well about being quiet for legal reasons. But it's a shame. I hope they are ok, with no broken legs and all of their fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atomos becomes happy friends with Apple.

Apple gets ProResRAW to promote Final Cut.

Atomos provides the recorder that gets arround the "internal" raw recording pattent. Everybody is happy.

Camera's just need to give non-compressed raw output. No legal worries for any camera company as Atomos handles the rest. Everybody is still happy.

Apple suddenly turns arround and attacks RED's "internal" pattent to potentially kill Atomos' only reason for raw over HDMI's existence.

If Apple wins, ProResRAW or equivalent can be recorded INTERNALLY by any camera....effectively leaving poor Atomos' raw over HDMI dreams out in the cold. It literly wont be needed anymore if Apple wins.

Atomos to Apple - "Thanks for nothing good buddy"

Wow!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shell64 said:

Yeah. And I personally want the patient to die. Atomos has an unfair monopoly because of this. I don’t want to pay $500 to record raw over a crappy HDMI cable when my camera is capable of 4K RAW to the sd card. Magic lantern proves this. 

How so? There are quite a few companies that allow recording to ProRes or Raw externally. Wanting them to die seems rather irrational. 

32 minutes ago, Shaocaholica said:

External video stream based recording is overrated and will die as quickly as it started. Atomos needs to diversify its products.

Atomos does need to diversify, but I think people are in for a rude awakening if they think that ProRes and/or RAW video will become a feature for all cameras any time soon. There is a reason Nikon was the ideal partner for Atomos to unlock RAW via HDMI since they have no cinema lines to protect. 

There's a lot more preventing that stuff from happening than RED. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of reasons for manufacturers to be resistant to adopting ProRes, between licensing fees and concerns about giving Apple that kind of control over their business. 

Companies like Blackmagic and Arri don't really have a reason not to use it. The rest? Not so much. 

And RAW video? I think you'll see a lot of them doing what they already do, which is protect their high end lines that will have it. 

The only one that I could see giving RAW video to lower end cameras any time soon is Panasonic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this on a site about h.264 license.  

Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?
A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized. Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws.  So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, that was Canon by accident and Panasonic on purpose.

The Red One shipped in August of 2007, a 4K camera. Canon did not release the 5Dm2 until Nov of 2008 and it was only a 1080p camera. The Red One was used in Hollywood right away because it was much more affordable to what was available at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 pence.

Andrew that is a good post and comment after the others. Reading previous threads it's like watching an internet lyching mob.

The key here is innovation *at that time* because it's obvious now but it wasn't then. There were numerous projects flying around and mods to cameras like andromeda and it was muddy back then too. I used to mess with industrial camera, like the SI2K and it's history, taking GigE data off them and debayering. But what i think the article highlights is that Graeme was innovative and he is a person, not a faceless legal entity and he's also a really nice guy as well from any kind of interaction, who cares about what they're doing. Jim and Red assembled a team of out of the box thinkers to do something tangental to where the industry was back then. I know how obvious it all seems now, but we wouldn't be where we are today without ther work and contribution. And humanising the work that went into it is fair. And a company that is heavily invested in those people has no choice to protect their work.

Apple is being sued right now for allegedly ripping off the company that did  the camera systems in the iPhone. Apple is no white knight either. No company in corporate america is because of the need to protect, test and do deals on patents behind the scenes.

IMHO I think Red should license RedCode to anyone that wants to use it now. 

cheers
Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigma have guaranteed it externally to SSD in the FP and said they are investigating doing it internally.

I'm hoping that "investigating" is a euphemism for "testing it works and then awaiting the opportunity to switch it on in a firmware update as soon as the coast is clear" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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

Two points to note:

1) Simply producing a device that does something first does not necessarily make it novel. It doesn't matter if no one else had such a camera at the time, as long as the idea was bandied about that in itself would be sufficient to destroy novelty. Likewise if people had done similar things and it was obvious that those similar things could be combined.

2) They talk about preprocessing as a component in their workflow. Presumably with no preprocessing their claims would not cover the general concept. And even with processing, they should only be getting claims where they use a specific method of preprocessing.

If the patent office is doing their job properly, IMO the broad claims should be disallowed.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...