Jinni.Tech vs. RED Part 4 (1hr long)

[thebrothersthre3]

To me you can simply compare it against other camera companies like Blackmagic and you see the difference.

No company has an obligation to be open about their technology in a way that say Zcam is,  but lying about it is a completely different matter. Of course lying happens all the time in many different businesses. If there is a more honest company I can support I certainly would though.

[mercer]

I tried watching the video and got about 10 minutes in and was bored out of my mind at the strange points the guy was trying to make from off handed comments said at Red rallies or on social media.

Honestly, I’ve only half followed this story but, correct me if I’m wrong, Red is evil because they received a blanket patent regarding some form of internal compressed raw? And people are pissed off because this patent keeps them from being able to buy a cheaper camera that has internal compressed raw?

So filmmakers and content creators are against intellectual property, now?

Re: Apple lawsuit against Red... I find it more likely that Apple is using the court system to test the validity of Red’s Patent because Apple wants to purchase Red. 

Also, why does everybody suddenly need raw video? Hell, most television shows and movies are shot on ProRes.

[Oliver Daniel]

17 minutes ago, mercer said:

Re: Apple lawsuit against Red... I find it more likely that Apple is using the court system to test the validity of Red’s Patent because Apple wants to purchase Red. 

Also, why does everybody suddenly need raw video? Hell, most television shows and movies are shot on ProRes.

This is my speculation: Apple is aggressively targeting the professional market with the new Mac Pro, and they want to sell a ton of them. It has been designed for optimum performance in FCPX and ProRes RAW. They want high level creators to adopt and have easy access to ProRes RAW, but the RED patent is getting in the way. Hence, question it and invalidate it. 

There’s also no denying that RED has been dishonest, but there’s no denying they’ve created unique products that create amazing images. 

And you’re right that barely anyone uses any kind of RAW in the professional world. RAW costs a hell of a lot of money to use (I know this having done it) and 10bit or even 8 bit codecs are 99.9% more than enough to produce high grade projects. 

What I want is the juiciest, most beautiful, yet economical 10bit codec in full readout up to 4K 100fps in full frame under $5000 - then we’re done ✅ 

[Emanuel]

13 hours ago, crevice said:

We have cameras that are unable to shoot internal RAW literally because of RED. You want to stop animosity against a company that is completely screwing everyone else over and suing people left and right? A company that made it so Blackmagic had no choice but to create their own RAW format and made companies like Panasonic, Sony, and Nikon all have to figure out ways to make raw external instead, which in turn makes the rest of us have to buy expensive external recorders and expensive SSDs? Seriously, no offense man - but you should probably quit telling people what to do and how to treat companies, especially companies that are making our work life more difficult and more expensive. Also, dont forget where you are - this is EOSHD, where the creator of the site is very critical of companies - which in turn pushes them to be better and to quit their bullshit. So in conclusion, please get off your high horse and realize that we shouldn’t bow down to big bad RED and let them push us around with their bullshit patent. And this “animosity” is very much warranted.

People have no need to express hate when make a point. To begin with. This can even compromise your reasoning. Without mention reputation. EOSHD doesn't deserve to be seen as a brand haters corner for this or that policy. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't express your opinion. If you've followed my posts you'll see I've never refrained myself to tell what I think. But you'll never see from my keyboard any animosity against this or any other brand. I salute the efforts of everyone. RED struggles with the tools they think better. Even if you, me or anyone else are entitled to have and express a different opinion, obviously. And their contenders entitled to fight with identical or other tools. Pure life. Not invariably, it is fair to see the survival of the strongest to rule over here.

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I’ve only half followed this story but, correct me if I’m wrong, Red is evil because they received a blanket patent regarding some form of internal compressed raw

Pretty much*. Red's patent is for a video recording that matches all these criteria:

- 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels, 25% blue pixels

- 24 or more FPS

- 6:1 or higher compression ratio

- Greater than 4000 pixels wide

Obviously, Red didn't invent any of these ideas. There are no special algorithms. It's not like they invented a compression algorithm and patented that. Many of us believe that the patent was likely granted by bureaucrats with no background in digital video who were overwhelmed with technical terms and thought that Red had actually made something new.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

So filmmakers and content creators are against intellectual property, now?

What exactly is the intellectual property in this case? Everything in Red's patent already existed, sensor and processor technology just hadn't gotten to the point of making it 4k yet. And keep in mind they didn't patent their 4k technology, they patented the concept. It would be like if the first person to invent a car that goes over 100 mph was able lock everyone else out of making 4 wheeled gas powered vehicles that could go over 100 mph.

More specifically, Moore's law has been accepted for decades. Resolution wars were already a thing. We knew processors would get better, we knew sensors would get higher resolution. I would argue that it was "obvious" that techniques already in place for HD images could be applied to 4k images, which would invalidate the patent.

As an analogous question, do you believe that Sharp should be allowed to patent the concept of an 8k television simply because they were the first to make one?

 

 

*Edit: and to clarify, I'm not saying Red is evil. I blame the patent office.

[mercer]

25 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

This is my speculation: Apple is aggressively targeting the professional market with the new Mac Pro, and they want to sell a ton of them. It has been designed for optimum performance in FCPX and ProRes RAW. They want high level creators to adopt and have easy access to ProRes RAW, but the RED patent is getting in the way. Hence, question it and invalidate it.

Yeah, it probably is something as simple as that, but with Apple’s new streaming service, I feel there could be more to the equation.

36 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

There’s also no denying that RED has been dishonest, but there’s no denying they’ve created unique products that create amazing images. 

This is how I feel about it as well and I think the timing of Komodo, as a concept, is pretty interesting... not enough details out yet to know for sure though.

39 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

And you’re right that barely anyone uses any kind of RAW in the professional world. RAW costs a hell of a lot of money to use (I know this having done it) and 10bit or even 8 bit codecs are 99.9% more than enough to produce high grade projects. 

I shoot raw video and love the benefit of it, but as a hobbyist, I have nobody to answer to and no deadlines to meet. But if I was a content creator that fed my children from videography, I wouldn’t even give raw video a second glance. But even as a hobbyist, I decided I wanted a secondary option, for certain projects, that didn’t call for the raw workflow, so I bought a BMMCC for its internal ProRes into FCPX.

But Redcode is interesting in FCPX as well, so I cannot say that I am one hundred percent against Red. Not everything is black and white, except on Internet forums.

[mercer]

6 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Pretty much*. Red's patent is for a video recording that matches all these criteria:

- 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels, 25% blue pixels

- 24 or more FPS

- 6:1 or higher compression ratio

- Greater than 4000 pixels wide

Obviously, Red didn't invent any of these ideas. There are no special algorithms. It's not like they invented a compression algorithm and patented that. Many of us believe that the patent was likely granted by bureaucrats with no background in digital video who were overwhelmed with technical terms and thought that Red had actually made something new.

What exactly is the intellectual property in this case? Everything in Red's patent already existed, sensor and processor technology just hadn't gotten to the point of making it 4k yet. And keep in mind they didn't patent their 4k technology, they patented the concept. It would be like if the first person to invent a car that goes over 100 mph was able lock everyone else out of making 4 wheeled gas powered vehicles that could go over 100 mph.

More specifically, Moore's law has been accepted for decades. Resolution wars were already a thing. We knew processors would get better, we knew sensors would get higher resolution. I would argue that it was "obvious" that techniques already in place for HD images could be applied to 4k images, which would invalidate the patent.

As an analogous question, do you believe that Sharp should be allowed to patent the concept of an 8k television simply because they were the first to make one?

 

 

*Edit: and to clarify, I'm not saying Red is evil. I blame the patent office.

I get your point and it seems a little fishy that this patent would be granted, but to make an analogy... should McDonalds or Coca Cola not be able to patent or protect their recipes because the ingredients are already available for other people to figure out?

Red’s patent seems more specific than I even originally thought it was. Blackmagic invested the time and resources to create their own intellectual property with B-RAW, why should Apple or any other company be different? Innovation is often created through limitations and if B-RAW is half as good as it seems, perhaps Red’s Patent is a good thing.

But in reality, I don’t really care one way or another. I like competition, so f#*k Red. I also like images from Red cameras and Redcode seems to be a great codec to work with, so yay Red.

What I am hoping for is that these smaller companies... Blackmagic, Z-Cam, DJi, etc..., will eventually force Red, Canon, Sony and Panasonic to offer more for less in the future. I think the Komodo could be a good direction for the company if what is rumored/believed about the camera is true.

[KnightsFan]

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

should McDonalds or Coca Cola not be able to patent or protect their recipes because the ingredients are already available for other people to figure out?

I see your point, but I don't think that's quite analogous.

I think a more accurate analogy would be if Coke and Pepsi were actively in a "sugar race" to find new ways to add more sugar to their drinks (in an imaginary world where it's scientifically difficult to add more sugar!), and then Coke patented any drink that had a 50% sugar content or more. Pepsi has already had the concept of 50% sugar for decades and has been racing to find a way to do it, but has to give up on their goal because it's no longer legal--even if they were using a completely different sugar-injection process than Coke was.

Red didn't patent an exact recipe, they patented a cap on specs in the middle of a spec war.

[newfoundmass]

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

There's a difference between voting with your wallet and spewing hate. I don't really see much of the latter here, but you don't have to look hard on the internet to find comments about RED with more vitriol than useful information. We can disapprove of RED's practices AND keep it civil at the same time, which I think is what @Emanuel is saying. RED is hardly the only company whose strategy is to create a mythos around their brand. They are certainly not the only company to patent everything they can, whether or not the average person would consider those patents valid. And I guarantee they're not the only company that can be found to be lying if you comb through all their forum posts from the last 15 years.

Let's certainly call out bad practice when we see it, but be civil at the same time.

 

I also found this episode to be a lot less damning than previous ones. Because to be honest, I'm not concerned with whether RED makes their own sensors or not, or when exactly they invented Redcode. I honestly don't care if someone inaccurately remembers when their company created something. I think the patent should be removed for being obvious, the technicality of when Redcode was invented it might be what overthrows the patent, but it's the obviousness of the concept that makes the patent seem wrong.

The timeline is a significant part of the case, re: the patent. Establishing the correct timeline, and showing RED allegedly lied repeatedly, including possibly in court documents and/or during court testimony, is key to the case. 

Jinni did a good job detailing the information but didn't do a good job at all in showing how it all relates to RED's patent and how it allegedly undermines RED's claims, re: compressed RAW. It needs that context to resonate and show why this information is relevant outside of showing major inconsistencies. 

[mercer]

46 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I see your point, but I don't think that's quite analogous.

I think a more accurate analogy would be if Coke and Pepsi were actively in a "sugar race" to find new ways to add more sugar to their drinks (in an imaginary world where it's scientifically difficult to add more sugar!), and then Coke patented any drink that had a 50% sugar content or more. Pepsi has already had the concept of 50% sugar for decades and has been racing to find a way to do it, but has to give up on their goal because it's no longer legal--even if they were using a completely different sugar-injection process than Coke was.

Red didn't patent an exact recipe, they patented a cap on specs in the middle of a spec war.

I also see your point, but isn’t the patent, in question, a utility patent? I don’t presume to much about patent law, but it seems their patent falls within the boundaries of a utility patent. Does Red also have a patent on Redcode specifically?

[newfoundmass]

One of the ways to invalidate the patent is by poking holes into or completely destroying the sequence of events. 

[Oliver Daniel]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yeah, it probably is something as simple as that, but with Apple’s new streaming service, I feel there could be more to the equation

Yes it will be, and I think we’re likely on the right track with our guesswork. 

 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

his is how I feel about it as well and I think the timing of Komodo, as a concept, is pretty interesting... not enough details out yet to know for sure though.

Komodo looks super interesting, and is an answer to Zcam, Kinefinity and BM. Gotta say I’m curious. I hated using the Epic and Scarlet-W bit liked the images in REDcode. The size and features of Komodo make it seem very accessible. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I shoot raw video and love the benefit of it, but as a hobbyist, I have nobody to answer to and no deadlines to meet. But if I was a content creator that fed my children from videography, I wouldn’t even give raw video a second glance. But even as a hobbyist, I decided I wanted a secondary option, for certain projects, that didn’t call for the raw workflow, so I bought a BMMCC for its internal ProRes into FCPX.

Don’t get me wrong, RAW is great. I remember my jaw dropping to ML RAW on 5D and on a Kinemini 4K film. Just when like me, I’ve got overheads and expenses coming out my ears and not much time between projects, RAW is a very close no-go. 

I’ve used both REDcode and ProRes RAW  in FCPX. ProRes RAW is especially fast but it needs more integrated control. It’s a huge step forward. BUT, 10bit gives me everything I need at a much lower overall cost. 

[KnightsFan]

27 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Jinni did a good job detailing the information but didn't do a good job at all in showing how it all relates to RED's patent and how it allegedly undermines RED's claims, re: compressed RAW.

Yeah, that's really what I meant. It wasn't a well organized thesis-and-supporting-argument structure. This latest episode seemed to sort of wander about, pointing out various contradictions, etc. without really tying it together for us. The original mini-mag video was eye opening about how simple the parts were. The one about Redcode really delved into the patent itself. This was sort of an hour long personal attack on various people without a real payoff or conclusion.

23 minutes ago, mercer said:

I also see your point, but isn’t the patent, in question, a utility patent? I don’t presume to much about patent law, but it seems their patent falls within the boundaries of a utility patent. Does Red also have a patent on Redcode specifically?

I'm not a patent expert either. But in my googling, patent definitions always include an "invention." What exactly did Red invent?

I'm sure Red also has patents on Redcode. I don't think anyone is questioning Red's ownership of Redcode specifically.

[andrgl]

The patent system in the US is broken. Amazon was granted a patent for photographing objects on a white seamless backdrop.

Seriously.

The cost of a patent trial is several millions of dollars.

So a company like Red, with deep pockets, can bully the shit out of smaller companies.

Like this.

They can also force large companies to settle. Is it worth the risk of going to court to try and invalidate a bullshit patent? What if you lose?

Sony settled with Red out of court in July 2013.

Cheaper and safer to license and pass the cost off the the customer.

Good for them. Can’t blame Red for a broken patent, legal and economic system.

They’re simply trying to run a business.

 

And now they have the honour of being on the receiving end of getting fucked by a company with infinitely greater resources.

 

No sympathy.

[mercer]

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'm not a patent expert either. But in my googling, patent definitions always include an "invention." What exactly did Red invent?

I'm sure Red also has patents on Redcode. I don't think anyone is questioning Red's ownership of Redcode specifically.

Utility Patent: a patent that covers the creation of a new or improved—and useful—product, process, or machine.

So under that definition, one could argue that they have the “process” patented. Maybe. But Red could have filed CIP applications that added more information to the original patent... possibly with Redcode.

But again this is just conjecture based on my limited understanding of utility patents and zero information on Red’s IP.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[barefoot_dp]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

 should McDonalds or Coca Cola not be able to patent or protect their recipes because the ingredients are already available for other people to figure out?

A recipe includes a lot more than just ingredients. And those ingredients can make a lot more than just that single recipe.

Your analogy is like saying that McDonalds should be allowed to patent the Big Mac in such a way that would prevent a Kebab shop from selling a beef doner that has lettuce, onion, cheese & tahini (sesame seed). It's the same ingredients and the end result is comparable in the sense that they are both fast food items, but they got there in a completely different way.

When compared to what Red have done, your analogy is like asking if anobody else should be allowed to make cola, or burgers. But there's a lot of people making burgers and cola, because to patent those ideas would be totally insane.

 

[thephoenix]

be sure there will not be any trial, they'll come to a settlement as usual.

and sorry but i do'nt think that apple has a better spirit than red, so even if they had raw patent be sure you would have to pay big bucks for it.

apple is certainly not going into this battle for you consumers ?

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, andrgl said:

The patent system in the US is broken. Amazon was granted a patent for photographing objects on a white seamless backdrop.

Seriously.

The cost of a patent trial is several millions of dollars.

So a company like Red, with deep pockets, can bully the shit out of smaller companies.

 

The entire patent system is utterly messed up and should be totally chucked out, then started over again from scratch. 
 

 

This book is worth a read: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
( Or a much more concise read: https://mises.org/library/case-against-ip-concise-guide )

 

[Eric Calabros]

"put raw data in internal storage media" is not a company intellectual property and shouldn't be. These guys are a bunch of charlatans. Period.

[barefoot_dp]

4 hours ago, thephoenix said:

so even if they had raw patent be sure you would have to pay big bucks for it.

apple is certainly not going into this battle for you consumers ?

I'm under no impression that Apple are doing this for the greater good of the consumer! But nor is this a case of a legal challenge over "who owns the patent?". There is no outcome (to this legal battle) where Apple ends up with the patent and we have to pay big bucks for it.