Jump to content

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


Anaconda_
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

There is no outcome (to this legal battle) where Apple ends up with the patent and we have to pay big bucks for it.

Unless as someone suggested, that the lawsuit is to test the strength of the patent. If it's strong it could be the first stop of Apple acquiring RED.

I personally don't think that's the case, but you never know.

I think they just want to develop ProRes Raw even further, get it into more cameras and recorders. They've hit a road block they need to bash out the way first, opening the road for other manufacturers as they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

Unless as someone suggested, that the lawsuit is to test the strength of the patent. If it's strong it could be the first stop of Apple acquiring RED.

I personally don't think that's the case, but you never know.

I think they just want to develop ProRes Raw even further, get it into more cameras and recorders. They've hit a road block they need to bash out the way first, opening the road for other manufacturers as they do it.

Yes, that is why I specified that it can't be an outcome to the "LEGAL BATTLE." Any acquisition would be a separate event, and one that could theoretically happen at any time regardless of the legal proceedings at hand.

I agree with you that Apple most likely want to make further use or Prores Raw, either in their own products, or by licensing it to other companies. And seeing as they've already done that with Atomos at no additional cost to the end user, it does not appear as though Apple would be charging extortionate amounts for the license.

Time will tell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I think Apple are more likely to create their own cinema camera, and it will have the form factor of an iPhone. ?

Or... What if Apple wants the IP related to the Hydrogen and its holographic cameras/display, and is willing to buy RED just to get that? Or is planning to use this patent fight as leverage for a settlement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like the video, please donate to him so he can make a part V and/or send him your red one mx so he can open it up and find the secrets:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/jinni-reveals-red?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

 

Why support him?:
All of this seems to have already gotten the interest of Apple Inc that is in a patent dispute with Red.  It seems this way as they have started to reference Jim Jannard's posts on reduser and cinematography.com.

- If more knowledge of Red not actually having developed its sensor, then this will start to open up flaws in Red's patent on compressed raw internally.  Right now Red stops all other camera manufacturers from making cameras that record compressed raw internally.

 

 

How will this affect ARRI ALEXA CAMERAS?

Arri cameras have pro res 4444 on them.  This may open up Pro RAW on them - which is more efficient at 4k than 4k Pro Res HQ, but still a 12-bit codec!

Why is Pro Res RAW so amazing?

When a client asks for 4k, right now on the alexa MINI LF you can do 4k Pro Res 4444, but it eats up data for breakfast.  Pro Res RAW brings this to a much more manageable data rate.

How will this affect Canon, Sony, and BM cameras?

Same.  Imagine a smaller mirrorless camera that can do pro res raw?  More efficient data rates in higher resolution.  Better data for green screen and skintones for grading.

This seems like a small thing, a man making little youtube videos, but it has real positives for our industry.  His detective work is worth its weight in gold.  And all it takes is hitting a link and anonymously sending him some cash.  

https://www.gofundme.com/f/jinni-reveals-red?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Or... What if Apple wants the IP related to the Hydrogen and its holographic cameras/display, and is willing to buy RED just to get that? Or is planning to use this patent fight as leverage for a settlement?

Who knows. Just the most logical reason is that Apple wants ProRes RAW recorded internally in lots of pro cameras as part of their current aggressive pro market strategy. Sounds good to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

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.

Actually, my analogy is not saying that at all because the definition of a recipe is...

A set of instructions for preparing a PARTICULAR dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

The patent doesn’t restrict companies from including raw video in their cameras... it doesn’t restrict companies from having compressed raw at less than 6:1... it doesn’t restrict companies from having 6:1 compressed raw at UHD, or 2K... it doesn’t restrict uncompressed raw at 4000 pixels wide or higher... it restricts an internal compression of 6:1 or higher based on 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels and 25% blue pixels, at 4000 wide or higher at 24fps or higher. I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe.

Just because a lot of people don’t like that Red owns the patent, they still own the patent. Is the patent valid... I don’t know. I’m not a patent attorney. Right now, it is valid and it is intellectual property. Do I hope the patent becomes invalid... sure why not, I like competition.

I think the real question is... if the patent becomes invalid... what company is going to release a camera, with those specs, at a reasonable price point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

A set of instructions for preparing a PARTICULAR dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient.

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

if the patent becomes invalid... what company is going to release a camera, with those specs, at a reasonable price point?

Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient.

Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

But don’t you need all of those “ingredients” to encroach on Red’s patent? And are we sure this is the patent in question that Apple is fighting? 

It seems Blackmagic could have kept CDNG up to 5:1 compression or higher at less than 4000 pixels wide? They chose to create B-RAW. I wonder how that patent reads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Actually, my analogy is not saying that at all because the definition of a recipe is...

A set of instructions for preparing a PARTICULAR dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

The patent doesn’t restrict companies from including raw video in their cameras... it doesn’t restrict companies from having compressed raw at less than 6:1... it doesn’t restrict companies from having 6:1 compressed raw at UHD, or 2K... it doesn’t restrict uncompressed raw at 4000 pixels wide or higher... it restricts an internal compression of 6:1 or higher based on 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels and 25% blue pixels, at 4000 wide or higher at 24fps or higher. I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe.

Just because a lot of people don’t like that Red owns the patent, they still own the patent. Is the patent valid... I don’t know. I’m not a patent attorney. Right now, it is valid and it is intellectual property. Do I hope the patent becomes invalid... sure why not, I like competition.

I think the real question is... if the patent becomes invalid... what company is going to release a camera, with those specs, at a reasonable price point?

But why would Apple spend all this money on a lawsuit if the patent is not stopping them from doing something?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mercer said:

But don’t you need all of those “ingredients” to encroach on Red’s patent? And are we sure this is the patent in question that Apple is fighting?

Yes, but in my opinion (and that of many people) "having a resolution over 4000 pixels wide" isn't an original ingredient that you can patent. It is too broad, and too obvious. And you can't patent something obvious. Maybe if Red had patented Raw compression on images "exactly 4000 pixels wide" it would sit better with us.

Here's another example: Is it fair that RED's patent covers 16k 120 fps compressed raw video, when they can't do it themselves and certainly couldn't when the patent was filed?

1 hour ago, mercer said:

It seems Blackmagic could have kept CDNG up to 5:1 compression or higher at less than 4000 pixels wide? They chose to create B-RAW. I wonder how that patent reads.

Perhaps. But they did say that they removed cDNG because of legal issues, without naming Red specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Yes, but in my opinion (and that of many people) "having a resolution over 4000 pixels wide" isn't an original ingredient that you can patent. It is too broad, and too obvious. And you can't patent something obvious. Maybe if Red had patented Raw compression on images "exactly 4000 pixels wide" it would sit better with us.

Here's another example: Is it fair that RED's patent covers 16k 120 fps compressed raw video, when they can't do it themselves and certainly couldn't when the patent was filed?

Perhaps. But they did say that they removed cDNG because of legal issues, without naming Red specifically.

KnightsFan is exactly right. it would be like ford patenting a car that is 4 feet or greater in length with a attached roof.

Cars existed before the model T but didn’t have a roof. Is a roof not obvious enough to grant ford an patent to a car, which is a highly complex piece of equipment, because they slapped on an obvious, preexisting, roof on it and made it longer than 4 feet?

A roof is obvious. The length of said object is obvious. The size of RAW images is obvious. RED didn’t invent bigger images. They didn’t make an invention related to the CMOS sensor.

They simply bought exclusive rights to a sensor off the shelf. Slapped on JPEG2000 wavelet compression on RAW images (existed before) and submitted a patent for it.

Compressed TIFFs existed before RED “invented” RAW compression. They used them to “demo” their REDCODE.

The video shows they didn’t put in 12 months of research. They took pre-existing technologies, with pre-existing ideas and then claimed they were novel.

The premise behind REDS patent is that their incredibly novel idea was to capture 2K+ RAW images on a camera and compress the RAW images ON THE CAMERA inline and store it (instead of having a computer do it) Fucking ground breaking!

The patent is entirely without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mercer said:

I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe.

Again, a recipe is a lot more than just ingredients - it's also the exact measurements and steps taken to reach the end result. Changes to those steps can result in a very different recipe (ie a burger vs a doner).

And the Big Mac special sauce is not just another ingredient. It is a product in it's own right. It has it's own ingredients and recipe - one that McDonalds either came up with on their own or bought the rights to from someone else. I don't know whether McDonalds own a patent over the Big Mac (I know they lost some rights to the Big Mac trademark though) but if they do, it would be based very heavily on the inclusion of their own proprietary special sauce.

That "special sauce" is exactly what seems to be missing from Red's patent - ie the specific algorithms that they are using in their compression. That is the "how" that turns Red's dubious patent from a list of ingredients into a recipe. Without that, it is the equivalent of McDonalds saying "nobody else can make a product that includes more then 50g of beef, some onion, lettuce, flour, sugar, yeast, water and sesame seeds, and is made in a kitchen".  

And none of this is to say that Red's patent is invalid - I don't know enough about patent law to judge that. This is just my reply to your rebuttal about my comment that your analogy is not really a comparable situation. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mercer said:

The patent doesn’t restrict companies from including raw video in their cameras... it doesn’t restrict companies from having compressed raw at less than 6:1... it doesn’t restrict companies from having 6:1 compressed raw at UHD, or 2K... it doesn’t restrict uncompressed raw at 4000 pixels wide or higher... it restricts an internal compression of 6:1 or higher based on 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels and 25% blue pixels, at 4000 wide or higher at 24fps or higher. I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe.


I'm shocked you don't understand that is an INCREDIBLE BROAD PATENT which you just described, which should never ever have been granted in the first place. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...