Jump to content

RED claim victory in Apple RAW patent battle


Recommended Posts

On 11/10/2019 at 9:33 AM, rawshooter said:

Unfortunately, not. The patent is about any form of compressed RAW.

First I don't think this is true, and even If it is, then it also applies to a compressed raw in a still camera. 

When the next generation stills cameras from Nikon or canon can shoot stills at 24 frames per second with compressed raw red should start a court case against them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It’s odd - I get fanboy will be fanboys - but why is everyone on Facebook and reduser saying this is such great news? I mean even if you own a red, why wouldn’t you want to see compressed RAW in other

12 bit log is RAW enough for me. I thought I needed CNG RAW so I got the USRA mini pro v1 and it turned out I did a session with both CNG and BRAW the difference did not make a difference for the proj

Of course! Sounds ridiculous right?  Just swap “car” with “camera” and “engine cylinders” with “resolution” and “speed” with “frames per second” and you have essential what the RED patent is.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Lars Steenhoff said:

First I don't think this is true, and even If it is, then it also applies to a compressed raw in a still camera. 

When the next generation stills cameras from Nikon or canon can shoot stills at 24 frames per second with compressed raw red should start a court case against them.

 

The RED patent is for compressed RAW video with at least 24 FPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EspenB said:

The RED patent is for compressed RAW video with at least 24 FPS.

Yeap, hence blackmagic dropping compressed cdng format on their camera because of RED patent issue, and why sigma only use uncompressed raw.

 

Only Canon can do it since they have license agreement with Red. (1DX3 have compressed raw video and RED using RF mount on their next camera)

 

Which also means Canon is probably the only one can put compressed raw video on their mirrorless camera.. all other manufacturers are blocked by Red patent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Waynes said:

You are talking figuratively?

Of course! Sounds ridiculous right?

 Just swap “car” with “camera” and “engine cylinders” with “resolution” and “speed” with “frames per second” and you have essential what the RED patent is.

Bayer sensors existed before RED

Bayer data existed before RED.

The jpeg2000 Compression existed before RED.

Hence adding “two more cylinders” is the same as RED adding “Bayer compression” to existing technology and then essentially getting a patent for “cars with certain sized engine going faster than X speed (a camera recording at 4K Bayer resolution at least 23 fps).

All that shit existed before except the jpeg2000 compression to Bayer data. I have no problem with that part.

Putting OBVIOUS things like FPS and resolution gives RED a blanket patent on compressed BAYER data 4K and up at 23 FPS and up. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

If the patent instead said 4K and up at least 23FPS using X unique algorithm implementation then that’s fine.

REDs patent is a blanket patent on ANY implementation. What if I have a better algorithm that improves on jpeg2000. Nope, RED by defaults owns that space from 4K to infinity and 23 FPS to infinity. It’s complete bullshit.

Ans what about stills cameras? That have been shooting compressed RAW for years before RED was even a twinkle in Jim’s eye?

Suddenly they can’t shoot more than 23 FPS because they will be infringing on REDs patent NOT because they are using the same compression technology as RED but simply because they hit a arbitrary number that RED claims an patent over. It’s moronic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 4:54 PM, Waynes said:

Yep.  What they can do is challenge the patent in other pragmatic jurisdictions.  If there is no valid patent in a market, or Europe or Asia, others can sell cameras there, and it is evidence there is question in order to look at it.

Ok, Kinefinity licensed cineform raw early on.  Did they cross into this patent earlier?

Exactly, even though I guess they had applied for worldwide protection from US IP office, the fact is some other authority can have some other perspective on their patent validity if any, range and coverage.

Compressed RAW is almost as wide as vanilla ice cream, as someone has already noticed and sarcasm aside, so:

On 11/10/2019 at 2:05 PM, mechanicalEYE said:

I'm no law expert but it sounds like this is basically asking Apple to try again.

Screen Shot 2019-11-10 at 8.02.37 AM.png

This is the most perfect example why this is still far to be definitive.

 

26 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Yeap, hence blackmagic dropping compressed cdng format on their camera because of RED patent issue, and why sigma only use uncompressed raw.

 

Only Canon can do it since they have license agreement with Red. (1DX3 have compressed raw video and RED using RF mount on their next camera)

 

Which also means Canon is probably the only one can put compressed raw video on their mirrorless camera.. all other manufacturers are blocked by Red patent.

I guess they should invest more in their legal department instead...

 

23 hours ago, greenscreen said:

Great point. Thank you bringing the information here. Possible to see a few struggle to find the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Only one particular case AFAIK, old story from the previous thread discussion. No big deal. The point is when whose understanding is restrictively B&W, truly a pity, ending with the whole matter upside down : -D

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Waynes said:

 

 

14 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Of course! Sounds ridiculous right?

 Just swap “car” with “camera” and “engine cylinders” with “resolution” and “speed” with “frames per second” and you have essential what the RED patent is.

Bayer sensors existed before RED

Bayer data existed before RED.

The jpeg2000 Compression existed before RED.

Hence adding “two more cylinders” is the same as RED adding “Bayer compression” to existing technology and then essentially getting a patent for “cars with certain sized engine going faster than X speed (a camera recording at 4K Bayer resolution at least 23 fps).

All that shit existed before except the jpeg2000 compression to Bayer data. I have no problem with that part.

Putting OBVIOUS things like FPS and resolution gives RED a blanket patent on compressed BAYER data 4K and up at 23 FPS and up. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

If the patent instead said 4K and up at least 23FPS using X unique algorithm implementation then that’s fine.

REDs patent is a blanket patent on ANY implementation. What if I have a better algorithm that improves on jpeg2000. Nope, RED by defaults owns that space from 4K to infinity and 23 FPS to infinity. It’s complete bullshit. 

It's worse, applying jpeg2000 to Bayer is obvious and at video rates rediculously obvious.  Plus we discuss using jpeg2000 for Bayer at video rates looking to the higher than 2k resolution era publicly before Red patent or even existence I think, so that in itself would make it unpatentable, as prior public knowledge.  Stuff, I'm the one that suggested to them 4k, do I get to patent everything 4k, of course not!

They only get to patent one particular type of new Bayer compression algorithm and the unique, new unobvious differences in it.  That's how it is suppose to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right Waynes : )

There is some other issue involving 24fps which is a standard* adopted for almost a whole previous century along and a standard wide known and used by the industry for decades, which impedes to recognise the innovation attribute any patent claims to be.

Thus, some restrictions must apply. The exclusion is there and coverage or patent range only partially extent at least.

I am pretty sure a better legal work in different jurisdictions would kill such claim, IMHO as post graduate precisely to comprehend this legal field as well : -)

 

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate#History_of_frame_rates_in_cinema

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Emanuel said:

You're right Waynes : )

There is some other issue involving 24fps which is a standard* adopted for almost a whole previous century along and a standard wide known and used by the industry for decades, which impedes to recognise the innovation attribute any patent claims to be.

Thus, some restrictions must apply. The exclusion is there and coverage or patent range only partially extent at least.

I am pretty sure a better legal work in different jurisdictions would kill such claim, IMHO as post graduate precisely to comprehend this legal field as well : -)

 

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate#History_of_frame_rates_in_cinema

Different jurisdictions rejecting stuff, based on evidence, is evidence!  They should go out and give it a try, and find all markets where something was rejected, or was never accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Exactly, even though I guess they had applied for worldwide protection from US IP office, the fact is some other authority can have some other perspective on their patent validity if any, range and coverage.

Compressed RAW is almost as wide as vanilla ice cream, as someone has already noticed and sarcasm aside, so:

This is the most perfect example why this is still far to be definitive.

 

I guess they should invest more in their legal department instead...

 

Only one particular case AFAIK, old story from the previous thread discussion. No big deal. The point is when whose understanding is restrictively B&W, truly a pity, ending with the whole matter upside down : -D

You don't get worldwide protection from the US patent office. A US patent protects you in the US only. You can file a PCT application with WIPO for general priority in signatory countries (which has different rules regarding patentability compared to the US) but the actual patents have to be filed in each country individually to get protection there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading US 7,830,967, it would appear that some sort of preprocessing is involved prior to compression, whatever the hell "pre-emphasis function" means. It appears to be some method of averaging adjacent pixels of specific colors before compression. If that is the case, then there are likely other ways to handle RAW data compression that would not infringe that particular patent.

US 8,174,560 does not have the "pre-emphasis" requirement, which makes it more general than '967, but does require a compression ratio of at least 1:6.

So I think that anything with a compression ratio of less than 1:6 is OK, as long as you don't do any color averaging of the three color streams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mokara said:

Reading US 7,830,967, it would appear that some sort of preprocessing is involved prior to compression, whatever the hell "pre-emphasis function" means. It appears to be some method of averaging adjacent pixels of specific colors before compression. If that is the case, then there are likely other ways to handle RAW data compression that would not infringe that particular patent.

US 8,174,560 does not have the "pre-emphasis" requirement, which makes it more general than '967, but does require a compression ratio of at least 1:6.

So I think that anything with a compression ratio of less than 1:6 is OK, as long as you don't do any color averaging of the three color streams.

Pre-/de-emphasis is a well know noise reduction method / signal-processing step.

Used by basically all analogue media i.e., RIAA on LPs, Dolby Noise reduction, etc.

"a process of increasing the amplitude of certain frequencies relative to others in a signal in order to help them override noise, complemented by deemphasis before final reproduction of the signal being received."

So you could use a 5:1 ratio and avoid the patent?

Espen

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, EspenB said:

So you could use a 5:1 ratio and avoid the patent?

Yes. Or record with a width of less than 2k pixels. Or use a CFA with different RGB ratios. There are lots of ways around the patent which imply that it really isn't the thing holding companies back from implementing raw of some kind in hybrid cameras.

(Note that HD is less than 2000 pixels wide.)

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...