Jump to content

RED claim victory in Apple RAW patent battle


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

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.)

Yeah I know REDs focus was on 4K. Still Dalasa was there first. ?

It's a strange patent.

I wonder if the company will be totally run over when the stuff expires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EspenB said:

Yeah I know REDs focus was on 4K. Still Dalasa was there first. ?

It's a strange patent.

I wonder if the company will be totally run over when the stuff expires.

Probably before then. Storage costs keep going down and speed keeps increasing, most likely professional productions will simply store the raw data directly and deal with it as such in post. Once you are in post you can do anything you like to the data since it has already been recorded and consequently is beyond RED's claims.

Lossy RAW is only desirable when you are limited by storage or the write speed of that storage. Once those are no longer bottlenecks then the need for compression goes away.

4 hours ago, EspenB said:

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

A 5.9:1 ratio would avoid the patent, although in practise no one would cut it that fine I think because of the risk of inadvertently overstepping the line at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mokara said:

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.

Exactly the point and what I meant in my text. 'Through' means to apply from there. A service available from any country's IP office in order to extent it worldwide.

10 hours ago, Waynes said:

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.

Of course, that's why I've been questioning about their legal team in these pages... Sorry folks for my lack of modesty, but as professional either as producer or legal expert, I take my job up to limit. I am always unsatisfied with the outcome of my effort. I think pretty mediocre what I see from theirs. Lame.

They should start to hire some better staff indeed. As far as I know and I've realized, this has been one of the secret ingredients by RED since ever : -)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

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.)

I think it read (haven't glanced it in a whe) that it covers different CFA patterns.  That thee was some specific color manipulation for the compression, which should be the start of the only thing protectable in that way.  Meaning that only the unique, new, unobvious process applied that way should be patentable.  Everything is is dross.  Adding obvious stuff like resolution and compression ratio is unpatentable.   In general, trying to force unpatentable obvious sections, I would expect to be a nonunique process manipulation.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Exactly the point and what I meant in my text. 'Through' means to apply from there. A service available from any country's IP office in order to extent it worldwide.

Of course, that's why I've been questioning about their legal team in these pages... Sorry folks for my lack of modesty, but as professional either as producer or legal expert, I take my job up to limit. I am always unsatisfied with the outcome of my effort. I think pretty mediocre what I see from theirs. Lame.

They should start to hire some better staff indeed. As far as I know and I've realized, this has been one of the secret ingredients by RED since ever : -)

No, it's ok, I dig actual work, I'm not a jealous person who equates mere true statements and assessment as something bad rather than just an observation about a truth of something.  But it is very hard to follow what parts of your sentences are referring too.  So, sorry, I get lost sometimes.

1 hour ago, EspenB said:

Something is up with that page, it says something like 308 days ony phone, Yah! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Waynes said:

I think it read (haven't glanced it in a whe) that it covers different CFA patterns.  That thee was some specific color manipulation for the compression, which should be the start of the only thing protectable in that way.  Meaning that only the unique, new, unobvious process applied that way should be patentable.  Everything is is dross.  Adding obvious stuff like resolution and compression ratio is unpatentable.   In general, trying to force unpatentable obvious sections, I would expect to be a nonunique process manipulation.

I believe it specifies the ratio of photosites for a color array with 3 different colors. So that would cover most traditional CFA's, including bayer, quad pixel, and x-trans. I think Foveon sensors would not be covered by Red's patents. RGBW patterns would also be fair game I assume, not that anyone uses those.

I do wonder if anyone has considered recording an extra line of pixels to throw off the ratio of colors. Like recording 3840x2161 with that last line containing only green and blue. Not that it would be useful, just thinking out loud here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waynes said:

No, it's ok, I dig actual work, I'm not a jealous person who equates mere true statements and assessment as something bad rather than just an observation about a truth of something.  But it is very hard to follow what parts of your sentences are referring too.  So, sorry, I get lost sometimes.

Waynes, apart my non-native English, I'll try to apply for the best of my plain English : D

Apple's lawyers work in this case is perfectly shitty if we discount the agreement settled. Let alone when compared with RED's legal team strictly under their own IP protection task force.

That's where the whole problem resides IMO.

A competent legal work would break and kill those RED RAW patents as clear as I hope these words may sound to you now !

; -)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EspenB said:

The case is so sensitive that the thread I had opened a couple of hours ago on reduser should have beaten the record because vanished from the air right away... LOL ; -)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?179183-RED-patents&p=1875811#post1875811

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The case is so sensitive that the thread I had opened a couple of hours ago on reduser should have beaten the record because vanished from the air right away... LOL ; -)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?179183-RED-patents&p=1875811#post1875811

The basic problem with RED.com is that they are a one hit wonder. Thanks to the US patent office.

As far as I can tell they have done nothing to continue to innovate further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Waynes, apart my non-native English, I'll try to apply for the best of my plain English : D

Apple's lawyers work in this case is perfectly shitty if we discount the agreement settled. Let alone when compared with RED's legal team strictly under their own IP protection task force.

That's where the whole problem resides IMO.

A competent legal work would break and kill those RED RAW patents as clear as I hope these words may sound to you now !

; -)

Thanks Emanuel.

14 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The case is so sensitive that the thread I had opened a couple of hours ago on reduser should have beaten the record because vanished from the air right away... LOL ; -)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?179183-RED-patents&p=1875811#post1875811

Open up one with a title "Patent!  Patent!  Patent!". But just put .. in the main body, and see how fast one gets banned for life.  :)

9 hours ago, EspenB said:

The basic problem with RED.com is that they are a one hit wonder. Thanks to the US patent office.

As far as I can tell they have done nothing to continue to innovate further.

They have done various things (but maybe imports) but just don't follow through a lot.  A cheap fixed cinema camera I was talking to them about, wasn't so innovative, but new came out.  The redray codec, the laser projector, world's most complex camera asic (more record).   Hydrogen, bought in display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2019 at 3:24 AM, Lars Steenhoff said:

I'm happy to go with the sigma fp

And compress later on the computer with slimraw.

In a way it a good thing compressed raw is not coming so we have even beter quality with uncompressed.

The only thing I wish for was lossless compressed raw, and I don't think thats covered by the red patent.

I think the patent was about lossy compressed only.

 

Agreed, slimRAW is a great workaround even if it does add a step to the ingest process. But it's a shame the Sigma probably won't see a lossless or lossy DNG variant that may have allowed 12 bit internal recording. Still, external SSDs are cheap and it allows for fast offloads. I do hope Apple ultimately prevails here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Agreed, slimRAW is a great workaround even if it does add a step to the ingest process. But it's a shame the Sigma probably won't see a lossless or lossy DNG variant that may have allowed 12 bit internal recording. Still, external SSDs are cheap and it allows for fast offloads. I do hope Apple ultimately prevails here though.

For me 25 fps with 12 bit would have been the icing on the cake,  as I live in europe where 25 fps is the standard.

to have to go down to 10 bit for just one frame per second seems a bit of a miss

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...