IronFilm Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 32 minutes ago, mercer said: It discusses the process of compression It just rips off JPEG 2000 RED wasn't doing anything radically new that nobody else could imagine happening. 32 minutes ago, mercer said: which compression ratios they are claiming ownership They were very broad with that, as broad as they felt they could get away with? There was no other basis to it I feel. webrunner5 and TomTheDP 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted June 3, 2022 Administrators Share Posted June 3, 2022 2 hours ago, IronFilm said: It just rips off JPEG 2000 The novelty is they applied it to 24fps RAW video in a solid state recorder/camera. 2 hours ago, IronFilm said: RED wasn't doing anything radically new that nobody else could imagine happening. Yes they were. Otherwise the patent wouldn't still be standing. 2 hours ago, IronFilm said: They were very broad with that, as broad as they felt they could get away with? There was no other basis to it I feel. It wasn't broad at the time. Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc. were all asleep and most top films were shot on film. Canon had MiniDV cameras at the time when RED were patenting a very niche raw codec. It's a pathetic showing by the corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHDcrew Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 What if a camera recorded 23 fps and then used optical flow to make the extra single frame? I think that would get around RED’s patent lol IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpc Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 3 hours ago, mercer said: If I remember correctly, it's not as broad as stated here. It discusses the process of compression, which compression ratios they are claiming ownership of and how it will work within the confines of the camera. There's also room within the concept for others to work around. If you read the patents carefully they usually describe a few possible ways of doing this or that as "claims", and then explicitly say "but not limited to these". For years I used to think Red's patents are limited to in-camera Bayer compression at ratios 6:1 or higher, because this ratio is repeatedly mentioned as a "claim". Apparently, this wasn't the case as demonstrated by their actions against BM and others. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpc Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 14 minutes ago, FHDcrew said: What if a camera recorded 23 fps and then used optical flow to make the extra single frame? I think that would get around RED’s patent lol Yes, you can do that. You can also do more sensible things like partial debayer (e.g Blackmagic BRAW). 22 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: The novelty is they applied it to 24fps RAW video in a solid state recorder/camera. This isn't novelty though. This is a basic example of inevitable evolution. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted June 3, 2022 Administrators Share Posted June 3, 2022 25 minutes ago, cpc said: This isn't novelty though. This is a basic example of inevitable evolution. Well we'll see what the Z9 case brings. I can't see Nikon getting anywhere with it to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 25 minutes ago, cpc said: If you read the patents carefully they usually describe a few possible ways of doing this or that as "claims", and then explicitly say "but not limited to these". For years I used to think Red's patents are limited to in-camera Bayer compression at ratios 6:1 or higher, because this ratio is repeatedly mentioned as a "claim". Apparently, this wasn't the case as demonstrated by their actions against BM and others. A few years ago when another post popped up... probably during the Apple case, I read the patent. I remember thinking that I didn't know why people are complaining. I remember thinking it was specific enough. They even described the way in which the compression occurs. Now that may be JPEG2000 compression, but it was very specific to their use. Sorry, I just don't understand this idea that people cannot claim ownership to something that they created based on some idea that it was obvious someone else may eventually do it. I'm sure patents are issued every day that alter or improve upon a product or invention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted June 3, 2022 Administrators Share Posted June 3, 2022 If there was a long line of compressed RAW cinema cameras before 2005 from Sony and Canon, then the RED patent wouldn't be novel. But there wasn't. I am not angry at RED any more. I am more annoyed at corporate Japan for failing us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 27 minutes ago, cpc said: Yes, you can do that. You can also do more sensible things like partial debayer (e.g Blackmagic BRAW). This isn't novelty though. This is a basic example of inevitable evolution. Exactly, there is plenty of wiggle room for these HUGE corporations to invest R&D and figure it out. I'm sure Apple, Sony and Nikon have the resources. Canon figured it out, or licensed it from Red. Others can too. Again I cannot subscribe to the notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to patent something due to an obvious evolution. I mean, obviously it was inevitable that someone would have wanted to invent artificially illuminated light, but we still got the lightbulb from Edison (and Co.) because they put the work in and did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 6 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: If there was a long line of compressed RAW cinema cameras before 2005 from Sony and Canon, then the RED patent wouldn't be novel. But there wasn't. I am not angry at RED any more. I am more annoyed at corporate Japan for failing us. Exactly. I don't care about Red. I'd love to own a used Scarlet X but it's unlikely I'll ever be a customer of theirs. The greater point is that these majors could have avoided all of this 10 years ago and licensed ProRes from Apple and not have needed a raw codec. It's really overkill for hybrid cameras anyway. Blackmagic saw the obvious benefit and forked up the dough. I don't feel sorry for Canon or Nikon or Sony and their overheating issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 As others have pointed out... any one of these companies could create an external handle or grip as a raw module and get around the patent. Red used an idea, put in the R&D and made a workable product. Why should these multinational conglomerates be allowed to come in and piggy back their work just because it was inevitable someone else may want to do it sometime. We'd have zero innovations if that's the way things worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 48 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: If there was a long line of compressed RAW cinema cameras before 2005 from Sony and Canon, then the RED patent wouldn't be novel. But there wasn't. I am not angry at RED any more. I am more annoyed at corporate Japan for failing us. Maybe just Maybe they didn't think to throw everyone under the bus with a patent. Back then everyone played fairly nice. it only took Red to f us for I guess the rest of our lives. Hardly something to brag about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted June 3, 2022 Author Super Members Share Posted June 3, 2022 The thing that has always amused/bemused me about RED is how they portrayed themselves as the little guy fighting the battles for all the other little guys and how much they managed to sell that idea to their followers. Nothing says little guy fighting for the little guy quite like owning your own fucking island. Talking of defending patents and remote islands where there may or may not be an underground lair, has anyone heard from Jinnitech recently ? sanveer, Andrew Reid and webrunner5 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpc Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 23 minutes ago, webrunner5 said: Maybe just Maybe they didn't think to throw everyone under the bus with a patent. Back then everyone played fairly nice. it only took Red to f us for I guess the rest of our lives. Hardly something to brag about. The patent expires in 6 years or so, IIRC. 58 minutes ago, mercer said: As others have pointed out... any one of these companies could create an external handle or grip as a raw module and get around the patent. Red used an idea, put in the R&D and made a workable product. Why should these multinational conglomerates be allowed to come in and piggy back their work just because it was inevitable someone else may want to do it sometime. We'd have zero innovations if that's the way things worked. Or would we? The guy that invented ANS, possibly the most important fundamental novelty in compression in the last 2 or 3 decades, did put it in the public domain. It is now everywhere. In every new codec worth mentioning. And in hardware like the PS5. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webrunner5 Posted June 3, 2022 Share Posted June 3, 2022 4 minutes ago, cpc said: The patent expires in 6 years or so, IIRC. I will probably be dead by then LoL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted June 3, 2022 Administrators Share Posted June 3, 2022 Come on, got to stay alive for the Panasonic GH7 with RED RAW but still no phase detect autofocus. 3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: Talking of defending patents and remote islands where there may or may not be an underground lair, has anyone heard from Jinnitech recently ? Apparently RED Motion Mount was from a small company that could have revolutionised the industry. https://tessive.com/mechanical-shutter-comparison RED gobbled them up along with the patents. Which is probably why there is not a Tessive Time Filter and variable ND for the Panasonic GH6! Really nice technology once again being locked up on Jim's island away from commoners like us. Good job he was too distracted with sun glasses when the CMOS sensor was invented otherwise we'd still be shooting film! But again I have to ask... Where the fuck was Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji etc. when Jim was all over the Tessive Time Filter? For price of a months worth of sandwiches at Sony HQ they could have bought the tech. BTM_Pix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted June 3, 2022 Author Super Members Share Posted June 3, 2022 4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: Apparently RED Motion Mount was from a small company that could have revolutionised the industry. I was very taken with it when we were looking at it last week. It’s ridiculous that it isn’t standard issue on all cameras that shoot motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomTheDP Posted June 4, 2022 Share Posted June 4, 2022 6 hours ago, mercer said: We'd have zero innovations if that's the way things worked. Yeah because humans didn't innovate before patents...... mercer, IronFilm and sanveer 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted June 4, 2022 Share Posted June 4, 2022 15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said: The novelty is they applied it to 24fps RAW video in a solid state recorder/camera. I disagree, there is nothing novel at all to say "hey what gets done to one image, we could to twenty four of them!" 15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said: Otherwise the patent wouldn't still be standing. Many many many bad patents are given out, and many bad patents are upheld and left standing when they shouldn't be. https://web.archive.org/web/20220306171619/https://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-myths-about-patents/ 15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said: and most top films were shot on film. And when the RED ONE was released, the same was still true! Most were still shot on film, not the RED ONE. sanveer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Calabros Posted June 4, 2022 Share Posted June 4, 2022 2 hours ago, IronFilm said: and many bad patents are upheld and left standing when they shouldn't be. Because most of the judges don't understand the technology behind these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.