Sharathc47 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 New video from jinny tech did cineform patent its algorithm? IronFilm, Juank and ntblowz 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide DB Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I got a headache, Could you explain in laynman terms why a Canon RAW LT doesn't infringe Red patent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malick Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 hours ago, Davide DB said: I got a headache, Could you explain in laynman terms why a Canon RAW LT doesn't infringe Red patent? Red licensed their RF mount. Davide DB and The Dancing Babamef 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda_ Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 It's believed red and Canon traded tech as the Komodo has a Canon RF mount, so Canon can have compressed raw. So Canon raw LT does infringe, but they have a pass. Davide DB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 On 1/4/2023 at 9:06 PM, Sharathc47 said: New video from jinny tech did cineform patent its algorithm? Yes, he's back! 😃 been aaaagggeeesssss since the last upload oh wait, he had one from just two months ago that I missed (which was removed, then added): Juank, sanveer, Sharathc47 and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 While on the topic of raw & codecs, I stumbled across a pretty good article that gives an overview of video codecs and even gives a demo of making one in Rust: https://blog.tempus-ex.com/hello-video-codec/ Davide DB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Earl Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 As far as Cineform serving as prior art for RED's patent, there is the possibility that both were developed from JPEG 2000 separately and both qualify for patents relating to camera systems. The SI-2K camera patent might integrate Cineform, but it's hard to tell. I remember reading that Cineform was created to get around IP from other companies so RED could have also used JPEG 2000 and just slightly 'got around' Cineform to steer clear of them. Or maybe there was a deal that RED would modify Cineform and would pursue a patent with Cineform's approval. I'm just speculating. . . It's still more likely to me, since Nikon literally has 20,000 patents https://insights.greyb.com/nikon-patents/ that there would be some cross patent infringement that would allow Nikon to continue with ProRes RAW. It happens across all industries, I'm not sure RED is a villain. How many patents do they actually have? Just one very key patent it seems. If anything Nikon is knowingly infringing on RED's patent which would put them as the unethical party since RED's patent was granted. PXG is a golf equipment maker and started filling their metal irons with a plastic polymer and received a patent for it. Taylormade later made irons filled with 'speed foam' and PXG sued Taylormade. Then they reached a settlement because PXG violated some Taylormade patents. Another company, Ping, had already been using plastic inserts in irons years before... https://golf.com/gear/taylormade-pxg-irons-settlement-lawsuit/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharathc47 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 After watching jinnitech’s video i checked red’s patent and i noticed something 1. Red’s Video camera patent expired and they applied for another patent for all electronics including cameras, this may extends patent expiry to 2038🤷♂️ https://patents.google.com/patent/US11503294B2/en?oq=US-11503294-B2 2. There are citations of Cineform publications in Red’s patents. Doesn’t it mean the patent examiner already knew about cineform raw existence? Does the examiner willingly granted patent? Or Cineform raw doesn’t come under prior art? Is that patent officer corrupt or anyway related to Red?😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharathc47 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 On 5/27/2022 at 11:39 PM, HurtinMinorKey said: A few things. RED isn't a troll, they are an innovator who actually commercializes the patents they claim, and they should be able to benefit from spending the time/resources to make those inventions (assuming the patents are valid). That's not to say trolls aren't a problem in other areas, but more so this isn't one of those cases. It's not always the case, but trolls are typically non-practicing entities (they don't practice the technology they are claiming is patented). If Red isn’t a troll, how come they are extending their patent by identifying some loopholes in the system 🤷♂️. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharathc47 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Can we oversample a 6k image to 4k then send for raw video compression? I know it’s not technically raw, but can we go around red patents as Blackmagic does with their BRAW(partial debayer) by pre-processing like oversampling and have an internal codec with the ability to change ISO/WB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPNS Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 8 hours ago, Sharathc47 said: Can we oversample a 6k image to 4k then send for raw video compression? I know it’s not technically raw, but can we go around red patents as Blackmagic does with their BRAW(partial debayer) by pre-processing like oversampling and have an internal codec with the ability to change ISO/WB? Thats what sigma does with the fps and people call that “real uncompressed raw” lol Sharathc47 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malick Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 15 hours ago, Sharathc47 said: After watching jinnitech’s video i checked red’s patent and i noticed something 1. Red’s Video camera patent expired and they applied for another patent for all electronics including cameras, this may extends patent expiry to 2038🤷♂️ https://patents.google.com/patent/US11503294B2/en?oq=US-11503294-B2 2. There are citations of Cineform publications in Red’s patents. Doesn’t it mean the patent examiner already knew about cineform raw existence? Does the examiner willingly granted patent? Or Cineform raw doesn’t come under prior art? Is that patent officer corrupt or anyway related to Red?😜 Thats not the same patent.They changed it to DCT with newer cameras its not wavelet anymore. https://docs.red.com/955-0179/REV-B/Benefits %26 Evolution of REDCODE RAW.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted April 27 Author Super Members Share Posted April 27 Both sides have now filed a joint motion to dismiss the case so it’s all over. Whether this means Nikon are paying a license fee or it’s a “win”’ against the patent itself that will benefit all manufacturers is uncertain but it looks like that new Z8 might be even more compelling now. Perhaps the timing of the settlement and its launch may be more than coincidental. Full story here https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs-nikon-case-dismissed/ mercer, ntblowz and Sharathc47 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Calabros Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Anyone here knows what's the difference between settled case and dismissed case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted April 27 Author Super Members Share Posted April 27 10 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said: Anyone here knows what's the difference between settled case and dismissed case? It has been dismissed without prejudice which means both sides have agreed to stop all ongoing claims and counterclaim proceedings. Without prejudice means that the dismissal does not preclude the whole process from starting again in the future. One possible reading of that is that they have agreed to stop action against each other in lieu of a license payment from Nikon to RED but that RED reserve the right to start the action again should Nikon not meet these commitments. That is only one possible (but obvious) reading of it but there are many more as the claims weren’t only one way. So there is no final settlement in a formal sense (ie Nikon paying them x dollars for an infringement with the Z9) but they have settled on what looks to be a negotiated cease fire on the current actions. If the “win” for Nikon is to be able to have internal compressed RAW then it could be based on some sharing with RED of one of their own technologies as it is strongly suspected happened with Canon rather than a simple license payment. Or it could be a bit of both. If it IS purely based on a license payment then it could potentially be a “win” for other camera manufacturers as they could then apply to REF for the same. I suspect it is a case of something more mutually beneficial as I doubt Nikon we’re going this heavily into bat on behalf of the whole camera industry. The only people who really know are the ones that negotiated the ceasefire though and it will take a long time and a lot more guessing to unravel whether this goes beyond anything more than the Z9 being legally allowed to be sold with internal compressed RAW. Ironically, though, the internal RAW of the Z9 hasn’t proved to be a world beater from tests that Andrew amongst other people have reported. So, ultimately, this whole thing might well have been two bald men fighting over a comb. ntblowz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Calabros Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I don't think Nikon has anything in tech IP to offer that may be useful for RED. They don't want Z mount. And almost all of Nikon's sensor patents are based of long time collaboration with Sony Semi. Masked AF pixels, stacked fabrications, all are covered by Sony IP too. However I don't think they just agreed about a license payment. RED's language in this lawsuit was very harsh. It was like they wanted to punish Nikon, regardless of claimed damage. Note that this was not a "Voluntary Dismissal" by RED like it was in Kinefinity case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookietub Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 I had a feeling the case was going to be dismissed. Here's why - Nikon was approaching the case with evidence that Red should never have been granted the patent in the first place. None of the other companies Red sued took this approach. My guess is that Red realized there was a good chance they could lose the case. Rather than risk having their patent taken away, they walked away instead. Ilkka Nissila and Sharathc47 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Calabros Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 3 hours ago, cookietub said: My guess is that Red realized there was a good chance they could lose the case. Rather than risk having their patent taken away, they walked away instead. Isn't it putting them in a more vulnerable position? The next attacker will be DJI. Whats the point of having a patent you can't defend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilkka Nissila Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 33 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said: Isn't it putting them in a more vulnerable position? The next attacker will be DJI. Whats the point of having a patent you can't defend? I'm not a lawyer but I guess that if a court decides the patent is invalid, RED would lose all income related to license agreements based on that patent. Since they pulled the lawsuit, the other companies cannot automatically stop paying license fees if they have agreed to do so as the patent hasn't been invalidated officially. Eric Calabros 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookietub Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Exactly. 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.