Sharathc47 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 New video from jinny tech did cineform patent its algorithm? ntblowz, Juank and IronFilm 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. The Dancing Babamef and Davide DB 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...
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.