Thread: Apple seeks to invalidate Red's Raw patent claims

Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    909
    John, of course it's not in everything, figure of speech! :)

    I'm for it though as an option to just straight Prores like we've had for years now which isn't bad at all really but for quality's sake, I would still shoot everything in full RAW if I could and depending on what camera is being used.

    Now, Phil, I would be intrigued if Apple hopped into the digital cinema camera ring but a more interesting option would be for Google to actually continue to develop and release the Lytro digital cinema camera we were shown not that long ago. A camera like that with light field technology would be the real knockout game changer to the industry! I wonder if such a camera would even count in this case as it wouldn't necessarily be RAW-photo based would it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack Birlew View Post
    Now, Phil, I would be intrigued if Apple hopped into the digital cinema camera ring but a more interesting option would be for Google to actually continue to develop and release the Lytro digital cinema camera we were shown not that long ago. A camera like that with light field technology would be the real knockout game changer to the industry! I wonder if such a camera would even count in this case as it wouldn't necessarily be RAW-photo based would it?
    I would think if Apple was to make a camera it would be in the $5K and under realm as of 2019/2020, probably even more likely in the $1-$3K range. They deal with the mass market in a big way and likely are not truly concerned with $20K+ markets because that's a much smaller world in terms of product volume.

    What I will say is the shear financial backing from such an entity like Apple would provide some very interesting advancements considering the secondary and tertiary technologies they also have and could develop. They have a lot of money they could throw into R&D and make something. If they launched and were successful it would likely more or less remove some market competition because a few of the other companies couldn't even compete at that point.

    Take their newest iPhone for instance, that in essence is either a turret or variable prime setup with it's 3 separate lenses and sensor. That's a lot of flexibility to have with a mobile phone for still and motion. I certainly like a lot of that from an image making perspective.

    The big Lytro camera (the VW sized one with the sidecar) was always a dead end in my mind as none of that strategy made any sense to me, pocket Lytro was interesting. However, the surrounding technologies and lightfield in general is an emerging technology, very likely Google's interest in it really. There's a lot of stuff happening in this sector still and you'll be seeing much more. Everybody in tech is looking for that new thing that might become the "main thing" down the line. Meanwhile 2D is still very much the most approachable medium from a audience and creator perspective, which is why things like resolution and HDR continue to advance as well as camera technology improving fairly rapidly.

    It's all about the market really and what can make money as well as what consumers can afford to watch/experience. 1080p for instance was born from a world that was very knowledgeable about 4K, but due to where technology was and would be for the immediate-ish future combined with the potential of making something a consumer (and initially a higher end consumer) could afford was the proper direction. Things have greatly advanced since then as well as coming down in price. Even in the 90s and eventually 2000s we were looking at beyond 4K on the studio side of things, but it was prohibitively expensive as well as painfully time consuming back then. Meaning more or less the practicalities and profit didn't make much sense, though we certainly did it a few times. It was much more interesting where so much experimentation was being done back then as it sort of provided the "proof in the pudding" moments that many people understood and could see clearly at the time which has in effect been the path of the motion picture industry as a whole.

    Meanwhile VR, AR, MR, and whatever version of alternative reality is still growing and also having a hard time landing big punches at the same time. A lot of reasons for this all starting at the content side of things as well as the unique properiteis of the medium itself.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    it is interesting that FCPX doesn't support BRAW and Resolve doesn't support ProRes RAW.
    Could be a tit for tat thing, could be they just are so damn new neither has been implemented even.
    That is true, but unlike BM, Apple doesn't NEED to support BRAW. On the other hand, ProresRAW is only new to the camera side. On the post side ALL color grading platforms, but one, already have implemented the support for ProresRAW. I suspect the main reason for slow support for ProresRAW as in-camera recording is Red's Redcode IP. I believe it only covers in-camera compressed RAW recording. If Apple manages to invalidate Redcode patent, we then probably will see very rapid acceptance by the camera manufacturers...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,345
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    That is true, but unlike BM, Apple doesn't NEED to support BRAW. On the other hand, ProresRAW is only new to the camera side. On the post side ALL color grading platforms, but one, already have implemented the support for ProresRAW. I suspect the main reason for slow support for ProresRAW as in-camera recording is Red's Redcode IP. I believe it only covers in-camera compressed RAW recording.
    As I read the tech papers, ProResRAW is not entirely raw and is not using JPEG2000, so I think they may be just outside the boundary of the patents. This is now in the hands of the lawyers, so we'll see how they argue. Strange things can and have happened in court, as you know.

    I would not be surprised if Blackmagic is hesitating at adopting ProResRAW because of Apple not giving them a deal to render ProRes in Windows. It's possible they're looking for a quid pro quo: they'll support ProResRAW if Apple gives them the Windows render license. But I do remember Petty critizing ProResRAW at NAB 2018, so you wonder what's going on there.
    marc wielage, csi colorist/post consultant daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    As I read the tech papers, ProResRAW is not entirely raw and is not using JPEG2000, so I think they may be just outside the boundary of the patents.
    Page 5.

    https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/...hite_Paper.pdf

    BRAW is doing a partial debayer at the time of encoding.

    Both ProRes RAW and BRAW are using Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) encoding. REDCODE RAW is Wavelet Transform based/JPEG 2000.

    Apple's contest on the patent is based around the argument that RED's patent is too broad in reach, which isn't exactly uncommon for technology patents of any sort. The professional witness who's opinion of the patent is being used in the contest interestingly has a background in specifically MPEG. His arguments are interesting, but also leaving out critical things, but that's not for me to interpret. More or less this will come down to what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to dissect.

    The more interesting thing here is RED has had to defend this patent in the past and has. I am curious what will transpire when a company of Apple's size and reputation does such things. In terms of patent contests, this is fairly common for companies like Apple, Samsung, etc. to explore avenues such as this to avoid paying potentially costly licensing fees or having access to deploy certain technologies at all. In this case it's rather clear that Apple ProRes RAW exists and Apple very much would like to put it into things without paying licensing fees or being locked out of deploying the tech natively in devices.

    It's an interesting thing these days where companies that even work together find themselves meeting hands to not reach for the handshake, but rather a thumb war. Which is pretty much the case here.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    As I read the tech papers, ProResRAW is not entirely raw and is not using JPEG2000, so I think they may be just outside the boundary of the patents. This is now in the hands of the lawyers, so we'll see how they argue. Strange things can and have happened in court, as you know.

    I would not be surprised if Blackmagic is hesitating at adopting ProResRAW because of Apple not giving them a deal to render ProRes in Windows. It's possible they're looking for a quid pro quo: they'll support ProResRAW if Apple gives them the Windows render license. But I do remember Petty critizing ProResRAW at NAB 2018, so you wonder what's going on there.
    Redcode is clearly covers ANY compressed RAW recording at speeds over 23 FPS and over 2k in size and it is used for recording in-camera. I have no idea why do you think JPEG200 has anything to do with ProresRAW. ProresRAW, as it's name implies, uses Prores-type of compression of RAW Bayered images, unlike BRAW, that records partially debayered images in camera. It's pretty simple actually.
    As far as BM adaptation of ProresRAW, again, you're completely in the left field. BM competes DIRECTLY with Apple in editing software and BRAW also a direct competitor to Apple's ProresRAW. Apple has long memory as seen in example with nVidia, which is a much bigger company and yet, even though they have better product, Apple chooses not to do business with them and instead they support nVidia's competitor. BM managed to get on the wrong side of Apple and Apple has an excellent opportunity to really hurt BM by withholding ProresRAW license the same way they deny BM Prores support on Windows. If ProresRAW becomes widely supported by majority camera manufacturers, BM will be at Apple's mercy and Red will lose one of the most important differentiators from its competitors.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    BRAW in Android would be nice. Android has around 70..75% market share in the smartphone business. Or even better, cineformRAW in Android, when RED's patent is invalidated. The last case would be great, the consumer gets the best compressed RAW format currently available(considering compression/quality and compute resources) and Apple paid for it.
    Meanwhile NVMe drives get physically smaller https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...view,6330.html cheaper and faster. Users want higher quality, hence less compression (5.9:1 is a nice ratio), the C500 markII is a nice example.

    Alphabet could give Apple a nice punch in the face, without hurting partners and/or the camera industry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    Senior Member Jeffery Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    642
    there are usually like a million comments on these threads... speculation and such... new cameras, cars driven by dogs, robots with penises... etc

    Mac/Apple is probably just going to license RedRAW to other camera vendors, by invalidating Red's patent, then validate theirs own... just a guess
    I have to try and change the landscape, whatever it is.
    -Robert Plant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery Anderson View Post
    Mac/Apple is probably just going to license RedRAW to other camera vendors, by invalidating Red's patent, then validate theirs own... just a guess
    I think Mac/Apple is going to license android to other phone vendors, by invalidating Google's patent, then validate theirs own... just a guess
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts