Is RED's Compressed RAW Patent Becoming a Problem?

[Zack Birlew]

Hi, everybody, I know it's just as good to be critical of a company as support it but with news hitting that DJI's Ronin 4D has lost Prores RAW support and fingers are pointing towards RED with it's Compressed RAW patent, I have to ask, is this becoming a problem? So far in comments I'm seeing things like "Holding back an entire industry", "Unfair business practices", "Patent Trolling", and I can't help but be reminded of the disastrous situation with Joe Alter and his patents on digital hair in CG production and games. Joe Alter's "Shave and a Haircut" software plugin for the longest time, 1999 according to an archived link on the website, was the only digital hair sculpting and design solution for 3D animators and game creators and the only other solution I'm aware of that came out was a software called "Yeti" which ended up being chased out of the US to Europe and other countries because of Joe Alter's patent. This is why even up to realistic PS4 games like "The Order: 1886", characters mostly had hair textures painted onto their heads with basic polygonal strands of texture hair laid over for effect and that was because it would cost extra to use Shave and there may have been additional licensing fees involved being a videogame project. There simply were no other production solutions for realistic CG hair other than multi-million dollar studios having the dreaded and unverifiable "Custom Solutions" and blobby heads of hair in everything from Disney/Pixar animated films to the latest videogames of the day were the result until Joe Alter finally (and recently) got bought out by Epic Games and Shave and all its tech became free to use and now every studio can have realistic looking and flowing CG hair.

So, cameras and computers are getting bigger and much more powerful than they ever have been and there is far more reason for having RAW video as an option but could it really come down to RED holding back everything in an entire industry and art form because of a single patent? If so then perhaps there needs to be limits to patents, especially those pertaining to mechanical, technological, and software patents, as innovation and progress will inevitably be stifled by this current system.

Then again, this may have nothing to do with RED and could be the case with Apple or some other factor, perhaps DJI will switch to BRAW or offer some sort of workaround but going forward, if this situation remains, what might we see RED's main revenue being? Technological innovation and design or its patent holdings?

One idea, if the game is about internal compressed RAW, how about camera manufacturers do like Sony and designate a port or connector on their cameras for a RAW recording module? It could even be the size of a USB Bluetooth adapter but necessary to purchase separately for RAW video recording.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Interesting development.
This could be an Apple issue as much as it could be a RED issue.
Not enough info to tell.

RED enforcing their patents is in line with any other company that does so and is not necessarily patent trolling.
If a patent owner fails to enforce their patent they can actually lose the patent.

Don't know what goes on behind the scenes but my understanding is RED has negotiated deals with other
companies in the past.
They're using it as leverage which any competent company would do.

The audio company Zaxcom has a patent on wireless audio recording that they protect and
license as well.

The Atomos deal was made public but I wouldn't be surprised if other deals were negotiated and not publicly disclosed.
Again, conjecture on my part.

There are many cameras shooting compressed RAW (some internal, some external) that are not manufactured by RED so I'm not sure it would be fair to say they are "holding back the industry."

Whatever the issue, hopefully things can get worked out for DJI.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Phil Holland]

Likely too many perspectives on this particular topic as it's been discussed for... a decade and a half now. And interestingly you're talking to somebody who worked at a studio with proprietary hair tech back in the day, good hair that is. The reason that works is it fits Epic's business model with UE and of course they did pay for it. Vastly overlooked concept right there. Also SAAH was $399 per license at it's cheapest.

I'll dare to summarize the circular conversations related to this that have been going on for so long.

Actual Compressed RAW is desirable to a high degree across manufacturers due to realities of being confined any camera generation to maximum media data rates. More or less you can make hardware do more, but still be confined by media limitations. Compressed versus Uncompressed date footprint as well as data rates are a great comparison baseline.

RED owns the patent on Internal Compressed RAW motion picture imaging. Summarizing that, but that's the whole tomato. They also own a host of other usual patents for that matter, but that's not this discussion. RED also licenses that technology as far as I know, so it just requires that conversation, handshake, and exchange of a bag of beans. I'm certain sometimes that doesn't work out or whatever, that's all business and their business stuff that tech companies can mull over.

To avoid all this, we've seen new RAW-like codecs introduced which or more or less metadata driven partially debayered or even plane jane mezzanine codecs. Whatever the case, these lack the benefits of pure RAW data, which is so appealing from an efficiency and forward thinking mindset. For those familiar with the RED workflow over the years, the advancements to the color science as a whole has been absurdly beneficial when it comes down to it and you know what this is all about.

The general perspective from on that recent internet blast is "how can a patent for something so obvious exist". Saw words like frivolous, etc. Not here to flame anybody, but every major technology owns a host of patents that are likely licensed in whatever camera you shoot on. This is no different. And in this particular case a camera was advertised with this specific feature and then changed the feature set. Which often is known as a bait and switch considering this was a product you could preorder. In the past you'd be angry at the manufacturer. These days it's in vogue to not even look at things that way I guess. In the case of DJI, it was a nice gesture to lower the MSRP a bit as an advertised feature was removed.

Don't know in this case if it's a RED or Apple licensing thing or some other unknown hurdle. Could even be a combination. Also, DJI has implemented licensing fees for certain codecs in the past. And in the press release they did state "initial launch". So who the hell knows what's actually planned.

In relationship to this particular patent, this isn't patent trolling. It's been something contested in court several times. The patent is solid and was created in a time when the industry and digital cinema camera and video camera markets were an entirely different thing. Hell, smartphones weren't a thing close to what they've become for that matter. A very good example would be something like the automotive industry's earliest players and technology innovators patenting up all sorts of things to protect their IP, designs, etc.

I've also had and have seen back and forth chats with people about the validity of patents as a whole, which is shocking conversation to have given that the entertainment industry would be nothing without the concept of IP. Hell, any industry. Blows my mind.

The connector you describe has existed in modules and pigtails, but you want to be closer to where the raw data moves due to the extreme data rates prior to compression or writing.

I don't know if anybody cares what RED's main or other revenue models are. Like all major camera companies they own patents to tech. Whether it's Sony, Canon, RED, or whoever. If you want something they own, you have to license it or not. This is also a vibrant hot fire in the world of smartphones between major players like Apple and Samsung. I suspect diversifying is a good thing nonetheless to have many income streams, much like any other business. Hoping we don't get RED microwaves anytime soon, but who knows. There's a lot of tangential stuff they can dip into.

I'm certain this conversation will lead to some aggressive and off putting perspectives, because this particular topic usually brings out the worst in people, as seen recently on the internet. That aspect in itself has created a tense atmosphere on this forum at times.

Won't be airing my own opinions on this particular one. Have some rather strong, strong thoughts on this whole matter as well as familiar voices in the crowd. I'll keep it based and professional in this case.

 

[Nick Morrison]

No one has a problem licensing Prores from Apple, or DNX from Avid. Why not license Compressed RAW from RED?

Especially given the howls of laughter from the industry for over a decade about how 4K and Compressed Raw were "not relevant", its hilarious how accurately RED saw where production was going - as far back as 2007.

Trust me, if Sony or Canon owned the patent they'd do the EXACT SAME THING.

I mean look at how Apple weaponizes Prores to punish BlackMagic - is Resolve still being locked out of Prores on PC, and Prores RAW on all platforms?

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I find it funny how the same people who say that Red is "holding back the industry" would never say any such thing about Apple. So, a trillion dollar corporation is allowed to have patents, but a billion dollar corporation is not. Got it.

It's like with crowdfunding in comic books. Apparently, crowdfunding isn't about making a profit, it's about "giving back to the community". But, the same people have no problem with DC, Marvel, Image, etc. making money from their comic books.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Just have to say, this has been some good conversation so far, and, yeah, I hear you all on Sony and Apple and other tech companies and it all comes down to the question of innovation and what could happen and what could be made if a lot of these currently necessary and "modernly basic" tech patents got released as was done with the Joe Alter situation?

RED's patent, honestly, may be too young to criticize as the hardware wasn't there for a good while on the competition's side, still waiting for RAW out of GoPro and other action and 360-degree cameras though, and it is clear that because we have Prores RAW, BRAW, Z-RAW, N-RAW, KineRAW, etc. RED is not being tyrannical with it and limiting us all to Prores HQ and Avid DNX. With the DJI situation being the latest story of altered or removed RAW video support, the questions all around become everything from "What are the terms of the RED's licensing?" and "Why isn't there more compressed RAW video options out there?" and "Why are some RAW features being limited or taken away with firmware updates in development or over time?" Everything is 10-bit now at least but going forward I would hope out of all of this that RAW video licensing will be made easier and not err towards the worst of the critics' claims.

 

[Med D]

No one has a problem licensing Prores from Apple, or DNX from Avid. Why not license Compressed RAW from RED?

Because "Compressed RAW" is not a CODEC or even a technology, it is a concept. The patent on that should not have been issued IMO. REDCODE RAW on the other hand is an actual solution or technology and should be patented. It's like the difference between "compressed music" and MP3 or AAC. The world is lucky that nobody was obnoxious enough to patent "compressed music".

 

[Phil Holland]

Because "Compressed RAW" is not a CODEC or even a technology, it is a concept. The patent on that should not have been issued IMO. REDCODE RAW on the other hand is an actual solution or technology and should be patented. It's like the difference between "compressed music" and MP3 or AAC. The world is lucky that nobody was obnoxious enough to patent "compressed music".

I don't know how to say this, but two things related to this post. I assure you compressed RAW is a "technology". And yes, many patents are designed concepts as well, but that's swaying away from the point.

Also "compressed music" was/is indeed patented. i.e. MP3. By the very people who developed the format. Everybody pays Fraunhofer or MPEG to encode and decode. Actually quite the history surrounding patent infringements and licensing of this technology spanning over two decades.

AAC is also patented and part of a "patent pool". Some differences in execution to the MP3 licensing, but you do have to pay to use AAC in hardware decoders and encoders.

I'll make a strong, strong note that you as a consumer were none-the-wiser of most of the licensing or legal dealings of these technologies. Similarly you aren't privy to 1-10,000 patents at play in many products people use on a daily basis.

And just to make a hard underline. Every video codec you are likely is also a licensed technology that camera companies pay licensing fees to include in camera. There's been a couple cases recently of a manufacturer needing to pay fines and remove a codec due to unlicensed use over the years. But yes, ProRes, DNxHR, H.265, H.264. All of it is pay to "implement".

That's also not considering the numerous other bits in all cameras that get paid out to implement various features.

 

[Med D]

I don't know how to say this, but two things related to this post. I assure you compressed RAW is a "technology". And yes, many patents are designed concepts as well, but that's swaying away from the point.

Also "compressed music" was/is indeed patented. i.e. MP3. By the very people who developed the format. Everybody pays Fraunhofer or MPEG to encode and decode. Actually quite the history surrounding patent infringements and licensing of this technology spanning over two decades.

AAC is also patented and part of a "patent pool". Some differences in execution to the MP3 licensing, but you do have to pay to use AAC in hardware decoders and encoders.

I'll make a strong, strong note that you as a consumer were none-the-wiser of most of the licensing or legal dealings of these technologies. Similarly you aren't privy to 1-10,000 patents at play in many products people use on a daily basis.

And just to make a hard underline. Every video codec you are likely is also a licensed technology that camera companies pay licensing fees to include in camera. There's been a couple cases recently of a manufacturer needing to pay fines and remove a codec due to unlicensed use over the years. But yes, ProRes, DNxHR, H.265, H.264. All of it is pay to "implement".

That's also not considering the numerous other bits in all cameras that get paid out to implement various features.

Are you saying that "Compressed RAW" does not mean RAW images, compressed in a non-specific digital manner? Because that is how I understand the term. If it does indeed mean that, then there is a fundamental difference between the group that includes AAC, MP3, ProRes etc. and "Compressed RAW". The first is a list of actual implementations, the latter is a very general category. The music compression analogy is correct IMO.

Yes, "Compressed Music" can be achieved via many means and CODECs but the concept itself -- the generic category of "Compressed Music" -- is not patented or owned by anyone, I don't believe. You could create your own compression scheme tomorrow and choose to make it open-source -- like FLAC -- or licenseable -- like MP3.

And while I am definitely not privy to all the patents that are in the consumer space, I am an inventor on 30+ of them, many pertaining to audio. I admit though that the video compression space is not my specialty.

 

[Phil Holland]

Yes, "Compressed Music" can be achieved via many means and CODECs but the concept itself -- the generic category of "Compressed Music" -- is not patented or owned by anyone

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5579430A/en

There's 2 others I think that are active as well.

Compressed RAW Image Data, specifically to the definition outlined in the use of motion picture cameras is what all the talk is about. But really it's talk that must be done between manufacturers. Even Jarred discussed online in a long thread that's now gone that RED licenses it's tech to rival companies and specifically Apple ProRes RAW is Apple's package to offer. Probably lots of nuance and discussion in those negotiations and deals.

I do a lot of filmmaking, consulting, and more technical work in the tech space. The various back and forth over utility patents and such are interesting to watch. Also interesting what ends up in settlements, deals, or agreements.

Personally I think this is pretty meme worthy at this point because it shows a few things. The heightened desire for people who want to use the technology especially in modern times both by companies and "lowly filmmakers" as well. And it does also appear deals have been made in the past. In this specific case it wouldn't surprise me if DJI does offer a separate ProRes RAW license. They have done similar in the past and the press release did state "initially". Might be reading too much into all that, but time will tell how things pan out. DJI can also afford the licensing fees for sure if smaller companies can endure them. There might a conflict of interest thing here or there, but I strongly doubt it.

Whatever the case every time stubs their toe these days it's RED's fault and that is an extremely weird perspective often to air out in the public space, which is what produced this thread recently. And not shockingly that whole thread was taken down either due to actually hearing the details of such things, whether they agree with them or not. Massive ill informed opinions, thoughts, etc. Everybody has their right to opinions, but it's fascinating that the other 3 sides of this particular thing weren't even mentioned whatsoever.

30+ patents! I do commend you for the work. I know it's a long haul to do all of that right beyond even executing or conceptualizing. Congrats on that.

 

[Marc Wielage]

RFunny I recall ARRI hacking REDs email in the early days.

Big correction: It wasn't Arri, it was one employee. And they fired him the moment they found out about it. Widely discussed on the original Red forum back in 2011.

I agree with the gist that Red's technology is amazing, but if they patented this stuff back in 2006/2007, I'd bet some of the core concepts will elapse in 2027 (20 years after the original patent). Sony got around the patent for years by just using an external Raw recorder that docked with the camera... and eventually Sony and Red exchanged salvos in court but settled. What the story is on DJI, I dunno. Seems to be if they license ProRes Raw directly from Apple, then Apple should indemnify them.

 

[Marc Wielage]

And just to make a hard underline. Every video codec you are likely is also a licensed technology that camera companies pay licensing fees to include in camera. There's been a couple cases recently of a manufacturer needing to pay fines and remove a codec due to unlicensed use over the years. But yes, ProRes, DNxHR, H.265, H.264. All of it is pay to "implement".

I once had a conversation with a hardware manufacturer that was getting ready to release a DVD player back in 1997. They told me, "you have no idea the number of patents involved with DVD -- there's a couple of dozen companies with their hands out, each asking for 5 cents here or a dollar there, and the paperwork and contracts are insane." And it wasn't just Sony & Philips: there was also DiscoVision Inc. (which amazingly still owned many patents on optical videodiscs going back to the 1970s), the MPEG people, and many others. It was quite a mess for awhile, but eventually it became a much more straightforward licensing process, both for pressing discs and making players.

One key was for all those companies to be less greedy, and they eventually realized they made far more money getting 5 cents a player for 10 million players than it did getting $1 a player for 50,000 players. I don't think the analogy works for Raw video, because the sales numbers are going to be too small, no matter what.

I never heard an explanation as to how Arri gets around Red's patents with Alexa Arriraw, or how Blackmagic gets away with Blackmagic Raw, but somehow they do. And all of them are good systems for post, with similar data rates and great pictures. I have no problem with Sony Venice, Alexa, current Blackmagic, or current Red cameras -- I think they can all coexist peacefully, and I always say, giving cinematographers more choices is a good thing.

 

[Alex Lubensky]

I never heard an explanation as to how Arri gets around Red's patents with Alexa Arriraw, or how Blackmagic gets away with Blackmagic Raw, but somehow they do. And all of them are good systems for post, with similar data rates and great pictures. I have no problem with Sony Venice, Alexa, current Blackmagic, or current Red cameras -- I think they can all coexist peacefully, and I always say, giving cinematographers more choices is a good thing.

Arri has an uncompressed raw, while Red's patent is for a compressed raw codec. BRaw isn't actually a raw codec, while has some similar controls to a real raw codec. Idk about Canon Rawlite and how they managed to settle it in their cameras, but Sony did a separate recorder for raw back in the F65/F55/F5 days. Curious to know how they settled the Venice 2.

And yeah, I do agree about a separate licence move from DJI. It totally makes sense to lower the base price of a unit making it more competitive on the market, because right now it's priced for no one. While being a curious concept of a camera, it's a non-profitable concept compared to owning a separate camera and a gimbal, business wise. And I think a lot of people will think this way, so it's hard to push the 4D into the market with the price above a Komodo or a C70/FX6/R5C/FX3 you name it. The market is dense nowadays.

 

[Phil Holland]

I think more or less we're on the same page Marc. As well as most working professionals, companies, etc. In some ways it's a bit of the industry's fault and marketing fault. I don't know any discerning DP who make camera decisions based on a lot of the conversations online regarding these tools.

Something has transpired in the world that has produce animosity for one brand/company or another along the way. I've seen vibrant hot conversations regarding a few common camera manufacturers. It's an odd duck thing that people make out to be some sort of war when in reality it's just business as usual. We also literally all work in an industry driven by IP and content. I'm more or less confused often by many POVs about how they think things should work, but it usually comes down to some peculiar FOMO, desire, or twisted logic. Whatever the case, it is what it is. Most of that POV are often from people pretty far from the fire as well, which is interesting in itself. Had a whole interaction with somebody far from the entertainment industry that I can only refer to as a "doomer" looking for a thing to apply that to.

I will say there's all sorts of opinions on companies that are certainly valid based on whatever personal experience they've had, but that's a whole different thing. But again, most working professionals understand things happen. Most of these companies are pretty good, have decent global support, and do their best to get things done promptly. That's been my general experience for a while now really.

I've maintained close relationships with a most camera manufacturers over the span of time that would be referred to as the digital cinema era. Most companies have a general mutual respect and admiration for each other at this point, namely due to the fact that without certain events occurring much of the industry growth wouldn't have unfolded the way it has. ARRI literally rents RED cameras out for instance. None of the chatter regarding this topic actually means anything because it's usually piss in the wind sort of commentary.

RED certainly just mentioned they do license tech to competing manufacturers. So we know that and I think that is the story on that front. Hell, that might not even just be REDCODE RAW related. I know Sony owns a boatload of patents, Canon too. That's all likely in our cameras as well. We're all using some sort of combined mixture of tech brewed in a cauldron that results in a camera system. BRAW has a couple of patents online that allude to what they are actually doing, which is somewhat brain numbing to read, but worth it if you want to know what and how they are doing it.

Long and short story at the end of the day. RAW codecs have a host values beyond even the nondestructive workflow ramifications. We've seen more cameras recently using it internally recently for sure. We've seen external recorders supporting it more. Even new RAW codecs for that matter. I don't imagine that trend isn't going backwards anytime soon.

On a wild tangent, there was conversation regarding stagnating the advancements of RAW. If anything I'd argue that some of this has led to some rather tremendous advancements. I mean I'm not exactly waiting 30-60 second per frame to render at this point and image quality has gone up a whole bunch since this whole thing started. There's a lot of companies responsible for those advancements. Nvidia comes to mind as an easy company to point to saving many sleepless nights from occurring. But really it's been a multi-company tiered effort when it comes down to it on both the hardware and software levels. And this has tangentially improved workflow for many other cameras, codecs, and workflows in the process. Even now in a more interactive way we're seeing this whole new world of 3rd party collaboration occurring that literally has moved the ball forward on modern CFx a bit. Pretty wild actually.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I find it funny that people still capitalize the word RAW

It was one of those kinda loud RED marketing things like capitalizing OBSOLESCENCE OBSOLETE and people just followed this convention like sheep. And then journalists and everyone else who knew better kinda gave up and started using it too to be consistent.

But come on guys, it's 2022, time to stop capitalizing the darn thing. Imagine if life were like this and we had to follow a convention where half our nouns were all caps for no reason just because a company that popularized it decided to capitalize it in its marketing once. It would suck having to randomly capitalize stuff like "Hey guys let's let's get a BURGER with fries and a MILKSHAKE for lunch" haha.

Of course Silicon Imaging (who did compressed raw video before RED) did not capitalize the word "raw" - but everyone has forgotten them!

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Phil Holland]

I find it funny that people still capitalize the word RAW

It was one of those kinda loud RED marketing things like capitalizing OBSOLESCENCE OBSOLETE and people just followed this convention like sheep. And then journalists and everyone else who knew better kinda gave up and started using it too to be consistent.

But come on guys, it's 2022, time to stop capitalizing the darn thing. Imagine if life were like this and we had to follow a convention where half our nouns were all caps for no reason just because a company that popularized it decided to capitalize it in its marketing once. It would suck having to randomly capitalize stuff like "Hey guys let's let's get a BURGER with fries and a MILKSHAKE for lunch" haha.

Of course Silicon Imaging (who did compressed raw video before RED) did not capitalize the word "raw" - but everyone has forgotten them!

Not at all actually.

Pretty much every post house I have done work with in 25+ years, we also capitalize the codec or file format mainly due to clarity. There's some zigs and zags with the actual format extension and even DSLRs, but it was also done well before that as well. This is also inherited from the film industry somewhat both in paper and digital communications, specifically pertaining to film stocks and even every manufacturer has carried over the mindset from these past two decades. ARRIRAW, REDCODE RAW, X-OCN, CIN, DPX, TIF, EXR, RLL, etc...

I broke in in the 90s and everything was called out this way. Film stocks, keycodes, etc. Likely for decades before I entered the field.

And SI did capitalize it. It's in their literature and user manual. And the codec is called CineForm RAW.

And yes, this is a very strange example of being frustrated with something perceived as a RED thing, when if anything it's a Kodak thing that likely pre-dates my career by decades.

The critical years of the mid-2000s has familiar vibes the zigs and zags of the tech race of what it took to get various personal computers from various manufacturers into homes. Sinclair, Acorn, etc. Not to mention the things happening stateside with IBM.

 

[Med D]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5579430A/en

There's 2 others I think that are active as well.

Compressed RAW Image Data, specifically to the definition outlined in the use of motion picture cameras is what all the talk is about. But really it's talk that must be done between manufacturers. Even Jarred discussed online in a long thread that's now gone that RED licenses it's tech to rival companies and specifically Apple ProRes RAW is Apple's package to offer. Probably lots of nuance and discussion in those negotiations and deals.

I do a lot of filmmaking, consulting, and more technical work in the tech space. The various back and forth over utility patents and such are interesting to watch. Also interesting what ends up in settlements, deals, or agreements.

...

Whatever the case every time stubs their toe these days it's RED's fault and that is an extremely weird perspective often to air out in the public space, which is what produced this thread recently. And not shockingly that whole thread was taken down either due to actually hearing the details of such things, whether they agree with them or not. Massive ill informed opinions, thoughts, etc. Everybody has their right to opinions, but it's fascinating that the other 3 sides of this particular thing weren't even mentioned whatsoever.

Phil, the patent you reference is a method for compressing audio, it does not provide comprehensive coverage over "Audio Compression". There are dozens of free / open-source audio compression algorithms around.

I don't fault RED for this, instead I fault the patent office. And I don't see why this topic would not be discussed in the public space. The discussion is much more heated -- and certainly much more one-sided -- on other forums that are not so RED-centric.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Not at all actually.

Pretty much every post house I have done work with in 25+ years, we also capitalize the codec or file format mainly due to clarity.

Phil you're just creating a straw man argument to dodge my point

For specific file formats, capitalization is a thing, sure. REDCODE RAW, ARRIRAW, Canon CR2, all good!

But when you write "On a wild tangent, there was conversation regarding stagnating the advancements of RAW" - that really shouldn't be capitalized.

It would be like me writing "there is stagnation in the advancements of BURGERS" just because like McDonalds decided to capitalize their BIG MAC haha.

You're just doing so because you've bought into the RED way of thinking about the world - where something as simple as the concept of compressed raw video is a proprietary thing that companies own and capitalize both gramatically and monetarily

That's your right if you want to view the world that way, but it's a kinda limited, inherently biased viewpoint for someone as smart as you. Think beyond the RED marketing and their way of viewing the world, take a step back and remember we're just talking about raw sensor data (compressed or uncompressed), a very general simple concept that has no need for capitalization.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil you're just

Politely and respectfully, and I usually don't respond to trolls especially now, but years before RED existed this was and still is how all of this has been done. YEARS.

Every project I've shot on to date. Every single one.

You can be critical to or about RED all you want. But RAW and all of these specific formats as well as stocks and lab instructions have been called out in caps for way to long to even bring that into any of your anti-RED crap man.

Here, just walked into my vault: and hell I slap some crap from literature on there:

Don't know who hurt you man. You even work in post. But this nomenclature is very literally on the negative stock, print stock, everywhere.

It's not even ecn-2. It's ECN-2.

Straw mans argument my ass.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

There's a very good reason why we write 'RAW' and not 'raw'. RAW means 'an arbitrary file format which contains the raw sensor data'. When we write 'raw' we mean it in a context like, 'the raw data shows...'. Different concepts. I'm not really sure why this is an issue.