Someone must have taken apart a new camera

[Steven Caesare]

On the other hand, the more specific a patent is in terms of processes, algorithms, etc.. the more likely your IP is to just be ripped off by every copycat out there.

Indeed. Or if the patent is too narrowly defined... the easier it is to sidestep infringement by only slightly changing one small variable.

If part of REDs patent included "Application of a noise reduction algorithm to all like colored pixels within a 3% luminosity range prior to wavelet compression", then you and I could do the exact same thing, but make it a 2.9% range, and perhaps get away with it.

So general enough to cover the "method and intent" without being so bread as to get it thrown out, but narrow enough to provide enough specificity to make it enforceable. A sometime precarious balancing act.

-sc

 

[Jim M.]

I believe what makes Redcode RAW unique and patentable is that Red figured out it was better to do the compression BEFORE debayering as opposed to debayering the sensor THEN compressing the file. This is what gave them the edge to put 4k files on to such small recording devices (Compact Flash, SSD) at 24f and greater while everybody else needed a refrigerator sized camera and recorder. The compression codec (jpeg2000, cineform, etc) isn't the unique part, it's WHERE the compression happens.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I believe what makes Redcode RAW unique and patentable is that Red figured out it was better to do the compression BEFORE debayering as opposed to debayering the sensor THEN compressing the file. This is what gave them the edge to put 4k files on to such small recording devices (Compact Flash, SSD) at 24f and greater while everybody else needed a refrigerator sized camera and recorder. The compression codec (jpeg2000, cineform, etc) isn't the unique part, it's WHERE the compression happens.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I am guessing that is what RED is trying to patent, yes. I wish they would clarify.

Except that there is prior art:

Cineform / Silicon Imaging did lossy compression of RAW with their Silicon Imaging camera. It was recording 1920 size images.

Canon and Nikon did lossy compression of RAW with their DSLRs. At lower FPS, of course.

My guess is that RED is trying to get around this because of all of the language in the patent saying "hey, we patent the idea of doing this at 2K and 23fps and above"

This is a much weaker argument, in my opinion.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jim M.]

I am guessing that is what RED is trying to patent, yes. I wish they would clarify.

Except that there is prior art:

Cineform / Silicon Imaging did lossy compression of RAW with their Silicon Imaging camera. It was recording 1920 size images.

Canon and Nikon did lossy compression of RAW with their DSLRs. At lower FPS, of course.

My guess is that RED is trying to get around this because of all of the language in the patent saying "hey, we patent the idea of doing this at 2K and 23fps and above"

This is a much weaker argument, in my opinion.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

But did they (SI, Nikon, Cannon, etc) compress the sensor signal BEFORE debayering or AFTER? To do compression BEFORE any debayering happens as I believe Red does, cuts down on a lot of overhead and allows them to record 4K size files fast and efficiently. They save the debayering for post on a more powerful computer system (Redcine-X).

Debayering a 2k/HD size sensor then compressing to a file, I suspect is not as hard doing it to a 4k/5k sensor.

I guess the question is -- is RAW defined as debayered or not?

 

[Bruce Allen]

But did they (SI, Nikon, Cannon, etc) compress the sensor signal BEFORE debayering or AFTER? To do compression BEFORE any debayering happens as I believe Red does, cuts down on a lot of overhead and allows them to record 4K size files fast and efficiently. They save the debayering for post on a more powerful computer system (Redcine-X).

In all cases, before.

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2006/04/cineform-raw-this-skunkworks-project.html

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jim M.]

In all cases, before.

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2006/04/cineform-raw-this-skunkworks-project.html

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

You may right. We'll just have to wait and see how just how raw the "raw sensor data" is and how it's defined.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Wasn't the original hang-up about building a Pro Res module (Meizler) in part about the time it took for RED to obtain licensing and clearances from Apple for Pro Res? RED pays Apple for access to proprietary codec technology. Why would that be any different than RED protecting itself from REDCODE copycats?

ProRes has patents on fundamental technology of *how* you compress an image. It's got specific techniques for optimized image compression. The question is whether or not RED is patenting the *whole idea* of compressing an image--not a novel way of doing it. I would love to give RED the benefit of the doubt and assume they're suing over a compression optimization but based on recent corporate behavior: e.g. Apple suing over 2 point tracking in relation to fingers to worry. And I don't think anyone has any Sony F55 footage yet... so I'm not sure how they could know already that it's using a specific patented technique.

Yes, I believe it's exactly about the process in which Red achieves the visually "lossless" images from REDCODE compression. Before Red created it, the competition said it was "impossible". After they did it, I guess the competition felt the need to use a "similar" method to record 4K (and above) since my educated guess is that it is freaking hard to accomplish.

We had visually lossless compression before RED came along. In fact in 2005 before RED existed, the DCI specs chose JPEG2000 because it delivers "visually lossless images".

REDCode in 2008 was still 'JPEG2000' compatible according to Graeme. It may no longer but it would be problematic for RED since they could no longer use off-the-shelf JP2k Chips. And the REDRocket would stop working since it's a Jp2k card.

 

[Zharmane Washington]

Im sure I will get slammed for this but whatever....I gotta call it like I see it......IMO this is a sign of weakness and a reaction made in fear. Red lowered their prices in half right before the Sony announcements stating it was due to getting better at manufacturing, then congratulated Sony on these cameras, and now are suing them, wants the cameras to not see the light of day and are stating it is hurting Red sales. The patent system is so broken its not even funny.

i agree it is like apple. Samsung is the new cool. i love what red is doing. if they consider and also stay cool they will stay on top but if they don't stay cool may lose. meaning sales and future buyers. its like old people with iphones not cool. Red must stay innovative. I cheer for.the under dog most of the time but not all the time.

 

[Robert Hart]

QUOTE:
----------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Jim M.But did they (SI, Nikon, Cannon, etc) compress the sensor signal BEFORE debayering or AFTER? To do compression BEFORE any debayering happens as I believe Red does, cuts down on a lot of overhead and allows them to record 4K size files fast and efficiently. They save the debayering for post on a more powerful computer system (Redcine-X).

----------------------------------------

I could be barking at the moon in my following comment. My understanding of the SI2K camera-recorder is that a quick in-system debayer happens for recorder-monitor and playback purposes but that a higher quality debayer happens in the post process from an original non-debayered file. This implies that the "RAW" recording is not debayered before Cineform compression.

 

[Bill Anderson]

For some of us this boils down to trusting the instincts of a man who has generously shown time and time again that he is in this business for the betterment of it, and not for the business of it. We don't need to look any farther than that. Jim feels he's been wronged to some degree, that's good enough for this cowboy.


On a tangent, I always liked the old Norse belief that the darker forces would in the end prevail, and that it was our lot in life to behave in a manner that would delay that day for as long as possible. Maybe a tad dark for contemporary attitudes, but the longer I live, the more I believe that it is not a bad point of departure.

 

[Elsie N]

It seems many who object to RED defending their patent are non-camera owners or SONY camera owners. It makes sense that most RED camera owners support RED's defense of their patent. After all, every camera RED sells, the profits go either to pay employees or fund more R & D. It also frees them up to drop the prices on their cameras which no other company does that I'm aware of. They just release a new model at a higher price.

Anyone saying that RED is stifling advancement in making movies is not seeing the big picture, IMO. I've heard posters time and again complain that SONY and other pre-RED camera companies had superior camera expertise that they held back so they could release the technology they had stored as a new camera, and therefore would empty their customer's pockets again if they wanted to stay current.

I've been vigorously defending RED in different threads because I've never been better treated by a company. So selfishly, I want RED to succeed and keep my cameras superior to those knock-offs of my camera company's superior technology.

EDIT: And this may sound harsh but if SONY is proven to willfully have implemented RED's IP, as opposed to not explicitly knowing they were doing so, I hope their cameras do have to be destroyed. If you have a SONY camera I'm sure SONY will reimburse you for your camera that is to be scrapped and then you can buy the real deal... A dragon Epic!

 

[Björn Benckert]

Im no lawyer but to me the price drop might be a tactical action. In court it will be quite easy to say, sony stole our IP and pushed our prices to half... Such things matter when deciding how much the settlement for the damage should be.