Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Someone must have taken apart a new camera

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like these little fist fights... Fun to watch.

If Sony are stealing info or infringing copyrights... then why not give them a little upper cut.

Apple did it to Samsung...

Kodak made a shit load of money with there lawsuits against others... and still is.

Theft is theft...
 
Jim has stated that he has never lost a lawsuit in regards to all the patents he holds. This will be an interesting fight. He wouldn't have shot a lawsuit Sony's way if he didn't have a case he's built up with his lawyers.
 
Justin Kirchhoff said:
Jim has stated that he has never lost a lawsuit in regards to all the patents he holds. This will be an interesting fight. He wouldn't have shot a lawsuit Sony's way if he didn't have a case he's built up with his lawyers.
Click to expand...

agree...

I wouldn't call Jim stupid in that arena.
 
QUOTE:

---------------------------------------------------
It seems like RED is saying that the Silicon Imaging cameras aren't valid because they were 1920 compressed RAW... and RED is somehow different because it can do > 2048 RAW. I don't see the point of 128 pixels. It certainly doesn't make much of a different for film out.
---------------------------------------------------

I understand the original SI camera was identified as the SI1.9 or something like. The production SI2K camera I have counts 2048 x 1152 pixels.

Did RED get into some sort of brawl with Cineform over wavelet compression? Since the SI2K came first and used the Cineform codec, I imagine that there might not be much of an argument there. I thought they were relative friends. Rob Lohman I think worked on both projects. Exciting and anticipatory times then, almost a Christmas-as-a-seven-year-old vibe at the time. Alas, a few of us don't taste the curry stew as brightly as we used to.
 
Phil Holland said:
The patents are labeled as "Video Camera", the underlying technology referenced there-within is obviously what this is about.
Click to expand...

A patent office that allows something as broad as "Video Camera" to be patented in the first place is the issue in my eyes.
I certainly don't blame RED for trying to get such things patented, though I have my opinions on how they use them that will not be said.

These broad patents and the trolling that ensues across the board (and in the tech sector especially) really need to be addressed. They stifle innovation.
 
Paul Schneider said:
A patent office that allows something as broad as "Video Camera" to be patented in the first place is the issue in my eyes.
I certainly don't blame RED for trying to get such things patented, though I have my opinions on how they use them that will not be said.

These broad patents and the trolling that ensues across the board (and in the tech sector especially) really need to be addressed. They stifle innovation.
Click to expand...




does RED pay a licensing fee to 24p LLC?
U.S. Patent 53355013


i just saw on red wiki that they sued 24p.. who has had patent rights on 24p acquisition since 1994
 
Not sure this is the same as losing. Sounds like they may have settled out of court.

Peter Arnold said:
Jim Jannard said here on the forum that he never lost a single law suit just when he sued ARRI.

Well ... There is a first for everything, isn't there?

Peter
Click to expand...
 
Paul Schneider said:
A patent office that allows something as broad as "Video Camera" to be patented in the first place is the issue in my eyes.
I certainly don't blame RED for trying to get such things patented, though I have my opinions on how they use them that will not be said.

These broad patents and the trolling that ensues across the board (and in the tech sector especially) really need to be addressed. They stifle innovation.
Click to expand...

I don't think the patents are for a Video Camera, just that what the patents are for, apply to video cameras, so if the same tech was put into a TV/Boat etc. that would be okay.

I might be wrong though, not a legal wiz by any stretch!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Sony really did rip off some unique RED tech. Perhaps RED is just asserting their patent to keep it strong. That's between Jim and his counsel.

What I am more concerned about as an avowed 4K wonk, is that the two strongest current advocates of 4K/UHD development keep their focus on building the ecosystem. Authoring tools, codecs, distribution infrastructure, connectivity, etc all need development effort and support. Hopefully the legal wrangling won't do any collateral damage.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Perhaps Sony really did rip off some unique RED tech. Perhaps RED is just asserting their patent to keep it strong. That's between Jim and his counsel.

What I am more concerned about as an avowed 4K wonk, is that the two strongest current advocates of 4K/UHD development keep their focus on building the ecosystem. Authoring tools, codecs, distribution infrastructure, connectivity, etc all need development effort and support. Hopefully the legal wrangling won't do any collateral damage.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'll bet it is settled out of court.
 
I noticed a patent application in the names of Graeme and Jim, regarding compression.

It seems red rearrange the pixels in the raw image such that the red, green, blue channels are seperated before compression, which helps with compression (a raw image in its original form doesn't compress that well..)

..my bet is sony are also re-arranging pixels before compression, and using an existing compression technology .. and Red don't like it!

.. they want to have the best codec, especially since its quite proprietory

..as for silicon imaging camera.. they get their codec from cineform, which is now go-pro..

thats my guess
 
Bill Sepaniak said:
You are absolutely correct. The patents in question do not relate to the patenting of a video camera, per se. If you read the Abstracts of the patents that form the basis of the lawsuit you will see that RED is claiming: an infringement relating to the transformation of blue and red image date in a maner that enhances the compressability of the data, that allows the data to be compressed and stored, that allows a user to reconstruct the red and blue data to obtain the original raw data for a modified version of the original raw data that is visually lossless when demosaiced, and that allows the processing of the data such that the green image elements of the data are demosaiced first and then the red and blue elements are reconstructed based upon the values of the demosaiced green data.
Click to expand...
Gee, I could've sworn that Bryce Bayer of Kodak invented Bayer filtering and patented it through Kodak back in 1976.

...an infringement relating to emodiments to a video camera configured to capture, compress and store image data in memory at a rate of at least 23 frames a second; the image data can then be mosaiced and compressed, and the mosaiced image data may remain substantially visually lossless upon decompression and demosaicing (Patent No. 8,358,357)...
Click to expand...
To me, this is all tied around JPEG2000 compression, which is licensed by the JPEG group (and there are patents involved with this, too). I don't see how this case can hold up.

Justin Kirchhoff said:
Jim has stated that he has never lost a lawsuit in regards to all the patents he holds.
Click to expand...
There are always cases that get settled, cases that get dropped, and cases that get thrown out of court. Technically, you don't "lose" those. In this case, there's always the fourth possibility: a case that takes years and years to wind its way through the legal system. Seven years is a pretty good estimate as to what it takes to get a patent-infringement case to court, especially in America. And in seven years, I bet there'll be a whole different landscape in motion picture cameras.
 
Paul Schneider said:
A patent office that allows something as broad as "Video Camera" to be patented in the first place is the issue in my eyes.
I certainly don't blame RED for trying to get such things patented, though I have my opinions on how they use them that will not be said.

These broad patents and the trolling that ensues across the board (and in the tech sector especially) really need to be addressed. They stifle innovation.
Click to expand...

Paul,

They have to call it something, don't they? If you patent a new blender are you going to call it a "powered rotational mixing and cutting device?"
 
I was one of the few who predicted RED would lose the Arri case. And I guess I'm going to double down.

I can't find anything non-obvious and patentable in those patents. And before someone jumps down my throat with "But they wouldn't accept it if it wasn't patentable!" ... tell that to the people who patented the shopping cart for an online store. Tons of useless patents get accepted every day. RED had to sue because that's your only option or else see your patent ignored. Sony I assume will win and is perfectly fine with being sued since it'll invalidate a patent floating out there that's ridiculous. And the world will go on, RED cameras slightly more expensive due to the legal filings but otherwise pretty much the same as always.

Unless I'm missing something in those patents the only thing I see being claimed is "We made a camera with 104 more horizontal pixels." Wooopideedoo. Who would have thought of making a camera with 104+ more pixels!? What an innovation! If it's more specifically related to their debayer technology I'm sure Sony will just tweak their debayer. What is strange though is that Sony is getting picked out while Arri clearly has a 3k RAW camera as well. Maybe the fact that Sony is finally bothering with jpeg2000 got the attention of RED's lawyers.
 
Marc and Gavin, I believe the uniqueness is that Red is compressing a mosaiced image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top