Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,735
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Rumours were always that REDCODE was licensed / a version of Cineform.

    My reading of their patent claim when they went after Sony was they claim compressed RAW and the way they handle the YUV RGB transforms (different compression schemes for the Y and UV)

    JB
    Do you have a link to that patent?

    Raw has only a single plane of Bayer pattern RGB pixels. Raw is compressed in RGB Bayer form (e.g. RGGB), then in post is de-Bayered to per pixel RGB (via complex interpolation) after which a simple matrix transform converts pixels to YUV so UV (chroma: color) can store 1/2 (422) or 1/4 (420) color resolution where Y (luma) is stored full resolution (there are other (rarely used) variations as well).

    It’s not clear how any of that prior art would be related to a camera patent for a company whose codec is wavelet compressed raw (no YUV pixels for any raw formats).


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,735
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Postmaster View Post
    It's a shame that Cineform never got more traction.
    With it's RGB/YUV and raw flavors, and pretty low computing needs, it would be an ideal codec for pretty much anything.
    Cineform software was a bit buggy. Now that GoPro has open sourced it, it’s pretty reliable. Maybe it will get more traction now? (Still a few years perhaps before AI deconstruction/reconstruction (not a form of compression) hits the market (making traditional compression obsolete)).

    A bigger question is why not more wavelet use- camera hardware was cheaper to produce for DCT perhaps? DCT is still better for interframe/IPB (frame interpolation) compression.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,381
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Rumours were always that REDCODE was licensed / a version of Cineform.

    My reading of their patent claim when they went after Sony was they claim compressed RAW and the way they handle the YUV RGB transforms (different compression schemes for the Y and UV)

    JB
    Nope.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Posts
    2,005
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    Cineform software was a bit buggy. Now that GoPro has open sourced it, it’s pretty reliable. Maybe it will get more traction now? (Still a few years perhaps before AI deconstruction/reconstruction (not a form of compression) hits the market (making traditional compression obsolete)).

    A bigger question is why not more wavelet use- camera hardware was cheaper to produce for DCT perhaps? DCT is still better for interframe/IPB (frame interpolation) compression.
    I read the Cineform open source as being free to use in software, but must be licensed if you put it in a camera, which is probably what caused BMD to drop CDNG (just speculation). I think I remember something from Adobe's site that said software=ok, hardware=license but I could be wrong.

    As far as wavelet vs DCT, there aren't many ASICs made that use the wavelet compression, just plenty of MCU and ASIC designs have DCT engines built in. Not sure why, but I'm guessing licensing and compatibility with the rest of the world. No sens in recording to Cineform if the cell phones can't play it (poor example, but there you go).


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,735
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_E View Post
    I read the Cineform open source as being free to use in software, but must be licensed if you put it in a camera, which is probably what caused BMD to drop CDNG (just speculation). I think I remember something from Adobe's site that said software=ok, hardware=license but I could be wrong.

    As far as wavelet vs DCT, there aren't many ASICs made that use the wavelet compression, just plenty of MCU and ASIC designs have DCT engines built in. Not sure why, but I'm guessing licensing and compatibility with the rest of the world. No sens in recording to Cineform if the cell phones can't play it (poor example, but there you go).
    Earlier in this thread I posted a section from the software license: the software itself is free (worldwide and perpetual). If there's a patent for use in cameras that blocks wavelets, it would be interesting to see the specific patent.

    As for hardware and cost (profit): it could be memory related too. Wavelets are frame based which is comparatively a lot more memory than required for DCT working on much smaller macroblocks, so perhaps that was part of the issue? Now memory is relatively cheap and very powerful general purpose hardware is fairly low energy (multicore CPUs, GPUs, and vector processors).

    I'm confident an iPhone X or later (or similar Android) can capture and play back wavelet compression. The question is, are there enough users in that market that would want raw video? For 99.99% of typical cellphone users, H.264/H.265 videos are plenty good and the comparatively tiny file sizes are more valuable than improved image quality and tweaking ability in post: most don't do any post work at all, except perhaps adding a filter on IG etc.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Posts
    2,005
    Default
    Don't need RAW to make it popular, just higher compression with better playback and fewer artifacts would be enough to push wavelet into phones.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,735
    Default
    Wavelet (currently) only works as ALL-I / intraframe (no interframe interpolation), so it cannot compete with H.264 and H.265 (about 2x more efficient that H.264) doing IPB (what most phones use) for quality+efficiency. 10-bit YUV (where UV is more compressed) wavelet is about 2x more efficient than ProRes 422 10-bit; haven't seen that on a phone yet- doesn't appear even Filmic Pro supports ALL-I H.26x? (only high bitrate H.26x from looking at the menu).


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

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