Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. Collapse Details
    Apple vs Red - Apple loses 1st round... interesting?
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    746
    Default


    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member Mike Krumlauf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    OG from Chicago. Currently in Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,331
    Default
    Well good for them I guess.... I honestly side with Apple and believe they were sharks but thats just me.
    Mike Krumlauf
    JSAV A/V Technician
    Denver Tech Center

    GEAR
    _________________________________
    Panavised Sony F23 / SRW1-SRPC1 Recorder
    Fujinon XA16x8A HD Zoom Lens B4
    Chrosziel MB 450-01
    Apple Mac Pro 8 Core 2008 W/ AJA Kona 3 Dual-Link 4:4:4 Capture Card
    Apple Macbook Pro 15-inch 2007
    Final Cut Studio 3


    0 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,435
    Default
    If small innovative companies like Red can’t protect their patents from huge corporate raiders like Apple, there would be far less disruptive innovation.


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,330
    Default
    Yeah right a billionaire who patent trolls is being raided. Okay.

    Anyway the patent office just gave Apple a roadmap on what needs to be clarified if they want to resubmit their patent issue. I hope they do.


    2 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,435
    Default
    Patent trolls don’t make anything. They just buy up patents and sit on them hoping for a payday.

    Red’s patents go the heart of their redcode raw codec and compression processes used in every camera they make and in the post processing software supporting them. Their engineers developed and perfected the sensors, custom circuitry, firmware and software in house for this. They rightfully own it.

    The process was unique and detailed enough to be awarded multiple patents and those patents have withstood every challenge so far. The process covers compressing and recovering raw Bayer sensor data in a visually lossless file format for moving images. Something no video camera had done before Red.
    The only other raw process even remotely similar is compressed CDNG, an open standard Huffman DCT TIFF compression. Red uses wavelet compression.
    It doesn’t affect compression of debayered video files in common use. Canon Rawlite and Black Magic’s Braw claim a “partial” debayer before compression, so their codecs are not true Bayer raw compression.
    Last edited by Razz16mm; 11-10-2019 at 10:27 AM.


    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,197
    Default
    Red might be better served to start licensing its patents because, while it may end up winning the legal decisions, they're likely to end up losing the commercial fight.


    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,435
    Default
    Apple’s challenge did not even qualify to proceed to trial. It was rejected by the patent office examiners.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of the Pecos
    Posts
    2,320
    Default
    Which indicates what about Apple's objectives. Their staff lives with the patent office having filed over 2200 in about a year. So they know exactly what will or will not work at the patent office and in court.
    Samsung filed 10,000 patents in 18 months. You've got to wonder what kind of mess there is at the patent office with big technology companies filing thousands of patents each year.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Posts
    2,284
    Default
    I think REDCODE may be a unique way of recording, but to hold back all other forms of internal raw recording is, in my opinion, over reaching. DNG and its offshoot of CDNG might have predated RED, and certainly Canon RAW from stills cameras lead the way a long time ago and it is a logical progression to move something similar forward to motion images. Apparently that logic doesn't stand up in court though, or this would have been over many years ago. I still believe that motion raw is an obvious continuance of still based raw.


    6 out of 6 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    438
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg_E View Post
    I think REDCODE may be a unique way of recording,
    Cineform ?

    Pretty sure it also pre-dates REDCODE ? That’s my memory.

    JB
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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