Nikon Z9 update to get Internal 12 bit N-Raw, 8.3K 60 FPS
- Thread starter Tom Roper
- Start date
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Jarred Land said that the lawsuit was never Apple vs Red, but instead was Apple + Red. Seems more like a coordinated effort to more or less test & strengthen the boundaries of Red's patent than a full on patent war.
Nikon isn't pulling punches and is claiming that the patent is invalid because it was granted due to deception.
It seems plausible that now that mobile hardware is produced in the hundreds of millions of units that can easily process & manage the thermals of high-bit high resolution video (including 'RAW'); it creates a situation where multiple much larger corporations now view RED's RAW patents as enough of a nuisance to want them invalidated. That's the exact situation where a US court would make that kind of finding and could explain Nikon's more strident response.
Intel, Qualcomm, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia align with the Japanese electronics producers in this regard. Red's granting of the patents (at the time) was seen as stupid and cartoonishly broad. And of course all users want them done away with, I'd imagine even RED shooters.
Intel, Qualcomm, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia align with the Japanese electronics producers in this regard. Red's granting of the patents (at the time) was seen as stupid and cartoonishly broad. And of course all users want them done away with, I'd imagine even RED shooters.
NorBro
Major Contributor
By the time this would be over and *if* it's overturned and others start to make and ship cameras with internal RAW that's just as great as REDCODE - and it's supported by all major NLEs - it might be close to 2028 when the patents are set to expire...so maybe they'll just delay the battle as long as possible.
hojomo;n5695513 said:
Actually, the advances in hardware - namely, the recording bit rate of the progressively improving SD=>CFast=>CFexpress cards - made the Compressed Raw less necessary. It's beneficial, however, due to the much higher resolution of the sensors - SD=>HD=>4K=>6K=>8K - that evolved along the same path. Z9 is 8K, so it wants to have a commensurate codec and Nikon has the funds (i.e., Mitsubishi money) to challenge Red.
It's open to the debate whether Apple's effort to fight this patent was a semi-empty gesture anyway.
It's also open to the debate why Nikon is doing it. It licenses H265 and ProRes and could just as easily offer a compressed 12-bit video codec for its highest end users or a heavily oversampled 8K-into-4K or ProRes 4444 HQ that is often used on pro sets. At some point, there's not much upside left in Raw.
jonpais
Well-known member
Sources? Citations? Align in what regard exactly?
Last edited:
jonpais
Well-known member
Concerning the ‘obviousness’ of REDCODE RAW today, when pretty much all professional cinema cameras use Bayer sensors - prior to the RED ONE, one chip was considered consumer and subpar (and even after its release, some in the forums were still attempting to prove its inferiority in one way or another) while 3-chip was for professional cameras. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that debayering in post would never have occurred to engineers manufacturing cameras that don’t even use Bayer sensors. As for the allegation above that RED’s patent was considered ‘stupid and cartoonishly broad’ at the time of the RED ONE’s release, I can’t recall a single contemporaneous discussion about RED’s patent, negative or positive. Prior to the Red One, affordable 4K compressed RAW was considered science fiction and not a few called Jannard a snake oil salesman when preorders were being taken for the revolutionary RED ONE. It took a full six years before anyone even challenged RED’s patent (Sony). There can be no denying that RED’s impact on the film industry was huge. I also read everywhere that Nikon’s patented RAW for their still cameras predates that of REDCODE RAW, so I find it mildly amusing that Nikon outsources both of their RAW codecs rather than making them in house.
Last edited:
This might well be the end result. I think the value to the companies I mentioned is almost entirely for marketing their devices and platforms. People who shoot video professionally or freelance almost never have a need to use actual RAW except in the most limited of cases. It's the mystique that surrounds it that is valuable to the customers of those corps....for a few more years.
Obviously we have been/are going through the transition where major blocks of content creation is done by the masses. The most ambitious of those are modeling their practices on poorly-informed ideas about how to produce a high-quality production. You see this all the time in the low end of the 'professional' B2B market.
ProRes RAW was half-baked - now somewhat useful depending on camera/software - but if you look at how Apple is marketing it to iPhone users you would get more of a sense of why I think doing away with outdated RAW patents would be useful to companies with trillions of dollars selling everyone the idea they are the next Fincher
I totally agree, there is little practical use in RAW. The only use I have had for it (aside from personal VFX) is for video for material analysis for a manufacturing firm.
I was also thrown by Nikon's motivation to throw money at this *now*. I think it is for the marketing benefit while trying to break into the video market. Nikon is only now gaining traction because they are offering more serious hybrid cameras. Selling in-body RAW along with the other aspects of Z9 got them priceless word of mouth. Whether it gives them a more sustainable position in the market we will see.
Litigating RED this time around at least puts Nikon and video in the same sentence any time it's mentioned.
Last edited:
jonpais
Well-known member
There’s nothing ‘half-baked’ about ProRes RAW at all. In a comparison between PRR, BRAW and the native log of the S1H, Adam Wilt remarks that, for the utmost in flexibility, either RAW format was preferable to recording log internally.
”Both RAW formats provided the normal benefits of RAW recording, allowing a wider range of exposure and color adjustments in post than log- or gamma-encoded captures. Both offered the same headroom and the same flexibility when pushed to extremes. Both formats in their high-quality modes capture images free from visible compression artifacts. ”
Wilt goes on to say that correcting color balance was more straightforward with RAW:
”RAW allows a more transparent correction simply by adjusting the RAW file’s color temperature; pushing the log image around the same way doesn't affect all colors equally.”
At the time of the announcement of ProRes RAW, John Brawley was pretty optimistic about its future:
”It’s actually great. I’d say 90% of TV drama is shot ProRes. Now we get RAW controls inside of ProRes.”
He continued, imagining how great it would be if Arri were to adopt the format, noting:
”I can’t imagine the Alexa would have been as successful a camera without ProRes, especially in the early days.”
Later on, he expressed his joy that Olympus had implemented PRR, tweeting:
”This is a pretty cool direction, especially after the recent doom and gloom. @getolympus gets some decent video codec support in the form of ProRes RAW.”
Elsewhere, he corrects the facts when in one of the forums, someone refers to ProRes RAW (as well as a few other RAW formats) as “fake proprietary RAWs”.
Currently, over thirty cameras made by the major Japanese and Chinese manufacturers support PRR, including Canon, Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus, Z-Cam, Fuji and DJI as well as the German manufacturer Leica. Naturally, I’d be happy to see support for it in Resolve, but that in no way diminishes ProRes RAW as a viable format.
I also fail to understand how seeing two words together in a lawsuit somehow burnishes either’s reputation. In fact, I can think of a lot of instances where seeing two words together has had the exact opposite effect.
”Both RAW formats provided the normal benefits of RAW recording, allowing a wider range of exposure and color adjustments in post than log- or gamma-encoded captures. Both offered the same headroom and the same flexibility when pushed to extremes. Both formats in their high-quality modes capture images free from visible compression artifacts. ”
Wilt goes on to say that correcting color balance was more straightforward with RAW:
”RAW allows a more transparent correction simply by adjusting the RAW file’s color temperature; pushing the log image around the same way doesn't affect all colors equally.”
At the time of the announcement of ProRes RAW, John Brawley was pretty optimistic about its future:
”It’s actually great. I’d say 90% of TV drama is shot ProRes. Now we get RAW controls inside of ProRes.”
He continued, imagining how great it would be if Arri were to adopt the format, noting:
”I can’t imagine the Alexa would have been as successful a camera without ProRes, especially in the early days.”
Later on, he expressed his joy that Olympus had implemented PRR, tweeting:
”This is a pretty cool direction, especially after the recent doom and gloom. @getolympus gets some decent video codec support in the form of ProRes RAW.”
Elsewhere, he corrects the facts when in one of the forums, someone refers to ProRes RAW (as well as a few other RAW formats) as “fake proprietary RAWs”.
Currently, over thirty cameras made by the major Japanese and Chinese manufacturers support PRR, including Canon, Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus, Z-Cam, Fuji and DJI as well as the German manufacturer Leica. Naturally, I’d be happy to see support for it in Resolve, but that in no way diminishes ProRes RAW as a viable format.
I also fail to understand how seeing two words together in a lawsuit somehow burnishes either’s reputation. In fact, I can think of a lot of instances where seeing two words together has had the exact opposite effect.
Last edited:
Except that you can't use it without resorting to an external recorder, that is only made by one single company.
That's just a no go for any true pro. No one wants an external recorder. Great for those with mirrorless cameras that want to play in the raw sandbox. I really hope Nikon can overturn this. The Z9 is just a great camera...
RED will find a way to extend it. This is common in companies that use IP like this.
It's common in Pharma to extend patents by changing something simple like how it's delivered to the patient and get a new patent. I think RED are already trying this. https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/01/red-...ompressed-raw/
"The current raw compression patents owned by RED Digital Cinema run till 2028. However, this one will last until 2037. Thus, expect a solid amount of lawsuits initiated by other camera manufacturers who are eager to implement internal compressed raw capabilities in their cameras."
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yeah, they have quite a bit, one can never say they are not diligent, ha... https://www.red.com/legal/patent
We'll see what happens but I would first bet on them selling or being acquired (if open to it) before/around 2028 - when the tech world will be even more drastically different - before anything else.
Besides, whether companies are paying licensing fees and/or finding loopholes, everyone has some type of internal RAW camera these days...Blackmagic, Canon, Sony Venice, Z CAM, Kinefinity (although I think they also got sued by RED at some point and removed it or will be removing it, IDK).
I'm most interested in seeing what Apple does with ProRes RAW...that's really the big one. [They also had a thing with RED about 5 years ago, but it was way too early and they probably knew it wasn't worth pushing it yet after they lost.]
We'll see what happens but I would first bet on them selling or being acquired (if open to it) before/around 2028 - when the tech world will be even more drastically different - before anything else.
Besides, whether companies are paying licensing fees and/or finding loopholes, everyone has some type of internal RAW camera these days...Blackmagic, Canon, Sony Venice, Z CAM, Kinefinity (although I think they also got sued by RED at some point and removed it or will be removing it, IDK).
I'm most interested in seeing what Apple does with ProRes RAW...that's really the big one. [They also had a thing with RED about 5 years ago, but it was way too early and they probably knew it wasn't worth pushing it yet after they lost.]
jonpais
Well-known member
That is demonstrably false. The OG Sony Venice requires the use of an external recorder, the AXS-R7, to record 16-bit X-OCN, which has not prevented some of the the most gifted cinematographers in the world from using what is one of the greatest cinema cameras to make countless award-winning episodic shows and movies, including Avatar: The Way of Water, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Top Gun: Maverick. Had ARRI or Sony come up with internal compressed RAW before RED, you can bet they would have also patented it; if you doubt that, recall that up until the release of the Venice 2 and Alexa 35, licenses for features we take for granted today, like RAW, HFR, anamorphic and FF cost many thousands of dollars; and even now, proprietary media and readers for their newest cameras cost a fortune, whereas RED has never charged a dime for any of those features and they no longer require proprietary media. I suppose the word ‘great’ is subjective, since the Z9, like the R5 C, only records a pitiful 10 stops of dynamic range in RAW (performance Cinema 5D called miserable nearly a decade ago when reviewing the Samsung NX1, but their standards have long since declined), which is well below the minimum requirements of the BBC and Sky UK (the UK’s largest pay-TV broadcaster) for shooting HDR content and 3+ stops less than traditional photochemical film. Internally recorded or no, N-RAW is highly unlikely to ever find favor with the imaginary ‘true pros’ you talk about.
Last edited:
Not really. Venice has done some quality high profile jobs for sure, but mostly because it does things others can't, like the Rialto mode and the dual ISO. It's Sony' most successful camera by far, but it's not exactly the market leader. Sony's implementation of an external recorder is also very good, it's modular at least. No real clunky cables or nova arms. Higher end shows are choosing it despite being forced to use an external recorder with it, even if it's well integrated. Now they don't have to with Venice 2 either.
I'm talking about the kind of external recorders that record PRR. They are clunky, require their own power, a reliable connection the camera via external cables and are currently only poorly made by a single totally corrupt company. It's such a clumsy way to record anything which is why no real production uses them.
They're fine for mirrorless camera users like yourself. But you're never going to see them used on a real movie or show.
At least if they could get past RED's suit, then having it record internally on a camera like the Z9 makes them much more useful. Love having a Z9 that can shoot PRR. Wouldn't use a Z9 that had to have some external box recorder that was in no way integrated and relied on a consumer connection. What's the point of that?
I think they have to get away from Atomos. It's a dead format until they can get cameras recording it internally and that's going to come down to RED allowing them, being defeated in the patent, or individual companies coming to an arrangement with RED.
Apple could win with PRR, but I don't understand why they didn't sort this out before they went and launched an origination codec that can't be used in-camera.
Last edited:
jonpais
Well-known member
Yes, really. When it comes to feature films, the Sony Venice is without question among the most popular cameras, right behind ARRI and alongside Panavision at Sundance, Cannes, the Oscars and other prestigious international film festivals and it is also incredibly popular among DPs for shooting episodic TV for Netflix and other streaming service providers. Since you are operating in an alternate reality, we are finished discussing this any further as far as I’m concerned.
Last edited:
I did acknowledge that it has been popular. It is not the most popular by far. And no one is choosing it because it has an external recorder. It is well behind Arri by at least 2:1.
And that has nothing to do with it having a well integrated external recorder either.
I think you get all your information from selective Google search, the often wrongly listed IMDB credits and forums. I think that is your reality. But that is not how real users feel about external recorders. That is certainly not why anyone choosing Venice is making that choice. No one wants to use an external recorder. There is no upside and only downsides. I look forward to you bending yourself in a knot to find a notable DP quoting how much they love an external recorder...I am lucky you're not talking to me anymore.
Last edited: