FS7: Is internal RAW comng to the FS7 and fs5?

Yes they do, they tried suing Sony when the F5/F55 were announced and if I recall it came down to the AXS-R5 being external, not "internal" as was specified on U.S. patents filed by RED.

I don't believe there will ever be any RAW internal on the FS5 or FS7.
 
But patents and law suits aside, with 64GB or 128GB cards you'd only get 4 to 8 minutes of runtime so I'm more thinking this is just a rumour at this point and nothing more.
 
Depends how compressed I guess, but 8:1 at 4k HD used to get me 38mins or similar on a 64Gb card.

Either way, Sony right now are a company that need to get their basics right before they try to get involved with this sort of thing.
 
IIRC, 3:1 4K Raw is ~ 1 TB/hr, which would make 6:1 ~ 500 GB/hr, allowing for ~ 15 minutes onto a 128 GB card.

Those should be reasonable targets (and, if released, will save Sony quit a bit on the ProRes licensing fees, since the same codec at different compression rates can cover a lot of cameras in their lineup).
 
In fairness, when Red were doing internal raw and 4k everyone spoke like they were lunatics. It's only now there is a demand for it people find it weird.
 
Sony's current 16-bit RAW is 53 minutes for 512GB, which means 13.25 minutes on 128GB at the same compression. I figure if they go for something like 9:1 you'd be getting 40 minutes on a card, and the data rate would only be 320mbps or 40 MB/s which is quite manageable.

Sony may likely go 12-bit internal reducing the data rate and increasing the recording time. Who know's what's up their sleeve.

But until they address any issues with 12-bit the camera is at best yielding 12 usable stops when recording RAW internally.


alohype said:
Patent for internal raw?? SERIOUSLY?! I didn't knew that but it's a little bit strange. It's like a patent for hot water.
Click to expand...

Yep. You can read them online. I have.

They basically patented the ability to record RAW bayer sensor pattern images, but at a rate of no less than "24 frames per second". Obviously bayer pattern existed long before RED and some DSLR's probably had a burst mode of 5-10 frames per second. Fun fact: RED's idea actually came from the inventor of Andremedia ReelStream whom RED bought out and then we never heard from Andremedia ReelStream again.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Yep. You can read them online. I have.

They basically patented the ability to record RAW bayer sensor pattern images, but at a rate of no less than "24 frames per second". Obviously bayer pattern existed long before RED and some DSLR's probably had a burst mode of 5-10 frames per second. Fun fact: RED's idea actually came from the inventor of Andremedia ReelStream whom RED bought out and then we never heard from Andremedia ReelStream again.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean that BM and Arri pay RED a patent royalty for internal RAW recording?
 
IMHO, Sony would be better upping the bitrates of their XAVC codecs then I doubt too many people would be bothered with RAW.
 
Harry Lime said:
So, does that mean that BM and Arri pay RED a patent royalty for internal RAW recording?
Click to expand...

Who knows. Only their lawyers.

But DNG according to the internet is "Adobe's proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type" so it wouldn't really be an issue.

Canon implemented their RAW a bit different, and I have no clue what ARRI did, but perhaps ARRI can afford to licence whatever they want from RED if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Harry Lime said:
So, does that mean that BM and Arri pay RED a patent royalty for internal RAW recording?
Click to expand...

Itll depend of the specifics of how BM and Arri do their recording and whether that impinges on the RED patent. There's several ways to skin a cat and there may be enough wriggle room to circumvent a patent. Would it be possible to convert RAW data to another intermediate format, compress it so technically it's not RAW data being compressed but retains all the RAW goodness?
 
Nirv said:
Itll depend of the specifics of how BM and Arri do their recording and whether that impinges on the RED patent. There's several ways to skin a cat and there may be enough wriggle room to circumvent a patent. Would it be possible to convert RAW data to another intermediate format, compress it so technically it's not RAW data being compressed but retains all the RAW goodness?
Click to expand...

Could be. I've never considered RedCode a true RAW format since it's wavelet compressed. Supposedly it's licensed Cineform.
 
Anyone got a link to that patent?
I don't believe that even the US patent office is stupid enough to grant a patent for internal raw video recording; there surely must be more included in the application?
 
Harry Lime said:
Could be. I've never considered RedCode a true RAW format since it's wavelet compressed. Supposedly it's licensed Cineform.
Click to expand...

As far as I remember that isn't the case, but rather both Cineform and Redcode made use of Jpeg2000 compression in their files and so Cineform was exempt from the patent exclusions.

It's been a while...
 
cpc said:
Anyone got a link to that patent?
I don't believe that even the US patent office is stupid enough to grant a patent for internal raw video recording; there surely must be more included in the application?
Click to expand...

there was enough merit in the patent to force Sony to provide an external compressed RAW solution.

All sorts of BS gets patented, Amazon patented white backgrounds for product photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top