Sony now suing RED!

JMtheDP said:
RED have basically put themselves in an awkward position.

Stay with their unusual, RAW-only, "DSMC" modular philosophy and lose out on the market share that NEEDS direct-to-edit, regular sized cameras etc.
Click to expand...

1st of all, with the prevalence of more and more NLEs having the ability to edit RAW natively, there isnt one thing "awkward" about the whole RAW workflow. I can edit 5k natively on my laptop, today. If it was so "akward" than why has the new Sony camera systems, which are great, embraced it?

Secondly, i'd wait and see what kind of ProRes/Avid DNxHD module Red may come out with on Monday. Even if they don't, there are a TON of third parties making their own that work very well with the Scarlet/Epic right now. Options are good.


Go for the F3 crowd with something a bit more user-friendly than the scarlet, but abandon their core philosophy.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "user friendly" about the F3 menu system, and comparing it to the Scarlet is ridiculous. I've had my wife, who knows nothing about cameras, change the iso, redcode and audio levels on my Epic after 10 seconds of instruction.

If you can navigate an ipad, you can get into any camera setting on a Red.

TBH, "Obsolescence obsolete" was a bit of a joke from the off. RED M-X for $4,500 battle tested? I know a few RED owners who were a bit upset at that...
Click to expand...

And i know a bunch more who were ecstatic to get the full $17.5k trade in value for their Red one towards the new Epic several YEARS after hey bought one.

Who else does that?
 
I'm still scratching my head at the "RED playing catchup" bits every throws into these discussions...

Has another camera come out that lets you record 5k RAW (at 120fps) to cards the media the size of an iPhone in a DSLR sized body that you can then edit on a laptop? And does it cost $20,000?
 
Last edited:
Well.. it isn't really about wether or not you can edit raw natively.... even if you could, it would still be faster working with internal footage. And why wouldn't you want faster when you can get something as workable as what the new Fs are delivering if you don't exactly need to do vfx and so on.
To be honest, most of the times I see something "graded" that is not a feature, I don't understand why the heck people didn't just work with a lesser codec because the shots didn't really warrant raw. Why not try to finish the look in-camera?

People shoot RED because they like the look... I refuse to believe that they NEED the raw codec to "grade". (again... talking non-feature here)
 
Michael Schrengohst said:
[h=1]Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple in Samsung Patent Case[/h]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/t...ision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html?_r=0

The nine jurors in the case, who faced the daunting task of answering more than 700 questions on sometimes highly technical matters, returned a verdict after just three days of deliberations at a federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif. They found that Samsung infringed on a series of Apple’s patents on mobile devices, awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages.​
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thank you.

I guess jury selection questions will have to rule out Play Station fans, and that kick in the head?!
 
As I knew it might be, I think I've been a little bit misunderstood here. I've got no intention whatsoever in getting into any form of RED vs.... debate, but I just wanted to clarify a few things

1. I don't mean RAW workflow is "awkward". I mean that RED have built a company out of the notion that "4:2:2 1080P is for suckers", but nonetheless it is still a large market (to what extent is a whole other ballgame).

2. Regarding the F3, I plucked it out of the air as a kind of it's a Direct-to-edit camera with no requirements for RAW processing etc etc. To my knowledge RED do not have a camera in the mould of any broadcast type camera (HDW-790, HPX3000 etc etc) - I know this is a distinct choice for them and this is not the market they are aiming their cameras at, BUT it is still something their competitors make which they don't.

And McGee, you are quite right. RED did do a very honourable thing with their trade-ins. I doubt there is a single RED ONE owner out there who hasn't made their money back on their cameras. I'm just not a big fan of the way they chose to do things (modular cameras, RAW recording, etc....)..... but aren't we lucky we all have the CHOICE now of many different philosophies? I just happen to prefer a different one to Mr Jannard, that's all...
 
The notion that shooting raw is bad astounds me. Anyone wanting to create the best images possible for their projects should want the ability to get the cleanest image with the most information and dynamic range available. Red is a cinema camera system that set out to compete with film, and they have. So have Sony and Arri. No one is asking Arri to make a camcorder. There is a reason that cinematographers who shoot with film use negative instead of reversal unless they want a desired look or effect that reversal could give them. 10/8bit 4:2:2 is essentially the new reversal and raw is the new negative.

1080 4:2:2 can look great for what it is, and Raw can look bad if the folks using the tools don't know what they are doing, but if you want that extra dynamic range, and the ability to have the most flexibility in post, it's in your projects best interest to shoot raw when you can and when you need it. If your projects don't require it, or you want a simplified workflow, then you have even more options now than you did 6 years ago because Red, Sony, and the other companies have raised the bar and cut the price to get in the high end cinema game.
10 years ago you had 35mm and super 16 to get the DR that you can now get for under $20k. 10/8 bit 4:2:2 is now under $8k. That is an astounding revolution in the industry and I'm grateful all of the camera makers who have helped make that happen. The quest for 4k 4:4:4 has made HD 4:2:2 incredibly attainable, and will continue to drive the cost down in the future.
I don't have a dog in the lawsuit fight, I want both companies to stay healthy and creating more innovative, cost effective cameras down the road. The lawsuits don't help with this, they are a distraction, and a waste of resources. I'm sure that both companies have plenty of patents that it's possible the other may be using. Innovating technology is not a simple thing, and there are a finite number of solutions to problems like image capture and processing in such a confined portable space like a camera. Getting litigious about these things seems like more of an attempt to stifle competition in the market place than anything else.

The promise of 4K for $4k was too good to be true 10 years ago, but it may not be 5 years from now. I would like to see it fulfilled, and these lawsuits are going to delay these companies from taking part in that fulfillment.
 
visugeek said:
There is a reason that cinematographers who shoot with film use negative instead of reversal unless they want a desired look or effect that reversal could give them. 10/8bit 4:2:2 is essentially the new reversal and raw is the new negative.
Click to expand...
Well, turn the clock back only a couple of decades, to when most location work for broadcast TV did mean film, and there was a mix of reversal and negative - and choice had little to do with quality, look or effect.

Yes, negative generally mean higher overall quality of the end result - but on the debit side was far slower to get a transmittable end product, and far more expensive as well. Hence horses for courses. You'd use neg, A-B cut, and a print for drama - but reversal for news and current affairs. Nobody would say that "shooting negative is bad" - but it would be silly to adopt that workflow for news.

And the analogy has weight in the new era with RAW versus "ready to transmit" formats. If making a feature film, it would normally be far more sensible to go down the RAW workflow route, no argument. For other projects RAW is unnecessary and may just introduce time and/or cost disadvantages. Again, it's horses for courses.

In the past, you largely determined the most appropriate workflow - and that sort of defined the equipment. A bit simplistic, but cinema equated to Red, TV equated to Sony.

But with the F5/55 Sony changed all that. All of a sudden, you got RAW and the likes of XAVC (even XDCAM 422) all in the same piece of equipment. All of a sudden it becomes the obvious thing to buy. Project A may demand a 4k RAW workflow, project B a few months later may be far better suited by using such as XAVC recording. And now a single camera will be switchable to suit as required.

No wonder Red may have got worried when the F5/55 details first came out!
 
You left out documentary film work, news reels, gun cameras, and a ton of other applications for reversal. When I was in film school we used it to dial in our exposures because it was less forgiving and there was no printing necessary. VFX houses might use it for tests and wedges because they could run it through a prostar in house instead of taking it to a lab for processing. Yes there are many of uses for reversal, but if you were making a movie that was projected, unless you wanted a specific effect, you shot negative. The cleaner the better. You would even over expose it half a stop to tighten up the grain and then print it down because there was enough latitude to not blow out the highlights.

Red did not set out to make news cameras, neither has Arri. Sony makes both, and were the go to camera for SD. All of them now make products designed to replace film. The F3 with S-log was a huge break through for the price. The F-5, F65, F-55, Scarlet, Epic, Red One, Alexa are all Cinema cameras. They are the electronic Eclairs, Arri 535s, and Aatons or their day. If you shoot Raw, you can always convert your footage to something smaller or more compressed. You can't really go the other way.
If you are going to have a system and storage capability of a project that needs Raw once, my guess is you aren't going to sell it when you are done. I don't know anyone who has ever decided they have too much storage and wanted to dial things back for their next project.

Red's concern was price point, they had a $40k camera that now was going to be competing with a $15k-$30k pair of cameras. They dumped their BTR1s while they still could, and slashed their prices on the rest of their line. Don't forget, BMCC while still having tech issues is a real threat to Scarlet. A 2.5k raw image for $3k with monitor and single battery can go toe to toe with a Scarlet which was $14k for the same amount of gear back in November. BMCCs are now going for $3500 on Ebay, not $4500, so BMCC is getting their back orders filled.

Cameras are now computers, and subject to Moore's Law. You swap work stations every 3-5 years or sooner, and their value drops 20% per year roughly. It should not have been a surprise to Red owners that Red needed to devalue their gear to keep up with the competition. Technology does not keep well, it has a short shelf life and few preservatives.

NAB should have some interesting things this year.

And then this happened...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?305485-Black-Magic-PocketHD-and-4K-production-camera
 
Last edited:
This thread in which essentially everyone except Barry has assumed without hesitation that Sony is in the right has shown me how off-base I've been in claiming that DVXuser goes unfairly tough on Red and unfairly easy on Sony...
 
Both companies should suck it up, just reach a settlement and move on. Otherwise, it will be the lawyers coming out as the only winners.
 
Lee Saxon said:
This thread in which essentially everyone except Barry has assumed without hesitation that Sony is in the right has shown me how off-base I've been in claiming that DVXuser goes unfairly tough on Red and unfairly easy on Sony...
Click to expand...
Then by that token, when is RED going to sue Blackmagic? When will Sony sue BM? Hey, maybe BM has a patent that both Sony and RED infringed? How about the KineRaw?

Maybe some of us think that RED has opened a can of worm and drew first blood. All backed by an egocentric president. I've never heard a CEO or company president say things like "They make cameras for soccer moms" or "were bringing a bazooka to a knife fight" publicly. It would be like Panasonic saying "Man, that 5d Mark II is just a large piece of dog crap, subscribe to our brand instead". I guess what I'm trying to say is that let the camera speak for itself with specs and price. We will judge it's value. It's up to you Mr. Camera Company to make the better product above your competition or other offering.

I bought an AF100 when Panny quietly said, "our camera addresses the issue you see in some cameras". I bought it and it did as they advertised. I was happy. Then another camera came out and made a better camera than the AF100. No bazookas and no Moms we used to say, "Here is our camera and this is what it does". Guess what? A third company released a camera that out performs the previous two cameras and again, no bazookas or moms insulted and I have the option of buying that camera. But for now the second camera will suit me just fine. But I like the idea that "if" I want that other camera I can go make the purchase all while my second camera hits the used market and makes the guy with the AF100 have the ability to upgrade his camera. It's brilliant!

See I like the idea of being able to choose between the RED or the Sony F55 (or F5, or F65, or the F-1908Bj*). If these guys are not free to compete then it is we that lose.

RED... Make stuff we use to take moving pictures with and thats all. If you build the right product we will buy it. (I suggest they start working on 4K for $4K though) I have a pair of Nike and a pair of converse. Build the better more effective running shoe. Just how threatening must it be for RED, SONY, PANNY and CANON seeing the Blackmagic 4k?
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but let me put in my two cents after having been through the process filing patents, etc.
NOBODY should take these lawsuits as anything but business as usual... Don't assume Red and Sony are "enemies", rather just 2 friendly competitors on the court playing tennis competing for sponsors (you and I) in the video business.
Does anybody think Sony's CEO ever lost a wink of sleep over this little of litigation? AS LONG AS his paycheck is cashing in Dollar or YEN, HE DON'T GIVE A DAMN...

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS:
Step. 1 CEO hires engineers and lawyers and uses many resources to design your unique product, after much R&D cost and prototyping, they deliver and You file a patent with LAWYERS, the patent is hopefully granted after much time or after a possible defense to a patent officer. (Patent Pending)
Step. 2 the patent is finally issued, you now have EARNED THE RIGHT to litigate for 20 years from the initial filing date. It is up to you to defend your IP, nobody will help you but yourself, AND NOBODY CARES IF YOU ARE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS BY COPYCATS WHO READ YOUR PATENT FILING. In fact, most large corporations PAY ATTORNEYS to gather the recent filings and hand them to engineers to reverse engineer the patents and work around them!
STEP 3. You notify the other party of their infringement of your IP, and request them to stop the production or request royalties or licensing fees. They listen or give you the finger, or say they did it first.
Step 4. You file a case and the COURT decides WHO OWNS WHAT IP, and establishes who owes what to whom if anything. You settle out of court or exchange patent privledges if you don't want to be eaten alive by attorney's fees any longer.
STEP 5. PRESIDENCE is established, and the loser usually figures a way to design around the infringement and file their next patent.
STEP 6. THE PROCESS REPEATS, again... and again... and again... until someone goes out of business or until the next competitor enters the fray
STEP 7. The CEO continues to wipe his *SS with $100 bills as he plans his next vacation and we fill blog posts over things like this that don't earn us a buck more...
I think my meter ran over, so I need to refill my drink...
CAN WE FINALLY CLOSE THIS THREAD?
 
imdjay said:
ya know, my first thought when reading this was: Wait, they cite the red one in this.... if i were a jury member/defendant, I'd be wondering why these infringements weren't brought up years ago?
Click to expand...

The likelyhood is that in discovery, Sony's engineers and lawyers realized that the technology that was disputed was probably already covered by one of their own patents, or at least could be argued as such. It could very well be that they never bothered to reverse engineer Red's products and scrutinize them enough until now. If it's true, and they can prove that they just became aware of it, then RED could be in real trouble. Even if they they turned a blind eye until now, if it's true, RED could STILL be in very real trouble. That being said, RED does have patents that were granted, and so does Sony. Could be they both infringed on each others, so both turned a blind eye. I could also be that RED didn't realize that they infringed on some of Sony's patents, and are now suffering some serious pucker factor.

Either way, I can't really see how RED can be compared to Samsung, Apple, or even Sony when it comes to financial resources, so this could be an interesting lawsuit. That upgrade path won't help if RED is broke.
 
J Bellari said:
I haven't read the whole thread, but let me put in my two cents after having been through the process filing patents, etc.
NOBODY should take these lawsuits as anything but business as usual... Don't assume Red and Sony are "enemies", rather just 2 friendly competitors on the court playing tennis competing for sponsors (you and I) in the video business.
Does anybody think Sony's CEO ever lost a wink of sleep over this little of litigation? AS LONG AS his paycheck is cashing in Dollar or YEN, HE DON'T GIVE A DAMN...

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS:
Step. 1 CEO hires engineers and lawyers and uses many resources to design your unique product, after much R&D cost and prototyping, they deliver and You file a patent with LAWYERS, the patent is hopefully granted after much time or after a possible defense to a patent officer. (Patent Pending)
Step. 2 the patent is finally issued, you now have EARNED THE RIGHT to litigate for 20 years from the initial filing date. It is up to you to defend your IP, nobody will help you but yourself, AND NOBODY CARES IF YOU ARE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS BY COPYCATS WHO READ YOUR PATENT FILING. In fact, most large corporations PAY ATTORNEYS to gather the recent filings and hand them to engineers to reverse engineer the patents and work around them!
STEP 3. You notify the other party of their infringement of your IP, and request them to stop the production or request royalties or licensing fees. They listen or give you the finger, or say they did it first.
Step 4. You file a case and the COURT decides WHO OWNS WHAT IP, and establishes who owes what to whom if anything. You settle out of court or exchange patent privledges if you don't want to be eaten alive by attorney's fees any longer.
STEP 5. PRESIDENCE is established, and the loser usually figures a way to design around the infringement and file their next patent.
STEP 6. THE PROCESS REPEATS, again... and again... and again... until someone goes out of business or until the next competitor enters the fray
STEP 7. The CEO continues to wipe his *SS with $100 bills as he plans his next vacation and we fill blog posts over things like this that don't earn us a buck more...
I think my meter ran over, so I need to refill my drink...
CAN WE FINALLY CLOSE THIS THREAD?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, and I agree that it's up to the company to defend their IP, but as far as I'm aware, as a retired CEO of a relatively small company that worked with IP, it's not the same as defending a trademark or copyright. If you do not defend your copyright, you could lose the ability to enforce the copyright. Not so with a patent. Provided it's within your scope of time granted, your right remains intact, even if it was being infringed with or without your knowledge. Of course you have to spend time and money to enforce it, which can be very difficult and very costly depending on where and how much $$ you have at your disposal, and compared to how much the defendant has at their disposal. Anyway, I'll bow out now to the lawyers on the board. I know there are some. Besides, this is totally OT.
 
For those worried about Sony's demise remember: Sony=Japan and Japan=Sony. You think Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, et al are individual corporations? Think again. Japan is the camera corporation and they are the subsidiaries. If Sony is correct, its parent company, Japan, will make sure they fight to the end. And if you don't believe it you are living in another dimension.
 
I wholeheartedly agree that Sony is going to fight tooth and nail, esp. considering Red's obnoxious, disrepectful tone through out this battle. But not for one minute should we think that professional cameras have any impact on the fate of Sony Corporation. It's the tv manufacturers in Korea who may have mortally wounded Sony, et al in Japan. Red is just a flesh wound.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese government weren't somehow stoking the North Korean situation to hurt LG and Samsung. Obviously they don't want war, but some serious uncertainty and joint factory shutdowns may be helpful to Japanese firms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top