Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Mar 07, 2019 8:22 pm

So the current firmware notes state that applying camera 6.1 to the UMP removes CDNG and nothing more.

Why would I apply an update that removes a codec and nothing more? I suspect that all firmware updates going forward will be G2 focused. As such, I see no reason to apply this update.

Am I missing something?
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 5:52 am

I agree no need to apply it to G1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 12:31 pm

Thanks, Rick. It's a very odd update for G1. I wonder if it's related to the cdng patent.
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 980
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 4:40 pm

Yes, yes it is. I mean Grant Petty made it pretty clear that they're moving away from CDNG specifically because of the patent lawsuit.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
Filmmaker based in Los Angeles, CA
http://moviesbykays.com
Resolve 16, Mac OS X 10.13.6 (High Sierra), i7 8700k, 32Gb DDR4 RAM, Dual GTX 1080ti, Decklink Mini Monitor, USB 3.1 RAID
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 11534
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 10:16 pm

So as a vendor, BMD is removing CDNG codec, and making the necessary FW update available. This covers their responsibility for existing cameras. That said, there is no reason the end users is obligated to use the FW update or stop using CDNG codec. BMD is replacing it with BRaw, and offers the option of removing it from non BRaw cameras. However, 6.1 sets up the new Pocket 4K for the 6.2 FW which adds BRaw and removes CDNG, I do not see where 6.1 removes CDNG, this is listed as an action under 6.2
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 10:49 pm

Correct, at least as of 6.2, if the camera runs BRAW, it won’t offer CDNG. But you don’t have to load 6.2 if you prefer having CDNG. I plan to put it on the BMPCC4K while the URSA Mini 4.6K has CDNG at release 4.8 (December 2017). I’ll be able to do some casual comparison between the two codecs, but I’m not setup to do really precise testing in a controlled environment.

I just want to see for myself how they compare in an UHD shoot for example. Most important to me will be moiré on the two cameras and any visual artifacts and performance with lowlit areas that are pushed. I can promise I won’t be recording new Canadian plastic money.

All of my Cinema lenses are intentionally warm and slightly soft rather than scalpel sharp and cold. Not good at all for replicating currency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

robert Hart

  • Posts: 276
  • Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:16 pm

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 6:51 pm

Okay. Here is a scary bit.

If BM has been forced to discontinue Cinema DNG because of a patent stoush, where does that leave the owners of legacy cameras which shoot Cinema DNG which will not receive the BMRAW option?

Will origination on these cameras in Cinema DNG or Cinema DNG 3:1 risk being injuncted in the future?

A long time ago, Kodak played fast and loose with instant photography and came out second best in a stoush with Polaroid. People who bought into the instant camera ended up with a desktop monument.

With the prospect of ProRes going to the happy hunting ground sooner rather than later I am feeling a little insecure.
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Mar 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Where did you hear that Prores's demise is imminent?
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 11534
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Mar 18, 2019 4:55 pm

Unlike the availability of Kodak Instsnt Picture film/print kit, an individual’s use of an existing codec like CDNG or ProRes, is Not restricted. Just because BMD can or chooses not to continue supporting a given codec, like CDNG for what ever reason, including legal issues (which applies to selling it with the camera), does not mean the end user who already has this codec, can not continue to use it.

BMD is just restricted from selling it or including it with a camera sale. You can continue to use CDNG for as long as you like, as the end user.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

David Chapman

  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:05 pm
  • Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Mar 18, 2019 5:19 pm

If it is indeed Red with the patent, I think they might just be attempting to halt new sales of BMD cameras that include CDNG. It should not effect anything with older cameras. If it does/did, then Red and BMD would be in a legal battle with royalty payments. Maybe they are and maybe BMD paid? But stopping new sales based on something like this happens quite a bit.
David Chapman
Just another creative dude with a camera.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostTue Mar 19, 2019 6:23 pm

If the patent relates to lossy compressed CinemaDNG, it might remain in the future I suppose as the uncompressed CDNG along with BRAW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostWed Mar 20, 2019 1:05 am

BM and Apple are favorite buddies #1. No QuickTime, no Blackmagic.
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 30, 2019 11:13 pm

CinemaDNG legal characterizations are:

No patents
No intellectual property rights encumbrances
No license fees
No non-disclosure agreements
Free source code – check slide no. 8 in the CinemaDNG NAB 2011 Presentation
CinemaDNG is free from intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements and is dedicated for unrestricted use.

https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadng-from-digital-negative-to-blackmagic-raw/

It seems and makes sense that if RED is suing Blackmagic, they aren't suing them over CDNG, but suing them over BRAW. It doesn't make any sense that Blackmagic is being sued my RED over DNG.

Can someone explain this to me?
Rob

Mac Pro 5,1
OS 10.13.6
2 x 3.46 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
96 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
1 TB Samsung SSD Startup Disk APFS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8191 MB
Cache Disk: 500 GB Samsung
Editing Disk: 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2
Davinci Resolve Studio 16.1.2
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6152
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 30, 2019 11:30 pm

RED can't sue anyone for cDNG itself as RED has nothing to do with it.
RED owns patent for compressed RAW recording inside a camera regardless of codec.
BRAW is fine most likely due to fact it's not really pure RAW format. Probably BM didn't design BRAW this way as a choice, but a 'must' to avoid RED chasing them.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 30, 2019 11:32 pm

The theory that the suit is from Red is just a guess, but I suspect that it has more to do with Red envy than reality because braw is more likely to infringe on Red's IP than cDNG.

That said, it seems like the patent relates to a compression method that BMD is using rather than the codec itself.

Still, it's anybody's guess at this point.

Sent from my H1T1000 using Tapatalk
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6152
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 30, 2019 11:34 pm

cDNG is clean of patents, so this not about compression itself. BM said that claim came from company which has nothin to do with cDNG.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Mar 30, 2019 11:41 pm

The cDNG spec allows for various compression algorithms that are not necessarily patent free.

Sent from my H1T1000 using Tapatalk
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6152
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 12:05 am

And why BM would jump to something which is known that may not be patent free? It's against any logic.
Also- if it's true then simple removal of these modes is enough. You don't need to kill whole support for cDNG.
Not sure, but last (1.1?) Adobe cDNG spec did not actually include lossy modes only lossless one. Lossy modes were only mentioned a possibility. It's BM who created them(?), so in theory they could break some patents there as well.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 12:20 am

Grant mentioned something vague about its cdng structure when he mentioned the patent issue, and BMD was working with Adobe on compression methods for cdng from the beginning.

It is possible that one of BMD's partner/competitors pulled a Rambus. As the Rambus fiasco shows, it's happened.

It's always been a bit of a hack, and definitely the worst aspect of the entire BMD ecosystem that BMD users only put up with because it was the only raw option it could provide.

Since BMD has been working on braw for several years, it's clear that getting rid of cdng was part of the plan already, so the only change is the abruptness of the transition.

Sent from my H1T1000 using Tapatalk
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2779
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:22 am

Rakesh Malik wrote:The theory that the suit is from Red is just a guess, but I suspect that it has more to do with Red envy than reality because braw is more likely to infringe on Red's IP than cDNG.

It is not a guess, we know it from Atomos' paper talking about business risks when they issued shares to begin trading on ASX.
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:27 am

BMD could be more transparent about any legal action taken against them if that has occurred. I suspect there hasn’t been any legal action as BMD has committed to removing any further cause for concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:29 am

Robert, does that risk refer to any specific codec or just the compression of any raw codec?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:30 am

Robert Niessner wrote:It is not a guess, we know it from Atomos' paper talking about business risks when they issued shares to begin trading on ASX.


In other words, it's a guess.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:33 am

rick.lang wrote:Robert, does that risk refer to any specific codec or just the compression of any raw codec?


Logic would imply that if it were any compression for raw then braw would still be at risk for the same patents, yet BMD specifically selected cDNG.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2779
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 9:11 am

Rakesh Malik wrote:
Robert Niessner wrote:It is not a guess, we know it from Atomos' paper talking about business risks when they issued shares to begin trading on ASX.


In other words, it's a guess.


http://downloads.atomos.com/investor/IP ... pectus.pdf

From page 81:

Potential dispute with RED
RED.com LLC (“RED”) contacted the Company in April 2018 alleging that the recording and/or playback of two of five video codec standards currently implemented by certain Company products infringe four RED patents. RED has offered the Company a licence to rights under those patents with respect to the implementation. The Company denies RED's allegations and the parties have engaged in discussions to attempt to resolve the matter including in respect of the proposed licence. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter, RED may initiate litigation against the Company in an effort to enforce its patent rights. Patent claims or litigation


It would be a huge coincidence if it wasn't RED threatening BMD.
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 6152
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 9:17 am

Rakesh Malik wrote:
rick.lang wrote:Robert, does that risk refer to any specific codec or just the compression of any raw codec?


Logic would imply that if it were any compression for raw then braw would still be at risk for the same patents, yet BMD specifically selected cDNG.


BRAW is not really RAW format, but already at least partially debayered, so this changes a lot. This could be actually the way to avoid RED patent chosen deliberately by BM.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSun Mar 31, 2019 7:09 pm

Hey, I agree with Andrew. If you’re going to court over this, BRAW can demonstrate it doesn’t meet all industry standards and expectations of what “raw” is. Some, yes, but not all. Brilliant BMD.

Again in court, RED’s patent could be thrown out on a variety of arguments so they might just be pushing for an out of court settlement rather than risk a court fight and lose the patent.

Only slightly off topic:
Readers may be familiar with the mighty and feared US Security Exchange Commission. They have fined companies several hundreds of millions of dollars for misbehaving. Sounds like serious stuff, right? I read this week, that they’ve actually collected something like a grand total of $6,750!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

David Hutchinson

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:00 am
  • Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Apr 01, 2019 8:30 am

The whole excuse for the removal of cDNG would sound more plausible is BMD were not still selling the Ursa Broadcast with..... cDNG .

You either have to take it off all cameras or none of them.
Offline

Mark Grgurev

  • Posts: 345
  • Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:22 am

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Apr 01, 2019 11:26 am

David Hutchinson wrote:The whole excuse for the removal of cDNG would sound more plausible is BMD were not still selling the Ursa Broadcast with..... cDNG .

You either have to take it off all cameras or none of them.


It's possible that they just can't do that yet because they haven't finished sensor profiling for that specific sensor.
Offline

David Hutchinson

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:00 am
  • Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostMon Apr 01, 2019 12:30 pm

Mark Grgurev wrote:It's possible that they just can't do that yet because they haven't finished sensor profiling for that specific sensor.


Yes it is... but how long do they need? we're coming up to the seventh or eighth month since the BRAW announcement with only 2 cameras converted and a third announced.
Understandably they are still developing BRAW with 1.3 announced ... but surely if getting cDNG off all the cameras was a legal priority isn't that where the efforts should be going.

I've ordered the G2...but would really like my Broadcast with BRAW too :D ;)
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 11534
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostTue Apr 02, 2019 6:29 am

Me too David!
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Apr 04, 2019 11:36 pm

Yeah folks, the removal of Cinema DNG because of patent infringement just doesn't make sense. It is sounding like more of an excuse than a necessity. What I still can't wrap my head around is why remove it? And if it is truly a patent issue and they are complying to an accusation of infringement there would be some public information about it since it's not a settlement (or maybe it is).

I won't update my UMP, so that's not an issue, but this doesn't sit well with me for the future.

Rob
Rob

Mac Pro 5,1
OS 10.13.6
2 x 3.46 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
96 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
1 TB Samsung SSD Startup Disk APFS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8191 MB
Cache Disk: 500 GB Samsung
Editing Disk: 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2
Davinci Resolve Studio 16.1.2
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 9:20 am

"We have taken a bit of flak for filing a lawsuit against Sony Electronics." - Jim Jannard - RED.COM, Inc 2013

"RED alleges in the suit that Arri used the info to aid its development and launch of the Alexa camera, which competes with the Epic" - 2012

"In the process of negotiating Atomos’ licence to use RED’s intellectual property, the
companies recognised that there is significant opportunity for them to enhance the
integration of their product lines to produce what they both expect to be trail-blazing new
camera recording systems. " - 2019 Atomos press Release.

"Since RED has certain agreements with GoPro's Cineform RAW (which is also based on JPEG2000), that particular situation has avoided any lawsuits by RED." - 2013

"Apple isn’t afraid of beef, and the latest company on its bad side is Red Digital Cinema. The two companies are currently locked in a lawsuit over one of Red’s RAW codec patents, which Apple is trying to get invalidated." - 2019 - This results in Apple and RED collab on Metal integration for RedCode.

"Apple has failed in an attempt to over-throw patents held by RED that govern methods for compressing Raw video, leaving the company open to paying royalties on its ProRes RAW file format." Late 2019.

Conclusion is if Apple failed in a patent counter against RED clearly trolling every camera vendor,
then BM does not stand a chance


So I get removing cDNG 3:1 or anything like that to avoid legal fees, but why did cDNG 1:1 RAW get eliminated too?

Was it also compressed in some way so as not to meet the litmus test? Because if not, thats like removing a feature out of spite and hate. And would mean that BRAW by its definition can't be Compressed RAW for any reason.
Offline

Dennis Sørensen

  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:59 am
  • Location: Denmark

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 2:23 pm

So to stay somewhat on topic I recieved this in october by BMD support:

"Hi Dennis,

Thanks for the email. The Product Manager has informed me that the URSA Mini Pro will continue to receive updates however there is no confirmed timeframe for the implementation of the feature."

I was asking about the 3+4 audio channel that has been promised since the first manual ever released for the UMP.

So for all we know they are still working on this camera firmware in some way or another (well thay have to because of the promised audio channel). And for any new firmware coming you will have to live without it (the new firmware), or without cDNG.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:02 pm

I just don’t know why CinemaDNG uncompressed can’t stay unless it’s simply a lack of room in the internal storage to offer both CinemaDNG uncompressed and BRAW and ProRes. The 4.6K reboots when you go to ProRes and back to raw. Couldn’t the same approach allow retaining CDNG uncompressed with BRAW?

The real issue may be something else. I still trust BMD’s judgments as they best understand the complexities.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Steve Holmlund

  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:30 pm
  • Location: Montara, California

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:02 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:"
So I get removing cDNG 3:1 or anything like that to avoid legal fees, but why did cDNG 1:1 RAW get eliminated too?

Was it also compressed in some way so as not to meet the litmus test? Because if not, thats like removing a feature out of spite and hate. And would mean that BRAW by its definition can't be Compressed RAW for any reason.


I've only read Red patents that talk about 6:1 Raw compression and greater so I don't understand why CDNG 3:1 would be in conflict with them. Also, why would 6:1 be patentable but 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 not be? It doesn't appear that 6:1 compression (as a starting point) is any more novel or non-obvious than lesser compression ratios.

I must be missing something...

Steve
Steve Holmlund
Hobbyist
BMPCC, vintage Rokkor lenses, Olympus 12-40 and 12-100, Panasonic 100-300 II
SmallHD Focus, i7 8700k / GTX 1080
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:22 pm

Steve Holmlund wrote:
Denis Kazlowski wrote:"
So I get removing cDNG 3:1 or anything like that to avoid legal fees, but why did cDNG 1:1 RAW get eliminated too?

Was it also compressed in some way so as not to meet the litmus test? Because if not, thats like removing a feature out of spite and hate. And would mean that BRAW by its definition can't be Compressed RAW for any reason.


I've only read Red patents that talk about 6:1 Raw compression and greater so I don't understand why CDNG 3:1 would be in conflict with them. Also, why would 6:1 be patentable but 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 not be? It doesn't appear that 6:1 compression (as a starting point) is any more novel or non-obvious than lesser compression ratios.

I must be missing something...

Steve


100% - US Patent No.9436976 - https://patents.justia.com/patent/9436976

-- covers ---

"can be satisfied by cameras that can capture and store raw or substantially raw video data having a resolution of at least about 2 k and at a frame rate of at least about 23 frames per second."
-----------

So ANY compression on ANY RAW image at frame rates over 23 frames per second - this way it did not trample on still cameras pre-existing art from Nikon NEF and Canon CRW.

That is how broad the patent is.
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:31 pm

rick.lang wrote:I just don’t know why CinemaDNG uncompressed can’t stay unless it’s simply a lack of room in the internal storage to offer both CinemaDNG uncompressed and BRAW and ProRes. The 4.6K reboots when you go to ProRes and back to raw. Couldn’t the same approach allow retaining CDNG uncompressed with BRAW?

The real issue may be something else. I still trust BMD’s judgments as they best understand the complexities.


It's most likely because it is somehow compressed in some way. It was the daily driver encoding for BM cameras, BM cameras are not that lacking in CPU/Flash or Software department to not be able to add volumes of stuff - It's just plain hate for CinemaDNG or those are terms of their "settlement" agreement with RED.
Offline
User avatar

Steve Holmlund

  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:30 pm
  • Location: Montara, California

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:41 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:...100% - US Patent No.9436976 - https://patents.justia.com/patent/9436976

-- covers ---

"can be satisfied by cameras that can capture and store raw or substantially raw video data having a resolution of at least about 2 k and at a frame rate of at least about 23 frames per second."
-----------

So ANY compression on ANY RAW image at frame rates over 23 frames per second - this way it did not trample on still cameras pre-existing art from Nikon NEF and Canon CRW.

That is how broad the patent is.


Ah, the old continuation patent....

Thanks, Denis.
Steve
Steve Holmlund
Hobbyist
BMPCC, vintage Rokkor lenses, Olympus 12-40 and 12-100, Panasonic 100-300 II
SmallHD Focus, i7 8700k / GTX 1080
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 3:52 pm

Dennis Sørensen wrote:So to stay somewhat on topic I recieved this in october by BMD support:
So for all we know they are still working on this camera firmware in some way or another (well thay have to because of the promised audio channel). And for any new firmware coming you will have to live without it (the new firmware), or without cDNG.


No they are not, I've been near BM products long enough to spot the dumpster effect.

BM Camera products have only 3 phases:

1. pre-launch of golden units sent to a select few, buzz building etc.., test footage, everyone saying Lovely.
2. hilarious delays in mass production which follows pre-order whining,
3. end of sale - where a product is quietly removed from the website - which equals end of life and end of support _period_ - it's just never overtly said as it might break a few rules in a few places.

During this phase some accept it, some keep hope alive, some migrate to another platform... BM ceases to communicate about any issues and goes silent on any basic software maintenance cycle. I'm surprised they're nice enough to leave downloadable updates available on their website for older systems in fact.

This is the point a huge secondary market develops and shops like B&H have fire sales and 2 for 1 specials and the like to dump the inventory of stale BM gear as fast as possible.

People still hold out hope for: Turrets , FW updates, Parts Being available, CFast to "continue to fall in price" for whatever reason, and other things that will never happen.

I wish they would just come out and say - Hey we just pulled a Daewoo Motors with your existing camera system.
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 4:21 pm

As a point of historical clarification, the only BM camera that shoots truly uncompressed raw is the OG bmcc prior to firmware 2.1. After that everything is compressed raw.
Offline

Gavin_c_clark

  • Posts: 250
  • Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:51 pm

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 4:45 pm

To be fair, they still haven’t given any new features to the g1 to make it worthwhile to upgrade.

Mine still happily has the black magic raw and cdng formats at the same time and until they give a good reason to change that that’s how it will stay
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostThu Jan 16, 2020 4:47 pm

Howard Roll wrote:As a point of historical clarification, the only BM camera that shoots truly uncompressed raw is the OG bmcc prior to firmware 2.1. After that everything is compressed raw.

That clarifies things 100%.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 12555
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Jan 17, 2020 7:14 am

Thanks, Denis, for getting to the meat of the issue with the RED patent.
Rick Lang
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Jan 17, 2020 6:14 pm

rick.lang wrote:Thanks, Denis, for getting to the meat of the issue with the RED patent.


Sure, I am just shocked that the one single company that's adding this high price to other camera systems and causing stagnation in the market is RED. - I would speculate they collect $150 of every Atomos recorder sold, for a codec they did not develop - ProRes RAW, nor any tech that they actually developed.

It would make sense if every camera/recorder vendor was doing R3D files. Compression as it if vital in any field dealing with data and should have been covered under prior art. - I have no idea what the USPTO was thinking in granting them this. It's not like "lossless" ProRes was not around prior, so was raw format without frame rates. It should have been covered under obvious and not granted at all.

The major failure is that other companies who have cameras out on the market did not just step out and call out RED out for this - loudly and publicly, and have either silently paid the RED tax which they passed on to their customers, or handicapped their product to avoid liability. Insane. Anti-Competitive.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Jan 17, 2020 7:16 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:The major failure is that other companies who have cameras out on the market did not just step out and call out RED out for this - loudly and publicly, and have either silently paid the RED tax which they passed on to their customers, or handicapped their product to avoid liability. Insane. Anti-Competitive.


Actually, several have called Red out for its patents. None of those attempted callouts have succeeded, so Red's been licensing that IP to its competitors.

In the end it's not really any different from the fact that HEVC aka H.265 also carries a cost which is why only some drones and action cameras record in it, and why HitFilm can't read HEVC, except for the fact that no one is jealous of MPEG LA.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostFri Jan 17, 2020 8:27 pm

Hard to show up to the party 15 years late and dictate the terms. Raw/Uncompressed was such a small market segment in 2005 when consumers are shooting 25mb HDV.

Fast forward to today's internet; games, toys, computers, cars, make up, you name it there's a youtube channel with 10s of millions of views. A whole new distribution channel fueled by video and the filmmakers that drive it.

If anyone knew where the industry would be 15 years ago I think they would have fought harder to challenge Red and may have won. At this point time and endurance is Red's strongest argument. Whatever it is has proven sufficient time and time again.

Ironically it is Red's ownership of raw that gives Braw it's greatest leverage. If Apple has to pay Red to put Prores Raw on Nikon or anybody's cameras it will greatly slow, posssibly halt it's adoption. If Apple were free to distribute Prores Raw, well it's Prores, figure it out.
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Jan 18, 2020 4:48 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:
Denis Kazlowski wrote:The major failure is that other companies who have cameras out on the market did not just step out and call out RED out for this - loudly and publicly, and have either silently paid the RED tax which they passed on to their customers, or handicapped their product to avoid liability. Insane. Anti-Competitive.


Actually, several have called Red out for its patents. None of those attempted callouts have succeeded, so Red's been licensing that IP to its competitors.

In the end it's not really any different from the fact that HEVC aka H.265 also carries a cost which is why only some drones and action cameras record in it, and why HitFilm can't read HEVC, except for the fact that no one is jealous of MPEG LA.


Hi Rakesh, licensing a particular encoder like H.265/H.264 together with their open source x.264/x.265 variants or the argument that Faunhoffer Institute still owns MP3, they have tried to get people for license money - I recall their $39.95 Digidesign Protools MP3 tax. It's is not the same as getting a patent grant on compression of a thing - like on compression itself, regardless of what kind on imaging or 23.0 frames per second. - The closer analogy would be OGG suing FLAC or any other lossless audio codec maker, where technologically they're not a user. - If RED licensed out it's R3D and people did not want it, and wanted to build a beefier R3D support via other vendors devices I'd understand.

This is coming from someone who licensed On2 VP6 form On2 (and not Adobe) at ridiculous over the top prices while working in a broadcast/cable commercials post house. Same place we paid Cineform for at $1000 per station, then moved to ProRes which was at the time very badly supported on Windows and Linux - unlike now. But if we had moved to RAW+Wavelet JPG2000 style, RED/Oakley would get to come after us again. Thats like suing people for using Bullet Time footage they shot on non Bullet Time systems - almost.

Incidentally REDs founder was on the other side of that stick with Luxotica - they sold Oakley as a (TM) to them if my memory is correct. - and even in the Fraunhoffer case, it's not having a patent but choosing to enforce it randomly when you're low on cash, and renewing it in perpetuity after seeing that it's actually worth something, that is the stifling business practice.

Oh you're making a camera ten years after we sold a ton of ours, Really? --- Here is a cease and desist letter from our lawyers - or pay up on every unit etc.. - If you read the patent closely they patented a VIDEO CAMERA capable of recording RAW in any compression over a certain frame rate.

If I read their application correctly anyone doing stop-motion on a Nikon/Canon who plays the frames back at 23.98fps after and happens to zip them for archival and using less disk is a RED patent target - and the question is for how long.

So just to re-iterate, licensing MP3, MPEG-4, R3D, ProRes - a specific encoding system vs. licensing the fact that you're "allowed" to compress raw in a video recorder or camera and using the government and courts to enforce this because you need more cash are two different concepts.

The argument RED is making is that CinemaDNG is okay, Compressed CinemaDNG is also okay, but don't you dare play or record it at 24fps.

Oh you don't have fast enough or cheap enough storage to write uncompressed CinemaDNG?
Pay us for a license to do so, because we own compressed raw video faster than 23fps. - You won't get R3D IPR for that license, you'll only retain your ability to do this obvious thing - that you did without us on your dime prior to our (RED) involvement in your business. Cheers RED.Com, Inc.
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Jan 18, 2020 5:11 pm

Howard Roll wrote:Hard to show up to the party 15 years late and dictate the terms. Raw/Uncompressed was such a small market segment in 2005 when consumers are shooting 25mb HDV.

Fast forward to today's internet; games, toys, computers, cars, make up, you name it there's a youtube channel with 10s of millions of views. A whole new distribution channel fueled by video and the filmmakers that drive it.

If anyone knew where the industry would be 15 years ago I think they would have fought harder to challenge Red and may have won. At this point time and endurance is Red's strongest argument. Whatever it is has proven sufficient time and time again.

Ironically it is Red's ownership of raw that gives Braw it's greatest leverage. If Apple has to pay Red to put Prores Raw on Nikon or anybody's cameras it will greatly slow, posssibly halt it's adoption. If Apple were free to distribute Prores Raw, well it's Prores, figure it out.


I agree somewhat, but let me put it into context for you. Panasonic D5/Varicam and DVCPro 25/100 / HDCAM and HDCAM-SR codecs at 1920x1080 (almost 2K) existed during that time, Digibeta, 8-bit and 10-bit raw quicktime in interlaced and progressive were also available, so was 4:4:4, as was Motion JPEG, JPEG2000, and DNG - It's just the disks were so slow, SSD's were not available so most of it went onto tape. - GPU assisted stuff was only in it's beginning.

But all that stuff was around for decades for professionals - HDV is like the bottom of that codec set at 25mbps. Raw CMOS and 3CCD sensor output was also around - So RED did not "invent" anything, they simply repackaged something and got a patent on the idea of doing this, for what now looks like forever. Good Telecine machines were also around which BM owns now, DI 2k DI 4k and Fuji/Kodak DI film stock was available. So the obvious conclusion is the only innovation that happened was compressing the 2K DI scans but not from film but a live sensor onto slower media like a RED DRIVE.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

PostSat Jan 18, 2020 6:47 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:Hi Rakesh, licensing a particular encoder like H.265/H.264 together with their open source x.264/x.265 variants or the argument that Faunhoffer Institute still owns MP3, they have tried to get people for license money - I recall their $39.95 Digidesign Protools MP3 tax. It's is not the same as getting a patent grant on compression of a thing - like on compression itself, regardless of what kind on imaging or 23.0 frames per second. - The closer analogy would be OGG suing FLAC or any other lossless audio codec maker, where technologically they're not a user. - If RED licensed out it's R3D and people did not want it, and wanted to build a beefier R3D support via other vendors devices I'd understand.


That's a double standard. Someone invents a technology, someone else wants to use it, the inventor charges a license fee. That's actually the whole point of the patent system.

Plus, Red DOES license its IP. And obviously others want to use it...

But if we had moved to RAW+Wavelet JPG2000 style, RED/Oakley would get to come after us again. Thats like suing people for using Bullet Time footage they shot on non Bullet Time systems - almost.


Not even close. If you license one technology and then decide that you'd rather use someone else's, then it's reasonable that you'd pay to license that other company's technology also.

The argument RED is making is that CinemaDNG is okay, Compressed CinemaDNG is also okay, but don't you dare play or record it at 24fps.


We've yet to see any evidence other than rampant speculation that Red is the one that Grant Petty was referring to. It's entirely possible that it was a company that realized BMD was using a compression codec that it had the IP for, since cDNG is a container and supports a variety of compression options.

Black Magic recording cDNG had frame rates over 23fps isn't new; it was around for years before Grant Petty mentioned that someone told that they might be infringing on a patent. Logic indicates that it's equally likely that some other company didn't want Black Magic using its compression codec without a license fee, and Black Magic just didn't want to invest time, effort, and money in determining whether or not that was a valid concern, a precursor to determining whether or not to pay the license fee because it was already working on a clip based codec.

That it was Red hasn't been backed up by any real evidence, only jealousy. It's possible that it was Red, but the fact that Red waited so long, the fact that it was cDNG that BMD dropped, and the fact that BMD quite honestly just didn't care (and still supports cDNG in all of its pre-BRAW cameras) doesn't support the assertion that it was in fact Red.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo i9 Octacore/32GB/2060

Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/1070 Max-Q
Next

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 18 guests