¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

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

youlikeny

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 9:45 pm
  • Real Name: Alessandro Penazzi

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostMon May 20, 2019 10:43 pm

lee4ever wrote:
That website was long ago debunked for poor testing practices and incorrect data - easily verified.

The tester comments on the accusations and has made new comparisons.

Here's the end of it though, dng is gone. Good riddance.


For customers who bought the camera because of cDNG, this means the following, Blackmagic Design has lost a professional feature. That's gone.


How is CDNG more "professional" than BRAW? Can you use one in a professional setting and not the other? No.

Let's stop this nonsense, BlackMagic moved on, first they had DNG, then they developed a proprietary codec, announced that it was coming, announced that it would be on the new firmware released in March and finally pushed it to their new cameras.

For those few customers who bought the camera specifically because of CDNG, ordered it before the March announcement but didn't receive it before March yes, too bad, the pocket4K won't work for them. I'm just wondering how many are there and if the Pocket4K was the only camera on the market they were considering, because as far as I know, nobody is making people buying the Pocket4K against their will...
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostMon May 20, 2019 10:49 pm

How is CDNG more "professional" than BRAW? Can you use one in a professional setting and not the other?

Ask the disappointed customers. I personally find BRAW also professional, but in image quality, no better than cDNG.

Let's stop this nonsense, BlackMagic moved on, first they had DNG, then they developed a proprietary codec, announced that it was coming, announced that it would be on the new firmware released in March and finally pushed it to their new cameras.


The problem is that BMD did not inform in advance about removing cDNG completely. Some people are annoyed about this.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostTue May 21, 2019 12:16 am

Steven Abrams wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote:From above pictures it's definitely clear that BRAW lost a lot of data. That's the matter of fact.

Not a fact. You have no idea what data came off the sensor and what happened to it before it was stored, and what additional data is being created in dng processing (which any demosaicing algorithm HAS to do). There is clear evidence there that the dng has false data/detail created. It's not real and didn't exist before the dng was debayered.

Its like when scientists show clear evidence of the shape of the earth, and the wackos scream "see, its clear the world is flat. That's a fact". :roll:



)) Unfortunately I know how test chart should look like in original. From pure physics approach I know better theoretical model and math gives better correlation to direct experimental measurements of the object. CDNG calculate better model with better math. Test chart is very simple thing. It's not possible to resolve it without available data. Less data = less resolution. This works for lenses the same as it works (let say) for film or digital sensor+math.

I have no interest to discuss which one look better for someone. I say only that CDNG operate more correct available data about the object. That's the matter of fact. Otherwise I should not believe my eyes.)) CDNG simply more close to resolution of fine grain film vs BRAW.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostTue May 21, 2019 1:08 am

The proof in testing has been established many times yet we have to endure a long rant in every thread with corrupt fuzzy logic (which is the source of all this). We even have given such diabolically evidentially fuzzy test charts that show Braw inferior, and are told the exact 'opposite'. The flat earthers have won, sort of idea. People are being fooled because they perceive a bit of grade out of braw, that they can do in cdng anyway, with better detail. And telling people to go buy other (E2 with raw) with raw is not helpful for the brand.

Bringing on some mode we can get real Braw out of please? Yes, it maybe 2:1 or less, but it will be ROBUST (and without the fringing).

Now, I don't want to wait for an 8k Braw camera to get descent 2k out of it (that is a lot of fuzz). So, we can stop with the mobile phone and TV like they are the only display solutions, and also realise that even when they are used the better the original print they compress the quality out of, the more details and better levels they can choose from to preserve in the finale compression. So, yes, that is why better cameras eben stand out of YouTube. If you are serious about your art you WILL want something suitable for a higher format on hand. Will you tube has Vern teeivke in the distant past, it has become better and better. In case people ha end noticed we are moving to h268/h269 where we start to get into redray codec territory and premium YouTube with be able to do cinematic imax quality. However cinematic 2k at 18mb/s is 266/267 territory. 266 is currently either out or coming, and 267 not so long in the future. 267 at 9mb/s is prime quality. So, yes, add as much fuzzy as you want but it won't be 2k on a 2k.

A test chart is what true professionals used to tell what is actually happening in an image and how it is performing, not wishful thinking.

The reality is the fuzz is ALL false detail, and there is a lot of fuzz.

Braw is great marketing, but we should hold off until we see what is coming next (no, not prores raw on E2 which will give a sensational according to the samples, but what will happen with Braw next). Coming in next post.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostTue May 21, 2019 1:47 am

OK. What could happen with Braw.


They get together with others (Apple, Adobe, Google and all other raw codec and raw camera makers to split the bill, and try to overturn the offending patent applying to all raw compression methods, as there is prior art publicly disclosed by David Newman over at dvinfo, and then sue for any possible damages, so say hundreds of millions in their favour.

They try to pay a license and use cineform's raw codec, wgich is a lot better to use with modern gpu's being able to process wavelet data (well Nvidias work on Redcode at least).

They try to convince a judge this is anticompetitive under the use walk like a duck, quack like a duck used to border discrimination cases, where you don't have to prove discrimination, only that the actions in question result in it. That the for the price of the patent license their whole codec should he licensed, opened up, the company slpit up like they did with Bell decades back, with the codec, and even asic designs going into a licensable open standard. Even Arri should be interested in getting on board with that. Some of those options.

Or the company stops demanding do much, modifies their patent claims and asks for less money per individual implementation (which they may want to do after reading the next bit).

I'm guess the jpeg implementation in Braw they found is jpeg 1. By going to Jpeg XR (which somebody said supports raw) they could double their visual quality, in a format that should be supported by processing hardware. This hopefully would allow a Braw file of similar detail as cdng at similar size, or better. Turning off or down certain things and getting rid of fringing from yuv people suggest, and macro blocking. Now, we have an alternative to the license thus devaluing the usefulness; of the license.

There obviously are reasons people don't want to buy the license and have made their own alternative. So, maybe the license needs to be cheaper and softened up a bit, so companies will prefer to license. But, if you went to Google and made your case that raw bayer would greatly increase their compression ratio, they would be interested in challenging or buying.the patent, just to get it in.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostTue May 21, 2019 6:58 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:
A test chart is what true professionals used to tell what is actually happening in an image and how it is performing, not wishful thinking.



Reasonable question is how the same test chart with 2K CDNG codec will stay vs 4K BRAW? Available data pure technical approach only.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostTue May 21, 2019 9:52 pm

Valery Axenov wrote:Reasonable question is how the same test chart with 2K CDNG codec will stay vs 4K BRAW? Available data pure technical approach only.


I think the problem is that what some see as sharpness on a test chart, others see it for what it is...aliasing and false colour moire.

This is for post in stills, but gives you an idea of what false color moire and other imaging artefacts can look like in the real world. Thos orange and cyan colours in the test chart turn into this...

http://www.ishootshows.com/2012/04/09/u ... otography/

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 1:16 am

What people don't understand is that moire and aliasing are the actual nearly 100% authentic image as a Bayer pattern sees it, which is why you use an anti-aliasing filter and or processing to reduce it, and why the random colour filter etc were made. So is any of it cdng's fault, or is it that cdng is so good it shows them. We can see that braws attempt obliterates things with blurriness. So, if you want to process a better result, you still have to start with a better source.

The problem is that while Bayer detects the true edge of a detail within the pixel which gave BM the sharpness people bought it for, but each pixel gives one colour emphasising aliasing and moire problems. To get rid of this, they use the anti-aliasing filter, that spreads the light from each pixel into surrounding pixels, to contribute the light from missing colours to a pixel, getting rid of much of the problem. However, this reduces detail contrast between pixels and can be so wide that it could be 4 or more pixels in each direction making a more compressible fuzzy mess. I haven't counted pixel blur in Braw images, but like that. But non-aliasing filter is more a still camera thing because if the motion issues. Wide anti-aliasing I think is an old untra-cheap consumer pocket camera trick. I advocate vertical colour filtering with minimal anti-aliasing filter for better picture myself. You can process a lot of the Bayer artifacts out while retaining nearly 100% Bayer sharpness, and close to a vertical colour filter image, but I'm the only person on the planet I've heard of that can see that (which means it's probably 100% true). Braw can be a lot better, and we should concentrate on that. We would like the option of something as authentic to the Bayer pattern as cdng, or better the problems sorted out. That is where Braw can shine, and be licensed as a standard.

What can be done, minimal anti-aliasing filter (to cover a little more then the gaps between sensor pixel pads) random colour filter (if not vertical colour filter sensor) with a lot of work on routines to process out the artifacts while preserving authentic image detail contrast and sharpness.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 1:25 am

Valery Axenov wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:
A test chart is what true professionals used to tell what is actually happening in an image and how it is performing, not wishful thinking.



Reasonable question is how the same test chart with 2K CDNG codec will stay vs 4K BRAW? Available data pure technical approach only.


Try 8k Braw. Actually, just examine dng from an equivalent good camera (still or not) with good anti-aliasing filter and see how much artifacting you get? It might take a little while to find the camera with the best implementation rather than be cheapened down to market (I.e. does any consumer camera with dng do it right?).
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 7:05 am

http://www.ishootshows.com/2012/04/09/u ... otography/

It's "FALSE"...False colour information.

As per these fence and fabric examples in the link above. If you go and look closely at the fabrics or the fence you're not going to be seeing little orange and cyan colours on their edges that are in the photos.

So how is that real sensor information if it's not real in real life.

Those are imaging artifacts. Not real sensor information.

The printed circle on a test chart is smooth and round, not stair stepped like the DNG version is...

It's sensor aliasing, struggling to represent what's really there.

And it's academic anyway as Blackmagic have clearly moved on from wanting to have anything to do with DNG.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Anatoly Mashanov

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:36 am
  • Location: Russia

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 2:58 pm

lee4ever wrote:For customers who bought the camera because of cDNG, this means the following, Blackmagic Design has lost a professional feature. That's gone.

Well, I have a proposition: There is a published SDK for working with BRAW. So it could be possible to take any test footage in CDNG or in any other raw format, convert it to BRAW and then convert it to CDNG or any other format back. Then either the result is equal to the source byte-by-byte (except possibly some border area) and BRAW is indeed RAW, or it isn't and so BRAW is misrepresented.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10566
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 5:25 pm

No, the SDK is for de-codeing BRaw, not encoding DNG (or other format) to BRaw.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostWed May 22, 2019 6:49 pm

CDNG somewhat accurately represents how the sensor sees the world. We ourselves, don't even see reality, our eyes are tuned to 3 basic overlapping primary ranges normally, 4 and different cone pigment dyes in some people, we don't differentiate every type of matter in a subject holographically in thousands or millions of individual frequencies. So, we see an abstraction of life, as do sensors which often see a different one. It's the reality of how they see, and the PUREST type of data of what they see that you can use to process to look like how WE see. Simple.

About getting hung up on cdng, I've suggested Braw simply gets a mode which is much better instead, which makes it more like what we see, or at least preserves the detail, detail edge and detail contrast that's there. The way Braw works is going to fill in the missing data with approximations anyway, which is OK, as long as the rest, and edge of details, are preserved. As it is, we have a lot of blur, where you can see less resolution and detail on the charts, replaced with blurry "false" detail instead. One can stand back from development, but it is seldom that developers are best in industry, so you have to check what they are doing to see what sense is in it. A second and third set of eyes checking things goes far. I would never have verified the new system as is, I would have asked the questions to see if it could be even more like what we see or preserve enough detailed recoverable Bayer values to be more useful for reprocessing if desired while preserving edge detail (important concept, it's about the edge around every sensor pad value, that the surrounding values accurately represent their proportion of change in detail in their direction, meaning detail then becomes appropriately shaped, so not approximation when there is drastic changes in edge detail. Love to see what Arri does to get their images. I've got a range of mechanisms in mind). People are responding to smaller file sizes, faster processing and levels at the moment, which is alright, but what can be said about a h265 camera too, but you also can get those by transcoding to a faster codec from cdng and auto grading the levels. The problem likely largely wasn't cdng, it's what was being done with it. Resolve could have processed the artifacts out to a higher degree then your camera does.

I refuse to believe BM is not planning significant improvements to Braw (maybe waiting for some licensing to come through, maybe jpeg XR, jpeg XL or an intra h265 like version of prores based on Apple's new camera format). But who knows?
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 606
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostFri May 24, 2019 9:37 pm

i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 755
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostFri May 24, 2019 11:23 pm

carlomacchiavello wrote:i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.


Don't forget the American patent system, it blocks everything.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostSat May 25, 2019 5:59 am

I know David from that time. Basically, they further developed cineform into a standardised codec used on gopro but you still needed $20 a unit patent to use raw on cineform, so the new codec maybe at least that much (cheap, come in BM, even for a micro). Red uses cineform technology I've heard, then things went quiet. They showed graphic art of a tablet like cineform recorder, and I remember talk of foga development. However, Red came out. We had guys scurrying around in the back ground dreaming, doing tje slow and painful camera FPGA development. I think Red came smd bailed them out, they did disappeared at that time. A guy who was to develop a simple software solution, who didn't after such a long time, also got up crowing how he's camera was now a reality, then poof gone. Even though others did basically virtually all the work, and the camera spec and format followed my proposed spec, and a very rich man funded most of it to after he came on board, how is it 'his' camera? It would be rather like if Steve jobs claimed most of the original Apple work, but he wasn't the Steve Jobs of the story. I'm more a Steve, insert Apple name, than some of these guys were of that story. If its got very very little of your dna in it, its not really yours. Steve could give shsoe to a vision, that put his DNA in things, even if he did little of the actual development, his direction gave it shape. Rather like some camera modular systems, which are not my practical vision. I deal in ultimate versions of things, things you can throw at a wall and they 'stick' rather than waste too much money (including customers). So, I'm very reluctant to get on board high profit products. Though a certain rich person did say he was certain he had a position for me. You forgive, but if divergence in intent keeps happening, you walk with integrity. Separately (a different person), Grant in probably a more practical version of me, I see practical as an art form to help people. BM does the sort of good value quality I prefer, butntje name, otherwise I would have followed Rai Oz over there before the launch of the China camera. Hat off to BM, great job, but there is so much more to come, and to deal with the computational cinema Apocalypse building up, and under cut zcam etc in the meantime via better design.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 606
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostSun May 26, 2019 12:36 pm

MishaEngel wrote:
carlomacchiavello wrote:i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.


Don't forget the American patent system, it blocks everything.


Or red payed Newman or they must be blocked, Newman release cineformraw years before first red camera with redcode. I told about cineformraw exactly to avoid patents, which is actually avaible and freely implementable, 20$ like told from Wayne.

Cineform inc project also a raw recorder with cineformraw years before Red patent.

It was released at very expansive price since 10.000 $ in Italy, later the price of all go down thanks facility like Blackmagic Design, Atomos and similar, but in that period there isn’t so many solution to record raw.

First Red was announced at nab 2006 but until to 2007 it was considered vapourware, in 2007 they show Crossing the line, a short of Peter Jackson where he test it in 2007 the beta cam.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 755
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostSun May 26, 2019 2:37 pm

Would love to see Cineform RAW in camera's (KineRAW = CineformRAW). The way I understand it, is that the RED patent(US-only) is about compressed RAW recording (hence the deal between Atmos and RED about ProResRAW). Till now only SONY fought back and won against RED, SONY patents can sue any camera out of business.

Nobody understands how RED got that patent. The US-patent system is about giving the advantage to US companies and they have and use aircraft carriers to enforce those patents. A lot will change in the coming years.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostSun May 26, 2019 8:38 pm

MishaEngel wrote:Nobody understands how RED got that patent. The US-patent system is about giving the advantage to US companies and they have and use aircraft carriers to enforce those patents. A lot will change in the coming years.


It's been said for years that the US patent system is completely broken and that the patent office does little or no due diligence when it comes to investigating prior art. The often don't even understand (or want to understand) what is being sought and that prior art might exist. They apparently don't even consider if something has been in existence and use elsewhere; if it hasn't been patented in the US, it can be patented.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostSun May 26, 2019 9:11 pm

John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostMon May 27, 2019 4:09 am

MishaEngel wrote:Would love to see Cineform RAW in camera's (KineRAW = CineformRAW). The way I understand it, is that the RED patent(US-only) is about compressed RAW recording (hence the deal between Atmos and RED about ProResRAW). Till now only SONY fought back and won against RED, SONY patents can sue any camera out of business.

Nobody understands how RED got that patent. The US-patent system is about giving the advantage to US companies and they have and use aircraft carriers to enforce those patents. A lot will change in the coming years.


From what I heard it covered raw recording above 2k. How do you get a patent in that. IRS like saying I hold copyright to "*****" because I hold copyright to "****". It's just an obvious increase in a quantity, not creative, not patentable. I remember that Sony countersued and had an out of court settlement with Red. After that Sony and Aptina had a sensor technology portfolio cross licensing deal, and Red and Sony images looked similar in raw. Red has it's own silicon fab ovens, and I think that they were there.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostMon May 27, 2019 4:27 am

Hey John, thanks for that.

Do you want Red:s patent for the next 50 years, read this:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/h ... s-survived

Bonkers, they can get around the 20 years patent cut off barrier, and simply do stuff like filing for flying to mars and collect off of Elon Musk, with no actual invention, and all prior art to invalidate has to be before the original patent, even with the new things introduced.

Actually, Elon and others need to get out there and do something. Because we have isolated people doing this, but if it becomes a fashion, then we will be covered in them. If these businesses have to deal with a hundred or thousands of these people, it's going to hurt in the future.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: ¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

PostMon May 27, 2019 4:37 am

What these guys might not have done is class action individually for harassment, extortion (despite what the patent law says, civilly its a different jurisdiction and any license signed under duress could he regarded as an unfair contract and be invalidated, plus anything they can, and damages. The judge could ban from such conduct even if they can't invalidate the patent, the patent owner might be banned from using it or making money on it, because the judge can see its actually invalid and either directly or indirectly doesn't meet the standard, or unjustly meets the standard. So, civilly, the judge never touches the patent itself, but the conduct of those using it.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: austindonald1, Craig Seeman, gnuyork, Jamie LeJeune, Robert Niessner, Xtreemtec and 18 guests