Removal of CDNG from UMP G1

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.

Problem is that patent is in typical cases for something very specific. You can't eg. patent for compression itself.
RED patent is very broad and it's not about compressing RAW in camera only, but also in any device, like RAW recorders (eg. Atomos case with ProRes RAW). When you analyse what technology was at the time RED got their patent then you will realise it was "crazy generous" one.
There is only few years left and then as far as I understand it will loose its power, same as MP3, AC3 are now not protected anymore. You can try to extend it, but it's not obvious you will succeed.

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.

In 2006 only the D5 is uncompressed, everything else you've mentioned is either compressed or a compression standard so the context is cloudy. Raw interlaced 8-bit Quicktime who, what shot this? If there was ever an uncompressed HD tape recorder I never saw one . The best HDCam SR recorder could do what amounts to 10 bit Prores 4:4:4 and it cost 100 grand. The topper is that all of this is at best rec709 encoded 10 bit 4:4:4. There's no wide gamut/HDR tape format and nobody is recording raw.

So when Sony actually got around to try and get raw off the f65 in 2013 Red stepped in with the lawsuit. Sony essentially bullied Red back by threatening to counter sue over Red's use of Sony's IP and ultimately it was settled. So now Red has Apple, Atmos, Sony, BM, and Panasonic lined up like little duckies.

I'm not any happier about it than you are. This all hurts the consumer but you can see why BM and Apple are so cagey with their competing not "raw" formats. This IP of Red's may prove more valuable than their camera business.

Maybe you can prove that somebody else did it first like Silicon Imaging, or maybe the Reel Stream Andromeda. All you're going to do though is prove that it's somebody else's IP, doesn't make it yours.

Good Luck

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.

In 2006 only the D5 is uncompressed, everything else you've mentioned is either compressed or a compression standard so the context is cloudy. Raw interlaced 8-bit Quicktime who, what shot this? If there was ever an uncompressed HD tape recorder I never saw one . The best HDCam SR recorder could do what amounts to 10 bit Prores 4:4:4 and it cost 100 grand. The topper is that all of this is at best rec709 encoded 10 bit 4:4:4. There's no wide gamut/HDR tape format and nobody is recording raw.

So when Sony actually got around to try and get raw off the f65 in 2013 Red stepped in with the lawsuit. Sony essentially bullied Red back by threatening to counter sue over Red's use of Sony's IP and ultimately it was settled. So now Red has Apple, Atmos, Sony, BM, and Panasonic lined up like little duckies.

I'm not any happier about it than you are. This all hurts the consumer but you can see why BM and Apple are so cagey with their competing not "raw" formats. This IP of Red's may prove more valuable than their camera business.

Maybe you can prove that somebody else did it first like Silicon Imaging, or maybe the Reel Stream Andromeda. All you're going to do though is prove that it's somebody else's IP, doesn't make it yours.

Good Luck

If i could I would, however I think more articulate lawyers and budget wins the battle in this case, I just did not understand until a youtube video that RED was the stagnating force behind all other digital cameras. I did my research and found the nefarious RED footprints, the interview with Atomos ProRes RAW CEO is worth a view, with him having anything but nice things to say to RED or about RED, while using zero of their actual technology - this is clearly an IPR lawyers game and has very little to do with film makers or DPs or any creative people for that matter. But the thing is patents like this make my blood boil. Oh I cannot have a good and cheap camera because you're a bunch of litigious tw....ts - well great - why don't you guys shove your RED MAG with your cheap-sh... Toshiba SSD right up your... - everything they do smacks of IPR or Proprietary, what GPU no good for you for last 10 years, now when Apple lost we can have GPU instead of RedRocket cards. Jesus. I did not understand that the underdog will become evil incarnate, sort of like Phoenix BIOS whom developed a reversed BIOS from IBM in a "clean room" setting and now sue everyone for their BIOS to get those folks off the market. - I mean what is the barrier to entry if not government enforced IPR?

And just to be clear, RED sued everyone they could sue, I did not notice that on red user, but they did actually sue everyone they could sue. Like WTF.... why.... small company, big company no care, we need RED money. I'm all for IPR if its done correctly, I'm certain USPTO had zero idea when granting red a patent for a VIDEO CAMERA, - yeah please RED - patent a video camera. - this should be shouted from mountains, RED.com, Inc patents a video camera - HA AH AHA.... like really - it makes my blood boil on a consumer or pro-sumer level.
When you figure out that one company is the reason why no healthy competition or innovation was done in the last 10-15 years. = They can shove their clunky camera somewhere...

it's just their oppression of anyone doing same is rediculous given the price of their brains and accesories It's sheer madness. And they should be called out on it every time. Oh you guys wanted to be a distruping force? Well now you're no better than Sony/Panasonic and JVC - your are a hinderance that's bilking minor progress for everything... ,


Like dear RED, you have crushed the dreams of many Digital DP's in your pursuit of profit, can you just please STOP, so real innovation and healthy competition can exist in this marketplace without everyone paying your tax to you directly or in-directly, like please RED just s..d off from the community, your not a friendly entity anymore and your avarice precludes your from making actual full featured cameras like the Xenomorphs you made for Netflix/Fincher and more like this crazy shop that is killing competition in order to maintain a profit margin.

I really wonder how one can get such a broad patent in the US, no way to get something like that patented in EU.

Apart from that, we know the name of the game, don't we?

$how Me the Money!

Amazon patented three point lighting, never mind that it’s also called Rembrandt lighting. Do they still have it? Is it worth anyone’s time or money to challenge this obviously bogus claim? Today perhaps not, a hundred years from now it’s the song “Happy Birthday”. Which if anyone was following was finally called Bullskat. Time Warner had to shell out.

Edit: Keep in mind any reversal or change of patent status would have a severe possibly critical fiscal impact were Red ordered to similarly shell out.

Rakesh,

Well, that frame rate and above, at resolutions above, above those used before the patent. When you do a patent it is practice to expand its terms to capture as much future territory as possible, and some naive/negligent patenting department grants the patent and doesn't care about invalid overlap, even when people point it out and prior historical use. They even get patent lawyers to write patents to this effect.
My opinion is to sue the patent departments and the agents responsible for a they are worth (the cost of patent miss-application damage, is astronomical and the people responsible don't have enough assets to cover it). Then you would probably see responsibility in granting patents go up rapidly. Overlapping (bluff, boiler plate, in legal terms, except the patent system tends to give a potential free pass, if they don't enforce). There should be jail terms for deliberately doing these things.

Anyway, the Red patent is extensive trying to capture territory.

Hasn't Cdng been used with Jpeg 1, as pretty standard?

Sorry, replied to post at end of first page that opened rather than last post.

$how Me the Money!

Yes Rick, maybe you could claim damages along with every other camera person and mobile phone user denied Bayer recording mode. Most mobile phone users need a Bayer recording mode on occasion to deliver prime quality at lower datarates, for weddings or occasions. These days a person could collect all mobile phone footage at a wedding to put together an item, and even a 3D/VR presentation. Don't get too excited Rick. It's the software they put together to correlate all the phone footage during protests like the Arab Spring. So, massive losses there. The footage would be better at all those events with Bayer recording.

If i could I would, however I think more articulate lawyers and budget wins the battle in this case, I just did not understand until a youtube video that RED was the stagnating force behind all other digital cameras.

Youtube videos? The ones by the scammer that was mad because he couldn't get Red to certify his MiniMag clones? The same one who shafted several customers by either not shipping them the products they'd purchased or by refusing to issue refunds for ones that didn't work?

Sure, he's a legit source of information...

Information is information, whoever points you towards it.

Information is information, whoever points you towards it.

Misinformation isn't. The trick is learning to tell the difference, which most netizens do not.

Yes. I was dubious about some of his presentation. What did you find in it that was misinformation?

Yes. I was dubious about some of his presentation. What did you find in it that was misinformation?

For starters, he presented information from almost ten years ago as if it was current information. To be honest, I didn't get much farther than that; it didn't take much research to figure out that was selectively leaving information out or re-ordering it to alter its meaning to support his agenda.

After that I stopped paying attention; there's no reason to waste time on someone so blatantly altering history to serve his agenda.

Information is information, whoever points you towards it.

Misinformation isn't. The trick is learning to tell the difference, which most netizens do not.

Oh dear Rakesh, I envy your resolve to not think critically and yet pat yourself on the back for doing so.
I was not frequenting this BM forum here.. - then I watch this YouTube video where someone says CinemaDNG is no longer available... I'm like WHY - what's going on, then I see another, than another. Then I come here, I see some threads basically just RAW RAW for BRAW and nothing more.. - then I stopped and pieced this whole thing together.

Please articulate how this makes me a Jackass? Just because something prodded me to look somewhere else, that makes my findings VOID? NULL, ILLOGICAL? - I urge you do defend RED for ripping down everyone using Compressed CinemaDNG aside from Atomos.. PLEASE.

So just because I took my time, parsed patents, looked at prior and current lawsuits, like you're gonna be like - these are "Alternative Facts?" Like seriously- thats just madness. Granted I established bad rapport with you, but please prove me wrong, go on your own fact finding mission, tell me its "Adobe" that hates CinemaDNG or something else more like it... You know it's not, it's RED, you see other vendors getting hit with RED Compression patents. So just deny it - because like Jarred Land might read this or something.

I really just invite you to make me look like an idiot when looking at pure facts. Just because Mr. Petty did not say you don't get CinemaDNG anymore because of RED.com does not make it not true.

Oh dear Rakesh, I envy your resolve to not think critically

You have it completely backward...

I really just invite you to make me look like an idiot when looking at pure facts. Just because Mr. Petty did not say you don't get CinemaDNG anymore because of RED.com does not make it not true.

And the proof is that statement right there; I didn't say that it was false, I quite clearly stated that the evidence wasn't at all conclusive.

In other words, I didn't need to do anything to make you look like an idiot, you did that to yourself.

Oh dear Rakesh, I envy your resolve to not think critically

You have it completely backward...

I really just invite you to make me look like an idiot when looking at pure facts. Just because Mr. Petty did not say you don't get CinemaDNG anymore because of RED.com does not make it not true.

And the proof is that statement right there; I didn't say that it was false, I quite clearly stated that the evidence wasn't at all conclusive.

In other words, I didn't need to do anything to make you look like an idiot, you did that to yourself.

You said what I wrote based on learning that CinemaDNG is replaced with BRAW for patent reasons from your average "review" videos and then subsequently my research is - and I quote you hear is

"Misinformation"

Please let me know how I am misinformed or attempting to misinform others here. - Please.

I know my tone is not great in these comments, as this has delivered somewhat of a shock to me.
But it's not towards you, not at all I'm just feeling like some got hit with a brick.

Again I ask, how am I misinformed? Should I call RED.com, Inc. for comment - BM for comment?

Should I repost their comments here? Should I go through LexusNexus?

Like where should I stop in clearly articulating that RED.com, inc. is the only reason why you can no longer can have CinemaDNG and can only have pre de-bayered BRAW? Not because one is better or worse, but because of RED? Or the clear testimony from Atamos as to how they're paying RED.Com, Inc to allow themselves to do ProRes RAW in their recorders with Apple?

Please find me some esoteric unknown computer vision firm or the Dept. of Defense - that sued or confronted BM about CinemaDNG... please find that like esoteric and weird patent troll somewhere...
Nope - it's RED - it's RED it's RED - red is killing your other camera options using the courts and USPTO.

Black Magic should come out and JUST SAY it's RED. And that will end it, you'll know which underdog whom became mafia that is responsible of what you can and cannot do with your own damn camera.

Playing a sceptic or devils advocate when confronted with hard facts is silly. Unless Grant Petty says that RED.com, Inc. terrorized Black Magic and attempted to extort them you won't believe it - then you're in the category that won't believe such as statement even if it was presented.

What like the Illuminati decided to mess with Black Magic or the CFR?? - Seriously lets all ground ourselves in reality

Thats all.

You said what I wrote based on learning that CinemaDNG is replaced with BRAW for patent reasons from your average "review" videos and then subsequently my research is - and I quote you hear is

I was pretty specific when I pointed out what was misinformation. You're inventing the rest of what I said, which is a common tactic for people who have nothing to back their arguments.

Please let me know how I am misinformed or attempting to misinform others here. - Please. - I know my tone is not great, as this has delivered somewhat of a shock to me. But it's not towards you. Again I ask, how am I misinformed. Should I call RED.com, Inc. for comment - BM for comment? - Should I repost their comments here? LexusNexus? Like where should I stop in clearly articularing that RED.com, inc. is the only reason why you can no longer can have CinemaDNG and can only have de-bayered BRAW? Not because one is better or worse, but because of RED?

You can ask whoever you want, but you're not going to get a clear answer because none will speak about it, as is standard practice for most companies. Very little of the rhetoric backing the idea that Red is the reason for Black Magic pulling cDNG has any relationship to any statements from either company, which means that most of the "evidence" is nothing but assumptions.

And as I pointed out, why would Red wait so long since Black Magic has been recording in-camera cDNG at 24fps for most of a decade? The timing would lead someone who IS applying logic to the situation to be skeptical about the assumptions that have been tossed around in the absence of any definitive information.

Please find me some esoteric unknown computer vision firm or the Dept. of Defense - that sued or confronted BM about CinemaDNG... please find that like weird patent troll somewhere... Nope - it's RED - it's RED it's RED

Thank you for proving me right yet again.

Playing a sceptic or devils advocate when confronted with hard facts is silly.

What hard facts? The ones you invented? Those are the only ones we have to work with, which means it's all speculation.

You said what I wrote based on learning that CinemaDNG is replaced with BRAW for patent reasons from your average "review" videos and then subsequently my research is - and I quote you hear is

I was pretty specific when I pointed out what was misinformation. You're inventing the rest of what I said, which is a common tactic for people who have nothing to back their arguments.

Please let me know how I am misinformed or attempting to misinform others here. - Please. - I know my tone is not great, as this has delivered somewhat of a shock to me. But it's not towards you. Again I ask, how am I misinformed. Should I call RED.com, Inc. for comment - BM for comment? - Should I repost their comments here? LexusNexus? Like where should I stop in clearly articularing that RED.com, inc. is the only reason why you can no longer can have CinemaDNG and can only have de-bayered BRAW? Not because one is better or worse, but because of RED?

You can ask whoever you want, but you're not going to get a clear answer because none will speak about it, as is standard practice for most companies. Very little of the rhetoric backing the idea that Red is the reason for Black Magic pulling cDNG has any relationship to any statements from either company, which means that most of the "evidence" is nothing but assumptions.

And as I pointed out, why would Red wait so long since Black Magic has been recording in-camera cDNG at 24fps for most of a decade? The timing would lead someone who IS applying logic to the situation to be skeptical about the assumptions that have been tossed around in the absence of any definitive information.

Please find me some esoteric unknown computer vision firm or the Dept. of Defense - that sued or confronted BM about CinemaDNG... please find that like weird patent troll somewhere... Nope - it's RED - it's RED it's RED

Thank you for proving me right yet again.

Playing a sceptic or devils advocate when confronted with hard facts is silly.

What hard facts? The ones you invented? Those are the only ones we have to work with, which means it's all speculation.

Okay so you're a professional forum poster and not a reasonable person sadly - sorry for my tone again. Best of luck to you in your personal delusions - keep fixing all the broken people that see facts and evidence. Nothing will convince you that this is the case - not a thing - your MO is to disagree and sceptic out of any information, while having no conclusions on your own. Did you get anywhere on your fact finding? - Or do you just want to say NAAAAH this aint real.. you no no nothing.... stop posting - my post-count is more worthwhile and yours is naught. You seriously are lost in in this?

Watch this from Atomos and how he loves RED for ProRes RAW

Wait till he says "We licensed Compressed RAW from RED"... Just listen to a CEO of a company.

And if you have little time to watch the whole video where 99% of it is the 20 cameras and Apple and blah blah blah here isa time code stamped jump point

Code: Select all

https://youtu.be/L0cexzJLVIs?t=277

Denis, with respect, this CEO is as far from being an unbiased source as the North Pole is from the South Pole. Be cautious in choosing your reliable and authoritative sources of information.

Denis, with respect, this CEO is as far from being an unbiased source as the North Pole is from the South Pole. Be cautious in choosing your reliable and authoritative sources of information.

Same CEO that got sued by RED, I wonder did you watch the whole clip? Like honestly one guy says it's mis-information and other jump on the band-wagon because I'm just angry.

The transcript is like " We love Apple, we love ProRes.... Apple Apple, ProRes RAW..... -.... we paid RED for the IP... " - so run that by me again - Apple does ProRes, but you paid RED for WHAT? ... please I urge you to watch the video an listen to what he says, then read the apology article from Atomos for violating RED patents on doing ProRes RAW and how they paid red and now they're happy with RED, while RED has NOTHING - like NOTHING to do with ProRes or Apple or Atomos.

This one
https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/01/24/ ... agreement/

"With this agreement, Atomos have presumably come to some sort of monetary arrangement with RED that allows them to legally offer compressed RAW recording in their products without breaching RED’s intellectual property rights."

Okay so you're a professional forum poster and not a reasonable person sadly - sorry for my tone again.

And again with the ad hominem attacks, since you have no facts to work with...

Okay so you're a professional forum poster and not a reasonable person sadly - sorry for my tone again.

And again with the ad hominem attacks, since you have no facts to work with...

And that is exactly what you do. All the facts were laid out in posts prior - You are just against something just to be against something. There is zero rhyme or reason. - I did not realize I was responding to what is a professional debate club member, so basically you can argue your position for no reason what so ever- just to argue.

I did not realize my job was to prove it to you, otherwise I would get PDF's with Petty's signature on it, I did not know we needed rules of evidence or other weird internet stuff here -

I did not know that you're the arbiter of truth and fact on here or elsewhere and a seasoned litigator.


No point, I'll just put it in my signature.
"RED.com, Inc. is the reason why CinemaDNG was removed from BlackMagic cameras."


Why don't we bring out the red-herring and non-sequitur and a couple of other maneuvers, because you cannot watch a video. There is no argument, you're making one by typing into here and not by researching or reading actual evidence.

Again, you Rakesh won't care if it's real, you just care to be antithetical to the actual evidence I've presented.

Okay so you're a professional forum poster and not a reasonable person sadly - sorry for my tone again.

And again with the ad hominem attacks, since you have no facts to work with...

Hit that report button, you said I misinformed people, and I present false information - on zero foundation. These accusations are not ad-hominems - that's not an attack on my or my credibility or my time spent in research - but me calling you out for posting for the sake of posting is? -

I'm too old for debate club in the intarwebs. It's like you were reading my post and saw "Youtube" - how dare he say that in his verbal vomit, he must be punished because it's all fake and nonsense, I Rakesh alone will fix him, he is broken - I alone know the truth is not known and if he ever sees me diss him, I'll just turn it around as I'm a pro. Or how to devolve a fact based discussion into a P vs. NP.

Rakesh, I am quoting myself:

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.

It would be a huge coincidence if it wasn't RED threatening BMD.

[/quote]

This line of speculation would make a LOT more sense if:
1) It related to BRAW rather than cDNG
2) BMD hadn't been using cDNG for almost ten years without facing such charges

Atomos had cDNG implemented for quite a while as well, and needed obtain licensing when it started supporting ProResRaw.

Naturally however, no one wants to account for the whole picture, and realize that we really don't have enough information to be sure one way or another.

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

A+ - I just wonder why Rakesh and like minded thinkers would support having limited options in his cinema cameras. - These torts/lawsuits/threats impact any digital camera vendor or even as we've seen any digital recorder vendor, we all need more options and more competition - not less options and less competition - so it's like making arguments against ones own interest while doing this craft/trade/art.

Thank you.

Rakesh - There is NO SPECULATION. Red Owns compressed RAW without debayering. It owns it. 100% - USPTO said it so, so did the courts. This is not a speculation, it is a court decision - so what is there to speculate about? There is no whole picture when RED owns a patent on a VIDEO CAMERA recording any COMPRESSED RAW footage in any format. Where is the speculation? WHEEEEEERE? Or is there some exigent desire for you to convince yourself that BRAW is actually RAW when it is not in legal terms? It's that what is driving this.

Are you just posting this just to troll? Like literally open your eyes - it is in front of you, there is a patent for anything raw compressed over 23.00 fps.. Like really - do you want the patent link again or the TLDR?

Or what would convince you that RED, Inc. is destroying competition in the Digital Cinema market for the sake of unjust enrichment and every consumer of any digital cinema goods should be aware of their clout and them using any and every available means to silence, sue, squelch the likes of Apple/Atomos/BM/Sony/Panasonic/JVC etc.. - long list.....

A+ - I just wonder why Rakesh and like minded thinkers would support having limited options in his cinema cameras.

Where did you get that idea? I'm certainly not arguing in favor of limited options. If you think that's what I've been writing, then you must be severely literacy challenged.

A+ - I just wonder why Rakesh and like minded thinkers would support having limited options in his cinema cameras.

Where did you get that idea? I'm certainly not arguing in favor of limited options. If you think that's what I've been writing, then you must be severely literacy challenged.

By the very virtue of you ignoring boldface all in caps - the RED patent on compressed raw sensor data, you agree that - it's okay that only people and companies whom buy a license from RED.com Inc can have RAW footage that is compressed on their storage. You are their advocate and sponsor - wittingly or un-wittingly. You are for RED.com Inc, and not competition - you are for ever lasting patents, and not an advocate for your craft or peers whom practice it.

You won't accept that BRAW was an answer and a dodge from a lawsuit by Black Magic. Because you need Grant Petty to spell it out for you - and if it weren't for people with your type of sentiment he probably would have. He would have come up to a stage and said, look guys, we're doing this non-RAW BRAW because RED and Apple lost and decided to co-operate, and were kinda on the side of that.

You sponsor RED.com Inc. in every post where you attempt to see any doubt that they are a litigious bunch and want the Digital Cinema market destroyed lest they own it or profit from it in whole.

So Yes, you are against your own interests - unless your interests are not your own. How much of a sceptic do you have to be when looking at suits, patents, law, courts and evidence? Do you want to pay the RED Tax when you compressed RAW for the next 30+ years? Do you want boutique camera vendors to give you H264 or other when you wanted RAW instead? Is this what you're an advocate for, keeping it going at best effort levels.

Man I though SONY was bad, look at where RED.com Inc. is now.

Like skip the nonsense - this is a big issue for anyone making any camera at all be it ARRI or be it Canon.
Their stupid patent is like a BIG DEAL for anyone whom wants to do any motion imaging. Like really - not for nothing, if not BM but anyone else is going to have a problem, so this is actually a MAJOR issue, not a small one, it's not a button that does this or that, it's at the core of wether you're a RED customer or some wannabe shmuck. And based on their licensing, if your an Apple or Atomos customer, your are a RED customer without choosing not to be. This should be shouted from the rooftops by every DP, this should be in the Local 600 meetings. Like really this is a BIG BIG issue.

A+ - I just wonder why Rakesh and like minded thinkers would support having limited options in his cinema cameras.

Where did you get that idea? I'm certainly not arguing in favor of limited options. If you think that's what I've been writing, then you must be severely literacy challenged.

Like I said the report this post button, me? Literacy challenged - that is an ad-hominem attack.. I feel attacked. OMG. I'm going to cry into a napkin, I've never learned to read or speak. - No man, this is what you're an advocate for - as many of limited options as possible for any cinematographer or videographer in this year of our lord 2020, the more limited they are, the more money they have to spend to get beyond those limits. Maybe you like it or it favors you and your budget - I actually don't know what your motivation of ignoring lack of competition is, and thusly lack of options are due to RED patents in this segment is for any reason. - Like really what DP wants to shoot on handy-capped cameras or pay exorbitant fees to have the "freedom" to shoot on less than handy-capped cameras paying the RED.com Inc, TAX. It is a TAX if you're wondering.

Now in this reply I am going to flag BM for not being as straight forward and transparent of a communicator as they should be, even though the user base is on their side and will defend them if RED.com, Inc stepped out of line and engaged in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices - RED.com Inc need only be reminded that at the end of the day the USPTO and the courts are nothing compared to an FTC enquiry and all other steak-holders of Video Equipment should know that and petition the FTC.

A+ - I just wonder why Rakesh and like minded thinkers would support having limited options in his cinema cameras.

FTC complaint agains RED.com Inc, filed. Not a gag - this is a serious issue. Some company cant just usurp the power from free enterprise and from free people. Not happening on my watch (nothing political please).

I encourage every USA citizen to do same : https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

I guess if you're in Canada, EMEA or ASIAPAC you have different bodies or PM's to appeal to.
But seriously this is a BIG deal. Don't delay your political reps are on the intarnets.

Stop RED from becoming the next Goolge or Facebook - where you just have to pay or play. It's not right.
Digital Imaging belongs to all of us. - Dear Grant Petty, be transparent on this one, I am behind you, Republicans and Democrats in USA will be behind you. - Nobody want's this RED domination.

This line of speculation would make a LOT more sense if:
1) It related to BRAW rather than cDNG
2) BMD hadn't been using cDNG for almost ten years without facing such charges

Atomos had cDNG implemented for quite a while as well, and needed obtain licensing when it started supporting ProResRaw.

1) CDNG per se does not violate the RED patent because there was no lossy compression in the Adobe standard.

2) BMD finally released their first camera BMCC in 2013 with uncompressed CDNG. Then they implemented lossless compression in 2014 for the BMPC4k and BMPCC and 2015 for the BMCC.
Lossy CDNG with stronger compression came in mid 2015 with the UM46k which was finally available in early 2016.
That's not 10 years, but 2 years until RED started to react in mid 2018 like we know from Atomo's document I had linked earlier.
And Atomos brought CDNG with a firmware update in March 2017.

Denis, my previous opaque comment was not about the items you responded to; it related to something else to do with motivation and intentions which can be behind the scenes in any debate or policy or professed love. No worries though.

[Kristian Lam]

Yep, that's enough.