Nikon Z9: 8k Internal ProRes and RAW
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:32 pm
The question nobody is asking is whether RED will sue Nikon to remove the ProRes and RAW support.
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=149883
Tim Kraemer wrote:The question nobody is asking is whether RED will sue Nikon to remove the ProRes and RAW support.
Tim Kraemer wrote:
Additionally, I don't think RED will allow it at any price and Nikon fully intends to litigate this out.
Tim Kraemer wrote:Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Why would RED sue Nikon? What am I missing here gents? I’m really intrigued by this post.
The same reason that RED sued Blackmagic design. They are patent trolls clearly trying to obstruct the competition in the marketplace. However, I think their patent is invalid. They publicly sold cameras in 2006, but did not apply for the patent until 2008. That invalidates the patent.
Nikon/Canon/Sony/Panasonic/Olympus cant reasonably operate in an environment that is deliberately restrictive of platform interoperability for their customers. Red might have wont some battles, but they are going to be mercilessly crushed in this war.
Jamie LeJeune wrote:Kinefinity said the same thing about ProResRAW and then nothing ever came of that. Could be the same with this.
Tim Kraemer wrote:Jamie LeJeune wrote:Kinefinity said the same thing about ProResRAW and then nothing ever came of that. Could be the same with this.
Same thing, RED sued them and forced a non disclosure agreement.
https://www.law360.com/cases/5ffc99ef0ff4df03452326ff
Nick Heydon wrote:What about the new DJI camera? Doesn't that have ProRes RAW internal? Or is there some wacky work around, in that the media is technically outside the camera, therefore it isn't 'internal'?
A patent troll is a derogatory term used to describe a company that uses patent infringement claims to win court judgments for profit or to stifle competition. They obtain the rights to patents with the sole intention of profiting through litigation, with no intention of producing its own goods.Tim Kraemer wrote:Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Why would RED sue Nikon? What am I missing here gents? I’m really intrigued by this post.
The same reason that RED sued Blackmagic design. They are patent trolls clearly trying to obstruct the competition in the marketplace. However, I think their patent is invalid. They publicly sold cameras in 2006, but did not apply for the patent until 2008. That invalidates the patent.
Nikon/Canon/Sony/Panasonic/Olympus cant reasonably operate in an environment that is deliberately restrictive of platform interoperability for their customers. Red might have wont some battles, but they are going to be mercilessly crushed in this war.
JonPais wrote:
RED's completely valid and legal patent that they are obligated to protect
Maybe instead of "Nikon Z9: 8K Internal ProRes and RAW" you should have named the topic more truthfully, "My rant against RED". Or better still, "I know more about image processing than Graeme Nattress".Tim Kraemer wrote:JonPais wrote:
RED's completely valid and legal patent that they are obligated to protect
You can spout this propaganda all day long, but it does not counter the fact that RED uses it to deliberately stifle competition, interoperability, and creativity. The patent is not valid according to current patent office rules. They publicly sold cameras in 2006, but did not apply for the patent until 2008.
Furthermore, RED did not invent the sensor. RED did not invent compression. RED did not invent the hundreds of video CODECs that came before, THAT THEY BASED ALL THEIR OWN CODEC ON. RED literally took two technologies (video codec and compression) and had the sly idea to patent the combination in order to stifle competition. Thats like having hamburgers, and boxes, and patenting STACKING HAMBURGERS IN THE BOX. And that is what a patent troll does. It thoroughly prohibits innovation.
roger.magnusson wrote:It's unbelievable they could patent it when CineForm Raw already existed. Then again RED Digital Cinema is run by lawyers.
What’s your point? Element Technica had been working with RED for years before Jim Jannard purchased the company, and a number of employees, including the founders, relocated either to RED's headquarters or to RED studios Hollywood. All tech companies do likewise. In 2009, BMD purchases DaVinci. In 2010, they purchase the IP of Echolab. In 2014, they purchase eyeon Software, Inc. In 2016, they purchase Fairlight. Standalone companies that are now compulsorily DaVinci Resolve only. Gasp! According to your logic, Blackmagic Design weren't inventing, they were shopping around for bleeding edge technology and putting it all together. More of a shortcut than doing the work yourself... puhhleez. There’s nothing sinister at all about buying out tech companies or changing your compression. What company doesn’t continually create new software, codecs, etc? I'll tell you which ones: the ones that went out of business! And now suddenly RED alone must answer to you? Seriously? For those reading this thinking that RED must’ve singlehandedly put every other manufacturer out of business or that they're stifling innovation or that they’re despised by the entire industry, nothing could be further from the truth: Apple, Sony et. al. continue to have amicable relations with RED, Wooden Camera still does a thriving business selling RED accessories, and RED maintains harmonious relations with third-party manufacturers, many of whom had a hand in the new V-Raptor. RED cameras changed Hollywood, RED still has tremendous brand recognition, its name is synonymous with high-end productions and its cameras are prized by the world’s most esteemed filmmakers. Every reviewer I've listened to just loves the R3D workflow.John Brawley wrote:roger.magnusson wrote:It's unbelievable they could patent it when CineForm Raw already existed. Then again RED Digital Cinema is run by lawyers.
It’s always intrigued me that REDCODE appears to actually be a version of CineForm and yet it’s claimed as a novel invention. Cineform with the Si2K was already doing exactly what RED managed to patent.
RED (or really Jim Jannard) did this a lot, taking existing products in the market that were just launching and then buying them and rebranding them and making them both a RED exclusive product and killing the original inspiration. They weren’t inventing, more shopping for leading edge technologies and putting those together. Is that innovation? More of a shortcut to doing the work yourself. And they well well financed to do so.
Accuscene viewfinders were a standalone company that we’re making the very first color viewfinders. That then became the first RED viewfinder. Accuscene disappeared. Same with a lot of the early accessories. Element technica used to make accessories for all and got bought by RED who then sued Wooden camera for supposedly copying their designs (which were actually Element technica Designs originally).
The Motion Mount existed before RED bought them and made them RED only. And Cineform sure does seem to be what REDCODE is. And so far they seem to have prevented anyone from implementing ProRes RAW in-camera on any product. Does that mean RED are wanting too much or even refusing to even licence it at all ?
And now they’ve even this year abandoned wavelet based compression which is what Cineform is, for DCT, which is what ProRes, BRAW etc are all based on. No explanations. But one presumes that the higher resolutions are getting harder to deal with in terms of computing power.
JB
My first experience seeing RED ONE footage was when I was living in South Korea: Slave Hunter (2010) a hugely popular TV series at the time, and Cafe Noir (2009) the directing debut of Sung-il Jung, one of South Korea's most prominent film critics; and while it was the stories and the acting that impressed me the most, it was impossible not to be awed by the picture quality. At the time I left Michigan in 2007, television was still SD while Korean television had already moved on to high definition.John Brawley wrote:Most of the very same Resolve team that were there when BMD "saved" the company from going under are still today working for BMD many years later.
I don't think that's the case with RED. By the way Woodencamera WAS a mom and pop operation when they were sued, but is now owned by another company that likes to buy companies Vitec. You're just a bit ignorant of the nuance here.
I'm just pointing out what you most likely don't know. Holding up RED as an exemplar of an ethical company is only going to devalue your argument. Those of us that have first hand experience know otherwise, have been through it. I myself am subject to NDA's from RED themselves. They use routinely use intimidation.
I'm excited by what Nikon has done. I won't be using this camera but I can see the appeal. Why has it taken till 2022 to have a consumer camera with ProRes. That's the real question.
JB
JonPais wrote:My first experience seeing RED ONE footage was when I was living in South Korea: Slave Hunter (2010) a hugely popular TV series at the time, and Cafe Noir (2009) the directing debut of Sung-il Jung, one of South Korea's most prominent film critics; and while it was the stories and the acting that impressed me the most, it was impossible not to be awed by the picture quality. At the time I left Michigan in 2007, television was still SD while Korean television had already moved on to high definition.John Brawley wrote:Most of the very same Resolve team that were there when BMD "saved" the company from going under are still today working for BMD many years later.
I don't think that's the case with RED. By the way Woodencamera WAS a mom and pop operation when they were sued, but is now owned by another company that likes to buy companies Vitec. You're just a bit ignorant of the nuance here.
I'm just pointing out what you most likely don't know. Holding up RED as an exemplar of an ethical company is only going to devalue your argument. Those of us that have first hand experience know otherwise, have been through it. I myself am subject to NDA's from RED themselves. They use routinely use intimidation.
I'm excited by what Nikon has done. I won't be using this camera but I can see the appeal. Why has it taken till 2022 to have a consumer camera with ProRes. That's the real question.
JB
The Z9 sensor was manufactured by Sony and the RAW technology was licensed by intoPIX.
I’ll be the first and only one to break the news: being able to record RAW internally is great, aside from the fact that XQD and CFexpress Type B cards cost a king’s ransom compared to SSD and the Nikon LCD is all but useless for HDR – making an Atomos recorder a vastly superior solution for recording ProRes RAW. A 240GB XQD card runs $338.00 USD, a 256GB CFExpress Type B costs $200.00 USD, while our 1TB Samsung 850 PRO is pocket change at $228.00. 8K30 ProRes RAW HQ fills up 1TB in just 40 minutes. 1 terabyte (TB) of 8K RAW every 40 minutes onto cards that cost USD $760.00 per 1TB means over $1,000.00 an hour. For a day’s shoot, you can multiply that by four. Other considerations aside, clients are always impressed when they see an external monitor; rightly or wrongly, they equate it with professionalism. And did I mention that I find false color indispensable? hehe
You do realize that by saying that (a) there are better cameras out there than RED and (b) that you'd choose an ARRI over a RED, that you're saying that the only camera better than RED is ARRI, don't you? And when your argument is solely about money, saying you'd buy a camera costing over $35,000 rather than one that sells for a mere $6,000 is altogether incomprehensible. You do realize that an ARRIRAW license runs $3,750, while there is no extra charge for REDCODE RAW, don't you? Speaking of the drives you're so preoccupied with, it would appear that you're also utterly ignorant of the fact that the RED KOMODO and RED V-Raptor don't even use Mini Mags, rendering your point moot! I'm pretty sure you won't be buying an ARRI drive any time soon either, for that matter. LOLChris Shivers wrote:JonPais wrote:My first experience seeing RED ONE footage was when I was living in South Korea: Slave Hunter (2010) a hugely popular TV series at the time, and Cafe Noir (2009) the directing debut of Sung-il Jung, one of South Korea's most prominent film critics; and while it was the stories and the acting that impressed me the most, it was impossible not to be awed by the picture quality. At the time I left Michigan in 2007, television was still SD while Korean television had already moved on to high definition.John Brawley wrote:Most of the very same Resolve team that were there when BMD "saved" the company from going under are still today working for BMD many years later.
I don't think that's the case with RED. By the way Woodencamera WAS a mom and pop operation when they were sued, but is now owned by another company that likes to buy companies Vitec. You're just a bit ignorant of the nuance here.
I'm just pointing out what you most likely don't know. Holding up RED as an exemplar of an ethical company is only going to devalue your argument. Those of us that have first hand experience know otherwise, have been through it. I myself am subject to NDA's from RED themselves. They use routinely use intimidation.
I'm excited by what Nikon has done. I won't be using this camera but I can see the appeal. Why has it taken till 2022 to have a consumer camera with ProRes. That's the real question.
JB
The Z9 sensor was manufactured by Sony and the RAW technology was licensed by intoPIX.
I’ll be the first and only one to break the news: being able to record RAW internally is great, aside from the fact that XQD and CFexpress Type B cards cost a king’s ransom compared to SSD and the Nikon LCD is all but useless for HDR – making an Atomos recorder a vastly superior solution for recording ProRes RAW. A 240GB XQD card runs $338.00 USD, a 256GB CFExpress Type B costs $200.00 USD, while our 1TB Samsung 850 PRO is pocket change at $228.00. 8K30 ProRes RAW HQ fills up 1TB in just 40 minutes. 1 terabyte (TB) of 8K RAW every 40 minutes onto cards that cost USD $760.00 per 1TB means over $1,000.00 an hour. For a day’s shoot, you can multiply that by four. Other considerations aside, clients are always impressed when they see an external monitor; rightly or wrongly, they equate it with professionalism. And did I mention that I find false color indispensable? hehe
The fact that it came out that Red uses off the self SSDs, rehouse them into their own enclosure and charge an arm and a leg for it, and then restrict you by only using their SSDs. Already tells you their ethics. They want to make money, and if it means stopping competition and giving filmmakers less they are all for it. Red cameras are overrated. I rather pick up an arri than a red camera. There are better cameras out there than red
JonPais wrote:the RED KOMODO and RED V-Raptor don't even use Mini Mags
robert Hart wrote:Didn't Red pay to use the Cineform intellectual property? I thought I read somewhere they had.
RED didn't monster Cineform.
Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Why would RED sue Nikon? What am I missing here gents? I’m really intrigued by this post.
John Brawley wrote:Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Why would RED sue Nikon? What am I missing here gents? I’m really intrigued by this post.
And here its is...
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Calif ... n_et_al/1/
As I've said, I actually think this is about RED blocking anyone that uses ProRes RAW. I don't think this is about TICO RAW, the basis of N-RAW. I would predict that "maybe" Nikon settles, pays up so they can have TICO RAW but no ProRes RAW.
I don't believe we'll ever see a ProRes RAW internal recording camera anytime soon. (Sorry to tell you again Jon)
This is about controlling the codecs...
And err...Patents....I mean an Australian only just got his patent on the wheel overturned not so long ago...
http://www.betaboston.com/news/2014/07/ ... t-many-do/
JB
John Brawley wrote:roger.magnusson wrote:It's unbelievable they could patent it when CineForm Raw already existed. Then again RED Digital Cinema is run by lawyers.
It’s always intrigued me that REDCODE appears to actually be a version of CineForm and yet it’s claimed as a novel invention. Cineform with the Si2K was already doing exactly what RED managed to patent.
John Brawley wrote:robert Hart wrote:Didn't Red pay to use the Cineform intellectual property? I thought I read somewhere they had.
RED didn't monster Cineform.
I'm not sure it's ever been confirmed. I think it's just been assumed because they are so similar AND because RED have never gone after cineform the way they have with every other raw video codec out there....
It begs some questions....
Why did RED get a patent on redcode when Cineform existed before redcode....
A basic tenant of a patent is that it is innovative, original and not something that's obvious.
So, what's so different in REDCODE that it got a patent when cineform appears to have been doing the same thing BEFORE REDCODE...both are wavelet based raw video compression schemes....
JB
JonPais wrote:Tim Kraemer wrote:Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Why would RED sue Nikon? What am I missing here gents? I’m really intrigued by this post.
What you have written is a demonstrable falsehood. Graeme Nattress invented REDCODE RAW, lawfully patented it and it is used in RED's cameras. RED did not purchase it from a third party in order to profit from it without producing any cameras.
Although everyone is expecting that the patent of RED regarding compressed raw is going to expire in 2028, it seems that the technology keeps on evolving and being adapted to new generations of DSMC systems. By then, we believe RED is going to launch its DSMC4 cameras paired with further improved compression methodology. Moreover, it also appears that the patent is not interfering with, nor preventing other camera manufacturers to implement compressed raw internally as well (Nikon Z9, Sony VENICE 2, etc.). Anyway, as for now, the REDCODE RAW is one of the most efficient codecs that exist regarding freedom in post combined with low data rates and reduced power consumption.