Page 3 of 3

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:36 pm
by Wayne Steven
They settled. Meaning Sony could have gotten a good deal, and Red had gotten a good deal. To break the patent completely can be expensive, and implies justice. I realised today, I've had little of that sort of justice. Justice is like a myth they dangle towards you and you have to be the donkey fast enough to catch that carrot. That's the patent system. It's time we change that. Thankfully justice is already bought, but it doesn't stop you trying to change something here and now.

I've been watching some stuff that might be disturbing to people today. It explains some of the reasoning behind these cultures of alternative justice in America. People who play for power and alternatives. I see some whacked out contrived stuff people lap up while missing what is producing these things.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:34 pm
by Wayne Steven
rick.lang wrote:“Can’t teach an old dog new tricks” they just keep doing what’s worked in the past!

All very difficult to find any credibility when the shams are becoming public knowledge. Yes, there are good products coming out of the factory, but I think this doesn’t bode well for the future.

The very early fans who have devoted say 15 years of idolization must feel like The Leftovers. What of the employees that knew this for years but soldiered on. All the ‘hydrogen’ gone from their balloons. The military theme permeating their industrial design no longer implies a strength threatening the status quo, more a meek illusion of defense of their liquid foundation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yeah you can. I've had to change 10x over say, to be a better person. But yes Rick, so many people are slow to change, slow to agree with what is better.
They are not moved as they hear, they don't want to even hear at times, they are stuck to stop thinking quickly. So progress is slow, and they hire friends and people of some sort of power to advance things for them. So, things are slow, varying, stuttering, lacking the clear, deep, concise technical and emotionally practical vision ahead. These things are an artform as much as the best piece of art. The practical solution must provoke a visceral emotional response, of connection, joy, ease, practicality, style. Steve was good at spotting a winner, and talent to do these things. Red..

After the disaster of high pricing of SI and Red. You could do a company called Purple, and design a camera more like a jewel, that would be style and marketing compared to the military design, and a certain market will buy it, but you must make sure the image and everything else is great, even if you have to go fullhd this round. Perfectly balanced control and handling, the eye candy must not be skin deep. The business is an art too. There is so many dimensions to product design, but what if you are two dimensional, then one dimensional bits and pieces? Your cases are just boxes, your controls bits and pieces. How do you see?

I like industrial design, you can say more the magnificent artful style. I get the little Speer museum. It's about the presence of the space. But what presence did the Red box give? An Abrahams tank could be said to have industrial style, hummers and those south African troop carriers more, but how much further can you go. Just look at modern BM cameras, but how much further can you go. It is something calculated in the subconscious and felt, like framing a scene.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:39 pm
by rick.lang
Wayne, Unbound!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:09 pm
by Wayne Steven
Hi guys, I've just posted a thread asking about functional specification design tools that output code and circuit designs, and a faster alternative to FPGA.

Any engineers here who might be able to help?

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=99599

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:18 pm
by Rakesh Malik
timbutt2 wrote: It's all marketing existing tech as if it's new and special in some way because it is from RED.


That's false. The display tech IS new, and it isn't from Red.

Red didn't claim to have developed that display tech.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:23 pm
by Rakesh Malik
rick.lang wrote:All very difficult to find any credibility when the shams are becoming public knowledge.


Yes, Jinnitech is a sham. Some of what it's been saying is true, but a lot of it is also being rearranged or taken out of context to support a narrative that suits the Jinnitech narrative.

Some of the "lies" are the same as BMD's -- anyone remember how BMD said it was designing and making its own 4.6K sensor?

It's obvious that BMD didn't do that on its own; it worked with a sensor manufacturer (who BMD has yet to reveal).

Double standard anyone?

I'm not criticizing Black Magic, btw. I don't think it did anything wrong with that claim, or by refusing to confirm the theory that Fairchild is its senor manufacturing/design partner.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:32 pm
by Dan Sherman
Rakesh Malik wrote:Double standard anyone?


Every company screws up, says something dumb, release incorrect or misleading statements from time to time. For Red however, it seems more like modus operandi.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:49 pm
by MishaEngel
Rakesh Malik wrote:Some of the "lies" are the same as BMD's -- anyone remember how BMD said it was designing and making its own 4.6K sensor?

It's obvious that BMD didn't do that on its own; it worked with a sensor manufacturer (who BMD has yet to reveal).


I don't remember BMD claiming they make their own 4.6k sensor, I do remember them designing it in co-op with Fairchild. https://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/scmos-sensors/mst4625a.

Fairchild is owned by ON Semiconductor who also makes the Alexa sensorshttps://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/newsItem.do?article=3723.

Both sensors use dual column amplifiers and dual ADC's(ARRI 2x14bit, BMD 2x11bit).

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:48 pm
by Wayne Steven
MishaEngel wrote:
Rakesh Malik wrote:Some of the "lies" are the same as BMD's -- anyone remember how BMD said it was designing and making its own 4.6K sensor?

It's obvious that BMD didn't do that on its own; it worked with a sensor manufacturer (who BMD has yet to reveal).


I don't remember BMD claiming they make their own 4.6k sensor, I do remember them designing it in co-op with Fairchild. https://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/scmos-sensors/mst4625a.

Fairchild is owned by ON Semiconductor who also makes the Alexa sensorshttps://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/newsItem.do?article=3723.

Both sensors use dual column amplifiers and dual ADC's(ARRI 2x14bit, BMD 2x11bit).


Yes, I remember that too.

Boy Grant must be annoyed after Fairchild's recent acquisition by On, who I still suspect is part owned through some arrangement by Red interests, and had a sensor cross license deal with Sony through their prior company Aptina, but I can't keep up.

However Arri sensors in 2010 were designed by cypress (who bought fill factory, Smal (from my little credit card camera etc from memory) then acquired by On. So, On designing the tech behind Arri, is no less true then Red designing the mysterium maybe, but BM paying it's sensor partner to design the Mini 4.6k..

So, is the 4.6k part Alexa, and modern Red part Alexa? Baffles the mind, these guys setting up an alternative to Sony (but where did all the great consumer sensor developments go, or new developments? Looking at On semi's part lists a few years ago, I could just see existing part numbers from previously acquired companies. No wonder there is supposed to be Sony sensors in the pocket 4k etc, you have to balance out the supplier chain with more advanced stuff that's going get designed. I hope On can advance new tech, and licensing, to refresh it's portfolio, to avoid stagnation.

Links pending.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:51 pm
by Wayne Steven

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:52 pm
by Wayne Steven

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:28 pm
by Wayne Steven
Now, what can BM do, to avoid On and Sony. You can see lots of little companies with actual shipping tech (not some strange accusation you see level against me that I'm talking about research tech. The information source I use is a portal of industry news on shipping tech). But there is the European Unions Sensor Patent portfolio partners tech. This includes the 27 stop+ sensor with superior colour. There is also the vertical colour filtering sensor technology, as used in the Sigma foveon x3, and being developed in alternative form by major companies like Sony and Canon likely at video rates, which the old x3 didn't get designed for (except in mobile phone versions in the EU I think). A vertical colour filtering version of the European sensor patent technology could lead to a Alexa beating 8k design for years, while the industry struggles to compete with proposed 16k and 32k. If only they can be run at video rates coolly. Well, the micron (Aptina) high speed sensor patent should run out (Sony sensors suddenly solved their high speed heat issue after the cross licensing deal). So, we know that avenue of solution is probably coming. The thing would have larger pixels, with Much less need for optical low pass filtering (the foveon x3 design even has close to 100% fill factor). So with bigger pixels it could possibly hold it's own against new advancements in low light in normal shooting conditions).

But then again, there is all the 'shipping' astro photography tech, the digital film sensor proposal using sub wavelength technology, and proposed quantum film sensor stuff. Maybe they are ready by now. Also my single pixel sensor proposal I've got to nut out.

BM has success and latitude at the moment to take advantage of it. But they would more want am Alexa like deal where the tech is exclusive.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:05 am
by Robert Niessner
Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:redcode was pretty high compressed in the beginning as well. I remember full-size framegrabs from
“Crossing the line” shot by Peter Jackson. Those looked underwhelming and more like uprez 720p. The forum was really split back than because of lack of detail and mushy compression. Jim and the crew was furious at the nei-sayers.


Interesting. Because just recently I found those framegrabs on my server in a sub sub sub folder...

I wouldn't say they are looking underwhelming and like uprez 720p:
(I had to downscale them to HD because of forum file size restrictions)

009000-hd.jpg
009000-hd.jpg (549.03 KiB) Viewed 2382 times


002965-hd.jpg
002965-hd.jpg (469.74 KiB) Viewed 2382 times


005634-hd.jpg
005634-hd.jpg (312.17 KiB) Viewed 2382 times


And here the original 4096 x 1743px screengrabs:
https://we.tl/t-XFmo8JBnce

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:15 am
by Robert Niessner
And the trailer in HD:
https://we.tl/t-QRltqs7iIP

Looks great to me.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:23 am
by Dmitry Shijan
This is not the end :)

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:10 am
by Wayne Steven
I'll have to watch that some other time.

But boy, am I going get in trouble if I buy "Red" paint, or if I say I painted something "Red". I'd better be careful, I might violate their trademark, if I'm on a quiz show and they ask me what colour is blood.. I might have to answer "brown when dry", and if they ask me the colour of wet blood, I might have to answer "bright brown"...(haven't you ever wondered why you never see bright brown about, because it's .. bright brown (Phew! Just avoided a trademark case then). So, I'm seeing a lot less Pastel version of Pink, over this (and no, I'm not dating the singer, I've got my eye in another singer if I ever meet her again).

I mean, self entitled..

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:52 pm
by Andrew Kolakowski
Dmitry Shijan wrote:This is not the end :)


Love it...
Almost from the day 1 you could feel that there is something strange behind RED. Now I know what it was- bunch of lawyers with theirs "fancy language". They so hated facts and created fake world which so many fall into.

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:02 am
by Wayne Steven
But..the Apple logo was Red. Is it still? Did they have to change it for some reason!

:)

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:18 am
by Knudsen
Wayne Steven wrote:I'll have to watch that some other time.

But boy, am I going get in trouble if I buy "Red" paint, or if I say I painted something "Red". I'd better be careful, I might violate their trademark, if I'm on a quiz show and they ask me what colour is blood.. I might have to answer "brown when dry", and if they ask me the colour of wet blood, I might have to answer "bright brown"...(haven't you ever wondered why you never see bright brown about, because it's .. bright brown (Phew! Just avoided a trademark case then). So, I'm seeing a lot less Pastel version of Pink, over this (and no, I'm not dating the singer, I've got my eye in another singer if I ever meet her again).

I mean, self entitled..


I'm afraid you are already in trouble Wayne. You used the R word twice in your post on a public open forum. You had better get dyslexic or psycho fast for your court date. Or both like I am. It's your only hope.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:36 am
by Wayne Steven
deR lexiadsy. :)