Nikon Z9: 8k Internal ProRes and RAW

The question nobody is asking is whether RED will sue Nikon to remove the ProRes and RAW support.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

The question nobody is asking is whether RED will sue Nikon to remove the ProRes and RAW support.

It’s interesting.

They won’t ship it if isn’t already allowed.

It’s interesting that they have announced internal RAW but it seems a little ambiguous with regards to being ProRes Raw. I’ve seen language that says ProRes HQ internal (which is great) and then talks about PRR as being supported. Does that mean supported for internal recording or supported for output to a recorder?

There’s already been companies that have announced PRR and then un-announced it. Just this year….

https://nofilmschool.com/mavo-edge-8k-w ... prores-raw


So either…

1. They’ve announced it not realising they have to negotiate it / pay etc to have it and haven’t thought about it and won’t ship it once they start trying negotiate which is what happened with Kinefinity.

2. They’ve done a deal and they will be the first camera to actually record PRR internally, because right now despite the pr that says otherwise the only way to record PRR is to use an Atomos recorder or a DJI camera with a seperate recorder.

JB

Additionally, I don't think RED will allow it at any price and Nikon fully intends to litigate this out.

Additionally, I don't think RED will allow it at any price and Nikon fully intends to litigate this out.

I doubt it.

Apple themselves tried this. Didn’t work. And they have endless money (Nikon has long been rumoured to be in trouble) and didn’t get anywhere.

https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/11/raw-video/

This is today why more than 3 years since launch not a single camera records ProRes RAW internally and the only way to record ProRes RAW is to use a non-apple product to do it.

I wonder if the “photo” sites really understand the difference between ProRes raw and prores HQ. I would love to see Nikon themselves actually spell it out but it’s not exactly precise language.

JB

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.

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.

I don’t believe RED sued BMD.

But I do know that if Apple couldn’t knock them over, then no one else has much of a chance.

JB

I agree the press on the Z9 raw recording is ambiguous about whether ProResRAW is internal or not. The one thing reports all say is that it’s planned “in a future firmware update”. Kinefinity said the same thing about ProResRAW and then nothing ever came of that. Could be the same with this.

As for Red, their market share is being devoured from all sides. Red tried to branch out to release a phone camera and we all know how that worked out. Why Apple simply hasn’t bought Red outright to get the patent is a mystery. Not that filmmakers would be any better off with Apple guarding that patent rather than Red.

All I can say for sure is thank the universe for BMD and BRAW so I can record 12bit log at a manageable compression without resorting to the nonsense of an external recorder.

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

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

It shows that ProRes RAW isn’t going anywhere unless you pay RED. And why would Nikon pay their competition (RED) on top of presumably Apple, to use a codec when they seem to also be using their own new internal RAW codec (NRAW) which seems to do similar things to get around the RED problem.

JB

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'?

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'?

Exactly. The camera isn’t the recorder.

JB

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.

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.

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. Numerous companies with armies of lawyers numbering as many as 500 - larger than the entire workforce of RED - and war chests of up to one billion dollars sitting before patent tribunal judges that for years have seemed too eager to invalidate thousands of patents - a practice so egregious the Supreme Court was compelled to look into its legality - have failed to overturn RED's completely valid and legal patent that they are obligated to protect - just as all companies are obligated to protect their intellectual property and pursue those who infringe upon it. To claim otherwise is to give anyone carte blanche to take your movie, place their name on it and distribute it as if it were their own. When reading something as disturbing and unhinged as the following, "Red might have won some battles, but they are going to be mercilessly crushed in this war.", I'm reminded of what can happen when an entire people can be brainwashed in spite of five dozen court rulings...

Rather than attack RED, why not go after companies that charge as much as $4,000 for a full frame license, a RAW license or HFR license? Seriously though, isn't the Internet full of enough rancor already?

Note: "The justices of the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a 2019 lower court decision that the judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board were appointed in a way that violates a U.S. Constitution provision intended to ensure accountability for powerful government officials".

Billions of dollars ride on the decisions of the judges appointed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

"The tribunal's reviews have become a quick and cheap way for companies that are prime targets for infringement suits, such as Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google, to try to invalidate patents".

If anything, it is a wonder that justice was served and that RED has prevailed at all.

I’d rather a camera company be upfront about charging for upgrades or features enabled in firmware. At least you know what you’re paying for.

RED have accumulated many examples of dubious ethical practice over many many years.

JB

I wonder what would have happened in the early days of digital stills photography if say Nikon or Canon had patented RAW stills (compressed or otherwise)

I came thinking I'd learn what a loyal Blackmagic owner thinks of the new Nikon, but it quickly morphed into territory I'm frankly bored of by now.

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 a totally ridiculous and obvious patent 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. That's like having hamburgers, and boxes, and patenting STACKING HAMBURGERS IN THE BOX. And that is what a patent troll does. It thoroughly prohibits innovation.

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.

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".

It appears you waited over 5 long hours for anyone to reply to this thread when you couldn't contain your disdain any longer - and replied to your own topic! I'm getting some bait-and-switch vibes here.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It's unbelievable they could patent it when CineForm Raw already existed. Then again RED Digital Cinema is run by lawyers.

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

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

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.

It smells fishy when the topic is the Z9 but no one ever had any intention of discussing the camera with no mechanical shutter, full frame 8K sensor, rugged build quality, weather sealing, IBIS and cutting edge autofocus. No one is even curious why Nikon is changing their own RAW - perhaps because it doesn’t arouse enough intrigue!

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

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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. LOL

Finally, nobody is stifling competition: as sales figures and a glance at the cameras used on films in competition at the Cannes, Venice and Sundance film festivals, as well as at the Oscars and on Netflix shows eloquently attest. Smashed that baseless notion to pieces!

Maybe the moderators could do us all a favor and lock this thread.

the RED KOMODO and RED V-Raptor don't even use Mini Mags

That was their reaction to that whole debacle. They couldn't go on with it.

Well, if you desperately want a classic Alexa, you can get a 'battle-tested' one (as Red likes to call their second-hand ones) for less than 10 grand, even with some accessories. But why?

Didn't Red pay to use the Cineform intellectual property? I thought I read somewhere they had.

RED didn't monster Cineform. GoPro did by buying it and it became more or less free thereafter. A bit of hard luck for us mortals who cannot re-activate our old Cineform licences. - Dwellng in the past aren't I.

The way things are with price of recording media, how much more does a roll of film plus process and scanning cost? Admittedly you can re-use the digital recording media but the vision/sound has to be archived somewhere as three copies for safety's sake.

The way things are going with all the sabre-rattling of late, running along a cave wall of charcoal stop-motion drawings with our eyes opening and shutting to animate them will be as close to the motion picture experience as we will get.

Then somebody may re-invent the slot-aperture zoetrope and we may get started stepping out of the stone age again.

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

Michael Grady, on the image quality of the Panavision Millenium DXL2 with RED Monstro 8K VV sensor and Redcode RAW: "The DXL2 image is almost perfect, which is what we wanted for The Morning Show. It is so precise... it sees better than humans!”

How is it that someone who pretends to be so concerned with corporate ethics can attach their name to a company involved in one of the biggest and longest-lived financial scandals in the history of corporate Japan; a workplace where corporate corruption is so ingrained that just five years ago it was ordered to pay a fine in connection with a scandal in the USA in which nearly $600 million was disbursed in the form of kickbacks, including grants, bribes, gifts, and other forms of payoffs?

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

we should all buy nikon cameras for support +g*

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

It's nice to hear that N-RAW is based on Tico as this should be piece of a good tech.
RED patent applies to any compression of RAW (above HD 2K resolution), so if it's PR RAW or other (Tico) it doesn't matter. RED patent expires in few years, so this may stop this crap and then we will have plenty of compressed RAW formats (which is as good as bad). Unless Tico is using some work around against RED patent (not compressing RAW data directly) Nikon may have hard time in court.

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.

It's plain Jpeg2000 with encryption, so you can't decode it with own decoder. Only thing which links it with Cineform is wavelet nature.

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

Because Cineform= single man without $, who probably did not even think about patenting it. RED=few lawyers who wanted make money on something and they know perfectly how to protect their business.
REDCODEC is nothing more than Jpeg2000 encoding RAW data. There is nothing that unique there even if we move back many years back. RED just executed this idea and protected it well thanks to fact that they were layers. JinniTech videos tell RED story very well (with nice drama added).

Cineform was also never really created as a "camera codec" and never had ASIC/FPGA implementation.
Maybe RED got into agreement with David- this was never confirmed.
It's meaningless now when RED patent (in my opinion never should be granted in its current broad form) is active and holding whole industry. RED been made of lawyers (so now extra cost) will try to sue anyone touching RAW compression. If you really want you can bypass RED patent (as BM done) or pay RED licensing fee which of course no one wants to do. You just have to be clever with tech and not to compress RAW in its pure form (which doesn't mean you can't get same effect as compressing pure RAW).

RAW format is bit overrated as people don't fully understand it. Other recordings as long as done well can be as effective, but cost more processing and storage and this is the problem. RAW recording is simply most efficient way of storing your camera data. Fact of it being RAW is not that crazy important today.

As far as I understand RED patent applies to compression inside camera or any device directly attached to it. It doesn't stop you compressing RAW in post etc. but of course we all want RAW out of camera as this is the most effective way of recording.

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.

You realise that REDCODE is just Jpeg2000, so Graeme invited nothing. Just used exiting tech to encode RAW inside the camera. He may be responsible for RED color science, but this is a separate subject.
I assume you are aware that you could decode (so unique) REDCODE files with ffmpeg for some time until RED (to protect their business) started encrypting them. It was clever move which made their famous REDCODE an amazing black box which later would let them sold decoding accelerator (which was nothing more than overpriced hardware Jpeg2000 decoder + maybe some debayering code based on AMD card if I'm correct). They also sold amazing REDMAGs which ended up been carefully selected, but at the end simplest SSDs. Add a lot of hype and you have RED brand created. Not saying their cameras were/are bad or they did not wake up industry, but its wasn't is such a great style as many believe. JinnyTech showed real RED story with a bit of drama added Not sure how their process ended, but somehow RED did not done so well against him in court (and he is not billion $ company). Maybe it's hard to fight against facts even with good lawyers
You also realise that new RED cameras use very different REDCODE which is not anymore Jpeg2000, but "simple" DCT based codec? When RED passed 4K resolution recording Jpeg2000 started been problematic as it's crazy demanding codec, so they finally abandoned it. They kept name (good move from their side), so people still think it's something amazing when in reality it's "practically same" as other current RAW codecs. I doubt it has any better efficiency. I would not be surprised if RED licensed Jpeg2000 IntoPix code for their FPGA (RED uses/used Xillinx) as they had no development power to write such a code from scratch (and not many companies at all had such a code to license) So what RED has done was nothing inventive as per say- they took good parts (we all know that 1st RED sensor was not theirs) and put them together. They were just brave to do it where others seems to be hesitant. You can say the same about BM for some of their products.

If we're talking formality then David with SI-2K done RAW recording inside camera years before RED. So where is this big invention of RED, because I see none?
RED just made same, but with 4K resolution and their patent actually applies only for 2K+ resolution, so maybe this is a small detail which matters. Thanks to their law knowledge they protected their business well, so now we all have to wait few more years (I think it's 2028) for their patent to expire.

Nikon’s Z9 firmware update was released a month ago, so were are no speculating if it will happen as it already did happen and you can record N-RAW, ProRes RAW already. Now question is: for how long ?

Article (https://ymcinema.com/2022/05/23/redcode ... ure-dsmc4/) summary:

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.

Also a note- RED patent is called "Video Camera". No idea if name has anything to do in whole legality world, but for us this sounds "strange".