Red is back on the litigation warpath

Does anyone know the result of Redcom v. Sony, over the same issue, with respect to the Sony F65 and others? That suit was filed in 2013, and Sony counter-sued Red for violation of *it's* patents.. It looks like they settled in 2016. But no information seems to be available.

Does anyone know the result of Redcom v. Sony, over the same issue, with respect to the Sony F65 and others? That suit was filed in 2013, and Sony counter-sued Red for violation of *it's* patents.. It looks like they settled in 2016. But no information seems to be available.

Pretty sure they did an IP swap in the end. Red infringed other sony patents.

Speculation is that that the sony X-OCN RAW format released AFTER this case is essentially REDCODE.

Most don’t realise Sony offer two RAW codecs…SONY RAW, which is 3:1 16bit lin DCT and the X-OCN which is something a lot more vague but seems to be a wavelet based RAW codec. It certainly performs in a similar way to REDCODE and for file sizes.

JB

With Kinefinity it wasn't just ProRes RAW, but compressed cDNG and KineRAW. RED dismissed it, not sure if money changed hands in the settlement? Kinefinity only advertises 6K uncompressed DNG and ProRes 4444 with the new EDGE 6K.

Uncompressed CDNG seems to be OK. It’s what Arri have always done and no one is suing them.

Compressed DNG is what BMD, Kinifinity etc have done and they are the ones that no longer offer it so…..

It’s RAW and compressed they seem to go after.

And yes. It’s about control. Not making money. They don’t seem so interested in licensing to everyone. Just ones they strategically work with like (maybe) Sony and ( maybe ) canon for say access to RF mounts.

JB

What will happen if someone makes a camera that can shoot 24 stills per second?
Some are already close at 19 or 20…

Olympus, the always overlooked stills camera manufacturer have been doing up to 60 FPS RAW for as long as your cards can keep up for a few years now...(it's usually a few seconds)

JB

[b][I]... and may not be ascertained without a proper accounting of Nikon’s sales and profits arising from its infringement.

This is also why many manufacturers are NOT comfortable sharing their sensitive sales data with a competitor just to license and also fund their competitor.

JB

the sony X-OCN RAW format is more or less external?

the sony X-OCN RAW format is more or less external?

It's recorded in-camera on Venice and using an external Sony made recorder on other lower tier Sony cameras like the F5 and F55.

JB

AFAIK the red patent covers lossless compressed RGB RAW data. You can do uncompressed RAW i.e DNG or partial debayered data like BRAW ( I.e not real RAW) but what nearly every camera does for stills you are infringing their patent. Just like stills the future for video capture should be lossless RGB compressed RAW but because of RED it isn't......

I think it's more than that. The RED patent also talks of YPbPr conversions and THEN applying different levels of compression SIMILAR to Y over the PbPr but in RGB.

JB

I'll take it if there is no other 12-Bit option.

… DNG is totally horrible as a workflow. You might take it but no one else does…

It has a ceiling that you're already up against when shooting 4K…

This "purist" idea of uncompressed really is only practical in a very small set of shooting circumstances…

If that works for you then great. It doesn't work at all for most, especially in the typical BMD user scenario…

JB

I’m happy to be atypical: using CinemaDNG uncompressed on the original UM4.6K. Since I deliver HD, I shoot 2K 16:9 using the Fujinon 20x7.8 zoom; the MacPro 2019 has no problem processing that CDNG in Resolve ACEScct with h.264 best quality renders up to 200 fps (without noise reduction etc). For the June music festival, my busiest day will be about 5 hours recording in perhaps a 10 hour day - just fits on my nearly 1.5 TB CFast2 media at a data rate of 288GB/hour!

If I could mount my B4 zoom on the BMPCC4K, I’d likely shoot BRAW Q1.

I was surprised to see how well 4.6K CDNG performs in recent versions of DaVinci Resolve. It's much better now than when I had a camera that shot CDNG (during Resolve 12-14).

… and the X-OCN which is something a lot more vague but seems to be a wavelet based RAW codec. It certainly performs in a similar way to REDCODE and for file sizes.

I'm asking this myself, but it seems to be less demanding when decoding in DR than R3D of the same resolution. Anyway, the quality is great.

Absolutely true, Roger. Having moved from ProRes 444 to CinemaDNG uncompressed and applying Colour Science Gen 4 in Resolve, ACEScct 1.3, and so on, it’s much better now than I remember when the UM4.6K was new. Unless I need to save some recording space on the media, I don’t need to use ProRes anymore. If my daily shoot is 5 hours, then CDNG will fit; if maximum 5.5 hours, then ProRes XQ fits; if up to 8 hours recording needed, shoot ProRes 444 which is what I did for the festival in 2019.

the sony X-OCN RAW format is more or less external?

It's recorded in-camera on Venice and using an external Sony made recorder on other lower tier Sony cameras like the F5 and F55.

JB

dit not see its internal on the venice - AXS-R7 (ext. recorder) is necessary for RAW recording

Screenshot 2022-05-29 at 19.29.38.jpg (328.84 KiB) Viewed 6048 times

dit not see its internal on the venice - AXS-R7 (ext. recorder) is necessary for RAW recording

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital ... ck-venice2

Under specs--> recording

JB

I’m happy to be atypical: using CinemaDNG uncompressed on the original UM4.6K. Since I deliver HD, I shoot 2K 16:9 using the Fujinon 20x7.8 zoom; the MacPro 2019 has no problem processing that CDNG in Resolve ACEScct with h.264 best quality renders up to 200 fps (without noise reduction etc). For the June music festival, my busiest day will be about 5 hours recording in perhaps a 10 hour day - just fits on my nearly 1.5 TB CFast2 media at a data rate of 288GB/hour!

But the question is, at what threshold is the difference compared to other more manageable codecs (in your case Prores) not only obvious, but demonstrably superior? You could, for example, shoot 4K 4:2:210 bit Prores. Down-sampled to 2K on a timeline, you pick up not only dynamic range but, under some circumstances, additional color sampling information and bits as well, sometimes equivalent to 4:4:4/12 bit. I would assume there would be similar gains with in-camera downsampling to 2K/HD from full sensor, though Resolve produces a better down-sample than in-camera.

To use your example, a music festival, where virtually nothing else is under your control how, is cDNG "better" objectively?

Thanks, John P. Those are good points in general, but for this music festival I want to use the B4 zoom so 2K is the maximum sensor area I can use.

There are four events (in the same venue with likely the same controlled lighting) that I could shoot ProRes 444 and/or XQ to try and answer the question about CDNG versus ProRes: which is better at the same 2K resolution. This is the first client shoot where it’s relatively easy to make the comparison either using the same UM4.6K camera with 2K CDNG/ProRes or shooting with the BMPCC4K in ProRes 4K.

To fully address the issue of shooting in 4K and downscaling to 2K, it may also be feasible to use either the Tokina zoom or an SLR Magic APO prime since I’m forced to go with a different mount than B4 on the BMPCC4K.

I’ll think about it as the shoot gets closer. Need to try to get a similar FOV for the wide shot on both cameras.

AFAIK the red patent covers lossless compressed RGB RAW data. You can do uncompressed RAW i.e DNG or partial debayered data like BRAW ( I.e not real RAW) but what nearly every camera does for stills you are infringing their patent. Just like stills the future for video capture should be lossless RGB compressed RAW but because of RED it isn't......

It looks written though specifically for motion pictures of "at least 23 frames per second" and "at least 2K" and titled as 'Video Camera.'

Again direct quote:

"Embodiments provide a video camera configured to capture, compress, and store video image data in a memory of the video camera at a rate of at least about twenty three frames per second. The video image data can be mosaiced image data, and the compressed, mosaiced image data may remain substantially visually lossless upon decompression and demosaicing."

"...the image sensor being configured to output the raw mosaiced image data at a resolution of at least 2 k and at a frame rate of at least about 23 frames per second"

It's important that they didn't mention "still" camera there (since jpeg was clearly in the market in a Nikon D1, - D70 at the time, etc) but made it specific to "video camera." But again I'm no expert. .

Sorry for the confusion - I am aware the patent is video and not stills. Makes you wonder though if say canon or Nikon had patented RAW stills back in the day……

AFAIK the red patent covers lossless compressed RGB RAW data. You can do uncompressed RAW i.e DNG or partial debayered data like BRAW ( I.e not real RAW) but what nearly every camera does for stills you are infringing their patent. Just like stills the future for video capture should be lossless RGB compressed RAW but because of RED it isn't......

I think it's more than that. The RED patent also talks of YPbPr conversions and THEN applying different levels of compression SIMILAR to Y over the PbPr but in RGB.

JB

Didn’t know that. It would however seem that once you do any in camera processing to the RGGB data it ceases to be RAW so if they are covering that as well it’s even worse than we thought.

Didn’t know that. It would however seem that once you do any in camera processing to the RGGB data it ceases to be RAW so if they are covering that as well it’s even worse than we thought.

Yes it’s odd because they talk about compressing brightness differently to colour channels “like YPrPb”.

It’s even more eyebrow raising because a lot of people bring up the YPrPb mentioned step detailed in the BRAW patent…

JB

This will be very interesting from a legal standpoint, according to the patent office, a granted patent cannot possibly infringe on another granted patent as they are completely separate intellectual properties. From that perspective the patent office could dismiss this motion by RED because to do otherwise would place the liability entirely on the patent office.

Sorry for the confusion - I am aware the patent is video and not stills. Makes you wonder though if say canon or Nikon had patented RAW stills back in the day……

I realize you know the difference. . . if Canon had patented JPEG for example instead of helping to create a standards group? Would a patent have been possible if there were other patents feeding into it at the time from multiple corporations?

My earlier comment is more of a question on whether they are basing their argument on making the distinction that they are using an existing method of visually lossless compression but specifically for video vs a novel method or process (recipe?) for compressing video. If they are attacking ProRes RAW and KineRaw, Nikon RAW, compressed DNG. . .are they really all using the same recipe?

It would seem that they've tried to cast a wide net on what 'visually lossless compression' is as invention unto itself.

Sorry for the confusion - I am aware the patent is video and not stills. Makes you wonder though if say canon or Nikon had patented RAW stills back in the day……

I realize you know the difference. . . if Canon had patented JPEG for example instead of helping to create a standards group? Would a patent have been possible if there were other patents feeding into it at the time from multiple corporations?

My earlier comment is more of a question on whether they are basing their argument on making the distinction that they are using an existing method of visually lossless compression but specifically for video vs a novel method or process (recipe?) for compressing video. If they are attacking ProRes RAW and KineRaw, Nikon RAW, compressed DNG. . .are they really all using the same recipe?

It would seem that they've tried to cast a wide net on what 'visually lossless compression' is as invention unto itself.

Not only that but RED themselves seem to license image compression tools from this small Australian company.

As per their and user agreement that you agree to when you install RED software…

From their legal pages…

https://www.red.com/legal/red-software- ... -agreement

“ The RED Software may have been developed in part by use of Kakadu software. ”

This seems to be software focused very much on JPEG2000 and compression.

https://kakadusoftware.com/

RED have never really innovated on their own. They basically bought in everything as a fast track way of getting what they wanted. Maybe assembling those pieces counts as innovation?

Accuscene was making colour EVFs. Red bought them so they could have an EVF

Element Technica we’re making camera accessories and RED bought them to make cages and baseplates.

The red motion mount was also another company..tessive?

There was a mattebox company too. That turned ugly….

I’m assuming it’s the same with their software and sensor development.

JB

Nikon's betting their entire future on the Z9. When folks started to question Nikon's ability to deliver on the promised internal RAW video, because of how Kinefinity and DJI where forced to remove it, Nikon directly answered a resounding "yes". And sure enough they delivered. Now, I don't believe Nikon is stupid, they must have reviewed all the possibilities with their lawyers, and firmly believe that they can beat this.

I hope Nikon beats them and finally frees the industry. I hate RED and I hate their stupid cult, and believe me, it's a cult. Like an idiot I bought into the hype and got a Komodo shortly after they came out and my god, what a piece of crap, sold it 8 months later, the Pocket 6K image is superior and the handling is great.

RED cameras feel like they are in perpetual Beta firmware, they may release a build final, but it's always glitchy and unfinished. For example, in their official documents they have diagrams mentioning that Komodo can send timecode out, but the feature has not been implemented still after 2 years. On my Alexa I can send timecode out to trigger record on my MixPre6 simultaneously, the Komodo can't do it yet in the firmware. When I post on REDUSER about any problem I was having with the Komodo I was immediately attacked by their cult.

I hated the way Red Epics would spew hot hair in your face in between takes and everyone waiting on set for that stupid black shade calibration to complete. Meanwhile, operating a Blackmagic or an Alexa is a rock solid experience, the Alexa may take a little to boot up, but man is she stable as heck, and NEVER have to black shade.

RED's own videos on their products tend to target a certain demographic, they always feature some grungy dude in a t-shirt with a cap, with dirty fingernails in a dark room. Compare their videos to Arri's or Blackmagic's that are always clean and well presented. They go after a certain user they want to appeal to, and call me old-fashioned, but I don't relate to that RED guy. Ok, enough of my rant. Hahaha.

Sorry for the confusion - I am aware the patent is video and not stills. Makes you wonder though if say canon or Nikon had patented RAW stills back in the day……

I realize you know the difference. . . if Canon had patented JPEG for example instead of helping to create a standards group? Would a patent have been possible if there were other patents feeding into it at the time from multiple corporations?

My earlier comment is more of a question on whether they are basing their argument on making the distinction that they are using an existing method of visually lossless compression but specifically for video vs a novel method or process (recipe?) for compressing video. If they are attacking ProRes RAW and KineRaw, Nikon RAW, compressed DNG. . .are they really all using the same recipe?

It would seem that they've tried to cast a wide net on what 'visually lossless compression' is as invention unto itself.

Not only that but RED themselves seem to license image compression tools from this small Australian company.

As per their and user agreement that you agree to when you install RED software…

From their legal pages…

https://www.red.com/legal/red-software- ... -agreement

“ The RED Software may have been developed in part by use of Kakadu software. ”

This seems to be software focused very much on JPEG2000 and compression.

https://kakadusoftware.com/

RED have never really innovated on their own. They basically bought in everything as a fast track way of getting what they wanted. Maybe assembling those pieces counts as innovation?

Accuscene was making colour EVFs. Red bought them so they could have an EVF

Element Technica we’re making camera accessories and RED bought them to make cages and baseplates.

The red motion mount was also another company..tessive?

There was a mattebox company too. That turned ugly….

I’m assuming it’s the same with their software and sensor development.

JB

I think beyond RED buying Element Technica 3Ality Digital also merged with them at the same time for the 3D rigs. That was around 2011 if I remember right. So RED bought out the rigging components, but 3Ality bought the 3D. Either way, they generally were using the the RED Epic at that time for 3D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the Motion Mount was bought from Tessive. They still offer a software version: https://tessive.com.

My guess is, that most competing companies did not care enough to really challenge the RED patent.
Sony got sued by RED and countersued, they settled. Sony had no reason to implement RAW into their lower range cameras as long as the absence of RAW does not influence their sales.
Canon did the cross exchange and does what Canon ever does, moving forwards, slowly but determined.
ARRI does not care for compressed RAW as their clients seem to be fine with ProRes 444
BMD made their way around which no one can easily follow because of FPGA vs. ASICS.
Apple did challenge the RED patent, probably to implement ProResRAW into their iPhones as a selling point, but alternatively offered ProRes which was a good enough selling point (and driving the need to buy the iPhone models with bigger memory) - so they might just have postponed another challenge for later.

I think none of the big companies is willing to get into the fight because if they win, their competition also wins. That might explain the current status quo.

BMD made their way around which no one can easily follow because of FPGA vs. ASICS.

This is hardly something holding back other companies. One can just make an ASIC that does this ”partial debayer” if not liking FPGA route and vice versa. It is probably more of a conceptual problem of why bother with a raw that isn’t actually raw but still comes with user side handling problems of proprietary format.

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital ... ck-venice2

Under specs--> recording

JB

my picture also shows this point - but in german and the note that the RAW recording is only possible with the AXS-R7, and not internally without.

BMD made their way around which no one can easily follow because of FPGA vs. ASICS.

This is hardly something holding back other companies. One can just make an ASIC that does this ”partial debayer” if not liking FPGA route and vice versa. It is probably more of a conceptual problem of why bother with a raw that isn’t actually raw but still comes with user side handling problems of proprietary format.

Developing ASIC doing a certain type of compression is quite difficult and expensive and there is not much room for errors when you pour software code into fixed hardware. Maybe if someone does develop and offer a BRAW ASIC for other companies to buy this would change.

Here is a good read on the economics of ASICs:
https://www.electronicdesign.com/techno ... ome-viable

and
http://www.signoffsemi.com/asic-vs-fpga/

Developing ASIC doing a certain type of compression is quite difficult and expensive and there is not much room for errors when you pour software code into fixed hardware. Maybe if someone does develop and offer a BRAW ASIC for other companies to buy this would change.

Sure, but cameras are already doing compression, for example prores. I'm no expert in this area, how are prores encoders implemented in cameras currently? Braw is probably about similar complexity as Prores. Haven't heard about Apple selling prores encoder chips...

Sure, but cameras are already doing compression, for example prores. I'm no expert in this area, how are prores encoders implemented in cameras currently? Braw is probably about similar complexity as Prores. Haven't heard about Apple selling prores encoder chips...

Ahhhh how many ProRes hardware encoders have you seen in sub 5k cameras?

JB

Ahhhh how many ProRes hardware encoders have you seen in sub 5k cameras?

Now I'm confused: don't all of BMD's cameras except the Ursa 12K record ProRes in-camera? And the new Panasonic GH6? Or do you mean something else when you say "hardware encoders?" I believe Hendrik was talking about regular ProRes, not ProRes Raw.

It would seem that they've tried to cast a wide net on what 'visually lossless compression' is as invention unto itself.

That appears to be exactly what they've done; the initial Apple complaint noted not only Red's reliance on earlier (non-Red) patents, but the vagueness of Red's claims.

And, as I understand it, "internal" doesn't necessarily mean "in-camera". It looks like nobody but Red can record compressed raw on *any* device without a license.

Proresraw is said to be "true" compressed raw, unlike a partially debayered compressed format like Braw. But Is there any device other than Atomos that records Proresraw? That would suggest they bought a Red license, but maybe no one else has. This may account for Proresraw's somewhat limited market....

Ahhhh how many ProRes hardware encoders have you seen in sub 5k cameras?

Now I'm confused: don't all of BMD's cameras except the Ursa 12K record ProRes in-camera? And the new Panasonic GH6? Or do you mean something else when you say "hardware encoders?" I believe Hendrik was talking about regular ProRes, not ProRes Raw.

BMD use FPGA. For BRAW and for ProRes encoding hardware. The actual dedicated chips in the camera that encode ProRes or BRAW or ProRes RAW. These are not software programs like you run on your computer. They have to be coded to run on a dedicated processor.

Everyone else (except Arri) use ASIC. (And actually not sure what Kinifinty do)

To develop BRAW for ASIC from scratch is expensive. That’s the exact point I’m making. And for ProRes for that matter.

Because ASIC hardware is expensive upfront to develop for and typically takes a lot longer. Many many months isn’t unusual. The upside is the cost per unit is cheaper once you get into a few thousand units and power consumption is lower, but that’s a barrier to developing especially if you’re the first to do it.

So yeah, how many ProRes ASIC based cameras for less than 5k have we seen?

Also Apple have to vet every single hardware implementation. Go Google the issues app developers have meeting impossible criteria for the apple store then multiply that by 10 and then remember it’s for every single model you make you start that process again. Apple will take a long to approve or test things, and they will often reject it but without clear reasons as to why.

JB

Now, I don't believe Nikon is stupid, they must have reviewed all the possibilities with their lawyers, and firmly believe that they can beat this.

I hope Nikon beats them and finally frees the industry.

I don't think they will win. Apple threw everything at it and they're Apple. They have endless money. But it might be a tactic for negotiating an IP swap like Canon and Sony. Hey Komodo AF is pretty poor right ??

JB

But Canon and Sony have the best AF right now, not Nikon.

I am still confused what RED has actually patented regarding RAW. Using lossless compression of the sensor produced raw data in camera?

I can only see that that would be patentable if there is some innovative methods of doing the lossless compression. So I guess the must be it and BRAW is using different methods for the compression.

Download the PDF "Exhibit 2001 Nattress Declaration" on this page: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/ ... 2019-01065

Page 2 on the link under Documents.

I’ve always wondered why Apple didn’t just buy RED? They have the money to do it. Haha. At this point Apple really should consider buying a camera company so that all their shows are shot on Apple Cameras. Haha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the above GN statement....

"At the time we filed the '560 patent, the cinema industry did not employ any video compression techniques for processing digital video recordings, either in camera or downstream."

The '560 Patent was filed in 2008. Red were talking about their camera in 2006.....(which also seemingly voids a patent if you make it public before filing but whatever)

Anyone think this comment stands up? I can think of a few examples where it doesn't....

Panavision had a working SSR1 for the genesis in 2007 recording encoded and compressed video, so presuming it had been in development some time before then.

Arri with the D20(rental only) and D21 (both kind of beta versions of Alexa) were talking about data recording early on as well in their literature.

Check out page 13 and the funny looking magazine shaped hard drive recorder on page 17.
http://www.davidelkins.com/download/dow ... ochure.pdf

Sony also had the SRW1 back even earlier I think. (and it was probably the basis of the Panavison SSR recorder)

Silicon imaging had also introduced the Si2K in 2006, (the slum dog millionaire camera) and that was using a RAW compressed video in the form of Cineform)
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCi ... _06_1.html

I'll also add, what RED did that was revolutionary was to package it all together and have a workflow that emulated a camera negative film lab style way of working with digital images and that was certainly new yet familiar for most DPs.

JB

I don’t think the mentality of Red with their war-themed cameras and nomenclature would be a good fit for a high profile company like Apple. And changing it would likely have triggered its proponents.

I’ve always wondered why Apple didn’t just buy RED? They have the money to do it. Haha. At this point Apple really should consider buying a camera company so that all their shows are shot on Apple Cameras. Haha!

They've done it before...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake

But Apple aren't reallllllly interested in hardware for pro users anymore....mass consumers and a 30% cut of content for the masses thanks....

JB

I don’t think the mentality of Red with their war-themed cameras and nomenclature would be a good fit for a high profile company like Apple. And changing it would likely have triggered its proponents.

Sure. But Apple having the money is the point. Apple already had a better phone and RED tried to make their own and failed miserably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think they will win. Apple threw everything at it and they're Apple. They have endless money. But it might be a tactic for negotiating an IP swap like Canon and Sony. Hey Komodo AF is pretty poor right ??

JB

I think it's different this time. Apple petitioned the patent office and then the patent court dismissed the claim. That was it, nothing happened. Nikon on the other hand is getting sued, which can uncover an unbelievable amount of evidence during discovery.

Komodo AF is pretty good considering it has no AI ability for subject tracking. As you know, it's a "dumb" system where it focuses inside wherever the box is placed. The AF itself is bad because it has no subject tracking, but the smoothness of the focus racking is pretty good when the camera approaches or pulls away from the subject. It's limited, but they had to get some IP from Canon just to have that ability, although rudimentary.

I think it's different this time. Apple petitioned the patent office and then the patent court dismissed the claim. That was it, nothing happened.

Ahh, I think what happened was a bunch of cameras that might have used ProRes RAW then didn't go ahead...that's what happened...Why would you license to Apple to use a codec that can't be used....

Atomos pay RED direct....probably something that Apple hate them doing because it further validates their claim.
https://www.studiodaily.com/2019/01/red ... ucts-come/

JB

I think it's different this time. Apple petitioned the patent office and then the patent court dismissed the claim. That was it, nothing happened. Nikon on the other hand is getting sued, which can uncover an unbelievable amount of evidence during discovery.

Apple certainly made a move on RED vs simply objecting to the patent by involving experts and patent research and trying to switch the priority date for RED's 1st application.

RED had to show that they were actively working on the RED One before the priority date of April 11 2007. and that they got visually lossless compression of raw in a video camera working before that, which they stated as the beginning of March 2007 in the RED ONE.

Then in their 1st patent application they make a reference to Cineform and at least cite the SI-2K presumably to show how they are distinguishing themselves. Silicon Imaging had a patent application going too for the SI-2K with a priority date of only a few days later. Which was then patented as US9565419 Presler.

RED does reference how they needed to at least build on top of JPEG 2000.

Apple's case seems to be based on the fact that RED's patent is "obvious" by forward dating RED's priority date to December 28th 2007. Apple then uses an expert to testify based on the 'new' dating that the Presler patent combined with another patent marked US7656561 Molgaard would make the RED patent "obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains."

I have it on good word that RED's exclusivity might be on borrowed time. There's a storm on the horizon and when it arrives it's not going to look particularly good for RED.

Let's just say that those in the know have not been sitting idle.

CineForm RAW was released in 2005. To compress CFA it used a conversion from linear to log space to optimize compressibility. So I wonder if this prior art was the reason why RED went with linear encoding of their REDCODE RAW.

Quoting from this Silicon Imaging presentation by Jason Rodriguez:
http://www.theodoropoulos.info/attachme ... kflows.pdf

You want non-linear curve (LOG) on compressed material to preserve the maximum amount of information in both shadows and highlights
Compressing linear data simply wastes bits encoding noise in the highlights and ruins shadow detail - preventing this loss means higher data rate

https://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalC ... erview.pdf

And because Cineform RAW used a light visual lossless Wavelet compression RED had to work around this too by using JPEG2000 compression for their linear CFA data. This might also explain why they went for this processing intensive way, while the Cineform RAW was much faster to compress and decompress.

No it is about „560 patent“.
Download exhibit 2024 Nattress 2014 declaration to see what their arguments are:
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/ ... 2019-01065

Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art in the environment of cinema quality video image processing would not have found it obvious to develop a technique for implementing known compression techniques, such as JPEG 2000, to operate on non-demosaiced data (for which there is no guidance in the codec guides) and to build a system that could perform such a technique on board a cinema-grade camera, i.e., a camera that has at least 2K horizontal resolution at 23 frames per second to store that compressed raw mosaiced image data on board the camera. Even where some prior art references include references to the possibility of compressing mosaiced data in the context of low end imagery applications, such references do not provide a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to develop a cinema-grade camera with on-board storage and compression of raw mosaiced image data.

They want to make believe that before them no one would have thought about compressing CFA data, because everyone was thinking that this isn’t possible. Although there was Cineform RAW already.

That's all a bunch of BS

The link to the actual patent we are talking about?

https://patents.justia.com/patent/8174560