Red is back on the litigation warpath

The link to the actual patent we are talking about?

The '560' patent is an earlier patent, but fine to review for the validity of the claims I believe.

Apple filed IPR "Inter Partes Review" for:

US9245314
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9245314B2/en

Probably because it was the most recent published version. They are able to file a string of applications or continuing applications. It's very convoluted because as an inventor you want to file your application then stay in 'patent pending' or application status for as long as possible (years). Once you publish your patent, then the clock starts on how long it will be effective.

The patent system with the filing dates, priority dates and publication dates would work against Apple I believe. Look at the Presler application that they were trying to use to predate RED.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9565419B2/en
Priority: 2007-4-13. <--- 2 DAYS AFTER RED
Application: 2008-4-14
Publication: 2010-05-06
New Application: 2017-2-17

Then they can receive adjusted expiration dates as the newer applications take effect.

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.

I wonder what the train of thought for "one of ordinary skill" would be in this logic. Something like:
Cameras capture raw Bayer pattern data - Yep
This data can be recorded to storage device in camera - Yep
User might want to lower the data rate to get more recording time - Yep
Image compression is a common thing to achieve this - Yep
Bayer pattern data consists of four image planes RGGB - Yep
One could conceive an elaborate, contorted and custom compression schema to compress the raw image planes - Yep
Or one could just use some existing compression method logic like DCT or wavelet - Unimaginable!!!

But so, if the camera it self does not have a handle, i.e a box camera, especially if installed on gimbal and camera position manipulated with a joystick, maybe the patent does not apply

From the patent it also doesn’t apply if storage device is attached with inflexible cable or no cable at all (wireless). But the lowest hanging fruit in going around the patent could be the question of where is the line between mosaiced and demosaiced data. For example if camera does clever reversible interpolation of photosite data to align RGB photosites in image planes it is by all means not mosaiced anymore. I guess braw milks this ambiguity to full extent.

Speaking of affordable ProRes cameras, the Fujifilm X-H2S was announced today. Maybe there's a generic ProRes ASIC available now that both Panasonic and Fuji have implemented ProRes in recent cameras.

The Fuji will also output raw through HDMI and will be compatible with both ProRes Raw and Blackmagic Raw recorders.

Here is Intopix TICO at NAB 2014.

It says "visually lossless" compression, and no lawsuits were brought up.

Nikon did make a still camera, thst also shot some video with a 1-inch sensor (S16) and in still mode shoot with Electronic shutter (Hi): Approx. 10, 30, or 60 fps, and save files as raw DNG images. You only got 60fps for a few seconds, but put the DNG still frames together in a video editor, you could get some nice slow motion sequences. This was Raw recording in camera at >23fps.

Part of Red’s patent as I understand it, applies cameras labeled and marketed as Video Cameras. Nikon V and the new N series cameras are not labeled, nor marketed as Video Cameras, but are still cameras that can shoot video. Since Red’s patent is for cameras labeled and marketed as Video Cameras, I do not see how this applies to Nikon’s new Z series cameras, which are still labeled and marketed as still photography cameras. Red didn’t go after Nikon’s DSLR, nor Canon DSLRs. I think the recent advances in mirrorless cameras like the Nikon Z9 has Red worried. Still, the Z9 is aimed at professional photographers replacing the D6 and D850, not cinema cameras like ARRI or BMD cameras.

That said, Nikon’s recent announcement to significantly expand the Z9’s already powerful video and stills feature set, by including in-camera 12-bit RAW video at up to 8K 60p, oversampling at 4K UHD 60p may be the real issue here, internal Raw recording, not that the camera can shoot video.

I think the US Patent Office needs to re-evaluate Red’s very loose and vague patent claim. Other technology patents are not vague, or up to interpretation, like Red’s claim is. Not all new Raw recording formats are VDNG based either. Time to move on…
Cheers

Part of Red’s patent as I understand it, applies cameras labeled and marketed as Video Cameras. Nikon V and the new N series cameras are not labeled, nor marketed as Video Cameras, but are still cameras that can shoot video.

Not sure that's the only loophole or else every video camera out there would have a photography option on it and marketed that way.

I am not referring to the camera having a Photography, but rather a Photography camera that has a video option, which is a camera primarily designed to shoot still photography, and the video feature is secondary, not primary,

… the Patent looks like it was written though specifically for motion pictures of "at least 23 frames per second" and "at least 2K" and titled as 'Video Camera.'

Cheers

What I don't get is, all this is coming at a time when more cameras offer *other* professional codecs -- like Prores -- and there's a move away from compressed "real" raw, anyway, in the interest of file size and ease of use.

At the other end is uncompressed Arriraw, if anyone actually needs all that sensor data.

Nikon z9 already has internal Prores HQ, for a cam which isn't going to be video/cinema first choice anyway. Why go looking for a fight now?

John, I agree. recording Raw in a Z9 does not make sense, and seems Nikon is looking to expand the market for its high end Z camera. I would like to see ProRes added to the Z6 or at least the Z6II, before adding Raw to the Z9. I found for most of my shooting, ProRes was fine.

In cinema type productions, too much detail is counter productive, as the images gets sharper snd more detailed, the sets, costumes, makeup all needs to be higher quality, and have much more attention to detail to maintain the illusion. You can get the image too real looking, and destroy the illusion and/or ability of the audience to suspend reality and accept your presentation as a alternate reality.

Making a movie is a form of story telling. Even documentary productions are telling a story based on real events instead of fiction, but both are still story telling. An audience can be overwhelmed by too much detail. 2001, A Space Odyssey is an example of too much detail in some of its scenes, which takes several screenings to fully appreciate.
Cheers

What I don't get is, all this is coming at a time when more cameras offer *other* professional codecs -- like Prores -- and there's a move away from compressed "real" raw, anyway, in the interest of file size and ease of use.

Compressed real raw will be smaller than equally compressed debayered data in any case. But usability problems are indeed one of the major obstacles. Red patents have hindered the development of a common compressed raw format among all the other things it has hindered.

Compressed real raw will be smaller than equally compressed debayered data in any case. But usability problems are indeed one of the major obstacles. Red patents have hindered the development of a common compressed raw format among all the other things it has hindered.

This.
In the ideal world we move away totally from non-raw camera recordings simply because raw can give more fidelity and flexibility over any kind of log 10bit 422 sampled format. Raw photography is pretty much standard for any professional and so should film without any patent obstructing it's availability.

Compressed real raw will be smaller than equally compressed debayered data in any case.

You lost me tere. It's ancient history at this point, but my last encounter with true raw was compressed cDNG with the original BMPCC. The *compressed* data rate was several times that of Prores HQ.

For the rest, there's no celebrating Red's litigation, but the idea that raw is essential to moving images is at least open to question. 7 figure productions routinely decide Prores is "good enough". Measurable differences may not always be significant ones -- or "cinematically significant".

.......
However it seems the patent has been tested several times and holds well, very strange.

i think this is also the reason for this confusing patent.
the patent judges cannot interpret this and therefore always give RED the right.

Compressed real raw will be smaller than equally compressed debayered data in any case.

You lost me tere. It's ancient history at this point, but my last encounter with true raw was compressed cDNG with the original BMPCC. The *compressed* data rate was several times that of Prores HQ.

Bayer pattern data is 1/3 of full debayered 444 RGB data and 1/2 of 422 chroma subsampled data. Compressing half of data at same compression rate will give you also less data in compressed form.

If same method that cDNG was using were applied to debayered RGB data which originates as 3x more values, it won’t make it smaller than true raw, you are comparing apples to oranges. Applying same compression method Prores uses will give a lot smaller files than cDNG. Reversible pseudo luma-chroma derivate from Bayer data will allow same compression methods as used for 422 variants.

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

Nikon did make a still camera, thst also shot some video with a 1-inch sensor (S16) and in still mode shoot with Electronic shutter (Hi): Approx. 10, 30, or 60 fps, and save files as raw DNG images. You only got 60fps for a few seconds, but put the DNG still frames together in a video editor, you could get some nice slow motion sequences. This was Raw recording in camera at >23fps.

The Olympus (now OM Systems) OM-D E-M1 mk II can also shoot 60 RAW images in a short burst (only 48 frames, but this is 20 megapixels in 4:3 aspect from a 4/3 format sensor - larger than 1-inch), if using the electronic shutter and not using continuous autofocus.

Looks like the newer OM-1 can shoot 92 frames of RAW at 120fps, but with some limitations regarding shutter speed.

But it doesn't have a handle.

Is this the RED patent we are talking about?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8872933B2/en

Screenshot 2022-05-31 at 10.06.07.png

What this is talking about is not RAW in camera, but a RAW compression method that clearly is innovative and worth of a patent, but I do not see how this would limit doing the same on some other way. Like RAW could be compressed more on the time domain than on a single image domain. It could be compressed BW and colour separated... as many compression methods do. RED does not say their compression method is lossless, only visually lossless. So even that would give options, using a plain .zip algorithms

Why is the RED way of doing it so good that everyone wants to use it?

It's the only way they can have an unfair advantage.

Um... I'll leave this one here:

I do wonder about the RED patent claims, how they are written and the limitations they have, Above 2k, camera must have handle, above 23 fps and even excludes pinhole camera (must have a lens). why have they this kind of limitations.

I mean, why not just patent the Bayer pattern to compressed RAW method they are describing and that would have included using it for photography, security camera, scanners as well as for video cameras of any kind.

On other hand was compressed RAW not available for photography 2007? So does the RED patent mean that photographs with compressed RAW, if it has any similarities to what RED has patented, must be taken with less than 23 fps? Or was it that RED evolved something that was already used for photography to video, and that is now limiting the photography frame rate. I do not see how that could be.

Nikon D2X Manual

Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 8.48.51 AM.png (173.34 KiB) Viewed 6545 times

Nikon had compressed RAW (NEF) for stills in the D2X in 2004. Since RED's patent has the designation 'U' for utility, they were able to get a patent for the inclusion of visually lossless compressed raw, at least 2K, at least 23 fps in a video (cinema camera) with protection beyond someone just taking REDCODE and applying it to their camera.

Cineform RAW was also around prior to REDCODE though it doesn't look like they attempted to patent it directly for visually lossless compress compressed raw in a video camera, but were trying to sell it to camera manufactures like Silicon Imaging.

The SI-2K was advertised as "Visually lossless CineForm RAW™ wavelet-based codec using SiliconDVR recording software."

The spec sheet was published to the web Nov 2006:
https://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalC ... tions.html

Cineform RAW was also around prior to REDCODE though it doesn't look like they attempted to patent it directly for visually lossless compress compressed raw in a video camera, but were trying to sell it to camera manufactures like Silicon Imaging.

Cineform RAW certainly was around for a while before REDCODE and their listed patent date. The fact that it was PUBLIC information means you can't then patent it later anyway as I understand it, so that can't be what's considered unique in the RED patent.

One would have thought surely doing raw in-camera isn't the defining thing....

I'm assuming when cineform RAW codec was developed, it was designed to be used in-camera...it is after all a RAW codec?

JB

I just find it funny having in video footage the statement "we didn't know what we were doing" as part of their journeyed history. So the patent is even more crazy considering that they didn't know what they were doing. And, that's why the broad language parts should be discarded.

I can't wait for the patent to expire. I like RED cameras fine enough, but I do not endorse the company and its business practices.

Cineform RAW certainly was around for a while before REDCODE and their listed patent date. The fact that it was PUBLIC information means you can't then patent it later anyway as I understand it, so that can't be what's considered unique in the RED patent.

One would have thought surely doing raw in-camera isn't the defining thing....

I'm assuming when cineform RAW codec was developed, it was designed to be used in-camera...it is after all a RAW codec?

Like I wrote earlier, from the exhibits of Nattress you can see that RED's defense strategy seems to be that they want to make believe that before them no one would have thought about compressing CFA data, because everyone was thinking that it's not possible. They went into great lengths arguing about this.

Like I wrote earlier, from the exhibits of Nattress you can see that RED's defense strategy seems to be that they want to make believe that before them no one would have thought about compressing CFA data, because everyone was thinking that it's not possible. They went into great lengths arguing about this.

Right. And logic says, what was Cineform thinking when they designed a RAW compression codec before RED filed their patent?

JB

Like I wrote earlier, from the exhibits of Nattress you can see that RED's defense strategy seems to be that they want to make believe that before them no one would have thought about compressing CFA data, because everyone was thinking that it's not possible. They went into great lengths arguing about this.

Is it done better than Cineform RAW in a non-obvious, non-incremental way to qualify for a broad reaching utility patent?

David Newman of CineForm; https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/cineform-s ... m-raw.html

"Red has been resistive to third parties. . .I clearly do believe CineForm RAW is better than REDCODE RAW."

gopro.github.io/cineform-sdk/ -

"CineForm RAW was added in 2005, the first to offer substantial compression directly from CFA Bayer image sensor data. Once RAW was a compression profile, this is when CineForm stopped being like other codecs, which strive to encode (compress) and decode (decompress) to the same or as close as possible to the source image. Compressing RAW was straight forward, but decompressing back to RAW didn’t help the workflow, as most video editing tools (even today) do not handle native RAW well. To support RAW workflows the CineForm decoder would “develop” the image, applying demosaicing filters, color matrices, CDL color corrections and 3D LUTs before presenting the decoded image to the NLE, compositor or video editing tool. CineForm is still the only codec that does this, it was marketed as Active Metadata."

cineform.blogspot.com/2006/ -

"Sunday, April 16, 2006
CineForm RAW™ -- this skunkworks project becomes a reality.

About two years ago I discovered an interesting group of people over in DVInfo.net's Alternative Imagining Methods forum. [snip] ... why introduce a new camera that makes the post workflow harder? Uncompressed wasn't the answer, better compression was.

It was at this point I started to modify the CineForm wavelet codec to handle raw sensor data for this large single-sensor camera design."

It's a sad day when you can simply combine two pre-existing technologies, that you didn't invent, i.e. raw and compression and claim a further patent. It's a been an unnecessary restriction on technological growth, as far as I can see.

Yes, but RED is not to be blamed of this, it is the system. Phones for one are full of such patents, totally obvious things patented, and once one company has patented a gesture, others have to do it differently or agree licensing. Endusers confused why some obvious things must be done so difficult ways.

I agree Kim and I wouldn't go so far as to call Red a patent troll, but I'm not sure of how successful they would be now without this patent, it really is key to their market position, since other manufacturers have caught up and even passed them arguably in value or quality. It is however and I don't wish to be contentious here part of the loose interpretation that the US patent office allows for prior art. I could be wrong but I'm not sure this patent is even valid outside of the US, which doesn't mean much in this case since filmmaking and cameras have to work commercially in the US market to survive.

Cineform RAW was also around prior to REDCODE though it doesn't look like they attempted to patent it directly for visually lossless compress compressed raw in a video camera, but were trying to sell it to camera manufactures like Silicon Imaging.

Cineform RAW certainly was around for a while before REDCODE and their listed patent date. The fact that it was PUBLIC information means you can't then patent it later anyway as I understand it, so that can't be what's considered unique in the RED patent.

One would have thought surely doing raw in-camera isn't the defining thing....

I'm assuming when cineform RAW codec was developed, it was designed to be used in-camera...it is after all a RAW codec?

JB

RED did disclose Cineform RAW, Dalsa and the SI-2K as 'prior art' in their patent application. Compressed RAW is the defining thing that I believe they can defend by having a utility patent. How they got there is supposed to be novel in so far as the way it was done.

Jim Jannard did comment on No Film School in 2013: "Kinetta was not compressed RAW. And Cineform was cited in our patent application as a prior art reference, as was Dalsa, Silicon Imaging and the Jpeg 2000 standard. I will not go into more details for obvious reasons. Given all the prior art references we cited, we were granted our patent for novelty in our approach to this. We have even passed a full-blown re-examination. I won't go into details... that is for Sony to do."

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/more-j ... ed-lawsuit

What's interesting to me is why the 6:1 or greater compression ratio in the RED patent? What significance does that have as it pertains to the patent? The SI-2K for example was listed as compressing 5:1.

And again with "wherein the mosaiced image data has a resolution per frame of at least 4k and comprises. . ."
Are they really specifically patenting compressed raw at least 4K at least 6:1 or is it just written in a way to help them around prior art?

Certainly sounds like it applies to “at least 4K” which should mean cameras are free to compress raw if less than 3840x2160. Perhaps even free to compress if the compression ratio is 5x or less!

Based on the logic of how RED gained it, someone should patent 5K 7:1 raw compression and just cite RED as prior art. Because obviously no-one in the business, least of them RED could come up with this idea as there is no mention in the patent that above 4K could actually reach 5K and at least 6:1 will be more than 7:1. Unimaginable!

And it doesn’t explain why BMD had to drop compressed cDNG because it was only 3:1

JB

And it doesn’t explain why BMD had to drop compressed cDNG because it was only 3:1

JB

Without seeing what cease and desist letter might have been sent to Blackmagic I'm just speculating. If 4K (4096) meant something then it would make sense that RED pursued Blackmagic at least privately after the 4.6K URSA Mini was released.

I'm inferring that resolution and the compression ratios matter because the URSA Mini 4K only went to 4:1 and was 3840, was it not possible to go farther with compression with cDNG? Or were they aware of possible litigation? SlimRAW will compress 7:1 for example and the RED ONE did at least 4096 in 2007.

And another Jannard quote from the same link I pasted above in reference to when they went after Sony: "RED championed 4K and compressed RAW. We did it starting in 2006. It is curious that 6 years later... it now seems obvious. For the past 6 years, 1080P was "good enough" according to the biggest companies on earth. 4K was just not necessary. Given the proliferation of 4K panels at CES... apparently now we were right. And others are actually claiming to "have invented 4k". Really?"

Again I'm speculating, but they went after Sony when they reached 4K? So maybe it has something to do with it, though resolution wasn't specifically mentioned in the new Nikon documentation.

Sony’s first RAW was 16bit lin 3:1 dct compression in an external add on recorder. RED went after them. Sony countersued and they settled.

Then x-ocn shows up.

Canon do a RAW Fidel format and RF mount shows up in Komodo.

Kim you also missed where they can do NR in different colour channels by using a YUV like system for encoding the brightness and colour difference.

JB

Sony’s first RAW was 16bit lin 3:1 dct compression in an external add on recorder. RED went after them. Sony countersued and they settled.

The patent does include a provision for external recorders and recording monitors.

Once a patent is valid, they will look to what an ordinary observer would see (consumer) in the market. On its face the Sony with 4K and compressed RAW would appear to be substantially the same to the ordinary observer in making a buying decision compared to the RED at the time.

Most often the test for patent infringement is; Do they appear to be substantially the same to the ordinary observer?

4K DCI could be a requirement for the production and visually lossless compressed raw (to save storage cost), and no matter what ratio, two cameras with one recording REDCODE and the other ProRes RAW both would appear substantially similar to the buyer.

REDCODE in the RED ONE was not illustrating the exact ratio to the consumer. They had REDCODE 26 and REDCODE 38. ProRes RAW has "HQ." Komodo now has "HQ, MQ, LQ."

The burden would be on Apple or now Nikon to prove how they are not infringing RED's patent.

REDCODE in the RED ONE was not illustrating the exact ratio to the consumer. They had REDCODE 26 and REDCODE 38.

From memory these numbers referred to the data rate. They also had REDCODE 42

“ This codec has a constant-bitrate wavelet codec with a compression ratio from 18:1 to 3:1 which allows raw Bayer sensor data to be compressed for on-camera recording. For the RED ONE two variants were offered initially, one with a maximum data rate of 28 MB/s (224 Mbit/s), and one with a maximum data rate of 36 MB/s (288 Mbit/s). Firmware upgrades allowed the camera to record an additional data rate of 42 MB/s (336 Mbit/s). These bit rates represent compression ratios of about 12:1, 9:1, and 8:1 respectively.”

ProRes RAW has "HQ." Komodo now has "HQ, MQ, LQ."

RED have changed the encoding scheme for REDCODE. HQ etc more probably is to distract from the fact they recently seem to have abandoned their much talked up wavelet for DCT. It’s not just Komodo. So it’s not the encoding method either (dct Vs wavelet).

HQ in ProRes means basically a higher data rate compared to the stock data rate.

JB

So it’s not the encoding method either (dct Vs wavelet).

I don't think it matters to patent infringement, but did seem to matter when they were awarded their patent.

B&H has the URSA 4.6K details left on their site " However, data-heavy uncompressed raw files aren't always easy to deal with on set, so in addition to uncompressed raw recording, the 4.6K URSA Mini provides compressed raw recording at 3:1 and 4:1 compression ratios to save space while retaining post-production flexibility."

Wouldn't compressed DNG be substantially similar to the function and utility of REDCODE on any RED camera whether you name the compression as big, medium, small, or 3:1, 4:1, 8:1 or 28, 36, 42?

In the context of a patent argument I wouldn't think that the ordinary observer would be able to know or distinguish a specific method that RED used to be awarded their patent. They would see the utility in broad strokes the need to compress RAW to cards and understand other companies moves to capitalize on it along with increased resolution.

From Grant Petty

Black Magic Raw is not just an unintelligent container for pixels...Another big thing we were looking at doing was we wanted to make Black Magic Raw extremely fast, essentially the world's fastest raw file format, as the sensors are getting larger and the raw data more complex...the full demosaic (in software); basically the bit that turns sensor data into imagery, can be quite complex. The full demosaic as well as color balance/gamma are very difficult to do well in DaVinci Resolve; the thing as I kept saying that really needs heavy processing; it's much worse when you're doing lots of layers and also lots of color correction. A good example is DaVinci Resolve will do a fast debayer when you're editing but then do a much higher quality one for final output. The alternative way is we can do it all in-camera using a video codec but the problem is the color detail is killed because you've got 4:2:2; only half of the bandwidth, a lot of detail that's killed and you're compressing the final image. Black Magic Raw is different because we've moved part of the processing into the camera. We split it into a partial demosaic in-camera and a reduced demosaic in the software. We've moved the heaviest part of the processing in-camera where it can be hardware accelerated. The processing is perfectly optimized to the camera's sensor because it's actually in the camera itself. This is not a simple generic raw processor, it doesn't have to handle any other type of camera, just the camera that it's in. It knows everything about the camera and everything about the sensor. The parts of the processing which is the decoder, the reduced demosaic and the color science are all processed in software. The images are still in a very raw form so you can still have all the flexibility of the raw adjustments, but the amount of work the software has to do is much much less. The other thing is we also get deep bit depths, much more than 10 bit depths that video file formats use so we get all of that through the pipeline.

Watch it all here:

I think RED is really worried about their relevancy. Many productions, such as "Stranger Things", that used RED cameras in the past have switched to Sony Venice or Alexa LF. And their current line of DSMC3 cameras such as Komodo and Raptor offer mediocre images with firmware that feels like it's in perpetual Beta and still have a lot of the functional and workflow clunkiness of past cameras. RED has been able to make a couple of bucks from their licensing deal with Atomos and by releasing a relatively affordable camera in Komodo which every talentless hack could buy and label their YouTube videos as "cinematic", thinking that by buying the camera it will make their work look better.

If it wasn't for Komodo or the Atomos deal, RED would be done. Seven years ago producers on low to medium budgets would spec RED cameras, but today it's all Alexa Mini or LF. Nobody specs a RED camera anymore. You see a lot of Komodos out there, but nobody is asking for them. The truth is that folks either ask for Alexa Mini or Alexa Mini LF or don't care what camera you shoot on. Blackmagic has been broadly accepted as workhorse cameras capable of high end cinematic images and has eaten RED's lunch in the last couple of years. You see a lot of productions worldwide shooting on BMD cameras, such much more than RED. I think this Nikon lawsuit is RED's last stand.

Wouldn't compressed DNG be substantially similar to the function and utility of REDCODE on any RED camera whether you name the compression as big, medium, small, or 3:1, 4:1, 8:1 or 28, 36, 42?

Raw dng uses lossy JPEG method for lossy compression so it would be similar to the new redcode.

I do feel that it is a bit of a sad story with Red though arguably the wounds have been self inflicted. They started off with such incredible energy, a great strategy, good intentions and a very loyal base - finally a high image quality at a reasonably affordable price for independent filmmakers - the Red One sensor had four times the resolution of HD. It was an alluring vision and I was absolutely on board! "Rendering obsolesence obsolete." Remember that?

the Red One sensor had four times the resolution of HD.

It had two times the resolution, not four times. It had four times the amount of pixels in total.

It was an alluring vision and I was absolutely on board! "Rendering obsolesence obsolete." Remember that?

I remember that very well.
Was user #80 on the reduser forum.
It all started so promising - and was later fulfilled by Blackmagic Design.

Yeah, that whole 4X the resolution of HD was a marketing gimmick. That was what RED was great at. It continues to today.

When it comes to the whole aspect of it all. I was a fan in the beginning because it had promise. Getting out of college in 2010 my school bought a RED One that summer. I got to do a workshop in the fall before I left the city to move elsewhere. Then I heard the issues the senior projects the class below had with it. I was lucky to have done my senior project the year before with a more reliable camera it turns out. Still, through that next year I started working projects shot on the RED Epic. The Epic was definitely better, but very pricey for someone like me out of college.

Arri had the Alexa then swoop in and become the favorite digital camera for top tier productions. Red vs Arri existed for a period when Blackmagic swooped in with the low cost entry point cameras of the original 2.5K and the Pocket.

Throughout all this time DCI Projection was 2K and slowly going 4K. In October 2010 was the first demo of a 4K Projector at SMPTE Conference. They showed North by Northwest restored for 4K. Yet, most movies remained 2K Projection for years, and most VFX were completed at 2K as well all the way up through 2016/17. I'm not even sure if VFX are completed in 4K too often even after 2017. I think Guardians 2 was the first one and it was shot on a Red. Either way, the point is that 2K projection dominated and 4K was slow to theaters.

Today, theaters are fighting to get audiences back. They are coming for the premium formats, which are probably 4K. But so many of the other screens are still 2K. There's no money or incentive for theaters to upgrade those projectors. Not unless they convert those screens to more premium format.

Television screens and streamers have easily switched to UHD and HDR.

Either way, that tangent was needed to illustrate that a lot of RED's BS marketing was always about more pixels as opposed to better pixels. Arri never relied on that. They had better pixels. Now they have the Alexa 35 with 4.6K and 17 stops. They cover 4K distribution fine. They cover HDR fine.

I say Blackmagic focus on the 12K sensor and improving it with more dynamic range and better color science. Focus on the image quality as opposed to resolution. They won that battle with the new non-bayer pattern. They cover 8K if TV goes to it. I doubt cinema will. Unless a new 8K IMAX Projector comes out soon.

I guess it depends on the size of the screen?

I guess it depends on the size of the screen?

It's certainly true you can easily defeat 4K by sitting in the back of the theater (or even in the middle) or across the room at home. Questions of perception aside -- higher resolution doesn't necessarily result in higher perceived resolution anyway, see Steve Yedlin as usual -- viewing distance is a frequent argument against resolution mania. To actually see in true hi res, even HD, you have to sit uncomfortably close to the screen, although the apparent sharpness of digital pictures is evident all over the hall. The next marketing push will likely be we need 16K so audiences can see 4K beyond the first 8 rows or 12 feet away at home.

The irony here is, you could write a history of cinematography on the evolving ways DPs contrived to reduce resolution over the past 120 years, rather than increase it. Then Red came along....

Well, fundamentally all of this resolution race is just a marketing ploy. I have to laugh at people who insist on purchasing UHD Blu Ray disks of movies shot on film older than 20 years since they are all naturally soft and for all intents and purposes look identical to their HD counterparts, and in some cases even DVD's!

As upscaling algorithms get better and better, effective resolution will go away as things will get upscaled as needed automatically and from whatever source format they originally came from.

Anyway...we're digressing and perhaps this should be a separate thread. Back on topic -- RED are a bunch of entitled jerks who leveraged a poorly awarded patent to hold the entire industry by their balls. The patent office made a mistake in awarding the patent in the first place, and it was probably decided by someone who didn't really understand the request. It's an example of when the system doesn't work. In addition, there is ample proof that the camera was already out and public before the patent was awarded which should nullify the patent. As I said, there are legal gears moving to nullifying RED's patent and hopefully this time around it will work. The first legal challenge was poorly presented and was likely more of a way to leverage RED into a settlement than an actual challenge to the validity of the patent itself. Hopefully the legal team has learned what not to do and will course correct as necessary.

Due to the 50th Anniversary, and as well the show The Offer, I recently rewatched The Godfather and The Godfather Part II in 4K HDR. I watched on a 65" OLED UHD Dolby Vision screen. And, my conclusion is that it looked the best I had seen it in the last 20-years from SD DVD when I first was amazed at how great it looked to HD Digital I got around 2013. Now it looks better. The remaster is fantastic.

But there are moments where you can feel the softness of the film. I can't see a difference between the HD and the UHD resolution. I can see the difference having an OLED and having Dolby Vision HDR. That's where it looked really great! So the improvements were not resolution but in dynamic range presentation and having proper true blacks from an OLED.

The only reason I really like 4K is because it has packaged with it HDR. That's the best innovative improvement has been. So with the various streaming companies 4K HDR means I know I'll see a great image because I'll get HDR. 4K is meaningless.

I've said my part about RED and their patent. But if the industry wants to move forward beyond 4K resolution for distribution then the patent office needs to release the RED patent. It's anti-competitive. It gives a monopoly to a single company, and that's not good for the customers. That's how we should approach this. There's nothing special about compressed raw above 4K that should be patented.

Backed by a libertarian billionaire that espoused freedom from formats , price , and obsolescence. Backed up by a dictatorial company president the company has drowned those lofty ideals only to become a patent troll becoming the very things its marketing said it was against. Early adopters paid premium prices for subpar tech as shown by Jinni tech. Run.

It is possible to criticize a company's policies and leadership while still appreciating their products and innovations.

Why does it always have to be one way or the other?

Apple, Google and Tesla get similar reactions.

Yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time!

Negativity towards RED stems from negative aspects they have brought onto everyone as discussed fully in this thread. Making cameras and whatnot doesn’t make them immune to being asshats in other aspects.