"TimeSliceRig" - now available in Germany

[Emanuel Schwermer, bvk]

Hello all.

 

Just to let you know, there is a "TimeFreezeRig" (MatrixEffectRig) available now in Munich/Germany, for the german and mid-europe market.

The Rig is completely digital, (25 - 50 Canon EOS 30D Cameras), you can use the rig for 35mill, 16mill or HD Productions.

We are delivering complete sequences, including all the postproduction!

If you are interested in using such an "TimeSliceRig" in germany or mid-europe, please contact me off-list (mail@firstcamera.de).

If you write me an email, you will get example clips and pics of the rig via email.

 

All the best,

 

Emanuel Maximilian Schwermer, bvk

 

 

Soon we will launch our web side.

www.timefreezefilms.de

(unfortunately still under construction)

[Stephen Williams]

Hello all.

 

Just to let you know, there is a "TimeFreezeRig" (MatrixEffectRig) available now in Munich/Germany, for the german and mid-europe market.

The Rig is completely digital, (25 - 50 Canon EOS 30D Cameras), you can use the rig for 35mill, 16mill or HD Productions.

We are delivering complete sequences, including all the postproduction!

If you are interested in using such an "TimeSliceRig" in germany or mid-europe, please contact me off-list (mail@firstcamera.de).

If you write me an email, you will get example clips and pics of the rig via email.

 

All the best,

 

Emanuel Maximilian Schwermer, bvk

Soon we will launch our web side.

www.timefreezefilms.de

(unfortunately still under construction)

 

Hi,

 

You might want to check that you are not infringing any of Dayton Taylors patents.

 

http://www.digitalair.com/intprop.html

 

Stephen

[Nathan Milford]

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.

[Dennis Kisilyov]

Hi,

 

You might want to check that you are not infringing any of Dayton Taylors patents.

 

http://www.digitalair.com/intprop.html

 

Stephen

 

Steven,

 

So wait. Digital Air is saying that If I manage to get 10 DSLR's together to shoot virtual motion I'd owe them royalties on my 100% original copyrightable footage??!?!?

 

I think this patent would fall under "previous invention" and "obviousness". Wow that is so odd that this got awarded. Yeah the Matrix Look and the Howard Stern show intro are iconic and all. But non-reproduceable w/o a fee!?!!?!? Wow.

 

Thanks for the information Stephen.

[Dennis Kisilyov]

You know what I find odd, is the complete absense of anything except "Licensing" and Infringement Informtaion" on that site, nothing else...

 

This paragraph kills me:

 

"Digital Air licenses its technology non-exclusively on a project-by-project basis to producers of media that use our patented processes and to exhibitors of media that contain products of our patented processes.

 

We presently offer licenses for any media produced or sold in countries covered by our applicable patents.

 

If the media is produced by a Digital Air production service unit (Timetrack or Movia) a comprehensive license package is included as part of the service.

 

If the media is not produced by Digital Air we recommend that producers determine if the process they are planning to use infringes any of our patents before producing the media.

 

In the event that the planned process infringes our patents we stongly urge the producer contact us for a license prior to the media being produced. We are under no obligation to license media that infringes our patents which has been produced without a license."

 

 

Wow, this makes me want to get about 10 SLR's tomorow and photograph something with their beloved method... Wow....

 

Unless ofcourse they are deemed silly by everyone, and everyone just disregards their legalese-like, umm.....

 

 

extortion....

Edited March 18, 2007 by Dennis Kisilyov

[Jonathan Benny]

Here is an interesting timeline on the development of one such system:

 

http://www.timeslicefilms.com/chronology_f.html

 

Be sure to click on the "complete" link under the timeline to see the full story from beginning to end. Those early art-school experiments are quite fascinating.

 

AJB

[Dennis Kisilyov]

Dispatched email to EFF.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Time slice is so 90's. Bit like swing shift. I wouldn't be investing in any of that kind of equipment for the near future if I was an investor.

[Stephen Williams]

Steven,

 

So wait. Digital Air is saying that If I manage to get 10 DSLR's together to shoot virtual motion I'd owe them royalties on my 100% original copyrightable footage??!?!?

 

I think this patent would fall under "previous invention" and "obviousness". Wow that is so odd that this got awarded. Yeah the Matrix Look and the Howard Stern show intro are iconic and all. But non-reproduceable w/o a fee!?!!?!? Wow.

 

Thanks for the information Stephen.

 

Hi Dennis,

 

Basically yes. 24p on video is also patented!

 

Dayton knows Emanuel, I think he is going to have a chat with him.

 

Stephen

[Dennis Kisilyov]

Hi Dennis,

 

Basically yes. 24p on video is also patented!

 

Dayton knows Emanuel, I think he is going to have a chat with him.

 

Stephen

 

 

I would understand if their patent prevented anyone else from building a 80 lens camera where the film is wound onto a track and exposed.

 

But trying to lay claim to someones original work becuase it looks like it could have been done with a derivative of their camera system is *CRAZY*.

 

Nobody would try and lay claim to my film if it was shot on 24p Video. It's my film.

 

And the sad part is that nobody will tell them NO!

 

At the point a film would go through any sort of distribution, they'd have to file for E&O, this would include things like Coca-Cola logo's in the shot, and of course a paid-in-full license to Digital Air.

 

** Their patent pretty much covers any multi-camera cinematography with more than 10 cameras. **

 

I don't know if their patent covers frame interpolation with less than 10 cameras used.

 

....

 

Take the Steadicam patents for example:

 

It's a 100% original device that stabilzes cameras, at it's very core is an original invention.

 

But Tiffen does not go after people who stabilize their camera in any other way, or worse yet, ask for a per-play license payment for all shots in a production that could be considered/construed "Steadicam" shots.

 

Worse yet, Tiffen does not operate a website that could only be called "We Will Sue You If You Don't Do What We Say.com"

 

.....

 

I'm sure the person who invented reverb coils has a patent on it as well, but reverb is a standard effect now, nobody is paying royalties, or per-play fees based on their use of reverb or digital delay.

 

I'll let Digital Air speak for themselves.

 

"While our original patents describe the Timetrack camera as a means of producing film-based virtual camera movement we have also been issued patents on the process of producing virtual camera movement using any array of cameras - and we have been issued patents on the product of the process (i.e.: the actual media produced by the process). For more detailed information on the intellectual property behind Timetrack please visit http://www.digitalair.com."

 

The sentence in bold I have trouble with.

 

-> The Actual Media Produced.

 

I have no problems with patents on their devices.

 

But:

 

A Patent on the Media and Original Footage, produced by _ANY_ array of _ANY_ cameras simulating Virtual Camera Movement.

 

What smart person in the USPTO awarded this?

[Jonathan Benny]

These were done by Tim Macmillan in the early 80s.

 

cube.mov

 

jump.mov

 

AJB

[Dennis Kisilyov]

So if McMillan was doing this in the early 80's how is a patent awarded to Digital Air in 2004?!?!

[Brad Grimmett]

So if McMillan was doing this in the early 80's how is a patent awarded to Digital Air in 2004?!?!

If you don't apply for a patent, you don't get one. I would have to assume that digital air was the first to apply.

[Dennis Kisilyov]

If you don't apply for a patent, you don't get one. I would have to assume that digital air was the first to apply.

 

But you would not get one if your invention was invented previously. During a patent application one has to do a exhaustive search that your invention has not been invented already. (At least this is the process in the states.)

 

But how the hell does one get a patent covering the output of the product. :-(. I think Digital Air is stretching it a bit, I've read their USPTO award, it does not mention this. Maybe they have this awarded in Zurich or AU, but I don't think their published USPTO paperwork allows them to challenge the footage shot with this method.

 

Still Alarming that Artists would do this to other Artists.

 

"I patent Oil Paints and Canvases, therefore if you have an oil painting (or what looks like an oil painting), you must be infringing on my patent, therefore your Mona Lisa is illegal w/o a license."

 

P.S. I did not even know this guy existed, and though this time-track stuff was a standard movie effect, that I allready in my minds eye knew how to reproduce with Digital SLR's from Nikon or Cannon, same DSLR's I've used to make stop-motion animations. Really odd to run into this bit of information.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Dennis Kisilyov

[Stephen Williams]

P.S. I did not even know this guy existed, and though this time-track stuff was a standard movie effect, that I allready in my minds eye knew how to reproduce with Digital SLR's from Nikon or Cannon, same DSLR's I've used to make stop-motion animations. Really odd to run into this bit of information.

 

Hi Dennis,

 

Dayton has been around for some time. He actually owns the camera heads & cameras that were used in Matrix.

 

Stephen

[Alessandro Machi]

Can't someone copyright the dolly move then?

 

It seems that if one creates completely original software or a completely original tripping method that runs the camera set-ups than they should be safe.

 

On the other hand, once someone owns a copyright or trademark they must enforce it or they lose it. I don't know how you find out ahead of time if what you are doing is "illegal". The irony is if as a gesture of cooperation you show them what you are doing so they can see it's not an identical copycat method, then you may be divulging your own secrets to them.

 

What about the classic "downshooter" techniques from the 80's (and perhaps even earlier). I recall Oxberry was big into that, but if someone else figured out how to do the exact same techniques without using any Oxberry gear or software, would they have been infringing as well?

[Emanuel Schwermer, bvk]

Colleagues,

 

just wanna say I´m reading all your answers and your cogitations, thank you all for sharing!

Although it was not my first intention to start such a deep discussion (just because my couple of cameras in my cellar), but now I think we´re getting into a extreme interesting area.

I think we should invite Dayton Taylor to post his opinion as well, I will write him.

 

I´m really looking forward to read more of your thoughts.

Especially some more from you Dennis Kisilyov, your post was absolutely my highlight of the day, nicely written, on the point and sooo funny, Thanxx!

 

All the best,

 

Emanuel Schwermer

DP / Munich-Germany

 

 

PS.

For the moderators:

Sorry for cross posting. It was by accident.

Please remove my posts from all other forums except this 35mill forum.

[Michael Collier]

Hey, I just pattented the f5.6 appeture. If you want to use a lens with an appeture 5.6 times smaller than the diameter of the front lens, well your in violation of my right. Use a 4.0 or an 8. deal with it.

 

This is lame, its the further over-patentizing of the world. Now adays its possible to patent genes that OCCUR NATURALLY! it seems now artistic expression is up for patent?

 

Heres the problem I see....it has to be an invention that hasn't been invented before right? the very first 'motion picture camera' was in fact....wait for it....an array of 24 still cameras set in a line to make it seem as though the camera was tracking along side a galloping horse. Hmmm sound familiar? I'd argue against their patent right on that fact alone. Not only is it not new, its about as old as motion picture gets! (oh and it was 24 cameras, not under 10, thats why we have the 24fps standard...unless my history is screwy. I know edison later re-inforced this standard with his camera systems)

[Alessandro Machi]

Hey, I just pattented the f5.6 appeture. If you want to use a lens with an appeture 5.6 times smaller than the diameter of the front lens, well your in violation of my right. Use a 4.0 or an 8. deal with it.

 

This is lame, its the further over-patentizing of the world. Now adays its possible to patent genes that OCCUR NATURALLY! it seems now artistic expression is up for patent?

 

Heres the problem I see....it has to be an invention that hasn't been invented before right? the very first 'motion picture camera' was in fact....wait for it....an array of 24 still cameras set in a line to make it seem as though the camera was tracking along side a galloping horse. Hmmm sound familiar? I'd argue against their patent right on that fact alone. Not only is it not new, its about as old as motion picture gets! (oh and it was 24 cameras, not under 10, thats why we have the 24fps standard...unless my history is screwy. I know edison later re-inforced this standard with his camera systems)

 

Great Story and analogy! If I remember correctly the reason they did that "test" was to see if a horse ever had all four feet in air at the same time.

 

I think they discovered no, anybody know for sure?

[Michael Collier]

They discovered that all its feet did leave the ground at one point, winning the bet for the photographer. I forget his name, a google search could find it, but I am lazy.

[Jonathan Benny]

They discovered that all its feet did leave the ground at one point, winning the bet for the photographer. I forget his name, a google search could find it, but I am lazy.

 

Muybridge is the name.

 

Are you sure it was the photographer (Muybridge) who was actually in the bet? I believe he was brought in just to prove it for a bet between two others.

 

AJB

[Michael Collier]

No I am not entirely sure. The way I heard it told they were both gentleman, and he had a passing interest in photography. At that point photography was a specialized skill, so I am not sure technically he was a photographer by trade, but he took an image (or series of images) that lives on, so for that 1 second at least to me he was a photographer. I am not a history buff, just a history sponge. I absorb a lot of history but do not get hung up on knowing all the details. It helps me bend stories to fit my likeing....like a TRUE storyteller.

[Jonathan Benny]

No I am not entirely sure. The way I heard it told they were both gentleman, and he had a passing interest in photography. At that point photography was a specialized skill, so I am not sure technically he was a photographer by trade, but he took an image (or series of images) that lives on, so for that 1 second at least to me he was a photographer. I am not a history buff, just a history sponge.

 

Muybridge was most definitely a photographer (ie: more than a passing interest) - in particular landscapes. The bet was made between two other gentlement and Muybridge was brought in to settle it.

 

Here is some info on Muybridge if you are interested:

 

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/MUYBRIDGE_BIO.html

 

 

AJB

[Dennis Kisilyov]

Hi Dennis,

 

Dayton has been around for some time. He actually owns the camera heads & cameras that were used in Matrix.

 

Stephen

 

And I'm certain he got ALOT of money from it, Matrix and all... And most likely gets hired all the time to shoot commecials and such, as I don't see this effect returning to the Big Screen due to it's ubiquitious and household nature - (see reference to reverb and digital delay).

 

I though that "Immitation is highest for of flattery", and at this point his company is the go-to place for this type of a shot. Why all the Legal Fuss. Why is Digital Air so unfriendly.

 

--- Lest give credit to where credit is due. ---

 

I think the effect is Amazing (during it's time in the limelight) and Digital Air/Dayton have done alot to make it useable. I'm certain a lot of effort wen't into it and a lot of hard work, which was paid for (I hope a whole lot...)

 

I wish him/Digital Air financial prosperity and happyness and a long life.

 

----

 

But reading their "marketting" would make one think that they are 50% Litigation / 50% Creativity and Production company.

 

Someone should talk to their PR person. All I'm getting from their site is BAD VIBES.

 

They should atleast put something out about the "approximate" costs of these effects to the indie film makers, to the hobbysts. No the part of the Big Six. Develop some "Attribution" license, where credit is given to said "Dayton/Digital Air" for "pioneering" the effect or some such.

 

I'm certain 98% of films shot cannot afford their services, I'm certain 93% of films shot, do not plan to use their services either (or anyone elses services for that type of an effect).

 

 

And I'm more that %100 certain that if anyone were to ever challenge this "Original Media" ownership, (which most Distributors and Broadcasters don't feel like doing) it would fall.

 

This reminds me of the recent Clear Channel patent, which was real.

 

Clear Channel said that they invented "recording" a live rock concert, or any venue and selling the CD's of that recording in the venue. So Bands were "forced" to use Clear Channel services for Venue Sold Live CD's and pay 60 percent.

 

Yeah, they "invented" recording Live Concerts and Burning Poorly mixed CD's.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Dennis Kisilyov

[Alessandro Machi]

They discovered that all its feet did leave the ground at one point, winning the bet for the photographer. I forget his name, a google search could find it, but I am lazy.

 

 

Wow, I recall seeing the images in a book and they showed the horse always had a hoof on the ground, but thanks for clearing that up.