Mike Brennan Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Anyone care to decipher the red raw patent? important? irrelevant? The subject thread although started by JJ has been pulled at Red User and stifled on cml, so please no Red bashing just informed comment! My link Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I guess in the end they're covering REDCode, because quickly glancing through it I see 12 bit mentioned, whereas the Cineform RAW used on the SI 2K is 10 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 5, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted January 5, 2011 Well, one doesn't generally expect too much out of the US patent office these days, and it's occasionally satisfying to have one's prejudices confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Dig deeper into the patent and there are some interesting technical process notes. Brings up some differences with other compression schemes and can give a clue about what might be the merits of the patent as well as some interesting aspects of REDCODE. I was hoping to have a technical discussion on this elsewhere but it degenerated quickly into a bash fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 I was hoping to have a technical discussion on this elsewhere but it degenerated quickly into a bash fest. Yes I've gathered there are some interesting technical aspects of the patent that, I summise, when taken in context with comments made by JJ, supposedly could have far reaching effects on the developments of other cameras. I can't recall another occasion in the past 25 years where a patent about core elements of an electronic camera that is in production, is being said by the manufacturer to have such a wide reaching effect on the industry. Having just paid the lawyers and had a technical innovation patent accepted here in Oz, I am loathed to try and disect the patent description because I know the devil is in a type of detail which is just beyond my iQ :) But I'm all ears if anyone else wants to have a go. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 6, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted January 6, 2011 I did a sort of semi-skim of most of it. I honestly can't tell whether they're just longwindedly describing their RGGB JPEG-2000 format or whether they're trying to imply something more than that without actually revealing what it is, which is a particularly unpleasant git's trick in patentology. Having looked at early, unencrypted R3D files (the content of which is at least somewhat previewable, at 1K, with any JPEG-2000 reader) I'm really not sure they're doing anything much beyond the sort of normalisation and preprocessing that I'd consider completely obvious and normal for any comparable device. Most of our correspondents here will of course be completely familiar with this, but for the sake of completeness: I think the reason that people get wound up about patents like this is that, in theory, obviousness is a defence in a patent litigation, but to get to that point is enormously expensive. As such this sort of patent doesn't do much more than have a fairly pronounced chilling effect on people who aren't rich. It doesn't actually stop a large organisation, with funding, from co-opting the idea. You wonder why they bother. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now