14 ms·
RED is suing Nikon for infringing on its video compression patents
- rektide 4y agoThis would be hard & confusing to optimize well, make energy efficient but... ideally... we should just sell camera hardware, without the software. Let end users install & set up their own data-pipelines. You'd need good application processors with honky gpus, and probably a lot of weird image processing hard blocks sprinkled in. But relying on companys to navigate the software seas, especially with shitty ass patent minefields for dumb-as-fuck obvious-shit (todays: compress raw before you combine) littering the field, is just sad. This is like the invert of the much desired non-smart TV, one which is good hardware but doesnt rot, doesnt decay, doesnt get crappy revamps. When vendors make software it is rarely "soft" for users, it is fixed & immutable. So just sell the hardware. Have the world be free to figure out & explore as it will what to do with the hardware. Unbundle the software. (And for god sake someome do something about the piece of shit degitimizing trashfire of ruin & obstruction that is the patent system. Software patents are almost always completely stupid, stop patenting information theory.)
- echelon 4y agoLast gasps of a dying industry, even if they don't know it yet. Future movies will be filmed in mocap + multisensor photogrammetry and scaled up with AI techniques. (My startup does this.) Cost and time savings of not doing location scouting, set dec, lighting, and blocking are huge. Plus you can edit way more than a static grid of photons in post. Consumer smart phones use computational photography and sensor arrays to work magic. $100,000 glass optics are dying. They'll maybe find future use in industry and research, but the entertainment field will move on.
- dmead 4y agoThat sounds like a terrible film experience.
- bag_boy 4y agoWhere can I read more? Also, can you point to a movie/scene that used mocap? Would love to watch that.
- Nathanael_M 4y agoI guess we’re pushing the point with modern blockbusters (Marvel/Star Wars) where more of the movie is animated then not. And Avatar is inverse Who Framed Roger Rabbit at this point.
- rvnx 4y agoArn't AI poses estimates more likely to become the future rather than the white balls motion cap suits from the 90s ?
- staindk 4y agoI don't know. I think there's a big space for AI assisted XYZ everywhere in life, but to me that doesn't mean it would replace the more 'genuine'/'analog' stuff like good lenses. Even for entertainment and personal use.
- woodruffw 4y agoYou do understand that this is why people don't like contemporary movies, right?
- the_only_law 4y agoI thought it was because the obnoxious rise of sequels, reboots and overdone cliche series.
- colinmhayes 4y agoPeople do like contemporary movies though. You might not, but if people didn't like them they'd lose money and studios would go back to what made money.
- echelon 4y ago> You do understand that this is why people don't like contemporary movies, right? Though I strongly prefer independent films, people "vote with dollars". Take a look at Disney. The problems with filmmaking are the institutional capital, planning, and complicated logistics required to create a film. There's only so much money to make movies, not everyone gets a shot. This is why generic "for the masses" films get made and get theatrical release placement. This is why we have more Twitch streamers than filmmakers. It will change.
- AussieWog93 4y agoYeah, as much I think this guy sounds crazy, this is absolutely a fair point. Reducing the need for films to spend $10m+ on production would mean all kinds of cool shit could be feasibly created. Look at the video game space where we have indies producing all kinds of complex, 3D games through tools like Unity.
- Nathanael_M 4y agoInteresting take that I haven’t heard before, outside of like Diamond Age. If you were a betting man, what would your timeline be? When does computer generated imagery surpass camera footage when representing reality? When does a drama shooting in Toronto pretending to be New York just render the whole thing? Finally, do you think performances will be noticeably worse and we’ll all just live with it, or is the whole idea of actors having a harder time acting with greenscreens/mocap sets overblown?
- ryandamm 4y agoDo you have any background in movie production? There is more to that industry than VFX tech. Yes, virtual production etc are ascendent, and growing fast -- but most of the production spending is still using fancy optics and traditional production. (And even for virtual production, the actors are still people.) I think this is a typical straight-line projection of the change in the industry that fails to account for the actual underlying dynamics. But I wish your startup well. I hope you've hired filmmakers, directors, producers so someone on your team understands how movies are made today. (Plus: there's lots of money to be made in downmarket production. More money is being spent on video production today than ten years ago. The industry is not dying.)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> there's lots of money to be made in downmarket production This is almost certainly what the commenter is targeting. I'd guess that and/or the adult film industry.
- ryandamm 4y agoI don't think so -- I think it's a reference to Gollum, the apes in "Planet of the Apes," the de-aged Moss Tarkin (sp?)... basically CG people. That work is almost entirely at the high end, because it takes a lot of digital art work to make them look realistic. This is moving down market, fwiw, but it's not disrupting traditional moviemaking. It's a fast-growing but tiny niche that I believe will saturate before it comes close to replacing the entire industry. (Full disclosure: I work with cameras professionally, so maybe I'm not an unbiased observer of the industry.) [ edit for clarity ]
- echelon 4y ago> Do you have any background in movie production? Yes, but that shouldn't matter. > most of the production spending is still using fancy optics and traditional production. It used to be shot and physically spliced together celluloid, too. Optics are punch card technology. The art, and indeed the end goal itself, is storytelling. The technology is just a means to an end. A grid of photons can be crafted and manipulated much easier with new techniques than by trying to put those photons in the correct places by hand. We're going to look back at optics and glass as the dinosaur age. > And even for virtual production, the actors are still people For now. Models can generate animated poses. This is moving faster than you're giving it credit. (Even when robots replace us, people will still want to act - no question. The technology will still afford that. But just like ADR can now be model-based, so can posture correction.) Your average ten year olds will be making their own Star Wars films by the end of the decade.
- JohnJamesRambo 4y ago>Cost and time savings of not doing location scouting, set dec, lighting, and blocking are huge Yes this worked awesome on the Star Wars prequels. Some of the most natural and real acting I've ever seen. /s
- cyberlurker 4y agoExcuse me sir, you may have missed the memo. We like those movies now.
- colejohnson66 4y agoWe hate the sequels (by Disney) now! /s (maybe?)
- chrstphrknwtn 4y agoSounds more like a cartoon than a film.
- echelon 4y agoMiyazaki is one of my favorite directors.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoAlleged violations of patents: - 7,830,967 "Video Camera" - 8,174,560 "Video Camera" - 9,245,314 "Video Camera" - 9,436,976 "Video Camera" - 9,521,384 "Green Average Subtraction in Image Data" - 9,716,866 "Green Image Data Processing" - 10,582,168 "Green Image Data Processing" Almost all patents use the following generic description or variations thereof: "Embodiments provide a video camera that can be configured to highly compress video data in a visually lossless manner. The camera can be configured to transform blue, red, and/or green image data in a manner that enhances the compressibility of the data. The camera can be configured to transform at least a portion of the green image data in a manner that enhances the compressibility of the data. The data can then be compressed and stored in this form. This allows a user to reconstruct the red, blue, and/or green image data to obtain the original raw data or a modified version of the original raw data that is visually lossless when demosacied. Additionally, the data can be processed in a manner in which at least some of the green image elements are demosaiced first and then the red, blue, and/or some green elements are reconstructed based on values of the demosaiced green image elements." IANAL, but this legal description is gobbledygook describing a video camera, that can compress video, in a visually lossless manner, by rearranging RGB data to be more compressible, and then being able to obtain original data from a "demosaiced" version of the RGB data. RED clearly doesn't like Nikon's use of GREEN.
- pkaye 4y agoFrom what I understand we should we looking at the patent claims to see what the patent really covers.
- ryandamm 4y agoI think this is straightforward technical language being translated into patent language. But you should always read the claims; the language is usually more precise there. I believe the technique at issue is a way to compress the data -- using standard codecs like JPEG2000 -- without first de-bayering the image. I imagine it was pretty novel when the patent was filed, which would've been the mid '00s. (The Red One used this technique, and it launched in ~2007.)
- 4y ago
- google234123 4y agoApparently using jpeg2000 to store video (which is redcode) is enough to violate these patents. Too bad Apple couldn't demolish this patent. Nikon has 100s or 1000s of their own patents, I would guess that they will counter sue for random violatations by RED.
- ryandamm 4y agoI haven't pulled the patents, but they probably have to do with compressing the pre-debayered image. Apple sends Red a big check every year for the same patents; I believe they're part of ProRes but not sure. Essentially, by compressing the raw RGB data coming off the sensor (where each pixel only has R, or G, or B) you avoid the data explosion of interpolating color values at each pixel. It's a technique for compressing raw files, and Red was early to the game. Perhaps someone on here has more detailed technical info, I haven't actually read the patents, just talked to engineers close to the project.
- NonNefarious 4y agoThis is really a clinic on the dereliction of the USPTO and erroneous court rulings that have led to software patents. But... the fact is that Red ripped off JPEG2000 and are now suing over it. And why not, when they're abetted by a corrupt patent regime.
- acchow 4y agoMindblowing that this technique is patentable
- int0x2e 4y agoUntil tested in court, many, many things are patentable...
- JacobThreeThree 4y agoIt's been tested in court. https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-apple-prores-raw-red-patent-dispute.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-apple-prores-raw-red-pat... Major patent reform is required.
- ryandamm 4y agoWe actually have had major patent reform! Look into IPR review, the Alice Supreme Court decision, and the patent reform act of ... was it 2012? 2013? The IP landscape is wildly different than it was when these patents were first filed. That they've held up under scrutiny implies they're not _total_ junk. Also, it probably still needs reform. But my understanding from talking to lawyers (who I was paying, to be fair), it's better than it was.
- bri3d 4y agoThey got Kinefinity and DJI with this patent collection already, too, forcing them to drop ProRes RAW support. It's quite ridiculous, really, basically any camera which internally records compressed lossless sensor data prior to debayering (any "internal RAW" format) is vulnerable to RED patent trolling.
- NonNefarious 4y agoThis is a common misconception, but the patent is not specific to internal recording. Apple and Atomos co-invented ProRes Raw, and this nonsense has hampered Atomos's external recorders as well. Apple and Atomos are paying Red's extortion and... that's how bullshit patents are used to steal people's work in the USA.
- konschubert 4y agoWhen will this patent expire?
- bri3d 4y agoThe main patent in play, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9245314B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9245314B2/en , expires in 2028.
- stoicjumbotron 4y agoI'm not well versed with patents. So when this patent expires in 2028, can RED "renew" it or it will be available for everyone to use w/o paying RED anything?
- silencedogood3 4y ago
- TD-Linux 4y agoThe patents in question are a new level of terribad. So bad that they can be trivially invalidated by prior art. Nikon's going to spend a lot of money on lawyers but is likely to win (if they don't settle out of court...) (When reading patents, skip to the claims, they are the only part that actually matters). 7,830,967's independent claim is a 2k+ resolution video camera that records sRGB or rec709 gamma. That's it. 8,174,560 is even more ridiculous. It's a 2k+ resolution camera that records at a 6:1 or more compression ratio. No actual method or anything, just the concept of compressing at least 6:1 compression ratio. Check out indepedent claim #1. Both of these are very likely to have very easy prior art available. Finding any camera that records high resolution video, made before the priority date would do it.
- dagmx 4y agoIf Apple and Sony couldn't fight RED on this, I doubt Nikon can either on the merits of these patents. Of course, Nikon likely has an arsenal of camera patents with which to negotiate with RED so that might be different.
- ryandamm 4y agoAgain, the patent to compress Bayer pattern data before de-Bayering is the pivotal one. There's a reason Apple is still paying royalties, and it ain't because they don't have good lawyers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- izzydata 4y agoIt seems like there should be some kind of penalty for filing troll patents if they can be invalidated like that.
- AlbertCory 4y agoThere are legal remedies, like being forced to pay the other side's legal fees, and even worse consequences than that. Difficult to win, though.
- Layke1123 4y agoI cannot think of a better way to actually impede humanity's progress than to put up artificial barriers to techniques developed to help spur innovation and growth. The patent system is mind numbingly stupid as it absolutely STIFLES innovation.
- NonNefarious 4y agoIt's worse than that. By allowing patents that are supposed to be illegal (like those on math and things that are obvious), the USPTO abets companies in stealing people's work.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoOn the other hand, who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it was not protected? It's a two-way street. There are good patents, bad patents, and everything in between.
- betaby 4y agoMost of R&D in the medical/pharmacological field is done by government grants as an example.
- tyrfing 4y agoDo you have a source for 'most'? Pharma R&D spending is very high compared to any other industry. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
- betaby 4y agohttps://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dolla... The raw dollar value R&D in the private sector is higher, but that's accounting gymnastics for tax purposes, not actual R&D.
- netr0ute 4y ago
- ryandamm 4y agoI do find myself wondering what fraction of Red's revenue is IP vs camera sales. No particular reason, just curious -- these patents sound rather profitable.
- dboreham 4y agoOne would have thought that Nikon has at least one enforceable patent against Red and therefore cross-licensing is the eventual outcome.
- lizardactivist 4y agoRed joins the ever-growing horde of U.S. American patent trolls. It's a real shame.
- esjeon 4y agoYeah, real shame. Nikon's market hardly overlaps with RED's, and never will. This is not "free market competition", but a cheap attempt to suck out money from other companies. Probably the company has already reached the end of its own potential.
- stephen_g 4y agoI’m not saying that it’s good, but it’s not actually “patent trolling” by definition. That is patent action launched by a non-practicing entity who makes money by lawsuits instead of actually making products, and patent trolls have usually bought patents from someone else (like a bankrupt company) instead of filing them themselves. These patents are actually core parts of RED’s products (and compressing raw sensor data pre-debayer was actually fairly unique back in 2007 when they started doing it).
- bob1029 4y agoWhat would be the consequences of throwing out all patents that are purely an information theory thing? These seem to have the biggest impact on our ability to interoperate with complex technologies at scale.
- hatware 4y agoYou mean corporations don't actually want to innovate once they have significant market share?
- Lammy 4y agoAIUI (and I ANAL), these patents are also behind the Z-Camera ZRAW format change as of Z-Cam firmware 0.94.1: https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25023/z-cam-is-so-lazy-that-they-violated-the-famous-red-patent-and-will-pay-for-it-soon https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25023/z-cam-i... > "As [the original post] said, ZRAW stores a full RAW, albeit compressed (Huffman and Golomb). This means that the original information about YUV is not correct. In the code, they called the channels that way, indeed, but the channels themselves, as it turned out, store the usual RGB CFA Bayer." https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25185/zraw-is-not-raw-anymore/p1 https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25185/zraw-is... > "ZRAW is not RAW anymore. After firmware v0.94.1 it's an AES-encrypted MOV-container-corrupted overXORred shit, that contains only HEVC bitstream."
- czbond 4y agoDid RED or Nikon get them from Pied Piper?
- Buttons840 4y agoShould have put their patent infringing software behind some DRM. RED finds out Nikon is violating their patent, sues Nikon, Nikon makes a strategic campaign donation, some people at RED end up being felons. God bless America. Seriously, if I infringe a patent in some DRMed software, can anyone ever legally discover that fact?
- nickff 4y ago>"Seriously, if I infringe a patent in some DRMed software, can anyone ever legally discover that fact? " Yes, RED can file a suit, and 'discover' the software. The legal system is not some arcane and buggy piece of code.
- sydthrowaway 4y agoWhy not use BlackMagics cameras?
- imagetic 4y agocause they aren't reliable, or ever available.
- imagetic 4y agoNikon will most likely end up having to remove internal RAW support for the Z9. That was a big selling point for me, I received one of the first in Z9 preorders (I'm a professional photographer who does a lot of video production work as well). I work with RED cameras fairly regularly. RED, while protecting their first to market realm and making sure they get the check, have really stifled where the camera industry can go. Apple, Sony, Kinfinity, all lost out to RED on similar cases. Assuming Nikon isn't completely ignorant (they've been protecting patents for a long ass time), introducing internal RAW in the Z9 was a red flag on announcement day for this very topic. It gave them the splash they needed to launch their flagship camera, so it's very possible they figured they'd take the win while they can, even if it came with a hard slap for everyone after the fact. And it's a thin, but very legal argument to say they compete in the same space. No Z9 owner in a professional space is looking to buy a RED really. If there are, it's probably less than 10 in the world. A huge part of me wishes people just wouldn't buy RED cameras in protest to how big of a road block they've created and the business practices they've employed themselves. And Maybe the rest of the industry just collectively gangs up on them to apply pressure. One can dream. Right now, the only way this ends is if people talk with their money, or the patents expire.
- bumblebritches5 4y ago
- sitkack 4y agoJust use QOI and be done with it. https://qoiformat.org/ https://qoiformat.org/
- sitkack 4y agoQOI is patent free, simple to implement and fast. Previous discussions here https://hn.algolia.com/?q=qoi+image https://hn.algolia.com/?q=qoi+image The amount of human waste generated by patents and the resulting machinery surrounding them, entire ecosystems of support that self perpetuates this insanity. The human race cannot advance until ideas are exchanged freely and scientifically and not via combat. BTW my parent comment was at -2 when I posted this.
- bumblebritches5 4y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoThese are the patents: 7,830,967: Applying a gamma correction before compression 8,174,560: Above with a transformation to take a delta between green and the red and blue channels to enhance compressability. Claims are extremely vague on this one. 9,245,314: Lossy compression prior to moving sensor data into memory 9,436,976: Just looks like a combination of the three previous patents Kodak had prior art on a lot of this for their satellite image processing which isn't technically video but the data rates are in the same realm.
- NonNefarious 4y agoAll of which are patents on MATH, which is supposed to be unpatentable. Talk about bullshit.
- alok-g 4y agoNote: I haven't read these patents. Mathematics by itself is not patentable, but its usage certainly is. (In fact, if that were not the case, perhaps nothing would be patentable given how mathematical nature is.)