5 ms·

Keep in mind that video cameras of that era were mostly not bayer pattern sensors, at least for professional television cameras. They were three, full raster se

Keep in mind that video cameras of that era were mostly not bayer pattern sensors, at least for professional television cameras. They were three, full raster sensors, typically with an interference-based prism block shunting blue, green, and red light to different sensors. These were so-called "three chip" cameras, the optics of which dates back to analog cameras that used tubes. Bayer pattern sensors were more common in DSLRs, because they were an extension of 35mm film, and you had to have a single, flat imaging device to work with film optics. In the film industry, the only digital cameras were the Sony F900 series (iirc) which I believe had the three-chip design, the Thomson Viper (again, memory foggy), and maybe the Panasonic Varicam... I don't know if the Viper or Varicam were single sensor, but they evidently weren't Bayer pattern or didn't compress the Bayer pattern. (I think at least one had RGB stripe layout, which is just inherently inferior.) So yeah, it's obvious now. But it was patentable then, because nobody (or very few) had ever made a Bayer pattern sensor for a video camera. It's easy to forget how long ago 2007 was, at least until I try to get out of bed in the mornings.

NonNefarious 4y ago
There were Bayer sensors before Red. If I remember correctly, three-chip cameras became impractical at higher resolutions because of the focusing problems that resulted from refraction. Red, green, and blue wavelengths refract at different rates... which was a problem when they're all coming through the same lens. I don't remember details beyond that.
- ryandamm 4y ago
  I think it had more to do with the requirement that three chip camera lenses be telecentric (see my earlier comment). Tends to make worse lenses that are more expensive.
NegativeLatency 4y ago
There's a good wikipedia page for anyone interested in how the 3 sensors were implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  There's a fascinating detail about 3CCD/3CMOS that's not mentioned in that article, namely that the sensors aren't actually in the same plane, but slightly offset in depth (probably because of the filter films between the prisms). Broadcast lenses are specifically corrected for being either 3CCD or 1CCD, the former having a back-focal distance that varies with wavelength, so that red is focused in the red's sensor plane and so on. You cannot reasonably use one kind of lens on the other kind of system. Almost all broadcast lenses that shore up on eBay are for 3CCD - so they're pretty useless for use with "normal" small-format cameras, even if their specs are otherwise enticing.
  - ryandamm 4y ago
    Yeah, they used telecentric lenses; for the prism block to work properly, you have to have each principal ray across the lens perpendicular to the filter. This puts very rough optical constraints on the lens; a typical video camera lens would have dozens of elements arranged in many groups, while an equivalent 'cine' lens might have half or fewer elements. And on top of that, the lenses produced ugly images. Going to single chip designs was a big upgrade in image quality, mostly for optical reasons.
failTide 4y ago
> Bayer pattern sensors were more common in DSLRs, because they were an extension of 35mm film, and you had to have a single, flat imaging device to work with film optics. A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs before more dedicated devices became available (myself included). Is there actually a fundamental difference between a DSLR and video camera at that point?
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs before more dedicated devices became available I doubt it. DSLRs didn't have video shooting capabilities till quite later on (late 00's?) compared to phones and point and shoot digital cameras which did much earlier.
  - failTide 4y ago
    Yeah you're right - I was off by a few years. Seems like it wasn't common until 2009
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jeffbee 4y ago
There was a Bayer-filter camcorder on the market in 1997: the Canon Optura (or MV1, outside America).
- sitkack 4y ago
  That was such a great camera! That and my Nikon 990 were my transition to a full digital video and still image workflow.
mort96 4y ago
But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the technology they're working with should be able to come up with compressing before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream technology? From the sounds of it, the patent literally seems to be about... compressing the data you get off of the image sensor. And that's it. Or are there important details I'm missing?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jpe90 4y ago
  > But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the technology they're working with should be able to come up with compressing before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream technology? Actually this exact reasoning is textbook grounds for rejecting a patent application. If a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would trivially come up with the claimed invention, a patent application can be rejected without a reference of prior art by citing obviousness of the invention. If what you’re saying is true, the examiner that originally granted the parent was probably not familiar with the subject matter(which is common). Source: was a patent examiner a good while back
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    Yes that's the theory, but in practice patent offices massively err on the side of "eh it's probably novel, we'll let the courts sort it out later, oh and by the way here's our fee".
    - jpe90 4y ago
      Absolutely. Well, first "let me issue a vague rejection and force a slight amendment to show due diligence, then issue an allowance on the amended claims". And then let the courts sort it out, as you said.
paulmd 4y ago
> So yeah, it's obvious now. But it was patentable then, because nobody (or very few) had ever made a Bayer pattern sensor for a video camera. It's easy to forget how long ago 2007 was, at least until I try to get out of bed in the mornings. yeah really this is a commentary on just how poorly-suited a 28-year exclusivity period is given the rate at which modern technology advances. I fully agree, this is something that definitely would have been novel at the time, it's a good patent, but even 14 years later it's grating that fairly basic/obvious stuff to contemporary eyes is still patent-protected.

NonNefarious 4y ago

There were Bayer sensors before Red. If I remember correctly, three-chip cameras became impractical at higher resolutions because of the focusing problems that resulted from refraction. Red, green, and blue wavelengths refract at different rates... which was a problem when they're all coming through the same lens. I don't remember details beyond that.

ryandamm 4y ago
I think it had more to do with the requirement that three chip camera lenses be telecentric (see my earlier comment). Tends to make worse lenses that are more expensive.

NegativeLatency 4y ago

There's a good wikipedia page for anyone interested in how the 3 sensors were implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera

formerly_proven 4y ago
There's a fascinating detail about 3CCD/3CMOS that's not mentioned in that article, namely that the sensors aren't actually in the same plane, but slightly offset in depth (probably because of the filter films between the prisms). Broadcast lenses are specifically corrected for being either 3CCD or 1CCD, the former having a back-focal distance that varies with wavelength, so that red is focused in the red's sensor plane and so on. You cannot reasonably use one kind of lens on the other kind of system. Almost all broadcast lenses that shore up on eBay are for 3CCD - so they're pretty useless for use with "normal" small-format cameras, even if their specs are otherwise enticing.
- ryandamm 4y ago
  Yeah, they used telecentric lenses; for the prism block to work properly, you have to have each principal ray across the lens perpendicular to the filter. This puts very rough optical constraints on the lens; a typical video camera lens would have dozens of elements arranged in many groups, while an equivalent 'cine' lens might have half or fewer elements. And on top of that, the lenses produced ugly images. Going to single chip designs was a big upgrade in image quality, mostly for optical reasons.

failTide 4y ago

> Bayer pattern sensors were more common in DSLRs, because they were an extension of 35mm film, and you had to have a single, flat imaging device to work with film optics. A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs before more dedicated devices became available (myself included). Is there actually a fundamental difference between a DSLR and video camera at that point?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs before more dedicated devices became available I doubt it. DSLRs didn't have video shooting capabilities till quite later on (late 00's?) compared to phones and point and shoot digital cameras which did much earlier.
- failTide 4y ago
  Yeah you're right - I was off by a few years. Seems like it wasn't common until 2009
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jeffbee 4y ago

There was a Bayer-filter camcorder on the market in 1997: the Canon Optura (or MV1, outside America).

sitkack 4y ago
That was such a great camera! That and my Nikon 990 were my transition to a full digital video and still image workflow.

mort96 4y ago

But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the technology they're working with should be able to come up with compressing before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream technology? From the sounds of it, the patent literally seems to be about... compressing the data you get off of the image sensor. And that's it. Or are there important details I'm missing?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jpe90 4y ago
> But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with decent knowledge about compression and the technology they're working with should be able to come up with compressing before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream technology? Actually this exact reasoning is textbook grounds for rejecting a patent application. If a “person having ordinary skill in the art” would trivially come up with the claimed invention, a patent application can be rejected without a reference of prior art by citing obviousness of the invention. If what you’re saying is true, the examiner that originally granted the parent was probably not familiar with the subject matter(which is common). Source: was a patent examiner a good while back
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Yes that's the theory, but in practice patent offices massively err on the side of "eh it's probably novel, we'll let the courts sort it out later, oh and by the way here's our fee".
  - jpe90 4y ago
    Absolutely. Well, first "let me issue a vague rejection and force a slight amendment to show due diligence, then issue an allowance on the amended claims". And then let the courts sort it out, as you said.

paulmd 4y ago

> So yeah, it's obvious now. But it was patentable then, because nobody (or very few) had ever made a Bayer pattern sensor for a video camera. It's easy to forget how long ago 2007 was, at least until I try to get out of bed in the mornings. yeah really this is a commentary on just how poorly-suited a 28-year exclusivity period is given the rate at which modern technology advances. I fully agree, this is something that definitely would have been novel at the time, it's a good patent, but even 14 years later it's grating that fairly basic/obvious stuff to contemporary eyes is still patent-protected.