4 ms·
I checked what you said about the 967 patent. I'm afraid it's just wrong. You quoted some of the initial part and missed out the bit which actually describes wh
by esquivalience 4y ago
I checked what you said about the 967 patent. I'm afraid it's just wrong. You quoted some of the initial part and missed out the bit which actually describes what's happening:
"an image processing system configured to perform a pre-emphasis function on the digital raw image data, to compress the digital raw image data after performing the pre-emphasis function such that the digital raw image data remains substantially visually lossless upon decompression, and to store the compressed digital raw image data in the memory device at a rate of at least about 23 frames per second, wherein the pre-emphasis function comprises a curve defined by the function y=(x+c)^g, where 0.01 <g<1 and c is an offset."
- nullc 4y agoThat "pre-empahsis" is a description of Rec 709 gamma. (the dependent claims go on to give the 709 constants for it).
- esquivalience 4y agoSure, I can't say - but when was that made part of Rec 709? I suppose that may well be what it invented... Edit - to clarify better that what I'm trying to convey is that the time and context matters too, and the claims have to be read in light of the description, so suggesting that claims are trivially invalid is something to be cautious about.
- nullc 4y agoRec 709 was published in _1990_ (and had that gamma structure then, of course!). All you can say red is doing is reciting the rather obvious combination of a 2k+ camera with rec 709, 23+ fps, etc. Maybe it's the case that someone can't find a 2k camera being offered to the public early enough to invalidate on a prior art basis-- but I can't see how anyone could conclude from this that a red success would be indicative of anything but a deeply flawed patent system in dire need of reform.