6 ms·
Is this yet another DJI drone that's not compatible with DJI's own goggles? If so, it's a baffling blunder they've made multiple times. This one would even be
by ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
Is this yet another DJI drone that's not compatible with DJI's own goggles?
If so, it's a baffling blunder they've made multiple times. This one would even be more embarrassing, since they call the secondary camera a "POV" camera.
Another issue: DJI continues to rip people off for a CinemaDNG "license." CinemaDNG is a free codec that is not encumbered by licensing fees. At $16,500, this scam adds insult to injury: "The format is unencrypted and free from intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaDNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaDNG
The thing looks like a very cool professional tool. But these repeated offenses are getting old.
- cherioo 4y agoFrom the same wiki page The adoption of CinemaDNG among camera manufacturers appears to be hindered by Red Digital Camera’s patent US9245314, which covers in-camera recording of lossless compressed raw video. There had been an unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the patent.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoDJI gets around this by moving the recording circuitry outside of the camera. It's in the body of the drone, not in the camera.
- cherioo 4y agoAre you implying that is sufficient to circumvent RED’s patent? IANAL but I would argue a camera-drone is still a camera. Besides that, what you describe sounds like a decision made to reduce weight of the camera module, possibly not related to patent.
- hedora 4y agoBS patents tend to have nonsensical loopholes.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago"Are you implying that is sufficient to circumvent RED’s patent? IANAL but I would argue a camera-drone is still a camera." Yes, the Inspire 2 does this, and it was widely reported that this is how they dodged the BS patent. The weight distribution may also be another bonus, or vice versa. I actually don't know why there's this perception that the patent only applies to camera-internal compressed raw, because Apple/Atomos have to pay Red royalties but Atomos recorders are obviously external. But you hear it over and over.
- davemp 4y agoThe bar for novel/non-obvious seems really low if this patent has been successfully defended.
- jiggawatts 4y agoIf I remember correctly, the patent is simply compressing the RGBG bayer filter sub-pixels as separate R, G, and B images. That's almost the entirety of it, and some rubber stamper at the USPTO granted it.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoCompressing it using JPEG2000. You can actually decompress the image using an off-the-shelf JPEG2000 decoder.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoThere is almost no bar now. The USPTO is derelict, and an ignorant ruling allowed what was supposed to be illegal: software patents. Even worse is that Red simply ripped off JPEG2000 and got a patent on it. The patent "system" has become a tool for exactly what it was supposed to prevent: the theft of people's work.
- goneri 4y agoThomas Edison Was a “Patent Troll” (2014) https://slate.com/technology/2014/05/thomas-edison-charles-goodyear-and-elias-howe-jr-were-patent-trolls.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/05/thomas-edison-charles-g...
- imtringued 4y agoThe only saving grace is the relatively short expiration of twenty years. if it was seventy years after the author's death progress would grind to a halt. IP expiration dates are a "brain plasticity" parameter in society. Higher values mean lower rates of change, too low values mean too high rates of change. Twenty years is a sweet spot.
- Auracle 4y agoNikon is fighting the good fight: https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/08/red-vs-nikon-jury-trial-is-set-for-january-2024/ https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/08/red-vs-nikon-jury-trial-is-s...
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoWe're all rooting for them.
- olex 4y agoThe Inspire has never been intended to fly with goggles. It has a dedicated "pilot view" FPV camera, but in normal usage it's typically operated by a crew of two, a pilot flying line-of-sight and/or via FPV camera and a dedicated main camera operator, both using similar/identical remote controllers with a display attached (this is typically either a large tablet or a dedicated "proper" camera monitor).
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoWhy would it have to be "intended" for that? If someone wants to do it, why prevent it? They say outright that the thing uses the same generation of wireless transmission ("O3") as their current goggles and stand-alone camera & transmitter. Not to mention that they make a big deal out of being able to send video to two destinations at once, ideal for a feed going to goggles. Is the drone "intended" to be carried around by hand while filming? It doesn't have handles for that, and yet they show a guy doing it in their promo video.
- the__alchemist 4y agoProject requirements / intended use is important. This is like asking why Betaflight doesn't support automated flight profiles or loiter. It's not a bad question or unreasonable request, but can be answered as "out of scope / not a commonly-requested feature".
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoThat answer would be hard to validate here. It already has the necessary wireless-transmission feature. And if the feature weren't desired, why would it exist on ANY drone? Look up "cinewhoop" drones. DJI even makes a drone that addresses this market. It just doesn't have the image quality that this one does. I'd say simply supporting an already-existing DJI video receiver is way more of an expected use case than carrying a drone around in your hands while filming.
- the__alchemist 4y ago
- dylan604 4y agoThe RAW upgrade is still significantly cheaper than Arri's RAW codec. Not sure if the Arri price is still the same, but it used to be higher than the cost of this drone to unlock RAW on an Alexa. It was also just an image sequence rather than a wrapped container format.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoIs this defending one rip-off by citing another?
- dylan604 4y agoKind of, yeah, it is. In high end film/video gear, you know you're always getting over charged for anything. So this is one of those, just think, you could be paying more situations. Some of that pricing for hardware does tend to make a difference in quality in how rugged and durable something is to survive the rough and tumble environment of a production set. Can it survive the multiple remove from case, build, use, tear down, throw back in case, survive cases being tossed around like they are luggage loading onto an airline all in on day for each company move on the schedule and still be usable the next time you use it. This is software only type of pricing that is ridiculous
- ShadowBanThis01 4y agoI love how some Arri shills down-modded that. Or are they DJI shills? HMMmmmmmm
- milleramp 4y agoThat was on the older Alexa's, there is no licence required to unlock raw on Arri cameras.
- dylan604 4y agoDo you know if they are still image sequences or have they chosen to wrap them up into an MXF or similar wrapper? It's been quite some time since I've been around Alexa footage. Old guy story: the original RAW image sequence named the files by converting the time code to frame number and append that to the sequence name. So, midnight/0-hour timecode would be frame 0, and 23:59:59:23 would be whatever that number is that I'm too lazy to convert. However, if someone forgot to sync timecode to time-of-day as is pretty standard OR if someone was actually shooting late night and the clip was started before 23:59:59:23 the frame number conversion would see 00:00:00:00 flip around and dutifully use frame number 0. this would cause most NLE software that would recognize the image sequence to create a clip starting with frame 0 which was technically in the "middle" of the shot that starts in another clip based on standard importer logic. </rantOfAnOldDIT>