4 ms·

Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadng-from-digital-negative-t

by dannyw 3y ago

Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadng-from-digital-negative-to-blackmagic-raw/ https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn... It's not clear if this was a choice. RED has a patent on in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed, and have been aggressively going after other camera makers (including Nikon) for offering the feature. To my knowledge, Nikon and RED are the only brands that offer in-camera compressed loseless RAW, and Nikon settled with RED [1]. BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless). Other RAW formats from brands in video are not compressed in-camera. [1]: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed/ https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...

strogonoff 3y ago
> in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed CinemaDNG doesn’t have to be compressed. > BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless). BM chose to go not from compressed CDNG to uncompressed CDNG, but from compressed CDNG to no CDNG at all. This is a significant reduction in processing pipeline options for those using open-source or truly free raw photography software in their work. > The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon Assuming that’s true, what they have done is they made their customers pay for their legal snafu. Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. Based on their course of action and their (almost nonexistent) communication on this issue, it’s very difficult to have any sympathy towards the company.
- indymike 3y ago
  > Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. This is the downside to patents and patent infringement. It happened with Google home speakers and Sonos, where I used to be able to tell google to play a song "whole home" and now I cannot do that any longer. I think this might be a bit of a new normal, and I'm sure this is allowed by the license agreement to ensure that patent infringements are not death sentences.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    Your speaker didn’t come with a promise that you can tell Google to play a song. This particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration. The best illustration would be that it did not warrant a line in technical specs. On the other hand, capture format is a principal consideration when audio or photo equipment is concerned. Decisions are literally based on whether, say, an audio recorder supports WAV and whether it’s 24 or 32 bit. It’s hard to draw a parallel with a consumer device, but imagine if Sonos completely removed Google Assistant, Alexa, or AirPlay 2 support (based off the specs section of Sonos One). Their legal department didn’t do their research, they didn’t feel like paying licensing fees, so they thought they’d just implement a similar platform themselves. They’d issue a firmware update where they wouldn’t mention this at all, you’d apply it and lo and behold. Would you be sympathetic to their cause? Knowing that they were also in the business of selling high-margin, very expensive professional-grade equipment to Hollywood studios, would you consider this kind of treatment something other than a ripoff? Would you still consider them “awesome” and their CEO “fantastic” if they just provided you with a free version of their commercial closed-source software (some features behind a paywall)?
    - indymike 3y ago
      > his particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration. That feature was advertised on the in-store endcap display where I bought the google speaker. It was the only reason I bought five of them. The rest of the story is identical. Ship an infringing product, be forced to retract the feature to mitigate damages and so on. > Would you be sympathetic to their cause? I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away for customers to mitigate damages in a patent dispute. It really sucks to be a customer when it happens. But I do understand how it happens, and why, ultimately Google had no choice but to remove the feature. I'm also glad they did the right thing because in the case of Google, Sonos could have went after Google's customers, too... and I don't ever want a free patent lawsuit with my $29 speaker.
      - strogonoff 3y ago
formerly_proven 3y ago
> Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn... Neither Nikon nor RED are mentioned in the source you link.

by dannyw 3y ago

strogonoff 3y ago

> in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed CinemaDNG doesn’t have to be compressed. > BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless). BM chose to go not from compressed CDNG to uncompressed CDNG, but from compressed CDNG to no CDNG at all. This is a significant reduction in processing pipeline options for those using open-source or truly free raw photography software in their work. > The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon Assuming that’s true, what they have done is they made their customers pay for their legal snafu. Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. Based on their course of action and their (almost nonexistent) communication on this issue, it’s very difficult to have any sympathy towards the company.

indymike 3y ago
> Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. This is the downside to patents and patent infringement. It happened with Google home speakers and Sonos, where I used to be able to tell google to play a song "whole home" and now I cannot do that any longer. I think this might be a bit of a new normal, and I'm sure this is allowed by the license agreement to ensure that patent infringements are not death sentences.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  Your speaker didn’t come with a promise that you can tell Google to play a song. This particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration. The best illustration would be that it did not warrant a line in technical specs. On the other hand, capture format is a principal consideration when audio or photo equipment is concerned. Decisions are literally based on whether, say, an audio recorder supports WAV and whether it’s 24 or 32 bit. It’s hard to draw a parallel with a consumer device, but imagine if Sonos completely removed Google Assistant, Alexa, or AirPlay 2 support (based off the specs section of Sonos One). Their legal department didn’t do their research, they didn’t feel like paying licensing fees, so they thought they’d just implement a similar platform themselves. They’d issue a firmware update where they wouldn’t mention this at all, you’d apply it and lo and behold. Would you be sympathetic to their cause? Knowing that they were also in the business of selling high-margin, very expensive professional-grade equipment to Hollywood studios, would you consider this kind of treatment something other than a ripoff? Would you still consider them “awesome” and their CEO “fantastic” if they just provided you with a free version of their commercial closed-source software (some features behind a paywall)?
  - indymike 3y ago
    > his particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration. That feature was advertised on the in-store endcap display where I bought the google speaker. It was the only reason I bought five of them. The rest of the story is identical. Ship an infringing product, be forced to retract the feature to mitigate damages and so on. > Would you be sympathetic to their cause? I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away for customers to mitigate damages in a patent dispute. It really sucks to be a customer when it happens. But I do understand how it happens, and why, ultimately Google had no choice but to remove the feature. I'm also glad they did the right thing because in the case of Google, Sonos could have went after Google's customers, too... and I don't ever want a free patent lawsuit with my $29 speaker.
    - strogonoff 3y ago

formerly_proven 3y ago

> Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn... Neither Nikon nor RED are mentioned in the source you link.