3 ms·

Yes, I am a happy fp user now. I edited that out from the original comment as I thought it’s not that relevant, it merely demonstrates that a camera with a larg

Yes, I am a happy fp user now. I edited that out from the original comment as I thought it’s not that relevant, it merely demonstrates that a camera with a larger sensor in a smaller (AFAIK) body can record CinemaDNG in 14 bit FHD to an SD card (and UHD to an SSD) just fine. > forced by RED patents - they for some obscure reason have been able to patent compressed raw video RED’s patent is a travesty, but no one forced BM to drop CDNG. They could go for uncompressed CDNG, or pay RED (like what I assume Apple has done in order to implement ProRAW). Perhaps they could even do their research before they advertised and sold all those units. Their haphazard decision to drop CDNG post-fact in favour of their own proprietary format without any communication shows lack of forethought at best, scammy tendencies at worst, and in any case blatant disregard for their paying customers. > the files get huge. The files are huge either way. BRAW doesn’t mean you don’t have to buy that new HDD if you want to work with raw video. Besides, converting a DNG to a compressed DNG without any loss would have been a trivial production step. What matters is losing an open format and the entire software toolchain that works with it. Even if you personally didn’t use FOSS raw development software, it was an option with a lot of potential. BM silently took away such option, leaving only BM’s own proprietary toolchain.

bsenftner 3y ago
I can understand BackMagic's position from the perspective that often a licensing agreement prohibits incorporation into any form of a free product - after all, there's no royalty when a product is free. We can thank Microsoft for this clause in modern licensing agreements, because that little "it's a free product, you get no royalties! haha!" is what Microsoft did to the original 3rd party developer of Internet Explorer, when Microsoft introduced the concept of free web browsers, and then free enterprise class corporate software in a competitive move against their competitors.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  I have a nagging suspicion that you don’t quite understand what you are talking about. It’s professional photography hardware, and it’s very far from being free.
  - bsenftner 3y ago
    Their software is free. Which means they have complications trying to incorporate certain licensed components into their product, those that are traditionally handed by a revenue sharing agreement on the sale of the product. When there is no revenue in the "sale" or distribution of a product that means some other non-traditional license needs to be agreed upon for the revenue share expecting 3rd party. Many, many licensing based business models do not afford the added expense of attorneys for custom license agreements, so they are simply refused. Therefore, free software often has to use nontraditional and custom licensing agreements or agree to some prior licensing business model approved method of paying them without them having to create a custom license enforcement mechanism for various clients. The free yet ad revenue supported game type software fits into an easily policed revenue stream a revenue share expecting 3rd party can be expected to accept. But BlackMagic's software is both free and not ad supported, so where is there revenue? Some share of the BlackMagic Cloud revenue? That'd be a custom agreement.
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      There is no limitation for CinemaDNG support. It is an open standard that requires no licensing fee. There is plenty of both free and commercial software supporting it. There are cameras supporting it. The patent under discussion doesn’t prevent BM from implementing it. Furthermore, BM’s software is not free. It is a commercial suite that currently costs $300 (an inexpensive price point, likely subsidized by selling $xxx–$xxxxx hardware controllers without which Resolve is moderately painful to use). They do offer at no cost a limited version where certain features spawn a “please buy” pop-up; in return for that limited version they collect plenty of personal data including your full name, email, phone number and the company you work for. I know this all because I have in fact used Resolve (frankly it’s been somewhat buggy on macOS though), have you?
      - bsenftner 3y ago
        > have you? Yes. It's not my active solution, but I've used it. Have in one of my systems.

bsenftner 3y ago

I can understand BackMagic's position from the perspective that often a licensing agreement prohibits incorporation into any form of a free product - after all, there's no royalty when a product is free. We can thank Microsoft for this clause in modern licensing agreements, because that little "it's a free product, you get no royalties! haha!" is what Microsoft did to the original 3rd party developer of Internet Explorer, when Microsoft introduced the concept of free web browsers, and then free enterprise class corporate software in a competitive move against their competitors.

strogonoff 3y ago
I have a nagging suspicion that you don’t quite understand what you are talking about. It’s professional photography hardware, and it’s very far from being free.
- bsenftner 3y ago
  Their software is free. Which means they have complications trying to incorporate certain licensed components into their product, those that are traditionally handed by a revenue sharing agreement on the sale of the product. When there is no revenue in the "sale" or distribution of a product that means some other non-traditional license needs to be agreed upon for the revenue share expecting 3rd party. Many, many licensing based business models do not afford the added expense of attorneys for custom license agreements, so they are simply refused. Therefore, free software often has to use nontraditional and custom licensing agreements or agree to some prior licensing business model approved method of paying them without them having to create a custom license enforcement mechanism for various clients. The free yet ad revenue supported game type software fits into an easily policed revenue stream a revenue share expecting 3rd party can be expected to accept. But BlackMagic's software is both free and not ad supported, so where is there revenue? Some share of the BlackMagic Cloud revenue? That'd be a custom agreement.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    There is no limitation for CinemaDNG support. It is an open standard that requires no licensing fee. There is plenty of both free and commercial software supporting it. There are cameras supporting it. The patent under discussion doesn’t prevent BM from implementing it. Furthermore, BM’s software is not free. It is a commercial suite that currently costs $300 (an inexpensive price point, likely subsidized by selling $xxx–$xxxxx hardware controllers without which Resolve is moderately painful to use). They do offer at no cost a limited version where certain features spawn a “please buy” pop-up; in return for that limited version they collect plenty of personal data including your full name, email, phone number and the company you work for. I know this all because I have in fact used Resolve (frankly it’s been somewhat buggy on macOS though), have you?
    - bsenftner 3y ago
      > have you? Yes. It's not my active solution, but I've used it. Have in one of my systems.