Waynes

Are you sure it stopped because of overheating Andrew? That wine bottle next to it looks a bit empty. Put a cameraman in a fridge with wine bottle, you know! With artificial intelligence in cameras these days...

Here's an idea. Using a beam primary splitter to three vertically stacked frames idea above, could a superior picture to modern film. This, even without customising the chemical formulation of each primary sub frame in the frame. Film is heavily formularised in layers with HDR tricks. I imagine film production buffs in big studios might like to spend the extra film in order to produce a feature that matches any current cinema popular camera plus some more?

How come they.dudnt do it in 16k 120fps, or 32k? People in the know, will know what I'm hinting at. It's easy to upscale by making a fine delimitation point around a pool of visual information (boundaries, including hard edges but also soft edges in toning movement). You apply the same approximation of boundaries to faster frame rates to produce frames inbetween and in the existing ones This allows you to go to whatever K resolution and frame rate, but lacks the missing detail. However, it's hard to use regular AI well. They waste huge amounts of energy for more advanced routines, which could be replaced by economic procedural programming. Now, Intel had a nice upscaling routine many years back. It used to be a hour or so, or a hundred hours a frame (I forget which?). With today's hardware and even custom hardware, that could be much faster. Now, onto modern TV AI upscaling. I have read comments it is very cartoonish. Another accidental upscaler is fractal video codec. Anyway, the upscaler I envisionaged doing, would be designed to restore real detail quickly. So, thanks for the memories here (maybe me grandfather in on the train platform) but I'll pass on this as far as real detail goes. An interesting thing noted on the video comments, is that the train color is wrong, and it should be a more vibrant green. Setting aside the possibility this may actually be a color deviation from the normal color, in real life, some monochrome film had problems with various color. This film might have had problems strongly registering the bright green.

Lol. It almost looks rolling shutter on that train. How they decide the color? That is one of the difficult things in the industry. I was looking at doing a technique to extract original colors in the 80's or 90's, but the information needed wouldn't survive the post process. But the his AI thing is a bit garbage. There are deterministic ways of restoring film for decades, and I looked at doing so in the 1990's/maybe 1980's. If only they had a prism splitter to put little primary colored images of film in between the sprocket holes that would help colorisation and could have been used as the basis of future primitive colour projection grading. But, then again, I'm over one hundred years ahead of them. You know, they could have simply done a long frame split up three or more times to use a splitter to give the primary colour very accurately in the 1800's. I wonder if that would actually enhance film now? Extra wide formats are used regularly now, that's nearly a 4:3 sideways frame. IMax of the old days, OMax. And I don't even work at Red! :)

Happy new year. Pretty soon you will be able to print large format 30cm+, sensors. Imagine what youtubers would do with that. Certainly would give the best YouTube talking head videos. ?

No 8k? Look at mode 8C on the chart. It is an extra wide 9.576k mode at 30fps, which you can extract a wide format 8k out of. In sensors they can use the option to window out the resolution you want at higher frame rates. However, a manufacturer could lock out this function and just give set modes. Now, can we have something on Red? Like how there patent survives? I think there might a patent lawyer around here who could access and write it. Hey Video Hummus. New Sigma Foveon camera is coming. Anyway, what is the point of the Sony, without 8k, 12 bit 4:2:2/Bayer and 17 stops HDR rec2100 video? What is the use of even better low light stars, unless it can show us planets around them aswell?

Vested interests change Wikipedia pages, and officially so too. Even pointing out wrongs you get stone walled. Things are written in medical pages from the standpoint of certain people aswell, reinforcing certain conspiratorial conservative behaviours. The BBC are very left wing biased. If you are left wing they look neutral, but it has gotten so bad that right wing people loose sight of the non biased things, seeing balanced neutral reporting as even biased. What's happening in, America, is an indication of how broken it is, particularly the right. Bernie Sanders looks a credible opportunity, but he is on the margins there, in a country too right and big business, rather than him being just left of central politics, or a bit left of centre (I don't know enough about him, but he seems to be caring about actual Americans). Just remember that to Hitler, Starlin, and many dictators, 90% of everybody else looks like extremists, because they were extremists.

.

Thanks Emanuel. Open up one with a title "Patent! Patent! Patent!". But just put .. in the main body, and see how fast one gets banned for life. They have done various things (but maybe imports) but just don't follow through a lot. A cheap fixed cinema camera I was talking to them about, wasn't so innovative, but new came out. The redray codec, the laser projector, world's most complex camera asic (more record). Hydrogen, bought in display.

I think it read (haven't glanced it in a whe) that it covers different CFA patterns. That thee was some specific color manipulation for the compression, which should be the start of the only thing protectable in that way. Meaning that only the unique, new, unobvious process applied that way should be patentable. Everything is is dross. Adding obvious stuff like resolution and compression ratio is unpatentable. In general, trying to force unpatentable obvious sections, I would expect to be a nonunique process manipulation. No, it's ok, I dig actual work, I'm not a jealous person who equates mere true statements and assessment as something bad rather than just an observation about a truth of something. But it is very hard to follow what parts of your sentences are referring too. So, sorry, I get lost sometimes. Something is up with that page, it says something like 308 days ony phone, Yah!

Different jurisdictions rejecting stuff, based on evidence, is evidence! They should go out and give it a try, and find all markets where something was rejected, or was never accepted.

It's worse, applying jpeg2000 to Bayer is obvious and at video rates rediculously obvious. Plus we discuss using jpeg2000 for Bayer at video rates looking to the higher than 2k resolution era publicly before Red patent or even existence I think, so that in itself would make it unpatentable, as prior public knowledge. Stuff, I'm the one that suggested to them 4k, do I get to patent everything 4k, of course not! They only get to patent one particular type of new Bayer compression algorithm and the unique, new unobvious differences in it. That's how it is suppose to work.

How come I can't re-edit so soon after?

You have to be careful in how you state things, in business, not to sound differently from what you intend. I'm not saying whatever was intended here. People could reinterpret things as they like, even potentially misinterpret and ask about the definition of collusion. You see, it's very difficult in business and you have to be careful in how things are stated. So, has there ever been a challenge to this patent that gets to actual re-examination of the terms and context we are interested in. There is no real victory without that happening on all contexts of relevant objections. Here, the panel criticised the submission for not enough, and Apple had an professor expert in Bayer lined up, I thought I read. Sony settled put of court too, didn't they? This process should also include an examination for likely problems with a whole patent upon submission of objection independent of the submission but before and after it has been examined, a close check to be sure, then all the notes and conclusions be passed onto the examiner if successful.

I am talking about others. I'm an inventor, and we could develop a wireless connector that hovers in the port magnetically but does not touch the device. I know how it can be done and how to no physically keep it in the port. Considering the nature of the patents relation to prior art it would be a stretch on a stretch to not allow it. I've been considering designs for a camera case for a phone years ago to contact Google about, and it just occurred to me I could use it for wireless recording. But yeah, I think I can totally get around these requirements using my tech propsal from maybe up to a decade ago. They violated one of the rules of patent writing, probably because they couldn't see it. You are talking figuratively?