Jinni.Tech vs. RED Part 4 (1hr long)

[Emanuel]

No idea for Benz but Ford should charge for all black ones driving out there... Problem with green, red and blue pixels solved : -D

57 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Same for Benz getting royalties from all vehicle manufacturers on any vehicles with 4 wheels and a motor on it.

[andjo]

On 9/22/2019 at 2:45 PM, IronFilm said:

"No wrongdoing".....   aside from all their documented lying in that latest episode??
 

I wouldn't accuse Panasonic or Nikon for lying when they claim they use their own sensors in interviews, when they clearly do not. Or Samsung for using Sharp panels in their TVs even though they don't disclose it. It's just information that they have no interest in sharing with us, and rightfully so. If you see that as a problem you are rather questioning how the industry works in general than on RED itself.

Then again the patent is something completely different and that's where the shady stuff seemingly (and maybe even illegal?) has taken place so I'm more curious to learn about that part.

[IronFilm]

48 minutes ago, andjo said:

I wouldn't accuse Panasonic or Nikon for lying when they claim they use their own sensors in interviews, when they clearly do not.

Did you watch the video? 

This is quite different. 

Panasonic does work on sensor development. 

Where is RED's "large team" of sensor designers that RED claims to have??

Actually, forget about "large team", where is one person who works in their sensor design team doing that?

Rob Hummel doesn't know of anyone! 

Can you help me find someone? I'd love to read what papers they've published, and patents they've got, over their career. 

 

48 minutes ago, andjo said:

or Samsung for using Sharp panels in their TVs even though they don't disclose it.

Again,

NOT AT ALL THE SAME

Not even in the same galaxy. 

48 minutes ago, andjo said:

It's just information that they have no interest in sharing with us, and rightfully so.

Because not only was RED happy to share it, they shouted this proudly from the rooftops: "WE MADE THIS! OUR BIG SENSOR DESIGN TEAM! HERE MADE IN THE USA!" etc etc etc 

If they just refused to say, like Samsung not admitting to Sharp panels, then I'd have greater respect for RED than them lying (and contradicting their own lies! Because they can't even keep that straight). 

49 minutes ago, andjo said:

Then again the patent is something completely different and that's where the shady stuff seemingly (and maybe even illegal?) has taken place so I'm more curious to learn about that part.

For sure, that parent is hell shady! And totally wrong. 

But all these other videos from Jinni Tech, like this latest one, are demonstrating the depth of RED's ethical character.... or rather lack of it! 

At every turn, wherever he seems to look and start digging, we discover more lies and unethical behavior from RED. Makes you question EVERYTHING about RED, have they ever been able to say anything truthfully? Will they ever in the future? If Jim Jannard or Jarred Land tells me it is raining, I'm going to make damn sure to look out the window to double check!

[EthanAlexander]

After watching this video and the one before it, it's easy to see that ALL of RED's claims should be reexamined.

Their false use of "made in the USA" and false claims of designing their own sensors go well beyond ethical business practices. 

I have little doubt that the industry will be better off once this patent is revoked. It's smoke and mirrors, and it's holding back fair competition.

[Shaocaholica]

Lol at all the die hards over on reduser moving the goal posts.

reduser: Red makes its own sensors because Jim said so something something gospel

Jim deposition: Actually we didn't I just lied about it

reduser: Red had to lie its just how business is done these days you can't expect them to make their own sensor its obvious!

[IronFilm]

Jesus himself could come down from Heaven waving a banner saying "RED LIED" and folks on reduser would still not believe. 

 

[newfoundmass]

It's not how I'd react, but I kinda get it. Those folks have invested a lot of money into RED cameras and accessories, and I'm sure they're overall very happy with them, so it's probably kind of difficult for them to accept these allegations. That the RED community has spent a decade plus interacting with the people at RED on a personal level probably doesn't help. 

Ultimately one of the things that kinda bums me out about all of this is, RED really did do incredible things. When you take away all the allegations, the premium charged for off the shelf tech, etc. you still have a series of cameras that helped democratize cinema cameras, moving the tech forward while also opening it up to a whole different class of people. Until Blackmagic got into the game RED was the only cinema camera people like my friends and me could afford to work with. And it was awesome!  It's disappointing that it's legacy has changed in many ways. Regardless of the outcome it didn't need to be like this. 

[Shaocaholica]

My gripe is the whole mentality of:

 

1)Company/person did great things for the industry!

2)Product just works and works great!

 

....therefore, they get a free pass to do whatever they want because they earned that privilege.

 

 

also it seems reduser is leaking into the YouTube comments for video 4.  Pretty much the same sentiment.

”Red products have done great things for my career.  Therefore they are above reproach.”

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Ultimately one of the things that kinda bums me out about all of this is, RED really did do incredible things. When you take away all the allegations, the premium charged for off the shelf tech, etc. you still have a series of cameras that helped democratize cinema cameras, moving the tech forward while also opening it up to a whole different class of people. Until Blackmagic got into the game RED was the only cinema camera people like my friends and me could afford to work with. And it was awesome!  It's disappointing that it's legacy has changed in many ways. Regardless of the outcome it didn't need to be like this. 

The Sony PMW-F3/F55/F5/FS700/FS100/AF100/etc and Canon C300/C500 (plus more recent cameras like FS7! And Varicam LT / EVA1 etc) were all affordable cinema cameras people could and did work with. 

It wasn't all just ARRI ALEXAs exclusively. 

[Robert Collins]

On 9/23/2019 at 10:37 PM, mercer said:

Actually, my analogy is not saying that at all because the definition of a recipe is...

A set of instructions for preparing a PARTICULAR dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

The patent doesn’t restrict companies from including raw video in their cameras... it doesn’t restrict companies from having compressed raw at less than 6:1... it doesn’t restrict companies from having 6:1 compressed raw at UHD, or 2K... it doesn’t restrict uncompressed raw at 4000 pixels wide or higher... it restricts an internal compression of 6:1 or higher based on 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels and 25% blue pixels, at 4000 wide or higher at 24fps or higher. I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe.

Just because a lot of people don’t like that Red owns the patent, they still own the patent. Is the patent valid... I don’t know. I’m not a patent attorney. Right now, it is valid and it is intellectual property. Do I hope the patent becomes invalid... sure why not, I like competition.

I think the real question is... if the patent becomes invalid... what company is going to release a camera, with those specs, at a reasonable price point?

This is a really interesting comment especially amongst a  Group of people that really actually respect intellectual property rights (my background is more 'property is theft'). But surely the whole point of Colonel Saunders (KFC) is that his 'recipe' is a big 'secret' because you cant patent a 'recipe'. What you need for a patent is an 'individual ingredient' and while redescribing a bayer array might sound like one it clearly isnt...

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

The Sony PMW-F3/F55/F5/FS700/FS100/AF100/etc and Canon C300/C500 (plus more recent cameras like FS7! And Varicam LT / EVA1 etc) were all affordable cinema cameras people could and did work with. 

It wasn't all just ARRI ALEXAs exclusively. 

While true, when we got the chance to use a RED it was our opportunity to work on something that was used on Hollywood sets. That was a really huge deal. 

Of course now we're able to do incredible things with the GH5, Pocket 4K, etc. but in 2012 and 2013 it was huge for us. And it helped lead the way to companies like ZCam and BMD to further disrupt the market. 

[mercer]

4 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

This is a really interesting comment especially amongst a  Group of people that really actually respect intellectual property rights (my background is more 'property is theft'). But surely the whole point of Colonel Saunders (KFC) is that his 'recipe' is a big 'secret' because you cant patent a 'recipe'. What you need for a patent is an 'individual ingredient' and while redescribing a bayer array might sound like one it clearly isnt...

A recipe can be patented, but I used the analogy hyperbolically. It was an off the cuff analogy and never meant to truly draw a comparison. With that said, it seems a lot of people, commenting on this thread, either haven't read the patent, or believe that something as obvious as compressed raw video shouldn't be patentable. I don't know enough about patent law, especially regarding software and how it is integrated into hardware, to say one way or the other.

But after looking over the patent, in question, it doesn't seem as simplistic as I originally assumed it was based on the comments. There are details and schematics as to how the processing would work in a video camera. In fact, a video camera seems to be an integral ingredient in the patent... as is the exposure timing involved to create a moving image with greater dynamic range. It's arguable that the patent is more about that than it is about compressed raw.

It also seems that some folks are using Jannard's questionable ethics to question the ownership, or validity, of the patent? And I don't see how that is relevant at all?

It's even assumed that Blackmagic developed B-raw because of this patent, which has never been confirmed either. For all we know, that issue could have been due to Adobe and the processing of cdng files in post. 

Some people assume that since Apple is suing Red, over the patents' validity, then it must be an invalid patent because why would they even bother. But it's possible Apple is using their significant resources to get a better licensing or settlement deal with Red. Sony even settled their patent dispute with Red and they clearly could have drowned Red with legal fees.

So all I am saying is that I don't believe this issue is as cut and dry as... Jannard is a liar, or eventually somebody else would have implemented raw video using a similar method with existing, or soon to exist technologies.

If the patent is deemed invalid, for whatever reasons, hopefully that will lead to greater competition and cheaper prices. If the patent is deemed valid, then it will continue to be intellectual property of Red. I really have nothing more to say about it.

[thebrothersthre3]

Its much more personal when a smaller company like RED does this type of stuff as they are generally delivering products to competent technicians rather than consumers or prosumers who don't really care much in the first place what they are getting. Even with Panasonic or Sony, they are huge corporations so any lies that might be said feel way less personal.  

I honestly think companies like RED might start struggling as more and more companies like Zcam pop up. But that is true for everything in the long run.

 

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

or believe that something as obvious as compressed raw video shouldn't be patentable. I don't know enough about patent law, especially regarding software and how it is integrated into hardware, to say one way or the other.

 

Software patents should NOT be patentable, it is one of the core ways the current IP legal framework is completely broken. 

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html

 

 

https://www.wired.com/2015/02/eff-eliminate-software-patents/

Quote

EFF came around to the idea that, at the least, Congress should commission a study to determine if software patents should exist to begin with. That is not as crazy as it may seem. As the report notes, New Zealand—albeit a country with a comparatively tiny tech community—recently amended its laws to prevent patenting software. And Kamdar adds that patents haven't always been such an integral part of the software world. Microsoft, for one, acquired just five patents in its first 15 years, during which it became a $1 billion company. Today, Microsoft applies for 2,000 to 2,500 patents annually.

"It's a peer pressure, all-the-cool-kids-are-doing-it system right now," say Kamdar. "As soon as one company starts acquiring patents everyone else thinks they need to for defensive purposes. That puts pressure on the whole system."

The problem is, unlike with other types of patents, software patents often cover every solution to a certain problem, rather than a specific solution, with a specific implementation. That leads to an abundance of vague, broad patents, so that even when smaller companies do acquire patents, they're unlikely to do them any good against a patent troll. And so, Kamdar says, many of the startups EFF talked to over the course of its research are operating as if patents can't protect them anyway, and forgo them altogether.

And so, if software patents were to disappear, Kamdar believes not much would change, except that patent trolls would lose their power, and large companies like Apple wouldn't have to keep paying them hundreds of millions of dollars for infringing on decades-old, overly broad patents.

 

[Sun Daze]

On 9/25/2019 at 12:54 AM, Shaocaholica said:

Lol at all the die hards over on reduser moving the goal posts.

reduser: Red makes its own sensors because Jim said so something something gospel

Jim deposition: Actually we didn't I just lied about it

reduser: Red had to lie its just how business is done these days you can't expect them to make their own sensor its obvious!

YES!
Also not to mention all the character assasinations of Jinnimag and a tearful, heartfelt story about how he was late to ship a jinnimag to a customer!

With all the thousands of hours now spent by all these people posting, and all the millions of dollars red has, how have they not paid one person to open up professional media by Sony, Panasonic, Codex?  To show that this also is not enterprise grade stuff?  That everybodies doin' it!

Or open up a flanders monitor or tvlogic monitor or sony EVF and show it's cheap stuff?

isn't that what this is about, besides showing how much red lied, excuse me, "created myths"?  

that their products are low-grade parts that they mark up with a premium.

 

[ntblowz]

20 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Its much more personal when a smaller company like RED does this type of stuff as they are generally delivering products to competent technicians rather than consumers or prosumers who don't really care much in the first place what they are getting. Even with Panasonic or Sony, they are huge corporations so any lies that might be said feel way less personal.  

I honestly think companies like RED might start struggling as more and more companies like Zcam pop up. But that is true for everything in the long run.

 

The rise of the Chinese.. no wonder USA trying really hard to put a dent, but i think they knew it is inevitable, Sooner or later RED will become GoPro 2.0, Samsung will be no 2 phone maker....

[Shaocaholica]

What happened with GoPro?  I was under a rock.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Marketing was/is always half lying. But RED adopted a politics of FULL LYING.

[Sun Daze]

 

3 hours ago, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

Marketing was/is always half lying. But RED adopted a politics of FULL LYING.

I think part of the appeal of red is buying into the myth of Red.  And part of that Myth is that the CEO, Jim Jannard, is the Elon Musk of the camera world.  A genius badass disruptor.    When that myth gets lifted, with jinnimag videos, consumers, especially those who own thousands of dollars of gear, those who bought into the myth of red get upset.

Especially in the past three years, when 4k is now the norm, and Red no longer has higher resolution as a selling point, and when cheaper cameras like the blackmagic ursa mini pro and c300 ii and fs7 can get people to an image they want for a lot cheaper.

When Hollywood now primarily uses the Alexa over the red. It's almost a mythical choice.

But yea, now as we find out how much of a liar and Barnum-like con man Jim is, more stuff like below will be discovered.

When he was the CEO at Oakley, he was involved in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal. He most likely was a bully who "encouraged" his employee to lie under oath.  Maybe not what people expect in a leader.  The type of person who could point blank lie to several companies about the origin of his camera components and would have no problem manipulating his users. More of this will come out.

And at what point will the myth of red vanish, and will cameras go back to just being cameras. Tools used to do a job or create art?

Where camera comparison tests from CML have more effect on a buyer than the feeling one gets from holding a camera or if it feels like a status symbol?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

In fact, technology arrived to a point where most of us have cameras that have equivalent or better IQ that the equipment used in our all time favourite films. About the beginnings of RED I remember that a lot of normal videographers bought a RED camera + accesories, thinking they would become either Kubrick or Warner Bros. That was not the case. 

Cameras are tools, I can't imagine carpenters talking about hammer or nails...