RED Files Lawsuit Against Nikon

[TomTheDP]

I personally think Patents do more harm than good. Plus it's not like RED only goes after big corporations.

[webrunner5]

They need to license the damn thing, but then Red would lose its edge. I think they have now become the bad guy rightfully so, Raw is now the thing and 3/4 of the makers can't even adopt it. A bull shit move, I think.

[TomTheDP]

4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

They need to license the damn thing, but then Red would lose its edge. I think they have now become the bad guy rightfully so, Raw is now the thing and 3/4 of the makers can't even adopt it. A bull shit move, I think.

Yeah RAW is getting too much hype. Just include a 12 bit codec instead, that is the real advantage of RAW to me, smoother color transitions and better skintones. Just give us 12 bit.

[webrunner5]

Well, the New Olympus OM-1 does 12bit Raw to a Atomos. Better than nothing.

https://www.cined.com/om-system-om-1-camera-released-4k60-10-bit-internal-video-12-bit-raw-output-new-lenses/

[MeDaZzA]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They were first to do it though weren't they, whilst the big corporations snoozed!

I thought Cineform were the first?

[TomTheDP]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well, the New Olympus OM-1 does 12bit Raw to a Atomos. Better than nothing.

https://www.cined.com/om-system-om-1-camera-released-4k60-10-bit-internal-video-12-bit-raw-output-new-lenses/

Yeah I appreciate the external RAW codecs but why not some internal H265 12 bit codec or something like that. I know people are obsessed with RAW but if you have the color information you can recover incorrect WB, may not be as easy but no one complains about shooting prores 444 on an Alexa. Seems like an easy way to get around RED's strangle hold on RAW.

[webrunner5]

Yeah, but can you do it without a fan in the body. Once you add a fan the size and weight go up and you are back to dumb DSLR sizes.

[TomTheDP]

51 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah, but can you do it without a fan in the body. Once you add a fan the size and weight go up and you are back to dumb DSLR sizes.

The Z9 is doing RAW internal, not sure if it has fans or if it overheats though.

[webrunner5]

Not sure, Way out of my price range so haven't read much about it. Same with the Sony A1, I know nothing about it.

[Nikkor]

They can rename it to 24 fps continuous burst mode in single file raw container

[nathlas]

BM were not fools to abandon that raw of their first Bmpcc4k to have their Braw.

They knew what was coming. I can't understand why Nikon could't.

 

 

[Danko]

I don't know much (enough) about patent law. What strikes me as interesting is why would IntoPix, who has been in the video compression since 2006 and patents dating since then even go into developing a new RAW compression method and hardware implementation when there is seven years until RED's patent expires? Is it a good business move to invest yourself like that or have they done something in the process that makes them sure they can avoid infringement?

Also, I have been shooting Z9 for the past six months, it is an almost flawless camera. I only now have some use for its video specifications, RAW not being crucial. But if anyone is interested and wants to play with the files, I can shoot some samples.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes please would be great to see some samples from the Z9, especially RAW.

Shoot it whilst you still can and before RED comes and takes it away 😉

[Django]

11 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Yeah I appreciate the external RAW codecs but why not some internal H265 12 bit codec or something like that. I know people are obsessed with RAW but if you have the color information you can recover incorrect WB, may not be as easy but no one complains about shooting prores 444 on an Alexa. Seems like an easy way to get around RED's strangle hold on RAW.

12-bit H265 is an unused format, because hardware decoding just isn't there yet. Most computers struggle with even 10-bit h265. ProRes is much less compressed and therefore can be easily supported up to 12-bit. 

ProRes 4444 XQ which is the highest quality and indeed available on ARRIs has huge data rates (1700mbps).

REDs strangle hold on RAW is for compressed RAW.

I'm not sure how BRAW or Canon Raw Light get around this (I guess it's a ratio threshold).

[webrunner5]

5 hours ago, nathlas said:

BM were not fools to abandon that raw of their first Bmpcc4k to have their Braw.

They knew what was coming. I can't understand why Nikon could't.

 

 

They did that so they didn't have to keep paying for a CinemaDNG & Apple ProRes license also I would guess. Not sure the cost to do the Braw was cheaper than paying for the license, or if Braw is really better than CinemaDNG. Smaller files I guess would be one gain.

[Django]

There are substantial reasons why BRAW is better than CinemaDNG mainly file sizes and post workflow:

Blackmagic RAW is much more preferable than CinemaDNG. Filmmakers that have worked with CinemaDNG know exactly how much this codec is complex from post production point of view. CinemaDNG makes post production more complicated. Furthermore, in CinemaDNG every single frame is actually separate file (image sequence), which means that before the exporting to NLE, a transcoding process must be performed. You get the RAW, but with a lot of hassle. Balckmagic RAW is much more post production friendly, since you treat it as a regular file (like ProRes).

 

[webrunner5]

I grew up with  CinemaDNG, I don't find it that hard to do to be honest, but I have never had a camera that does BRAW.  But if I bought a BMPCC 4K I would prefer the CinemaDNG one over the newer firmware with Braw. II have seen A to B Comparisions on the PK4 I like the CinemaDNG output. I have not seen many other Companys use BRAW on their cameras, so it makes me wonder if it really is better, and it is free versus paying Apple.

[Django]

Pretty sure BRAW is proprietary and limited to BMD cams and recorders. Just like Canon RAW.

CinemaDNG can go up to 14-bit so yeah if you're after that ultimate level of colour info it could be worth it.

[webrunner5]

I thought at the roll out the CEO of BM was saying it would be free to anyone that wants it. I really don't forget much of anything I have read. More of a plague than a gift to be honest.

"Available Now in DaVinci Resolve

DaVinci Resolve includes support for Blackmagic RAW, so you can start shooting and finishing your work immediately! DaVinci Resolve is used on more feature films and television commercials than any other solution and is the standard in high end post production. This means you can work with the world’s largest facilities to finish your work, or simply download DaVinci Resolve now and edit, color correct, perform visual effects and audio post production yourself! DaVinci Resolve includes full support for Blackmagic RAW, giving you a non-destructive workflow. Picture adjustments and settings that you make in the camera will come into DaVinci Resolve via metadata and are completely editable. You can even make changes to the RAW settings in DaVinci Resolve, open the files in other applications that support Blackmagic RAW and automatically see the settings, so you have a consistent look and controls between software apps and different platforms.

Open Standardand Free to Download

Cross platform and license free!

Blackmagic RAW is the world’s only truly modern, high performance, professional RAW codec that is open, cross platform and free. The codec is supported via the free SDK on Mac OS, Windows and Linux systems. Best of all, there are no hidden licenses or ongoing fees. Blackmagic RAW has been designed to provide the industry with an open, elegant and standardized high quality image format that can be used across products and in customer workflows absolutely free!"

[MurtlandPhoto]

As I understand it, Blackmagic has openly provided the means for any NLE to read and work with BRAW, but they won’t allow camera manufacturers to record to BRAW unless they have a formal agreement e.g. Panasonic.