79 pointsby anigbrowl5 hours ago7 comments
  • decimalenough6 minutes ago
    Can somebody give a ELI5 of what "RAW video" actually is? I was always under the impression that it's just a dump of the "raw" uncompressed and uncorrected data coming from the sensors, meaning it's hardware dependent and unstandardized, and Wikipedia seems to agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

    So what exactly is patentable here? Or is this the bone of contention here?

  • dannyw4 hours ago
    Thank god. The actual patent (roughly; I researched it myself, but a few years ago so memory fuzzy) involves compressing frames/video before debayering which makes the streams more easily compressible; instead of after debayering, and as part of a camera (internal RAW). Yeah.
    • rasz2 hours ago
      Wasnt the patent pretty much "and then I dump raw sensor data to a JPEG2000 codec"?
  • Wistar3 hours ago
    In the past 15 years, I have purchased five Lumix cameras including the new L10 (which I have yet to receive). I like their cameras a lot. The dedication to pursue this battle is another reason I am certain to buy more.
    • dagmx2 hours ago
      Unless I’ve missed it; Lumix has nothing to do with this long standing patent battle. Could you elaborate on the supposed relationship?
    • KennyBlanken2 hours ago
      ....what? Lumix and Red cameras have almost no market overlap. Only one model series even comes close to Red's cheapest camera.
      • dborehaman hour ago
        I think you have your answer right there.
  • wmf4 hours ago
    This is a terrible patent (it's basically a list of features) and unfortunately Red was able to milk it for almost 20 years.
  • dabinat4 hours ago
    > One possibility the abolition of the license fees reportedly due to Red from users of Apple’s ProRes RAW codec.

    This would be great but I’m not going to hold my breath.

  • grokcodec3 hours ago
    I've been waiting for this result for a long time - great news!!
  • looksjjhg3 hours ago
    Wow that’s big!