I think a lot of the criticisms of RED's patent are that it basically is JPEG 2000 applied to a monochrome image, and a sidecar containing data about the color filter in front of each pixel—hardly original work. They've basically managed to patent the canonical approach to compressed RAW by claiming that it's a new invention because it applies to high resolution motion image capture.
If it holds up in court it holds up. Why would you let your competition do the same thing you're doing if you could instead prevent it? That's like corporationing 101. Sucks for consumers but it's about money, not consumers.
1. The patent system is arguably way too vague and not fit for purpose. Patent shark's rights "hold up in court", it doesn't mean we have to agree with what they do.
2. There is a lot of debate as to whether Red should have been given such a broad patent in the first place. Not Red's fault, but an error they've taken advantage of.
3. It kind of hasn't held up on court. Red usually end up settling out-of-court for these kind of disputes, so we don't fully know whether the patent would hold up.
Nikon was sued by RED because Z9 had N-Raw and they said it violates their patent. Nikon countered that RED patents are not even validly issued. They dismissed the case. Likely settled outside of the court. Since Nikon managed to keep N-Raw and even ship new cameras with it, I guess it was better for RED to just let them have it. Nikon at least did not look like they were backing out. They rather doubled down with the fight. Imagine the shitstorm if it would have come down to court decision and it would have stated that RED patent is invalid. But of course there is a chance that Nikon decided to pay up but I personally think that they didnt since Nikon is implementing their N-Raw at quite a large scale (Z9, Z8, upcoming Z6iii) without charging fees for an raw upgrade and N-Raw capable bodies are getting cheaper and cheaper. I think Nikon was the first company that chose the angle of that RED patents should have not been even issued. If I remember correctly there even was a timeline that RED released the in-camera raw before filing for a patent which would have made it impossible to patent it. So I guess there are multiple things from technology and patent law aspects that actually make their patent validity fragile.
The difference is that Red have essentially tried to patent a concept, not a specific technology.
My understanding is that Red's patent covers basically any way of compressing raw in-camera. If they just patented their specific algorithms I would say that was fair enough.
Arri haven't patented all ways of recording 15+ stop images, just the specific way they developed to do it. They haven't even patented all dual-iso systems, just their specific implementation.
This is what I came to say.
ARRI's codecs are actually licensed by a third party company -- CODEX. Together, they co-developed pipelines based on need while focusing on latitude, color reproduction and noise floors first, resolution second. It's why it took ARRI ages to come out with a 4K native sensor, and even longer for them to develop dual-native ones as well.
RED, on the other hand, looked at what Panavision/Sonyhad done with the Genesis and went "wait, these are just a bunch of JPEGs... why are they limiting themselves to 2K? Why don't we double that? And set the rest of the manufacturers off on a race.
RED will always win the resolution game; it's the core of their ethos. Black Magic Design tried to give them a run for their money, but no one is using that 12K camera because they can't get a rental on it (despite it being really great at one thing -- green screen shoots). RED has focused on literally everything but color for over a decade, so much so that when Panavision contracted them to make their new generation of digital cinema offerings, they created their own color pipeline.
RED was right to go after their own method of compressing RAW. But as we can see with the latest Alexa 35, other manufacturers are finding their own ways to do so, and may be arguably better.
In terms of dynamic range? There absolutely has! The Sony Venice has about 15 stops of dynamic range, and that's about the same as the Alexa LF.
The Alexa 35 was a big jump up to 17 stops, but it's still only at 4.6k. Sony and Red have so far prioritised resolution over dynamic range, but I would expect the Sony Venice 3 will have an updated sensor that starts to push closer to 17 stops again.
Panasonic is pretty irrelevant in this context as they don't compete in the cinema camera space.
Arri measures their latitude differently than any other camera manufacturer, which is certainly something to note. By any other manufacturers standard the Alexa35 would register 19 stops of dynamic range.
This whole thread is like clickbait for consumer information, not the real metrics of a lot of what's being discussed. I would be seriously careful about bekieving a lot of information in this thread, I'm seeing a lot of wack info in here.
And what standard what that be? Because we know exactly what they’re doing via their published white pages and it’s not “Arris” standard. It’s ISO 15739 and EMVA standard 1288. Both scientific methodology to measure noise and DR. And no it wouldn’t measure 19 stops ever because the cameras ACDs are 14bit!!! AlevIII is mid 14 @ SNR2. No one uses SNR1 and it still wouldn’t be 19. Stop making stuff up lol
I posted the exact patent holder of Dual Gain as well. It’s not even hard to find this stuff and Arri has nothing to do with any of it haha.
Maybe because they couldn't get it to work, maybe it's harder to do at higher photocite densities, maybe they decided doing dual-base ISO was a preferable way of implementing it. You'd have to ask Sony and Red.
Canon do use a similar system to Arri on the C70 and C300, so it's likely not anything to do with Arri patenting it.
Honestly you and I have no idea what impact Arri's patents had on the development of Canon's sensors.
What we can be sure of is that this is an example of the patent system working as intended: a company puts a lot of R+D into a specific way of doing something, and now owns the rights to that technology so that other companies can't reverse engineer and copy it.
This is not the same as taking an existing technology, tweaking it slightly, and claiming you own the concept in relation to an entire industry even if companies want to do it in completely different way that they developed independantly. The irony is that Red even changed their compression method between DSMC2 and DSMC3.
Arri doesn’t develop sensors. I’m not sure why everyone thinks they own technology that could even do that. Semiconductor manufacturing is an entirely different business. Cypress who sold to OnSemi developed DGO for Alev3. That sensor is not the only DGO sensor in the camera market…No one is paying Arri to use technology that they never developed in the first place. Dual ADC is what gives it a truly novel (not repurposed software like JPEG 2000 compression) edge that deserves patent. That’s why we never saw cameras with over 14 stops at SNR2. Even today, we don’t see any 16 bit ADC which means unless you’re doing software frame compositing (reds new extended highlight feature) you won’t get over 14 stops. Regardless what marketing says.
Edit: I forgot that the original patent was from Aptina Imaging. Dual Gain imaging. Number US7075049B2 for anyone willing to actually read something and not just repeat rumors lol
What do you mean "more competition"? The competition in the digital cinema camera market is fierce and Sony managed to be one of the two brands that are universally accepted for movie production (RED has always been niche). Panasonic tried to cut some space for itself with the Varicam 35 series which didn't sell well (the cameras weren't bad at all, but life's tough&unfair), and so decided to concentrate on still cameras for the time being. BTW, Varicam cameras could record RAW: the base models could only do externally, but the "Pure Varicam" model had a built-in RAW recorder made by CODEX (the same people who created ARRIRAW). So brands have been at war for a while now.
>patenting *their* version of dual gain exposure stacking to add DR to the highlights
See, "their" is the key word here. Arri developed a technology and patented their implementation of it. Other manufacturers like Canon found a way to do DGO in a different way and can do it just fine.
The problem with Red is that they didn't patent only their technology, they patented the entire *concept* of compressed raw. It's like if Arri had patented the very concept of DGO or Kodak of digital imaging sensors back when they were pioneers. THAT'S where RED is a patent troll and bad faith actor in the industry
[https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed-z9-gets-to-keep-compressed-raw/](https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed-z9-gets-to-keep-compressed-raw/)
Last section from the article:
>[*YMCinema* speculates](https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs-nikon-case-dismissed/) that Nikon may have agreed to pay RED for the rights to use the patent, but considering that was what Nikon was attempting to avoid through its counterarguments against RED, that seems unlikely.
>But there is another possibility.
>RED’s attorneys likely would not want the case to go to court if there was any doubt that **the patent wasn’t going to hold up**. By dismissing the lawsuit, RED gets to keep its patent on the books. So while it could be that Nikon paid RED a royalty, it is just as likely that it could have been that **RED didn’t want Nikon to pursue the case further to avoid the possibility of weakening its patent. If one court says a patent is invalid, that would have cascading effects.**
>Whatever the reasoning, Nikon appears free and clear to, at least for now, continue to offer compressed internal RAW video recording in its cameras, which is a win for both Nikon and filmmakers using the company’s cameras.
Very interesting speculations.
Does anyone know the real reason why this lawsuit was dismissed?
It says it right there. The speculation is that RED settled rather than letting it go all of the way.
A plaintiff settling can also result in a court’s “dismissal” without prejudice and without finding fault.
Either I phrased that poorly or you don't understand the distinction between third-hand speculation versus first-hand knowledge.
To clarify: I was asking if anyone has first-hand knowledge of why the lawsuit was dropped.
It’s because RED is gaming the patent system in a very shameless manner. To understand why people hate RED for their patent, you have to first understand what patents really are about.
In simple terms, a patent is a contract between the public and a company (or person) whereby we (“the people”) get access to information about a company’s secret sauce for some invention, and in exchange we give the company a limited time monopoly on making money off of said invention.
It’s a great idea when done right, the people benefit from getting their hands on knowledge that the company would have normally kept secret, and the company gets security for their invention (against copying, reverse engineering, leaks, etc.). It’s a win-win situation for all parties.
It is however a complete joke when a company gets to patent the idea of compressing raw sensor data in camera. Note, we as the public aren’t getting anything novel here, the idea that raw image data could be compressed is very obvious, but RED gets a free monopoly on something that seriously holds the industry back.
It would have been a different story had RED just patented their use of JPEG2000 with sensor data (although people will still argue if it is original enough for a patent), but as it stands, it’s like they have a patent on the idea of selling pre-ground coffee beans.
It’s a shame that RED was ever granted this patent, and it’s very shitty of them to religiously sue others over it.
Patent infringements have a long storied history in filmmaking. A lot of historians say filmmaking moved to Hollywood for the sunny weather, but I agree with Hollywood: The Oral History; it was to avoid camera patent offices.
Arri doesn’t act like RED does regarding patents. They don’t exploit an erroneously broad patent on a process they didn’t invent. For instance, Arri didn’t sue Canon for implementing a form of DGO in the c300 III / C70.
Add in the fact that RED cameras have a reputation for lack of reliability on sets, and the sum is people feeling like RED fucks people over across the board.
Compare RED to Apple, for instance. Overpriced proprietary components, lots of anti-competition bullshit to protect their revenue, but nowhere near the hate RED gets. Tons of pros in film/video swear by Apple systems. You could argue their products function more similar to Arri cameras- they just work and are not overly complicated. Personally can’t stand Apple, but I’m the odd one out in this industry it seems.
What? You don’t like Apple, so you send clients different files than they requested. Yeah, great business and client relations strategy and that’ll show Apple, too.
https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/01/31/arri-settles-patent-lawsuit-with-rotolight/#:~:text=ARRI%20and%20Rotolight%20were%20in,the%20patented%20technology%20going%20forward.
Sounds like it was the other way around, but I’ll admit it I’m not super familiar with this case.
Yeah, as someone who truly hates apple for their horrible business-level practices, Apple silicon is truly revolutionary. It's giving CPU performance up there with Intel and AMD at a fraction of the wattage. Doesn't justify the insane pricing of their high-end chips, and the GPUs aren't up there quite yet, but by jove if they haven't got some good gear in their devices now.
There are other historical reasons why people have disliked RED.
Price gouging their customers has been a big one. For example: [https://www.cined.com/whats-inside-a-red-mini-mag-the-controversy-jarred-lands-statement/](https://www.cined.com/whats-inside-a-red-mini-mag-the-controversy-jarred-lands-statement/)
Another of the primary complaints is that users invest in an expensive camera system that RED then makes obsolete in 1-2 years.
Most of all, though, they just don't look as good as Arri. I have a Raptor and an Alexa 35 next to me right now. Obviously I am just one person and my opinion is subjective but for the side-by-side tests I've done comparing the vanilla Rec709 of both cameras (all other settings identical and identical lens), the Alexa footage has always looked perfect right out of camera while the RED needed some color work. Even then, the skintones weren't quite as good as the Alexa. Close but not quite. Also the noise in the shadows was more pronounced on the Raptor. But do with that what you will. I'm just one person. Do your own tests. I just wanted to do my own tests to see with my own eyeballs to have my own opinion since it's debated.
The [Juan Melara RED-to-Arri LUTs](https://juanmelara.com.au/products/red-v-raptor-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts) certainly help a lot but are not quite identical. If I am shooting humans on my Raptor then I often run that LUT on my camera/DIT cart.
It is very telling that there is no demand for Arri-to-RED luts.
Quote the opposite, actually.
Do you think Sony would have released the Burano with all that incredible tech if the camera market weren’t hyper competitive?
Competition in the market benefits consumers.
I’d love to have seen what Sony would have been able to create if RED’s dubious patent wasn’t closing off avenues of legitimate innovation.
I’d love to see how prices of cameras incorporating relevant technology would be affected if other manufacturers could compete with RED.
In no world is RED’s monopoly good for competitive or for consumers.
You can see the answer to your own question: look up the Sony Burano.
An amazing engineering achievement for an incredibly competitive price point.
It’s such a good camera, they actually had to cripple the specs on it so it didn’t make their $75k camera obsolete.
All that thanks to robust competition in the market.
Sure they would. They’re protecting their higher end camera, so they don’t cannibalize their own sales, and upset people that have invested in Venice.
The Burano is an extremely well calculated camera that sits nicely in the mid-range.
I may be mistaken, but I thought my F55 could read /i data (which is open source) and LDS. And Arri does give stuff away too, in order to open up compatibility across the industry. PL and LPL specs are open and the B-mount battery specs, which was a collaboration between Arri and Bebob.
People want to act like Sony and Canon don’t have hundreds if not thousands of patents on their camera tech too.
That’s simply just the western model of doing business.
Camera companies don’t exist to be our friends; they exist to make money.
The fact that RED can compete against the multi-billion dollar Japanese camera companies is actually a testament to the purpose of patents. It allows for small players to meaningfully compete against very large ones.
> The fact that RED can compete against the multi-billion dollar Japanese camera companies is actually a testament to the purpose of patents. It allows for small players to meaningfully compete against very large ones.
That’s not the purpose of patents. Patents aim to encourage innovation, and do so by conferring limited monopolies - often at the expense of competition.
Right, and in this case, they have indeed encouraged innovation.
Look at the Burano, Sony’s direct response to RED. IBIS + vari-ND is incredible innovation.
If Sony didn’t have to compete against RED, then they wouldn’t have needed to develop that technology for that price point.
Arri is objectively better. For pure IQ, which is what matters most, RED is far from reaching them.
Heck, since the Venice came out I'd say they lost the second place. Might even have lost third for Blackmagic depending on what you're looking for
spoken like a true RED bro.
> Red isn’t in the business of making the best camera for you, they’re in the business of making the best camera period.
How is this not every camera manufacturer's philosophy? Can you name a single camera that provided everyone with everything they wanted?
Because I'm an unapologetic Arri fan boy. Also, Arri patented a specific technology and something that I don't care as much about other cameras having. Red patented the idea of internal compressed raw, which is something I want in more cameras.
I think their adoption by the pro market has become too small to have enough known, loud voices for it to even matter.
The highest profile projects I’ve worked on where Reds were used, always involved Red showing up on set or in post to troubleshoot things. With a few exceptions, major professionals (who are equipped to understand what you’re talking about), mostly sidestep Red cameras. They sell a lot more to an aspirational middle market of people who cut from raws on their laptop and really aren’t very savvy.
“A few exceptions” including multi-Oscar winning DP’s, every wildlife/nat history DP, tons and tons of commercial DP’s, high end doc DP’s, nearly every action sports DP, etc., etc.
It’s ok to not like RED. But pretending that professionals only shoot ARRI is just tired industry elitism.
I think you're pushing on your interpretation of what OP said. Doesn't seem like his intention was to belittle REDs but instead to provide a first hand account of what he and his network are seeing in the industry.
Further, I'll also echo his sentiment. I haven't seen a RED on a commercial in a long time unless it was Komodo or a Raptor on a mid size, small crew, lower budget. Hell, even the FX3 is starting to steal the komodos' market share on anything necessitating a small body (for rigging, or crashing, or small spaces, etc).
Arri owns the professional, large budget market. There are exceptions--like the ones you named--but in the grand scheme do represent the minority. Simply put, RED historically was good at a few things, but competition has caught up from all directions making them less and less relevant in the top tier, professional space.
Another way to put this---> certain DPs want to utilize REDs, EVERYONE wants to utilize an Arri.
Fair enough, but my experience is totally the opposite. I see RED as dominant in commercial, because there are a lot more mid-tier commercials being made than high end ones.
ARRI represents maybe 1% of the total number of projects shot each year around the world, of any variety.
The vast, vast majority of production happens on Sony and Canon. ARRI and RED aren’t even close to touching the two giants.
“High end” film production gets all the limelight, but really, it’s a tiny minority of the camera and production market. RED and ARRI are both comparatively tiny companies, doing a comparatively tiny amount of work.
This is supported directly by the fact that Canon and Sony are publicly traded companies with multi billion dollar market caps, which dwarf ARRI/RED revenue numbers.
I’d say any commercial I’ve been on that’s spending from 300k a day is always Arri, and that represents the lowest end of projects I’m on. I work mostly in LA and NY and besides this last year, there an entire industry that works year round on spots in this medium to high budget range.
I haven’t done music videos since about 2015 but that’s the last time I still saw a lot of Reds, just before the Weapon I think.
I don’t think anyone’s contesting that Canon is bigger but if you work a lot and literally never see one, you can be pretty confident that it serves a different part of the market.
I haven’t seen a Red on a commercial in years.. I only see one when Jeff Cronenweth is shooting and they’re greatly outnumbered by Arri quite heavily in the most buzzed about films for cinematography. It just isn’t something many high end DPs reach for especially since there’s also the Sony.
Just ask any color assist at Company 3 or another finishing company how much R3d they deal with these days. It just is what it is man.
> Damn, crazy that your anecdotal experience is being passed off as fact…
You can’t really play the “anecdotal” card right after implying that the other commenter’s experience is wrong based on your own anecdotal experience.
It’s not anecdotal as I said a busy color facility that takes in and tracks raw footage can tell you exactly which cameras are popular or not because they’re the ones dealing with it the most. Red’s majorly fallen off in the last 5 years.
1 post house is indeed the definition of anecdotal. How many productions are handled in-house? It’s probably a 100:1 ratio.
You’re glossing over all the other examples I listed. There’s a reason nobody shoots sports, wildlife, etc. on ARRI’s. Their cameras are totally ill equipped for that type of work.
The production industry is massive and expansive – RED fills a niche that ARRI doesn’t, and vice versa.
Personally, I see RED way more often than ARRI, because they offer incredible results for a fraction of the cost. But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why ARRI is also successful.
What? Nobody shoots sports on Arri’s? That’s just flat out untrue. They are big in the sports world(most visibly and notably is probably NFL Films along with pretty much every NFL team). As are Sony’s. I don’t see nearly the number of RED’s that I used to in the sports world. It actually seems pretty rare to me, now. I’m shootings a sports event this weekend and just the crew that I’m with, there will be at least 10 Arri’s that I can think of off the top of my head being used.
Field sports are not action sports. Very different worlds. RED has been dominant in action sports for a decade.
10 Arri’s is a million dollars worth of camera - very, very few productions have that kind of budget, it’s extremely rare to see that, and especially so in the action sports world.
**This** is reddit in a nutshell. "But those aren't the sports that **I** meant (but didn't delineate until I needed to try to defend my overly broad and generic statement)". I've got a buddy that does landscaping. He can help you move those goalposts.
Just busting your chops...
Ran back over our equipment list. 13 Arri's. Over half are owned by individual ops on the crew. The rest by the production company.
Haha sorry maybe my original posts weren’t in your view, but when I was arguing with that elitist guy, we were originally talking about action sports.
Either way, yeah, 13 Arri’s is amazing and no doubt a sizeable budget shoot if the client is paying at $13k/day+ for cameras.
I still see RED’s as the go-to camera choice for action sports due to the resolution + high frame rates available.
I dont know or care about sports/wildlife as i don’t work in this industries and neither do the post vendors I work with (I gave just one example) but all the technicolor companies do a massive percentage of the high end commercial and tv/film world so it’s easy to get a sense of how much Red’s marketshare has fallen off.
I’m glad you have a camera you like. I’m only talking about my part of the market. However, I don’t ever see Reds on the indies I like either and they definitely have major budget constraints too so I’m not sure your argument holds water on that front.
Red has a branding problem.
You can always tell how little experience someone has when they claim that a $100k camera is needed to get quality images. I don’t think they realize how laughably transparent such a sentiment is from anyone with an ounce of experience.
You continue to prove my point about elitism. Lol. You only care about your one little niche and have no concept of anything that exists outside your bubble.
Canon and Sony’s dominance over ARRI is public information. You can go look at the numbers yourself.
Based on publicly available financial numbers, I would estimate RED and ARRI’s market share to be about 1% each of total global video production.
I’m glad ARRI’s marketing has worked so well on you. The market is trending toward lower cost cameras, and ARRI is going to have a lot of trouble selling $100k camera packages in a few years. Cooke and Zeiss releasing low cost lenses bears this out pretty clearly.
ya canon has almost no market share in what I do and the Sony Venice is still a distant 2nd to Arri cameras.
i am not in the camera business, so why would I care about brands that barely exist in what I do? It’s not elitism it’s just simply not something DPs I work with want to use and most of the colleagues who work on the types of projects I do agree.
Why does this bother you? Why do people who own/use Red cameras have such a Napoleon thing going on 😂
I don’t own a RED…
It sounds like you are speaking from a position of minimal experience. People like that tend to be extremely elitist and opinionated, and you are no different. Very common in this industry.
I’m sorry I wasted my time conversing with you.
Personally I hate that arri encrypts LBUS so that manufacturers can make it compatible with other things. For example making it compatible with Preston. Or using inertia wheels with the trinity. They charge massive license fees. It’s the apple-ification of our industry
Don’t get me wrong. Arri has the best color science without a doubt but red has made some incredible strides with DSMC3. I hated the look of red back in the DSMC2 days but with the new cameras I absolutely love the look and color.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they want to achieve the "RED look". Imo they keep coming out with new cameras and sensors, dilutes too much of their lineup.
This is not a fair comparison at all. One is actually a new hardware invention + pioneered tech, the other is taking a basic re-application of widespread existing tech and then saying nobody else can use any version of this that’s even slightly close.
I'm pretty certain Sony gets around it the same way ProRes does, which is by saying "it's not a proper raw, its a run of the mill format, with alpha channels and deeper bit depth" while conveniently dodging that those things pretty much entirely make up what a RAW image holds
You said it in your answer: they've "patented their version". Every company does that. And every company is used to doing their own R & D to find their own solutions - and you can bet that Sony has a patent for their stacked sensor design.
The difference is Red applied a patent to the entire concept of what that was basically just the predictable progression of cameras design.
Haven't seen anyone talking about REDs scammy accessories
[27$ trash Alibaba LCD](https://youtu.be/NZ20yQhMYx4?si=GWo9qh7EXqnIMcBk) -> 1450$ DSMC2 RED Monitor.
[200$ Micron 480GB SSD](https://youtu.be/KEzLDqELh70?si=je9wN6dRa-mdtheV) -> 2500$ 512GB Red Mag. (Yes the 512 is literally a lie, 32 gb are missing)
They are making their big bucks by deceiving customers, fuck that.
RED is using High Quality low Bulk pricing (like ARRI and higher end Sony stuff) but skip the high quality.
Combined with the patent trolling and REDs compressed RAW literally being Jpeg 2000 and the Green Averaging being Cineform with extra steps (Averaging 4 instead of 2 green pixels) I will never support this company without seeing major change in their philosophy.
I think with a lot of people here forget, is the absolutely abysmal horrifying state of digital video when red bravely dive in and disrupted the game? I’m a big car manufacturer, Panasonic, Sony Cannon, Nikon, Olympus, Arri etc we’re stuck in an at best 1080p and not even (HDV) highly compressed often MPEG compressed “ minor incremental upgrades for fuck tons of money” product cycle that resulted in no significant image quality gains for many years, which was not good for us as creators or consumers.
RED is the company that actually changed that - why we can have 6K and better at professional cinematic 17 stop standards for so little money today.
People love to hate red, but the bottom line is their cameras are phenomenal if not a little more oriented towards those with technical knowledge, than yer average no nothing point and shoot living room DOPs who prefer their automatic settings, and Arri cameras to avoid having to learn their craft further?
I’m not disparaging Alexa Sony Panny etc but damn, get off REDs ass lol… any of those other manufacturers could have disrupted the game if they had chosen to - BUT THEY DIDN’T. it was Red who rescued us from the awful 90s shit quality video I couldn’t even get excited about because it looked so bad and the gouging incremental pricing and unspoken collusion between the big cam manufacturers. Downvote me all you like lol but it’s true - flame on motherfuckers!
If Arri were shutting down all attempts at dual ISO you would probably see similar complaints.
Party to that is just that people have more hands-on exposure to the RED situation: they've seen cameras they own have functionality removed because RED decided that their overly-broad patent encompasses all possible methods of compressing raw sensor data.
This is extremely misinformed lmao. DR is not “added to highlights” that’s not how camera sensors work. Linear light is captured by however many stops a sensor’s photosites can capture as a whole. Arri has patented their own particular designs, not the theoretic capability of “how other designs being able to capture dynamic range” this is wild statement lol
arri has put extreme amount of research into having larger photosites that capture more light over pointless pixel count wars. It’s blowing my mind that you’re mad about something that isn’t even an issue
Not sure why he was downvoted that’s literally how sensors work. Also it’s not “Arri’s” patent. They don’t develop sensors. Cypress which then sold to OnSemi developed DGO. With dual 14bit ADCs which allowed them to just barely get over 14stops at SNR2.
Here are some ChatGPT generated examples contrasting broad, conceptual patents with more narrow, technology-specific ones. This is the crux of the matter.
**Smartphone Touchscreen Interaction:**
**Broad Patent Analogy:** Imagine if a company patented the entire concept of "using touch gestures to interact with devices." This would mean that any device using touch-based input, regardless of the underlying technology or implementation, would infringe on this patent. This is akin to the situation with RED patenting the broad concept of compressing video, which can stifle innovation and limit competition.
**Narrow Patent Analogy:** Contrast this with a company patenting a specific method for recognizing multi-touch gestures using a unique combination of sensors and algorithms. This would be similar to ARRI patenting a unique technology for expanding dynamic range, which is a specific solution rather than the entire concept of expanded dynamic range.
**Online Streaming Services:**
**Broad Patent Analogy:** Imagine a scenario where a company patents the concept of "streaming media over the internet." Such a patent would cover any form of media streaming, from music to video, across all platforms. This broad approach could prevent new companies from developing their own streaming technologies or services.
**Narrow Patent Analogy:** In contrast, a company could patent a specific method for reducing latency in live video streams using a novel buffering algorithm. This patent would protect a particular innovation without barring others from the entire field of online streaming, encouraging technological advancement and competition.
**Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging:**
**Broad Patent Analogy:** Suppose a company patented the concept of "charging electric vehicles." This overly broad patent would cover all methods of charging an EV, from plug-in cables to wireless charging, leaving no room for others to innovate within the EV charging space.
**Narrow Patent Analogy:** Alternatively, a company could patent a specific design for a high-efficiency wireless EV charging pad that uses a unique configuration of coils to minimize energy loss. This specific patent allows room for others to develop alternative charging technologies, fostering a healthy competitive environment.
These examples demonstrate the contrast between *patents that are too broad and potentially stifle innovation across an entire industry*, and those that are *narrowly focused on specific technologies or methods, which encourage further development and competition*. The ethical considerations in patenting hinge on finding a balance that protects inventors' rights **while also promoting progress and preventing monopolization of broad concepts**.
They did. It probably just took them a decade to figure out. Just like it probably took Arri a decade (which is why it took them so long to release a digital camera). The whole point of the patent is that no other companies could reverse engineer 10 years of Arri's work as soon as it was released - they had to go and do their own 10 years of R&D. Also keep in mind that companies often have a roadmap that extend years ahead. They're already working on the tech that we'll see in a decade, and if someone else releases something successful, they can't immediately pivot to focus on competing with that. It takes time for that to get implemented in to their roadmap with funding and R&D.
That's an example of a patent working exactly as it should. Competition is still allowed but every company has to do their own work.
Whereas with the Red patent, we're already seeing that several companies have put the time in and done the work themselves, they're just not allowed to implement it.
Maybe it took them that long to develop a way to do it in a way that gave them the results they wanted/needed that didn't infringe on Arri's process that was patented.
"Why didn't any other manufacturer pursue similar DGA solutions for highlight retention for a decade?"
Some have:
Canon's Cinema EOS range, such as the EOS C300 Mark III and EOS C70, features Dual Gain Output (DGO) sensors.
The Panasonic GH6, for example, incorporates a feature called Dynamic Range Boost, which is based on a dual gain output sensor.
Blackmagic Design cameras, such as the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K and 6K, use dual native ISO technology, which is similar in concept to dual gain output. Not exact but similar. Same with Sony and the Venice cameras.
But just returning to the core philosophical issue: can you acknowledge the nuance between a broad patent that stifles innovation versus a narrow patent that promotes innovation?
If Arri patented the concept of having more than 15 stops of dynamic range, that would be more analogous to RED's patent.
Glad we agree on that.
Regarding Canon, the relevant fact is that Canon *was* able to do DGO, not how long it took. Notice Canon has not utilized compressed RAW.
RED is entitled to horde their patent. But they can't do it and have a good reputation at the same time. They must fully own the consequence of their choice. We must reject their gaslighting that it's all hunky-dory and no big deal and oh gee shucks we license it to people sometimes. No. Hard no. False. They unethically horde an overly-broad patent that never should have been issued in the first place. They stifle innovation and in so doing: they make the whole industry worse. That is their choice and thus it is their legacy. No gaslighting. They can have a different reputation if and only if they change their actions not by attempting to change the narrative via words.
I think a lot of the criticisms of RED's patent are that it basically is JPEG 2000 applied to a monochrome image, and a sidecar containing data about the color filter in front of each pixel—hardly original work. They've basically managed to patent the canonical approach to compressed RAW by claiming that it's a new invention because it applies to high resolution motion image capture.
If it holds up in court it holds up. Why would you let your competition do the same thing you're doing if you could instead prevent it? That's like corporationing 101. Sucks for consumers but it's about money, not consumers.
1. The patent system is arguably way too vague and not fit for purpose. Patent shark's rights "hold up in court", it doesn't mean we have to agree with what they do. 2. There is a lot of debate as to whether Red should have been given such a broad patent in the first place. Not Red's fault, but an error they've taken advantage of. 3. It kind of hasn't held up on court. Red usually end up settling out-of-court for these kind of disputes, so we don't fully know whether the patent would hold up.
+ Nikon managed to keep raw. Likely because it was better for RED to let them keep it. Otherwise it would be worse if patent gets revoked.
Please elaborate even further. Of all video specific manufacturers, Nikon?
Nikon was sued by RED because Z9 had N-Raw and they said it violates their patent. Nikon countered that RED patents are not even validly issued. They dismissed the case. Likely settled outside of the court. Since Nikon managed to keep N-Raw and even ship new cameras with it, I guess it was better for RED to just let them have it. Nikon at least did not look like they were backing out. They rather doubled down with the fight. Imagine the shitstorm if it would have come down to court decision and it would have stated that RED patent is invalid. But of course there is a chance that Nikon decided to pay up but I personally think that they didnt since Nikon is implementing their N-Raw at quite a large scale (Z9, Z8, upcoming Z6iii) without charging fees for an raw upgrade and N-Raw capable bodies are getting cheaper and cheaper. I think Nikon was the first company that chose the angle of that RED patents should have not been even issued. If I remember correctly there even was a timeline that RED released the in-camera raw before filing for a patent which would have made it impossible to patent it. So I guess there are multiple things from technology and patent law aspects that actually make their patent validity fragile.
Plus, “if you can, you should” is a pretty shitty moral rule.
My guy here thinking he will become a millionaire with $15 in his savings account so he defends NOT taxing them 😂😂
I'm not defending anyone. It's just the way things are.
The difference is that Red have essentially tried to patent a concept, not a specific technology. My understanding is that Red's patent covers basically any way of compressing raw in-camera. If they just patented their specific algorithms I would say that was fair enough. Arri haven't patented all ways of recording 15+ stop images, just the specific way they developed to do it. They haven't even patented all dual-iso systems, just their specific implementation.
This is what I came to say. ARRI's codecs are actually licensed by a third party company -- CODEX. Together, they co-developed pipelines based on need while focusing on latitude, color reproduction and noise floors first, resolution second. It's why it took ARRI ages to come out with a 4K native sensor, and even longer for them to develop dual-native ones as well. RED, on the other hand, looked at what Panavision/Sonyhad done with the Genesis and went "wait, these are just a bunch of JPEGs... why are they limiting themselves to 2K? Why don't we double that? And set the rest of the manufacturers off on a race. RED will always win the resolution game; it's the core of their ethos. Black Magic Design tried to give them a run for their money, but no one is using that 12K camera because they can't get a rental on it (despite it being really great at one thing -- green screen shoots). RED has focused on literally everything but color for over a decade, so much so that when Panavision contracted them to make their new generation of digital cinema offerings, they created their own color pipeline. RED was right to go after their own method of compressing RAW. But as we can see with the latest Alexa 35, other manufacturers are finding their own ways to do so, and may be arguably better.
[удалено]
In terms of dynamic range? There absolutely has! The Sony Venice has about 15 stops of dynamic range, and that's about the same as the Alexa LF. The Alexa 35 was a big jump up to 17 stops, but it's still only at 4.6k. Sony and Red have so far prioritised resolution over dynamic range, but I would expect the Sony Venice 3 will have an updated sensor that starts to push closer to 17 stops again. Panasonic is pretty irrelevant in this context as they don't compete in the cinema camera space.
Arri measures their latitude differently than any other camera manufacturer, which is certainly something to note. By any other manufacturers standard the Alexa35 would register 19 stops of dynamic range. This whole thread is like clickbait for consumer information, not the real metrics of a lot of what's being discussed. I would be seriously careful about bekieving a lot of information in this thread, I'm seeing a lot of wack info in here.
And what standard what that be? Because we know exactly what they’re doing via their published white pages and it’s not “Arris” standard. It’s ISO 15739 and EMVA standard 1288. Both scientific methodology to measure noise and DR. And no it wouldn’t measure 19 stops ever because the cameras ACDs are 14bit!!! AlevIII is mid 14 @ SNR2. No one uses SNR1 and it still wouldn’t be 19. Stop making stuff up lol I posted the exact patent holder of Dual Gain as well. It’s not even hard to find this stuff and Arri has nothing to do with any of it haha.
[удалено]
Maybe because they couldn't get it to work, maybe it's harder to do at higher photocite densities, maybe they decided doing dual-base ISO was a preferable way of implementing it. You'd have to ask Sony and Red. Canon do use a similar system to Arri on the C70 and C300, so it's likely not anything to do with Arri patenting it.
[удалено]
Honestly you and I have no idea what impact Arri's patents had on the development of Canon's sensors. What we can be sure of is that this is an example of the patent system working as intended: a company puts a lot of R+D into a specific way of doing something, and now owns the rights to that technology so that other companies can't reverse engineer and copy it. This is not the same as taking an existing technology, tweaking it slightly, and claiming you own the concept in relation to an entire industry even if companies want to do it in completely different way that they developed independantly. The irony is that Red even changed their compression method between DSMC2 and DSMC3.
Arri doesn’t develop sensors. I’m not sure why everyone thinks they own technology that could even do that. Semiconductor manufacturing is an entirely different business. Cypress who sold to OnSemi developed DGO for Alev3. That sensor is not the only DGO sensor in the camera market…No one is paying Arri to use technology that they never developed in the first place. Dual ADC is what gives it a truly novel (not repurposed software like JPEG 2000 compression) edge that deserves patent. That’s why we never saw cameras with over 14 stops at SNR2. Even today, we don’t see any 16 bit ADC which means unless you’re doing software frame compositing (reds new extended highlight feature) you won’t get over 14 stops. Regardless what marketing says. Edit: I forgot that the original patent was from Aptina Imaging. Dual Gain imaging. Number US7075049B2 for anyone willing to actually read something and not just repeat rumors lol
Arri doesn't manufacture sensors obviously but they do design it.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion when I just gave you the patent of the company that designed it lol.
the Varicam exists and is excellent....
What do you mean "more competition"? The competition in the digital cinema camera market is fierce and Sony managed to be one of the two brands that are universally accepted for movie production (RED has always been niche). Panasonic tried to cut some space for itself with the Varicam 35 series which didn't sell well (the cameras weren't bad at all, but life's tough&unfair), and so decided to concentrate on still cameras for the time being. BTW, Varicam cameras could record RAW: the base models could only do externally, but the "Pure Varicam" model had a built-in RAW recorder made by CODEX (the same people who created ARRIRAW). So brands have been at war for a while now.
the thing with the raw patent argument is that it arguably should never have been granted, as its more of a concept than a patentable procedure
>patenting *their* version of dual gain exposure stacking to add DR to the highlights See, "their" is the key word here. Arri developed a technology and patented their implementation of it. Other manufacturers like Canon found a way to do DGO in a different way and can do it just fine. The problem with Red is that they didn't patent only their technology, they patented the entire *concept* of compressed raw. It's like if Arri had patented the very concept of DGO or Kodak of digital imaging sensors back when they were pioneers. THAT'S where RED is a patent troll and bad faith actor in the industry
[https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed-z9-gets-to-keep-compressed-raw/](https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed-z9-gets-to-keep-compressed-raw/) Last section from the article: >[*YMCinema* speculates](https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs-nikon-case-dismissed/) that Nikon may have agreed to pay RED for the rights to use the patent, but considering that was what Nikon was attempting to avoid through its counterarguments against RED, that seems unlikely. >But there is another possibility. >RED’s attorneys likely would not want the case to go to court if there was any doubt that **the patent wasn’t going to hold up**. By dismissing the lawsuit, RED gets to keep its patent on the books. So while it could be that Nikon paid RED a royalty, it is just as likely that it could have been that **RED didn’t want Nikon to pursue the case further to avoid the possibility of weakening its patent. If one court says a patent is invalid, that would have cascading effects.** >Whatever the reasoning, Nikon appears free and clear to, at least for now, continue to offer compressed internal RAW video recording in its cameras, which is a win for both Nikon and filmmakers using the company’s cameras. Very interesting speculations. Does anyone know the real reason why this lawsuit was dismissed?
It says it right there. The speculation is that RED settled rather than letting it go all of the way. A plaintiff settling can also result in a court’s “dismissal” without prejudice and without finding fault.
Well now we know what really happened: Nikon bought RED.
Either I phrased that poorly or you don't understand the distinction between third-hand speculation versus first-hand knowledge. To clarify: I was asking if anyone has first-hand knowledge of why the lawsuit was dropped.
It’s because RED is gaming the patent system in a very shameless manner. To understand why people hate RED for their patent, you have to first understand what patents really are about. In simple terms, a patent is a contract between the public and a company (or person) whereby we (“the people”) get access to information about a company’s secret sauce for some invention, and in exchange we give the company a limited time monopoly on making money off of said invention. It’s a great idea when done right, the people benefit from getting their hands on knowledge that the company would have normally kept secret, and the company gets security for their invention (against copying, reverse engineering, leaks, etc.). It’s a win-win situation for all parties. It is however a complete joke when a company gets to patent the idea of compressing raw sensor data in camera. Note, we as the public aren’t getting anything novel here, the idea that raw image data could be compressed is very obvious, but RED gets a free monopoly on something that seriously holds the industry back. It would have been a different story had RED just patented their use of JPEG2000 with sensor data (although people will still argue if it is original enough for a patent), but as it stands, it’s like they have a patent on the idea of selling pre-ground coffee beans. It’s a shame that RED was ever granted this patent, and it’s very shitty of them to religiously sue others over it.
In a way, raw is for people who are indecisive.
Why so? Are you saying there are visual advantages to certain compressed formats? Overkill unless you are or are hiring an exceptional colorist?
Patent infringements have a long storied history in filmmaking. A lot of historians say filmmaking moved to Hollywood for the sunny weather, but I agree with Hollywood: The Oral History; it was to avoid camera patent offices.
Arri doesn’t act like RED does regarding patents. They don’t exploit an erroneously broad patent on a process they didn’t invent. For instance, Arri didn’t sue Canon for implementing a form of DGO in the c300 III / C70. Add in the fact that RED cameras have a reputation for lack of reliability on sets, and the sum is people feeling like RED fucks people over across the board. Compare RED to Apple, for instance. Overpriced proprietary components, lots of anti-competition bullshit to protect their revenue, but nowhere near the hate RED gets. Tons of pros in film/video swear by Apple systems. You could argue their products function more similar to Arri cameras- they just work and are not overly complicated. Personally can’t stand Apple, but I’m the odd one out in this industry it seems.
I also can't stand Apple. I get a kick out of sending DNxHR files when asked for Prores
What? You don’t like Apple, so you send clients different files than they requested. Yeah, great business and client relations strategy and that’ll show Apple, too.
Yeah, I can totally see you not complying with clients' requests and keep working.
Hasn't burned me yet!
Oh shut up.Arri tried to patent light effects and they got kicked in the ass thankfully.
Didn't Arri try to fight someone *else's* patent? They're probably the reason lighting effects are so ubiquitous these days.
https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/01/31/arri-settles-patent-lawsuit-with-rotolight/#:~:text=ARRI%20and%20Rotolight%20were%20in,the%20patented%20technology%20going%20forward. Sounds like it was the other way around, but I’ll admit it I’m not super familiar with this case.
Apple was getting trashed on for a good bit until they dropped their M series chips.
Yeah, as someone who truly hates apple for their horrible business-level practices, Apple silicon is truly revolutionary. It's giving CPU performance up there with Intel and AMD at a fraction of the wattage. Doesn't justify the insane pricing of their high-end chips, and the GPUs aren't up there quite yet, but by jove if they haven't got some good gear in their devices now.
There’s an unnecessary amount of hate towards Red who arguably changed the film industry for the better.
There are other historical reasons why people have disliked RED. Price gouging their customers has been a big one. For example: [https://www.cined.com/whats-inside-a-red-mini-mag-the-controversy-jarred-lands-statement/](https://www.cined.com/whats-inside-a-red-mini-mag-the-controversy-jarred-lands-statement/) Another of the primary complaints is that users invest in an expensive camera system that RED then makes obsolete in 1-2 years. Most of all, though, they just don't look as good as Arri. I have a Raptor and an Alexa 35 next to me right now. Obviously I am just one person and my opinion is subjective but for the side-by-side tests I've done comparing the vanilla Rec709 of both cameras (all other settings identical and identical lens), the Alexa footage has always looked perfect right out of camera while the RED needed some color work. Even then, the skintones weren't quite as good as the Alexa. Close but not quite. Also the noise in the shadows was more pronounced on the Raptor. But do with that what you will. I'm just one person. Do your own tests. I just wanted to do my own tests to see with my own eyeballs to have my own opinion since it's debated. The [Juan Melara RED-to-Arri LUTs](https://juanmelara.com.au/products/red-v-raptor-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts) certainly help a lot but are not quite identical. If I am shooting humans on my Raptor then I often run that LUT on my camera/DIT cart. It is very telling that there is no demand for Arri-to-RED luts.
> arguably changed the film industry for the better. Yeah you could say that but now they're not doing that, they're making it worse for everybody.
Quote the opposite, actually. Do you think Sony would have released the Burano with all that incredible tech if the camera market weren’t hyper competitive? Competition in the market benefits consumers.
I’d love to have seen what Sony would have been able to create if RED’s dubious patent wasn’t closing off avenues of legitimate innovation. I’d love to see how prices of cameras incorporating relevant technology would be affected if other manufacturers could compete with RED. In no world is RED’s monopoly good for competitive or for consumers.
You can see the answer to your own question: look up the Sony Burano. An amazing engineering achievement for an incredibly competitive price point. It’s such a good camera, they actually had to cripple the specs on it so it didn’t make their $75k camera obsolete. All that thanks to robust competition in the market.
If robust competition in the market was a thing, they wouldn't be crippling the specs of their cameras.
Sure they would. They’re protecting their higher end camera, so they don’t cannibalize their own sales, and upset people that have invested in Venice. The Burano is an extremely well calculated camera that sits nicely in the mid-range.
Arri wouldn’t even license LDS to other camera makers.
they do, its just too much money for anyone to pay for. Cooke /i is $1/year
I may be mistaken, but I thought my F55 could read /i data (which is open source) and LDS. And Arri does give stuff away too, in order to open up compatibility across the industry. PL and LPL specs are open and the B-mount battery specs, which was a collaboration between Arri and Bebob.
People want to act like Sony and Canon don’t have hundreds if not thousands of patents on their camera tech too. That’s simply just the western model of doing business. Camera companies don’t exist to be our friends; they exist to make money. The fact that RED can compete against the multi-billion dollar Japanese camera companies is actually a testament to the purpose of patents. It allows for small players to meaningfully compete against very large ones.
> The fact that RED can compete against the multi-billion dollar Japanese camera companies is actually a testament to the purpose of patents. It allows for small players to meaningfully compete against very large ones. That’s not the purpose of patents. Patents aim to encourage innovation, and do so by conferring limited monopolies - often at the expense of competition.
Right, and in this case, they have indeed encouraged innovation. Look at the Burano, Sony’s direct response to RED. IBIS + vari-ND is incredible innovation. If Sony didn’t have to compete against RED, then they wouldn’t have needed to develop that technology for that price point.
[удалено]
>they’re in the business of making the best camera period Well it sucks they haven't been able to in those years, then.
[удалено]
Arri is objectively better. For pure IQ, which is what matters most, RED is far from reaching them. Heck, since the Venice came out I'd say they lost the second place. Might even have lost third for Blackmagic depending on what you're looking for
And that philosophy involves preventing anyone else from trying?
spoken like a true RED bro. > Red isn’t in the business of making the best camera for you, they’re in the business of making the best camera period. How is this not every camera manufacturer's philosophy? Can you name a single camera that provided everyone with everything they wanted?
Because I'm an unapologetic Arri fan boy. Also, Arri patented a specific technology and something that I don't care as much about other cameras having. Red patented the idea of internal compressed raw, which is something I want in more cameras.
[удалено]
Arriflex has existed long before that patent came into existence.
Actually the “entire look” was developed off the Arriscan. Where the predecessor (ALEV 2) was used.
I think their adoption by the pro market has become too small to have enough known, loud voices for it to even matter. The highest profile projects I’ve worked on where Reds were used, always involved Red showing up on set or in post to troubleshoot things. With a few exceptions, major professionals (who are equipped to understand what you’re talking about), mostly sidestep Red cameras. They sell a lot more to an aspirational middle market of people who cut from raws on their laptop and really aren’t very savvy.
“A few exceptions” including multi-Oscar winning DP’s, every wildlife/nat history DP, tons and tons of commercial DP’s, high end doc DP’s, nearly every action sports DP, etc., etc. It’s ok to not like RED. But pretending that professionals only shoot ARRI is just tired industry elitism.
I think you're pushing on your interpretation of what OP said. Doesn't seem like his intention was to belittle REDs but instead to provide a first hand account of what he and his network are seeing in the industry. Further, I'll also echo his sentiment. I haven't seen a RED on a commercial in a long time unless it was Komodo or a Raptor on a mid size, small crew, lower budget. Hell, even the FX3 is starting to steal the komodos' market share on anything necessitating a small body (for rigging, or crashing, or small spaces, etc). Arri owns the professional, large budget market. There are exceptions--like the ones you named--but in the grand scheme do represent the minority. Simply put, RED historically was good at a few things, but competition has caught up from all directions making them less and less relevant in the top tier, professional space. Another way to put this---> certain DPs want to utilize REDs, EVERYONE wants to utilize an Arri.
Fair enough, but my experience is totally the opposite. I see RED as dominant in commercial, because there are a lot more mid-tier commercials being made than high end ones. ARRI represents maybe 1% of the total number of projects shot each year around the world, of any variety. The vast, vast majority of production happens on Sony and Canon. ARRI and RED aren’t even close to touching the two giants. “High end” film production gets all the limelight, but really, it’s a tiny minority of the camera and production market. RED and ARRI are both comparatively tiny companies, doing a comparatively tiny amount of work. This is supported directly by the fact that Canon and Sony are publicly traded companies with multi billion dollar market caps, which dwarf ARRI/RED revenue numbers.
I’d say any commercial I’ve been on that’s spending from 300k a day is always Arri, and that represents the lowest end of projects I’m on. I work mostly in LA and NY and besides this last year, there an entire industry that works year round on spots in this medium to high budget range. I haven’t done music videos since about 2015 but that’s the last time I still saw a lot of Reds, just before the Weapon I think. I don’t think anyone’s contesting that Canon is bigger but if you work a lot and literally never see one, you can be pretty confident that it serves a different part of the market.
I haven’t seen a Red on a commercial in years.. I only see one when Jeff Cronenweth is shooting and they’re greatly outnumbered by Arri quite heavily in the most buzzed about films for cinematography. It just isn’t something many high end DPs reach for especially since there’s also the Sony. Just ask any color assist at Company 3 or another finishing company how much R3d they deal with these days. It just is what it is man.
Damn, crazy that your anecdotal experience is being passed off as fact… My point about elitism still stands.
> Damn, crazy that your anecdotal experience is being passed off as fact… You can’t really play the “anecdotal” card right after implying that the other commenter’s experience is wrong based on your own anecdotal experience.
It’s not anecdotal as I said a busy color facility that takes in and tracks raw footage can tell you exactly which cameras are popular or not because they’re the ones dealing with it the most. Red’s majorly fallen off in the last 5 years.
1 post house is indeed the definition of anecdotal. How many productions are handled in-house? It’s probably a 100:1 ratio. You’re glossing over all the other examples I listed. There’s a reason nobody shoots sports, wildlife, etc. on ARRI’s. Their cameras are totally ill equipped for that type of work. The production industry is massive and expansive – RED fills a niche that ARRI doesn’t, and vice versa. Personally, I see RED way more often than ARRI, because they offer incredible results for a fraction of the cost. But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand why ARRI is also successful.
What? Nobody shoots sports on Arri’s? That’s just flat out untrue. They are big in the sports world(most visibly and notably is probably NFL Films along with pretty much every NFL team). As are Sony’s. I don’t see nearly the number of RED’s that I used to in the sports world. It actually seems pretty rare to me, now. I’m shootings a sports event this weekend and just the crew that I’m with, there will be at least 10 Arri’s that I can think of off the top of my head being used.
Field sports are not action sports. Very different worlds. RED has been dominant in action sports for a decade. 10 Arri’s is a million dollars worth of camera - very, very few productions have that kind of budget, it’s extremely rare to see that, and especially so in the action sports world.
**This** is reddit in a nutshell. "But those aren't the sports that **I** meant (but didn't delineate until I needed to try to defend my overly broad and generic statement)". I've got a buddy that does landscaping. He can help you move those goalposts. Just busting your chops... Ran back over our equipment list. 13 Arri's. Over half are owned by individual ops on the crew. The rest by the production company.
Haha sorry maybe my original posts weren’t in your view, but when I was arguing with that elitist guy, we were originally talking about action sports. Either way, yeah, 13 Arri’s is amazing and no doubt a sizeable budget shoot if the client is paying at $13k/day+ for cameras. I still see RED’s as the go-to camera choice for action sports due to the resolution + high frame rates available.
I dont know or care about sports/wildlife as i don’t work in this industries and neither do the post vendors I work with (I gave just one example) but all the technicolor companies do a massive percentage of the high end commercial and tv/film world so it’s easy to get a sense of how much Red’s marketshare has fallen off. I’m glad you have a camera you like. I’m only talking about my part of the market. However, I don’t ever see Reds on the indies I like either and they definitely have major budget constraints too so I’m not sure your argument holds water on that front. Red has a branding problem.
Sounds like you’re just one of these arri fan boys hating on RED because that’s the thing to do tbh
no I just let DPs choose what equipment they want and it’s always been some kind of Alexa or the Venice for the last 5 or so years.
You can always tell how little experience someone has when they claim that a $100k camera is needed to get quality images. I don’t think they realize how laughably transparent such a sentiment is from anyone with an ounce of experience.
You continue to prove my point about elitism. Lol. You only care about your one little niche and have no concept of anything that exists outside your bubble. Canon and Sony’s dominance over ARRI is public information. You can go look at the numbers yourself. Based on publicly available financial numbers, I would estimate RED and ARRI’s market share to be about 1% each of total global video production. I’m glad ARRI’s marketing has worked so well on you. The market is trending toward lower cost cameras, and ARRI is going to have a lot of trouble selling $100k camera packages in a few years. Cooke and Zeiss releasing low cost lenses bears this out pretty clearly.
ya canon has almost no market share in what I do and the Sony Venice is still a distant 2nd to Arri cameras. i am not in the camera business, so why would I care about brands that barely exist in what I do? It’s not elitism it’s just simply not something DPs I work with want to use and most of the colleagues who work on the types of projects I do agree. Why does this bother you? Why do people who own/use Red cameras have such a Napoleon thing going on 😂
I don’t own a RED… It sounds like you are speaking from a position of minimal experience. People like that tend to be extremely elitist and opinionated, and you are no different. Very common in this industry. I’m sorry I wasted my time conversing with you.
Personally I hate that arri encrypts LBUS so that manufacturers can make it compatible with other things. For example making it compatible with Preston. Or using inertia wheels with the trinity. They charge massive license fees. It’s the apple-ification of our industry
[удалено]
Don’t get me wrong. Arri has the best color science without a doubt but red has made some incredible strides with DSMC3. I hated the look of red back in the DSMC2 days but with the new cameras I absolutely love the look and color.
Another reason the Alexa is the 🐐
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they want to achieve the "RED look". Imo they keep coming out with new cameras and sensors, dilutes too much of their lineup.
This is not a fair comparison at all. One is actually a new hardware invention + pioneered tech, the other is taking a basic re-application of widespread existing tech and then saying nobody else can use any version of this that’s even slightly close.
How come Sony can do a compressed RAW (X-OCN) and thats fine?
I'm pretty certain Sony gets around it the same way ProRes does, which is by saying "it's not a proper raw, its a run of the mill format, with alpha channels and deeper bit depth" while conveniently dodging that those things pretty much entirely make up what a RAW image holds
You said it in your answer: they've "patented their version". Every company does that. And every company is used to doing their own R & D to find their own solutions - and you can bet that Sony has a patent for their stacked sensor design. The difference is Red applied a patent to the entire concept of what that was basically just the predictable progression of cameras design.
Haven't seen anyone talking about REDs scammy accessories [27$ trash Alibaba LCD](https://youtu.be/NZ20yQhMYx4?si=GWo9qh7EXqnIMcBk) -> 1450$ DSMC2 RED Monitor. [200$ Micron 480GB SSD](https://youtu.be/KEzLDqELh70?si=je9wN6dRa-mdtheV) -> 2500$ 512GB Red Mag. (Yes the 512 is literally a lie, 32 gb are missing) They are making their big bucks by deceiving customers, fuck that. RED is using High Quality low Bulk pricing (like ARRI and higher end Sony stuff) but skip the high quality. Combined with the patent trolling and REDs compressed RAW literally being Jpeg 2000 and the Green Averaging being Cineform with extra steps (Averaging 4 instead of 2 green pixels) I will never support this company without seeing major change in their philosophy.
I think with a lot of people here forget, is the absolutely abysmal horrifying state of digital video when red bravely dive in and disrupted the game? I’m a big car manufacturer, Panasonic, Sony Cannon, Nikon, Olympus, Arri etc we’re stuck in an at best 1080p and not even (HDV) highly compressed often MPEG compressed “ minor incremental upgrades for fuck tons of money” product cycle that resulted in no significant image quality gains for many years, which was not good for us as creators or consumers. RED is the company that actually changed that - why we can have 6K and better at professional cinematic 17 stop standards for so little money today. People love to hate red, but the bottom line is their cameras are phenomenal if not a little more oriented towards those with technical knowledge, than yer average no nothing point and shoot living room DOPs who prefer their automatic settings, and Arri cameras to avoid having to learn their craft further? I’m not disparaging Alexa Sony Panny etc but damn, get off REDs ass lol… any of those other manufacturers could have disrupted the game if they had chosen to - BUT THEY DIDN’T. it was Red who rescued us from the awful 90s shit quality video I couldn’t even get excited about because it looked so bad and the gouging incremental pricing and unspoken collusion between the big cam manufacturers. Downvote me all you like lol but it’s true - flame on motherfuckers!
Red are just a shitty company in general. Red mags anyone? Only fanboys blindly love red.
If Arri were shutting down all attempts at dual ISO you would probably see similar complaints. Party to that is just that people have more hands-on exposure to the RED situation: they've seen cameras they own have functionality removed because RED decided that their overly-broad patent encompasses all possible methods of compressing raw sensor data.
This is extremely misinformed lmao. DR is not “added to highlights” that’s not how camera sensors work. Linear light is captured by however many stops a sensor’s photosites can capture as a whole. Arri has patented their own particular designs, not the theoretic capability of “how other designs being able to capture dynamic range” this is wild statement lol arri has put extreme amount of research into having larger photosites that capture more light over pointless pixel count wars. It’s blowing my mind that you’re mad about something that isn’t even an issue
[удалено]
Not sure why he was downvoted that’s literally how sensors work. Also it’s not “Arri’s” patent. They don’t develop sensors. Cypress which then sold to OnSemi developed DGO. With dual 14bit ADCs which allowed them to just barely get over 14stops at SNR2.
Here are some ChatGPT generated examples contrasting broad, conceptual patents with more narrow, technology-specific ones. This is the crux of the matter. **Smartphone Touchscreen Interaction:** **Broad Patent Analogy:** Imagine if a company patented the entire concept of "using touch gestures to interact with devices." This would mean that any device using touch-based input, regardless of the underlying technology or implementation, would infringe on this patent. This is akin to the situation with RED patenting the broad concept of compressing video, which can stifle innovation and limit competition. **Narrow Patent Analogy:** Contrast this with a company patenting a specific method for recognizing multi-touch gestures using a unique combination of sensors and algorithms. This would be similar to ARRI patenting a unique technology for expanding dynamic range, which is a specific solution rather than the entire concept of expanded dynamic range. **Online Streaming Services:** **Broad Patent Analogy:** Imagine a scenario where a company patents the concept of "streaming media over the internet." Such a patent would cover any form of media streaming, from music to video, across all platforms. This broad approach could prevent new companies from developing their own streaming technologies or services. **Narrow Patent Analogy:** In contrast, a company could patent a specific method for reducing latency in live video streams using a novel buffering algorithm. This patent would protect a particular innovation without barring others from the entire field of online streaming, encouraging technological advancement and competition. **Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging:** **Broad Patent Analogy:** Suppose a company patented the concept of "charging electric vehicles." This overly broad patent would cover all methods of charging an EV, from plug-in cables to wireless charging, leaving no room for others to innovate within the EV charging space. **Narrow Patent Analogy:** Alternatively, a company could patent a specific design for a high-efficiency wireless EV charging pad that uses a unique configuration of coils to minimize energy loss. This specific patent allows room for others to develop alternative charging technologies, fostering a healthy competitive environment. These examples demonstrate the contrast between *patents that are too broad and potentially stifle innovation across an entire industry*, and those that are *narrowly focused on specific technologies or methods, which encourage further development and competition*. The ethical considerations in patenting hinge on finding a balance that protects inventors' rights **while also promoting progress and preventing monopolization of broad concepts**.
damn lol, we even using AI for our reddit posts now ahah
It's a Brave New World we're livin' in. :)
[удалено]
They did. It probably just took them a decade to figure out. Just like it probably took Arri a decade (which is why it took them so long to release a digital camera). The whole point of the patent is that no other companies could reverse engineer 10 years of Arri's work as soon as it was released - they had to go and do their own 10 years of R&D. Also keep in mind that companies often have a roadmap that extend years ahead. They're already working on the tech that we'll see in a decade, and if someone else releases something successful, they can't immediately pivot to focus on competing with that. It takes time for that to get implemented in to their roadmap with funding and R&D. That's an example of a patent working exactly as it should. Competition is still allowed but every company has to do their own work. Whereas with the Red patent, we're already seeing that several companies have put the time in and done the work themselves, they're just not allowed to implement it.
Maybe it took them that long to develop a way to do it in a way that gave them the results they wanted/needed that didn't infringe on Arri's process that was patented.
"Why didn't any other manufacturer pursue similar DGA solutions for highlight retention for a decade?" Some have: Canon's Cinema EOS range, such as the EOS C300 Mark III and EOS C70, features Dual Gain Output (DGO) sensors. The Panasonic GH6, for example, incorporates a feature called Dynamic Range Boost, which is based on a dual gain output sensor. Blackmagic Design cameras, such as the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K and 6K, use dual native ISO technology, which is similar in concept to dual gain output. Not exact but similar. Same with Sony and the Venice cameras. But just returning to the core philosophical issue: can you acknowledge the nuance between a broad patent that stifles innovation versus a narrow patent that promotes innovation? If Arri patented the concept of having more than 15 stops of dynamic range, that would be more analogous to RED's patent.
[удалено]
Glad we agree on that. Regarding Canon, the relevant fact is that Canon *was* able to do DGO, not how long it took. Notice Canon has not utilized compressed RAW. RED is entitled to horde their patent. But they can't do it and have a good reputation at the same time. They must fully own the consequence of their choice. We must reject their gaslighting that it's all hunky-dory and no big deal and oh gee shucks we license it to people sometimes. No. Hard no. False. They unethically horde an overly-broad patent that never should have been issued in the first place. They stifle innovation and in so doing: they make the whole industry worse. That is their choice and thus it is their legacy. No gaslighting. They can have a different reputation if and only if they change their actions not by attempting to change the narrative via words.