Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

#21

Post by hebelehubele »

decimalenough wrote: post #13

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?

> ELI5 of what "RAW video" actually is

Video with high bit count per pixel. A finished video is 8-bit per pixel, but RAW video contains 10 to 14 bits per pixel, often in a camera-specific LOG format which has very low contrast and saturation and looks washed out. All of this helps preserve much of the detail and allows creators to have more flexibility in post-processing.

Re: Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

#22

Post by verall »

hebelehubele wrote: post #21
decimalenough wrote: post #13

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?

> ELI5 of what "RAW video" actually is Video with high bit count per pixel. A finished video is 8-bit per pixel, but RAW video contains 10 to 14 bits per pixel, often in a camera-specific LOG format which has very low contrast and saturation and looks washed out. All of this helps preserve much of the detail and allows creators to have more flexibility in post-processing.

> has very low contrast and saturation and looks washed out

When shown under naive linearization and compression rather than good tone mapping

I totally get what you're saying and that is how film people talk about it but as a camera engineer it's annoying that people think washed out low sat is some intrinsic property of log.

Re: Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

#24

Post by BLanen »

hebelehubele wrote: post #21
decimalenough wrote: post #13

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?

> ELI5 of what "RAW video" actually is Video with high bit count per pixel. A finished video is 8-bit per pixel, but RAW video contains 10 to 14 bits per pixel, often in a camera-specific LOG format which has very low contrast and saturation and looks washed out. All of this helps preserve much of the detail and allows creators to have more flexibility in post-processing.

No, its about (de-)bayering. It's before the concept of multi-color 'pixels'.

Re: Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

#25

Post by sagacity »

rasz wrote: post #8
dannyw wrote: post #2

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.

Wasnt the patent pretty much "and then I dump raw sensor data to a JPEG2000 codec"?

Yes, this is pretty much what REDCODE is.

Re: Japanese court overturns Red RAW video patent

#27

Post by wmf »

decimalenough wrote: post #13

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?

I think the patent literally covers the idea of a camera that records raw video internally. (Still cameras supported raw for years before Red existed.)
Post reply on HN