Apple's petition against RED

#1

Post by elijahparker » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:48 AM UTC

Apple's petition against RED
digitalcameraworld.com

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#2

Post by IloveHN84 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

Funny how a patent warmonger company like Apple tries to fight against others' patents, when they are on the bad side.

All these patents are now backing off too much the evolution

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#3

Post by croh » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

IloveHN84 wrote: post #2

Funny how a patent warmonger company like Apple tries to fight against others' patents, when they are on the bad side. All these patents are now backing off too much the evolution

warmonger is indeed good word for apple.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#4

Post by threeseed » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:25 AM UTC

IloveHN84 wrote: post #2

Funny how a patent warmonger company like Apple tries to fight against others' patents, when they are on the bad side. All these patents are now backing off too much the evolution

Apple is a patent warmonger company ?

If that was remotely true they would be filing lawsuits all over the place. In fact the only time I can recall them suing anyone was Samsung who is hardly an innocent party.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#5

Post by est31 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:26 AM UTC

> RED wanted to find a way to make digital compression visually lossless (i.e. no perceivable loss in quality).

What does that mean? Is it lossless like lossless webp or png, or is it lossy and well performing under some metric like PSNR? "no perceivable loss in quality" can mean anything, including a lossy codec.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#6

Post by dogma1138 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:32 AM UTC

So I’m guessing Apple wants to use the same technique in their new phones and couldn’t come to an agreement with RED?

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#7

Post by threeseed » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:35 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #6

So I’m guessing Apple wants to use the same technique in their new phones and couldn’t come to an agreement with RED?

Could be two reasons:

1) They just discovered this British inventor's work and thought it was worth petitioning in order to save a few dollars for Final Cut Pro.

2) They plan to allow the iPhone/iPad to output to ProRes RAW and don't want to pay the significant royalties and so have been actively looking for prior art.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#8

Post by ent » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:36 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #5

> RED wanted to find a way to make digital compression visually lossless (i.e. no perceivable loss in quality). What does that mean? Is it lossless like lossless webp or png, or is it lossy and well performing under some metric like PSNR? "no perceivable loss in quality" can mean anything, including a lossy codec.

I'm pretty sure it does mean lossy codec. The

> i.e. no /percievable/ loss in quality.

would be pretty redundant otherwise.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#9

Post by holy_city » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #5

> RED wanted to find a way to make digital compression visually lossless (i.e. no perceivable loss in quality). What does that mean? Is it lossless like lossless webp or png, or is it lossy and well performing under some metric like PSNR? "no perceivable loss in quality" can mean anything, including a lossy codec.

Having worked a bit in the field (on the audio side of film) "perceptually lossless" means that in a double blind study, an audience would not be able to discern between the lossless and the lossy encoded versions. The only way to verify is by testing with real people, and due to the nature of the business, it's easier to do it with professionals who have a higher bar for perception.

There are a lot of reasons to prefer lossless over lossy, but there is always the "good enough" point with storage media. Film is not lossless, so it doesn't matter if the digital storage is. What matters is if the lossiness in encoding is good enough to work with at the same level as film.

Re: Apple's petition against RED

#10

Post by Monroe13 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #4

IloveHN84 wrote: post #2

Funny how a patent warmonger company like Apple tries to fight against others' patents, when they are on the bad side. All these patents are now backing off too much the evolution

Apple is a patent warmonger company ? If that was remotely true they would be filing lawsuits all over the place. In fact the only time I can recall them suing anyone was Samsung who is hardly an innocent party.

Apple has filed more inter partes review petitions than any other company since the process came available a few years back. IPRs are very expensive for a patent owner to defend (low- to mid-six figures) so from the patent owner perspective Apple definitely fits the description of warmonger.

Of course, if you think these patents are junk that never should have issued, Apple is doing God’s work.