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

Nikon to acquire RED

nikon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 208 posts

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#71

Post by redeeman »

ryandamm wrote: post #61
KaiserPro wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the patent is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7830967B1/en Which looks like it's patenting debayering. However I'm not a patent lawyer so I don't know. I suspect that Nikon were using something like jpeg2000 to store raw frames, and thats why RED were getting all pissy.

It’s patenting compressing the raw photo site values before debayering, which saves space and in theory allows for better, non-realtime debayering algorithms (more relevant when the patent was filed).

if its not an actual algorithm, but merely the thought of compressing the raw data (im not saying it is/isnt, I dont know), then its obviously totally ridiculous, and frankly, anyone that would even presume to think one should apply for such a patent should just be taken out back and disposed of. And then of course the patent office aswell

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#72

Post by Applejinx »

justforasingle wrote: post #24

Pretty interesting. If you look on netflix approved camera list[0] there are none from Nikon. Personally I think RED cameras are overhyped and are a major reason most netflix shows all look and feel the same. I don't think its the colour grading or lenses - its something about the camera itself that just feels shit and doesn't give me the same access to a scene the same way something like sony's HDVS from 30 years ag…

Watching all that Sony stuff.

Part of what's giving you that effect is not the resolution, or color accuracy etc: it's that you're looking at what is really a very primitive system. It's the analog vs. digital all over again, but with video. More than that, it's compressed video, versus a more immediate but more primitive analog system. What I'm seeing of RED suggests it's all about sensor resolutions, but compression is always a point of contention and color space is an issue.

If you're digitally compressing data like this and running into an area where there are challenges, you're running into areas where the algorithms get twitchy: they're designed to optimize for certain things and you can throw pathological image sequences, pathological colors, at them.

Some of the challenges inherent in getting really high sensor resolution out of a RED are irrelevant to old Sony analog HD camera technology, apples and oranges.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#73

Post by ruined »

foldr wrote: post #69
kworks wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some Yedlin links. I found his process to be methodical, precise, thorough and definitive. The question as to whether there is any perceptible visual difference between film and video that has been post-produced by an expert was definitively answered for me. Resolution Demos: https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html On Color Science for Filmmakers: https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html

Pet peeve, by why do people persist in using wide aperture closeups to test resolution? If almost everything in the frame is out of focus, then duh, you're not going to notice much difference between 'high resolution' and 'very high resolution'.

past f8 on full frame (and wider on smaller frames) you run into diffraction, so you actually do get more detail with a slightly wider aperture. i only glanced at the links but it seems about right.

also, everyone knows what a face looks like

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#74

Post by weebull »

atoav wrote: post #32
justforasingle wrote: post #24

Pretty interesting. If you look on netflix approved camera list[0] there are none from Nikon. Personally I think RED cameras are overhyped and are a major reason most netflix shows all look and feel the same. I don't think its the colour grading or lenses - its something about the camera itself that just feels shit and doesn't give me the same access to a scene the same way something like sony's HDVS from 30 years ag…

Red cameras are overhyped, but picture quality is not the issue. It is very likely that what you describe is more due stylistic differences in lighting, color grading and editing than due to the camera itself — coming from someone who professionally had to match colors on films shot on multiple different cameras on more than one occasion. Reliability is the main reason why Red cameras are overhyped, but you get good…

Red were kinda the Tesla of the film camera world. New name, new tech, new price point, fashionable branding Vs existing long established players.

Thing is ARRI pivoted and covered the new tech pretty well, and had the existing business links into the rental market allowed them to continue unflustered. Red got the layman hype because they seemed to make high quality available to more people at an achievable (but still high) price point. The industry didn't really care though. They rent cameras, not buy them and they were already affording the old stuff.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#75

Post by bravo22 »

7moritz7 wrote: post #25
hnenjoyer_93 wrote: post #8

Interesting that some time ago Red filed a lawsuit against Nikon for using a RAW video compression algorithm that Red claimed infringed its patents, but later dismissed it: https://dpreview.com/news/5338402238/red-is-suing-nikon-for-... https://dpreview.com/news/9301564383/nikon-denies-red-s-laws... https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...

Am I reading this right in that Red has somehow managed to patent the idea of compressing 4K RAW footage on device which holds up the whole industry?

Not quite. The claims, in the only one I've seen regarding RAW compression, are for a specific pre-emphasis curve being applied to the raw data, then the raw data being compressed and only cover this being done in a video camera.

When looking at a patent check the "Claims" section. An infringing device would have to perform those steps in the order provided for the patent holder to have a claim.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've had a lot of dealing with patents.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#76

Post by foldr »

ruined wrote: post #73
foldr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pet peeve, by why do people persist in using wide aperture closeups to test resolution? If almost everything in the frame is out of focus, then duh, you're not going to notice much difference between 'high resolution' and 'very high resolution'.

past f8 on full frame (and wider on smaller frames) you run into diffraction, so you actually do get more detail with a slightly wider aperture. i only glanced at the links but it seems about right. also, everyone knows what a face looks like

Sure, but why not shoot a subject at infinity? (I said "wide aperture closeups".) It's hard to even know which tiny part of the face is actually in perfect focus. And at the resolutions tested, you will need perfect focus to see any difference.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#77

Post by strogonoff »

mmaunder wrote: post #57
Joeboy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately my enthusiasm for BMD is muted by the extreme non-freeness of BRAW.

What? It’s free. Perhaps you should read the history around Red as a patent troll, how they price gouge their media, etc.

Blackmagic sold their cameras with support for CinemaDNG advertised, and removed that support after the fact, leaving only BRAW that more or less locked you into Resolve.

This is a deal breaker for anyone using OSS processing pipeline, since 1) BRAW isn’t lossless, AFAIK and 2) it was impossible and to this day is problematic to convert BRAW to something raw development tools understand (DNG).

Luckily, I noticed that just before I bought a unit (!). Now I’m a happy owner of a Sigma fp, which not only is sold with CinemDNG support—shows that BM did have some choice, after all—but is also technically superior.

If I ever do something where their gear is required and someone leases it, sure, but I don’t see why I would give my personal money to BM after how they handled this.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#78

Post by oven9342 »

justforasingle wrote: post #24

Pretty interesting. If you look on netflix approved camera list[0] there are none from Nikon. Personally I think RED cameras are overhyped and are a major reason most netflix shows all look and feel the same. I don't think its the colour grading or lenses - its something about the camera itself that just feels shit and doesn't give me the same access to a scene the same way something like sony's HDVS from 30 years ag…

When the camera pans. I find it unnerving. I don’t enjoy watching that pixelated panning. I blame it on the digital recordings.

It might probably look better if they recorded it on film but no producer seems to be addressing my whimsical preferences

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#79

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

timc3 wrote: post #68
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canon absolutely owns the video market, in many ways. Different context from RED, but you see Canon DSLR video cameras everywhere , especially consumer-level stuff, like streamcasters. Most videos you see, by semipro influencers, and whatnot, are recorded on Canon kit. Also, the TV and movie industry makes heavy use of Canon DSLR kit for their work. It’s an interesting acquisition, and I wish them luck. The rub will…

Canon has a good share of the market but not to the extent that you are suggesting. Sony is massive particularly for semipro influencers, Panasonic some share, Nikon very little. Source: Managing 150PB+ of customers video content.

Cool. Thanks for the data. Sounds like my experience is dated. I know that Sony has taken the crown for mirrorless.

Re: Nikon to acquire RED

#80

Post by mtvkqn »

Joeboy wrote: post #52
hef19898 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a photographer I know next to nothing about film, let alone cinema. Hence the question, is ARRI gear really as good as people say, and as expensive?

In terms of the image, I think a big advantage Arri cameras have is a patent on simultaneous dual gain sensors. Perhaps somebody will tell me I've misunderstood that though. Aside from that, I think a lot of what you pay for is reliability, support and general non-sketchiness, which are not areas where RED have a particularly good reputation.

ARRI cameras have much better IR filters in front of the sensor. RED IR filters were horrible quality when we measured them, leading to worse image quality.
Post reply on HN