@@mikeblack_pw They have been granted updated patents on compressed raw. What may expire in a ferw years is not a current efficient method. So, any company that could use it would be many years behind. They would want to use the newer methods.
Fair enough. Tech moves on. The patent though is for the concept of internal compressed raw. So even if other companies (like Nikon using intoPix’s TicoRAW technology) used their own, RED has been blocking just the concept of it. That is expiring in 5 years, regardless of what improvements they make on their end.
💯 this. Also, Red is in a completely different price bracket, so it’s flipping wild that Canon, Sony and freaking Apple couldn’t have navigated this 5-10 years ago.
This. It's a scandal, honestly. I will never use another product from RED ever again and I'll make sure everyone I work with knows of how much they held the industry back. We should all do so and make them understand those kinds of practices are not acceptable.
No, you're being generous with Red. It's fine to patent a specific technological capability, it's not fine to be a giant bully and prevent other companies from offering similar but different capabilities.
Disagree. They certainly should have that right if they have a unique patented process.. The argument between RED and Nikon seems to fall in the "similar but different capabilities" area. BTW, that's why it is reported that 75% of the lawyers in the world and nearly 95% of all the law suits are in the United States.
@@p.o.4339 Having the right and doing the right thing are completely different. I'm not saying a company's obligation is to do the right thing but to actively attack other companies for profit and stunting the growth of an entire industry is absolutely the wrong thing to do across the board. In fact it actually bodes poorly for RED as a future growth strategy. The reason being is that competition is better for business. People who buy RED these days typically do so because they feel strong armed into doing so, for the compressed raw capabilities, which compared to something like an ARRI Alexa, which has it's own flavor of internal RAW, is relatively affordable. However as tech evolves a lot of RED tech is lacking in other features compared to many other camera manufacturers, namely in autofocus, frame rates, crop factor etc. If RED had allowed other companies the compressed RAW capacity, it would have allowed RED to compete, and thus make more future worthy or stable camera systems. It's similar to the reason why healthcare in the United States is astronomically expensive compared to comparable economies across the world. Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to patent medicines and are left unchecked as to what they can charge on premiums to healthcare companies, leaving patients with ludicrous bills for often quite inexpensive to manufacture medicines. So again, I understand companies obligations are mainly to profit and expand but if they don't allow for competition, and don't listen to their customers then they are eventually doomed to fail.
Disagree. Red could never compete against high volume low margin cameras from Sony or Canon, it must do whatever it takes to stay viable as a boutique business. What if the Sony FX3 or Canon R5C had Red Raw?
I think Red changed the industry by producing the first remotely affordable cinema camera. At a time when the nearest competitor’s camera cost $160,000. I’m quite certain Nikon has not had near this level of impact with their Z9… Even with internal compressed Raw… largely because the sensor only has 10.2 stops of dynamic range at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 2. The Z9 and Z8 simply lack the latitude to benefit from a Raw codec.
@@SkyCoreLLC you left off part of the sentence.. “that Nikon used and then promptly learned was going to cost them dearly so they decided to simply license the patent”
@@GrantSRwell yeah, if someone invents something, they don’t want their competitors to just also come out with it, so what they’re patenting to block is the outcome, the destination, the journey is irrelevant
@@clarkjamesdigital But that is not how patent law works. You can't patent the generic idea of a thing. And you can't patent something that would be obvious to someone "skilled in the trade." You are only supposed to be able to patent a very specific solution to achieve your idea. In your metaphor, one is only allowed to patent the journey, not the destination. When you buy a train ticket to Chicago, you aren't buying the right to go to Chicago. You are buying the right to sit in that train, riding on those specific rails. The train company can't stop you from going by car or plane. Or even from going via a different train company on different rails. Under your completely backwards idea of the patent system, one could parent the IDEA of a flying car whether one had any idea how to build one or not. Unfortunately, patent lawyers have gotten really good at writing patents that sound specific while actually being nothing but an idea.
besides the point... I find very few people that can give so much valuable information in a single shot, with no cuts like you do. You are a natural teacher Matt. Great video. Thx
Came here to say this. Succinct and informative. And I wholeheartedly agree with you Matt - RED’s broad patent has held back innovation whilst enabling their own survival.
It’s surprising just how attainable RED made digital cinema, but they very quickly made themselves villains with their business practices and product design.
True villains are cripple hammer Canons and Sony overheating Alpha 1 and A74. All businesses want to stay alive and do whatever it takes - people should walk with their wallets
That's capitalism. No company does things for the greater good, only for greater profit. Same with new phone companies that promised so much, but in the end did the same scummy choices as the big companies as soon as they make decent money
Hopefully RED"s death grip over RAW video patent is eventually removed. Seems like it's holding the industry back. Appreciate you sharing your insight on this Matt! ♥
It's not holding the industry back though. That's just Red envy. Several companies that sued Red over internal compressed raw recording ended up with licensing deals, so they're able to deliver cameras with internal compressed raw recording.
Been happily shooting internal RAW on my Blackmagic cameras for years now. Partially debayered or not, I really can’t tell a difference in any kind of meaningful way. Thank you Grant Petty.
@@potatofuryythere's a song where Nikon is compared to other brands as a potato, it's a joke of course, Nikon is a strong player & offers unique gear just like other manufacturers
Matt, you may be overlooking a - IMO very likely - second scenario of what happened in court between Red and Nikon, one that will definitely change the camera landscape as we know it, yet not in the way you imagine. Here is what I suspect actually happened: Assumption: Like it or not, Red's patent _is_ valid and does hold up in court, as we have seen demonstrated in previous court cases. However: Nikon is a very large technology company in and of itself, which holds a whole library of patents relating to photography and - yes - video themselves. What probably happened: Once Red was daft enough to sue Nikon, they - Nikon - delved _deeply_ into their own patent portfolie, and probably discovered a 'nuclear' patent or two of their own, which Red is breaching in the Red cinema cameras. Thus Nikon sent their attack lawyers over to the Red team and basically said that either A) Red (discretely) gives Nikon a non-exclusive licence to use compressed raw video in Nikon's cameras _in addition to_ agreeing to never sueing Nikon for patent infringement ever again, or B) Nikon would sue Red into literal oblivion by preventing them from ever making another video camera again. Thus: Red needs to settle amicably outside of court, or get obliterated. Result if true: Nikon, along with BlackMagic Design (via their loophole), will be the only camera manufacturer apart from Red, who can offer compressed raw in their cameras going forward. Sony, Canon, Fuji et al. all gets left outside in the cold. This kind of MAD (mutually assured destruction) patent deal is very common amongst the major tech compagnies, and is an extremely common way in which patent lawsuits gets settled out of court. AMD versus Intel, Amazon versus Apple, yadda, yadda. And now Nikon versus Red.
This is a very interesting theory and possibly true -- unfortunately, it's all confidential. At the same time, though, I would have expected Nikon, if it had any countervailing patent infringement claims, to publicly assert them in their defense against Red's lawsuit. I have not heard that Nikon did that, but instead that Nikon defended itself by arguing that Red's patent was invalid.
The truth is much simpler. They held pre-orders for their cameras with the tech. You can’t disclose the information that you want patents on publicly before you file for the patent… it’s invalid. Expect the rest of the industry to follow this.
The glaring flaw in your theory is that Canon and Sony HAVE internal raw recording, though they don't offer it for all of their cameras. That means that they're not being left out in the cold. Fuji just hasn't pursued licensing Red's raw compression technology yet, and my guess is that it's due to the fact that Fuji hasn't been pursuing the professional filmmaker market thus far.
Just because RED's previous court cases went in their favor doesn't necessarily mean they have a water tight patent. It could me the court didn't know enough about what was being presented, as I doubt it was a jury of software or camera engineers. That being said, I could absolutely see RED doubling down on their control over the idea of compressed raw video
Thank you for explaining the facts. I will avoid using Red products for the rest of my life. Hopefully others follow in Nikons footsteps. I know its just business but holding back innovation for an entire industry is bad. Apple and others are not any better but I never knew that Red was responsible for this much pain in my workflow. Now that I know, I can't stand even looking at that logo. I hope they fade into irrelevancy.
@@cristopherubina532 red having a patent so broad was a mistake anyways, i woudnt pay too. The patent should only apply to RedRaw, not the idea of "compressed raw format video". Would you like to pay someone that have no input on your product just because they had a similar idea??
The way I see it they came up with it so technically without them we wouldn’t have had it, they broke past the boundaries of the time and innovated so they have the right to patent it. RED is a fantastic company, I wouldn’t look past their cameras. R3D Raw is the best in the game. Also codecs like XF-AVC developed by Canon and XAVC-I used in Sony cameras are amazing and give plenty of flex in post.
@@ggreloaded5269 imagine if someone patented the idea of a "pocket size rectangle device with a screen", everything from a dumbphone, a flipphone, a ipod, a iphone, to a Z Fold, wold have to pay royalties, even tho they have wild different implementations and design.
Their patent isn’t the idea of compressed raw. Red’s patent specifically covers recording a compressed raw format internally on the originating patent device. The idea of compressing a raw video file is already a genius invention that no one in the industry figured out and was likely years away before Red, a brand new unknown company at the time did it. Then to implement this recording format directly into the capture device in real time is also years of work to implement. The likes of Sony and Canon said, “that’s a great idea” and tried to basically copy the idea and was blocked. Black Magic, another smaller company at the time, figured out a different way of compression, again, stroke of genius. Black magic understands just how powerful this scheme is and keeps their method to themselves as well. Even thought it’s not “true” compressed raw, it is from an end user perspective with a couple caveats. Without that patent and Red’s willingness to pursue litigation, the industry would have stolen the work of Red’s engineers and ran with it with no mention or compensation to whoever was responsible for creating such a sophisticated recording scheme. Where this breaks down is that Red licenses out the patent for an exorbitant amount of money. So much so, that it’s not practical for even the likes of Sony or Canon to implement. The camera would need to cost over $100k to make internal raw worth it, and no one is buying cameras for that much.
Wow that's a heck of a story Matt. I had no idea Red were holding back the industry so much purely for their own financial gain. Not exactly a team player are they! I've read it below in other comments and I too will never buy a Red product having just heard how badly they have been holding back all of us creators. I hope that Sony, Cannon, Panasonic et al pool their collective resources to crush Red. Truly appalling. If this becomes common knowledge Red may well have an industry backlash on their hands.
Its unfortunately not accurate. Financial gain is exactly how innovation happens. You realize RED has less than 40 patents? Nikon has over 40,000. You think Nikon does it for the good of the people or financial gain?
It's not holding the industry back in any way... because as anyone with a brain can see, there are other camera that can record compressed internal raw. None except for Black Magic have done it differently from Red's approach because they couldn't find a more efficient compression algorithm, and most of them licensed Red's compression technology. That's how patents are supposed to work; you want to use someone else's IP, you license it. The law suits over it are just a side effect of lawyers wanting to force their clients into paying them more for bogus law suits when smart companies would skip the law suits and just seek license agreements. That's how Canon got C-Rraw Lite and Red got the EF mount. Sony has internal raw recording on several of its CineAlta cameras... because it a struck a licensing deal with the much smaller Red. They're obviously not being held back by anything, as proven by the success of Venice 2, while Red is continuing to compete by going the route of higher frame rates and its cameras are continuing to sell quite well.
Thank you Matt. you expose the facts very clearly. As far as i know Nikon thesis in court was that Red advertised his technology of compressing raw before to patent it. I think anyway that is more about how TicoRAW technology works, and that Red was afraid to loose is patent. Clearly they have found a settlement that will permit Nikon to continue to record compressed raw internally. Nikon in the lasts years it seems that wants to appeal to videographers also than photographers, with z6 and 12bit raw (externally), new remot grip, z9 with internal compress raw and z8...and last new is that is developing his cinema lens series. i think the videomaking world will benefit from this and we'll se more nikons in the video field.
Manufacturers should have leave a possibility to install unofficial "hacked" firmware that will be able to compress RAW video stream, but instead of releasing such firmware, just leak it to hackers that will distribute it further, while official firmware would never be able to do that. Problem solved :)
This is how spreadsheet vendors got around Microsoft trying to claim copyright on the hotkeys used in Excel, back in the DOS days. They just made it so users could assign any hotkeys they wanted by importing downloadable configuration files.
@@winterlightstudios4340 It would actually reduce technical support requirements, because no hardware manufacturer supports hacked firmware. So, anytime there is hacked firmware on a piece of hardware, the manufacturer would never need to provide support at all. It doesn't matter if said hacked firmware actually, originally came from the manufacturer. All they have to say is that only the original, official firmware is supported. Now, it would be nice if said manufacturer included a feature to roll back the firmware to the original configuration.
@@GrantSR That's a nice and idealistic theory, but in no way realistic. Even if a camera manufacturer adopted that attitude toward support, the manufacturer would be the one blamed for problems with the camera resulting from hacked firmware induced problems. Camera manufacturers take vast amounts of flak for user stupidity all the time; just look at Black Magic and the ire it received from people too dumb to take BMD's recommended media seriously and ended up with dropped frames because they used media that BMD STATED doesn't work.
@@winterlightstudios4340 That is a really good point. I was only addressing the issue about it becoming a "support nightmare." I wasn't really thinking about it becoming a "PR nightmare." I do wish, though, that companies could make more products that customers could "safely" experiment around with. Products that could be easily reset to their default states. I think we would get a lot more innovation that way. I saw this as someone who is struggling with the insane menu design on my Sony A7R2. Soooooo much of it seems to have been designed by programmers who knew they were going to get laid off soon. It's almost intentionally terrible. You used to be able to install apps on that camera, but they are ending that "really soon now," and there is no way to install those apps other than directly via the website. It is impossible to download those apps separately, and install them from your computer. This would have been a perfect thing to make available via open source. But, instead, they are just killing it off. It's just kind of disappointing.
Recently Jarred said on a Komodo X livestream that they have always been willing to work with all camera manufacturers. He basically said they offer licensing for the compression but no one has been willing to work with them. Not sure if it’s just a cost thing or what. But I find that info very interesting and very important. The odds could be that Nikon just decided to bite on the license deal to give them a competitive edge over sony and canon. Food for thought.
This is why I alway go back to Nikon. I switched to Fuji ad didn't buy any Nikon camera since D810 but now I getting Z8. I was testing it already and was blown away by it. It's expensive but crazy capable with photo and video.
Tico Raw is the raw compression method that Nikon uses which should be able to be used by other camera companies. It likely got around Red's patent due to a different method of compressing the raw signal. I'm so excited about this!
Im debating switching to nikon JUST for their internal raw. If Sony brings this to the a7s3 i would however absolutely be thrilled. They already have the internal cfexpreds cards to do it …
@@m0nztam0nk Nikon makes a great product. It’s the switching your whole eco system spending tons of money to get to where you were with Sony just for internal raw. That’s my take on it. When maybe this wakes up red and they just license the process like they have with DJI and such
@@JwadeProductions7 yeah, you are ofc. correct…ive invested too much to switch. Also the a7s3 has been an absolutely flawless camera since i bought it…also, the Sony G-Master Lenses are just absurdly awesome…i wont do it, but i would rly love sony to implent compressed raw as well
Having worked with many startups, and seeing them get robbed by larger companies who steal their ideas after a “business meeting”, I say GOOD FOR YOU RED. Staying competitive in the cutthroat business of cinema cameras under $10K is hard enough so whatever it takes for Red to stay alive. I own all Sony gear and accept their sucky codecs
This has me excited about the future lineup of bodies that will benefit from this, just think of Nikon having a Cinema lineup of bodies and Cinema lenses designed on the new mount. Heck, they may have the potential to give RED a run at some point. It will be game over when or if they have internal record within the Z6III!
Maybe RED backed down because, unlike Canon, Sony et al. Nikon don't compete directly with cinema bodies and lenses. Maybe Nikon have pledged not to go there and RED therefore agreed not to risk potentially ruinous litigation which seems like it could have fallen either way. The case is dismissed without prejudice, which means RED can sue again at any time and no related case law has been established for other companies' lawyers to get excited about. All of which might be considered a kind of win were it not for the negative publicity now being generated, almost all of which against RED if the comments here are any guide.
@@way2deep100yea a lot of attention has been directed towards RED in recent years, hopefully all this will lead to a positive resolution where different manufacturers can implement raw into their cameras
This is interesting news. Thank you for making this video! Could you elaborate more on the difference in the implementation of compressed raw in Red vs Blackmagic? Perhaps that would be a nice topic for the next video.
Black Magic initially used cinema DNG due to it being a free codec... but incredibly unwieldy. For Black Magic it was the right choice for cost reasons, and its first camera was only 2.5K, so the bulk wasn't that big a problem. Then BMD added compression to cinema DNG so that the Pocket camera could actually work, since it was based on SD cards, which at time were pretty pitiful performance wise. BMD put a lot of R&D effort and money into developing BRaw, which uses a partial deBayer in camera to both save space and reduce compute overhead on the computer side, necessary to enable a 12K camera. You'll hear a lot of people whine that Braw isn't true raw because of yada yada idealistic silliness that means nothing, and people who actually USE Braw are quite happy with it, because it's very good. I think the people who complain not only haven't used Braw but also are blindly ignorant of the reality that Black Magic dominates the color grading stage of post production, and to maintain that position BMD needs to maintain both top notch color science and also keep paying attention to what actual professionals are offering as feedback. And most of the professionals who've worked with Braw are quite happy with it, because it's a great codec.
Amazing that it took me like 5 years to learn this tidbit. I started with photography and always felt editing photos was pretty easy. Then when I switched to video I was like “WTF IS THIS?!” … it made no sense and I just convinced myself that it must be some weird video anomaly and insanely expensive to implement the photo equivalent workflow with RAW…. TIL
I went from video to photo & was pleasantly surprized by extra editing capabilities of raw, it's upsetting that raw video is not avaiable in cameras like a7Siii
Great explanation Matt. I wonder why more companies don't just do what Blackmagic did with BRAW. So much better than not having any internal RAW option at all.
This is exciting news! I literally have to take deep breaths to stay calm whenever anyone talks about RED's clear abuse of patent law. Seems like that may come to an end in the coming months/years. Bravo Nikon!!
This is incredibly informative, and also very surprising that it's not brought up in conversation more. Even today if you go on so many "camera rankings" or "the best cameras for so and so" most of the "cons" include "can't record internal raw." But this shines a pretty great light on the fact that it isn't really that big a fault on those companies and therefore not really "their" con to be that accountable for.
I was literally thinking that Matt, I was literally mentally screaming at the screen. What about black magic??? 😂 That makes sense though. Only asking because I currently film with a black magic pocket cinema camera 4K, and I’m wanting to move to a more appropriate event camera, but it’s frustrating having to give up raw.
@@ascari100 RAW is also laegely a marketing trick. Do you often need to debayer your RAWs in a different way? Or do you usually touch the RAW processing settings? Perhaps WB but I believe it usually happens after debayering. CAC is probably done before debayering and it's baked in BRAW where as I think at least Canon allows you to choose later. I have also heard some claims that RAW doesn't exist because it doesn't truly capture the light but whatever happens after fixed color filters (which is technically true 😂) but well you really also can't change the electronic parameters of the sensor in post, e.g. the electronic gain can't be changed in post. Some cameras also allow changing WB electronically (by adjusting the gain between colors) as well as digitally.
I never used ARRI cameras, but I think it’s actually exciting for other companies to offer a clean raw output more often too. If you calculate the bit rate ARRiraw has exactly 12 but per pixel per frame , which nothing else I saw comes close . I think you have VariCam pure which records pure, but it’s not as popular and also very expensive camera
The patented aspect is illuminating. I don’t know internal recording workings, but couldn’t there be some type of intermediary data transfer device, like a vertical battery grip, that externalized a step of the data writing?
RED is a leach on the film industry. They know the only thing that keeps their market is their patent on an idea instead of a technique. If the FX3, R5 or whatever got these updates the industry would be much much more competitive again. It would be a good thing if the EU got involved (for the EU market at least) like with Apple's petty USB C arguments. But I doubt they'd have much interest in a niece like video cameras instead of something universal like phones sadly.
I’d love to see a FX3 with internal R3D. Jarred Land CEO of Red stated that Red does license internal compressed Raw to other camera companies. And when he said that he was speaking directly to the Nikon lawsuit. As for Canon… they already have internal compressed Raw… far more compressed than the 3x or greater that is mentioned in the Red patent. Canon and Red share IP. Reds feature Canon’s RF mount. They are 100% compatible with Canon RF lenses. They ship with Canon RF to EF adapters. Ever wonder the compression ratio that is needed to allow a Canon C70 to record Raw to a v60 SD card?
Nikon could either differentiate their compression so much it didn’t fall under the patent or it found code in Reds compression software that invalidated the patent. I would think it is the later where they found Red used something that was actually public use or something that was already patent in someway.
Canon RAW is compressed. They have "LT", "ST", and "HQ" modes, which correspond to 5:1, 3:1, and 2:1 or thereabouts. They have a deal with RED (who use the RF mount for their cinema cameras). I use a Sony and am not flag-waving for any particular company, but I think that's a pretty lazy oversight if I'm going to be honest.
No other company would have given us Sub 10k Digital Cinema Options with that technology. Komodo and now K-X would not exist. If not for RED the cinema cameras you all KEEP complaining you want, would exist...at $40,000 a pop cuz greed. 90% of the complainers wouldn't be able to afford these theoretical non-red cameras and thus wouldn't be recording in RAW anyway. You complained for nothing. Go get a Komodo. I hear a bunch just hit the market.
Imagine a world where technological breakthroughs were openly shared. Imagine companies succeeding on the merits of their production quality, rather than by throttling the advancement of the medium they are championing.
For anyone interested take a close look at the way canon and red have worked together. C70 has internal compressed raw. Komodo and raptor has RF mount and canon looks like it has given Red their autofocus technology though clearly limited in it’s implementation. Canon strategy towards hybrid shooting and selling a shed load of lenses and staying away from cine cameras. Very interesting.
But thanks to that they are the only other company able to use the RF mount 😊 ...which largely exists because the EF patents expired. Surely it reduces the flange distance but it's not such a huge deal in the field where the majority of lenses are huge anyway. RF also keeps the annoyance of the play in the mount, i.e. you can accidentally turn or shift the lens when you touch it.
Red makes great cameras even if your shoot them in pro res with performance that gets really close to alexa. At least with raptor. This idea that raw is the only thing they have to offer isn’t really factual
Wow, that's impressive. It's actually very easy to get a patent invalidated in US District court or at the PTAB, so if Red went to the wall against big companies like that and they still have a patent, that means that patent is definitely not too broad. Good for them, and maybe we should all thank them for inventing this thing and disclosing it to all of us for free in exchange for only 20 years of exclusivity (that exchange is what a patent is).
You're framing this as Red not wanting to take the risk of a ruling on these recent invalidity measures, and that probably played a part, but the main thing that happens when a patent lawsuit gets "settled" is that the Plaintiff got paid and Licensed the defendant in exchange. If the Defendant buys a license, there's not more dispute, hence no more lawsuit.
There's a big problem with RED too, they started selling cameras with the compressed raw a year before they file the patent which should mean the patent should not be valid. I have an R5 and shot a concert and had like closed to 1tb of space on my 2tb card. Also jini tech has some good info on red too. www.youtube.com/@JinniTech/videos
Just over 5 years ago, (before they had committed to trying mirrorless) I was wondering if Nikon was on its way out. Now they are crushing it. I'm wondering if they are going to get into Cinema Camera market. They've proven they are quite capable, and they got N-Raw. Now how about something in that Ursa-Mini, Eva-1, C500, FX7 world of form-factor and IO?
Thanks Matt! Red's patent is set for renewal in 2025 or 2026, if I remember correctly. It's a good time to see which companies will jump onboard to challenge Nikon. I would absolutely adore it if the Lumix S cameras gained internal compressed RAW, for example. Or even the Sony lineup.
@@cmxpiipl Yep.. been using GH5, and now S1.. not a single overheat, ever. Panasonic cameras are tanks, and now they have new heat dissipation tech too
@@JerimiahCook😢yea Sony's firmware upgrades have been slacking, but I'm sure that they are listening to this feedback - it takes time to implement strategy changes
I'm by no means an expert in any of this, but wouldn't RED have raked it in if it had licensed out it's process? I mean, I'll probably never purchase a 34,000 camera, but I've surely bought cameras in the $500 range. I think licensing would have allowed RED at least a bit of revenue from a market segment that they'll never be able to tap.
I think you're looking at this thing wrong, I'm hoping that computers, SD and CF Express cards catchup in terms of processing power and affordability, I don't want them to compress the raw in camera losing quality and flexibility in post. Just call it something else, cause once you compress it it's no longer raw.
The best part about UA-cam is you can say whatever you want, whether it’s factual or not, and then hundreds of people will comment with their perspective as if it’s fact, when it’s usually not. This is pretty cut and dry. CEO of red is on record saying Nikon licensed the IP. This would follow a similar pattern as DJI recently, and makes more sense than some of the other proposed ideas as to why this didn’t finish in court. I.e. “Jarred is lying. Red is broke. Nikon had some groundbreaking strategy etc.” Honestly, I think it’s a brilliant marketing strategy for Nikon if you think about it. Nobody was paying any attention to Nikon for video. Not on a large scale. Now they are Robin Hood with this false narrative, and everyone is aware their cameras can shoot internal raw they licensed and they have generated a new interest in their cameras. I understand the logic behind why people don’t feel like red should have been awarded the patent in the first place, but the fact is they were and it’s held up multiple times in court. So that’s where we are. I don’t see why people get mad at red because they won’t give it away. I think that’s unrealistic to expect a business to do that, and if Nikon or Blackmagic or Sony held the patent, I think they’d be acting in the same fashion. DJI’s model of passing the cost of having craw to the user I think is really logical, and has me scratching my head as to why other companies aren’t doing this.
Don't forget Blackmagic. They have been offering Internal Raw since their first camera, and now, with Blackmagic Raw, they have made it available to every filmmaker.
Microphone input jack on my Canon 90D broke today so I guess I know what brand of camera is going to be buying in the future 😂 wow.. It's such bs that Red was able to do this
I've often wanted these camera companies to create an external recorder that plugs into and gets power from the camera like the GoPro media mods. So long as the mod could do all the compressing, it could probably even be controled from the camera body. Just my mind running wild for a minute.
By the way small correction, Red didn’t invent the first raw video compressed format! They simple took existing technology and patent it so others couldn’t use it.
Hope the other players in the industry team up and litigate RED into oblivion. Their pricing policy and "everything is proprietary" attitude makes me loathe that company with a passion.
Just because Red settled, doesn’t mean that Nikon came close to winning. Red might be infringing on Nikon patents or something similar, and Nikon could have said, “you want to go down this route?”
That software patent seemed to be a mistake and should be appealed. It's like if Microsoft patented operating systems, which they can't. Different software algorithms to compress internal raw video should clearly be allowed.
Unfortunately we don't know what really happened. It is possible that Nikon had enough evidence to win and RED bailed out. It is possible that Nikon saw that they would lose and payed money or exchanged Nikon-patents to get the license. Probably RED knew they would win but decided to make some money in the few years until the patent runs out. If anybody else starts to do the same, it is possible RED just let them do it. It is also possible that RED will sue them and Nikon might support RED to keep an advantage over all the others. The fact that it is possible to handel the whole patent issue in secrecy is like a minefield. Every other company don't know what exactly is allowed and has to risk to produce cameras and get sued years later for an unknown amount of money. It is not possible to go to a court or the patent office and get an answer to the question "This is my product, this is the patent, is this allowed or not?". This is a general design flaw in the whole patent system.
This patent is now owned by Nikon/Red. Good luck with this compressed Raw video tech in other cameras, unless of course they are willing to pay royalty fees to Nikon/Red. Nikon did not buy Red for most likely a nice sum of currency to just let all this technology being used for FREE by other companies. Sony, Canon, Fuji, or any other company operates the same way. Wishful thinking, it's NOT happening.
😍 Whether you film in raw or not, my presets will help you get amazing colors in your videos - whoismatt.com/luts
And REDs patent expires in 5 years.
@@mikeblack_pw No they don’t! :)
@scottbalkum For internal compressed RAW capture, yes they do! But they’ve applied for a renewal that would take them to 2037.
@@mikeblack_pw They have been granted updated patents on compressed raw. What may expire in a ferw years is not a current efficient method. So, any company that could use it would be many years behind. They would want to use the newer methods.
Fair enough. Tech moves on. The patent though is for the concept of internal compressed raw. So even if other companies (like Nikon using intoPix’s TicoRAW technology) used their own, RED has been blocking just the concept of it. That is expiring in 5 years, regardless of what improvements they make on their end.
I always assumed it was a technological limitation. Honestly infuriated to learn it's because of patent abuse.
💯 this. Also, Red is in a completely different price bracket, so it’s flipping wild that Canon, Sony and freaking Apple couldn’t have navigated this 5-10 years ago.
Yeah this has made me angry at RED too. I feel like doing an all-out boycott.
Yeah WHATT?! It's definitely infuriating and as a creator it changes my perception of RED in a negative way.
This. It's a scandal, honestly. I will never use another product from RED ever again and I'll make sure everyone I work with knows of how much they held the industry back. We should all do so and make them understand those kinds of practices are not acceptable.
I am not so sure the anger should be directed towards Red, the patent system, or your own personal expectations and feelings of entitlement.
No, you're being generous with Red. It's fine to patent a specific technological capability, it's not fine to be a giant bully and prevent other companies from offering similar but different capabilities.
Disagree. They certainly should have that right if they have a unique patented process.. The argument between RED and Nikon seems to fall in the "similar but different capabilities" area. BTW, that's why it is reported that 75% of the lawyers in the world and nearly 95% of all the law suits are in the United States.
@@p.o.4339 Having the right and doing the right thing are completely different. I'm not saying a company's obligation is to do the right thing but to actively attack other companies for profit and stunting the growth of an entire industry is absolutely the wrong thing to do across the board. In fact it actually bodes poorly for RED as a future growth strategy. The reason being is that competition is better for business. People who buy RED these days typically do so because they feel strong armed into doing so, for the compressed raw capabilities, which compared to something like an ARRI Alexa, which has it's own flavor of internal RAW, is relatively affordable. However as tech evolves a lot of RED tech is lacking in other features compared to many other camera manufacturers, namely in autofocus, frame rates, crop factor etc. If RED had allowed other companies the compressed RAW capacity, it would have allowed RED to compete, and thus make more future worthy or stable camera systems. It's similar to the reason why healthcare in the United States is astronomically expensive compared to comparable economies across the world. Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to patent medicines and are left unchecked as to what they can charge on premiums to healthcare companies, leaving patients with ludicrous bills for often quite inexpensive to manufacture medicines. So again, I understand companies obligations are mainly to profit and expand but if they don't allow for competition, and don't listen to their customers then they are eventually doomed to fail.
This is the result of a free market and this happens in many industries.
Disagree. Red could never compete against high volume low margin cameras from Sony or Canon, it must do whatever it takes to stay viable as a boutique business. What if the Sony FX3 or Canon R5C had Red Raw?
@@homelessboy92 Who gets to determine what "doing the right thing" is? It's why we have patent and copyright laws...and too many freakin' lawyers.
UA-cam should show nikon a lot of love for what they did with this. They literally changed the industry
No, they Settled ! (for themselves). The rest of "US" can suck it, as far as these 2 Monopolies are concerned !
It was actually the Jennitech guy who figured out the strategy that Nikon used.
youtube.com/@JinniTech
RED, shown in their true colours.
I think Red changed the industry by producing the first remotely affordable cinema camera. At a time when the nearest competitor’s camera cost $160,000. I’m quite certain Nikon has not had near this level of impact with their Z9… Even with internal compressed Raw… largely because the sensor only has 10.2 stops of dynamic range at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 2. The Z9 and Z8 simply lack the latitude to benefit from a Raw codec.
@@SkyCoreLLC you left off part of the sentence.. “that Nikon used and then promptly learned was going to cost them dearly so they decided to simply license the patent”
All patents should last only for a reasonable amount of time for companies to profit from them, and afterward, they should become a public good.
They do last for a limited time; in the US, it's 20 years from the filing date.
That still doesn't prevent companies from writing overly broad patent descriptions, and locking others out of an entire field for that time.
@@GrantSRwell yeah, if someone invents something, they don’t want their competitors to just also come out with it, so what they’re patenting to block is the outcome, the destination, the journey is irrelevant
@@ZakWilsonyea I think 2027 is when reds runs out
@@clarkjamesdigital But that is not how patent law works. You can't patent the generic idea of a thing. And you can't patent something that would be obvious to someone "skilled in the trade." You are only supposed to be able to patent a very specific solution to achieve your idea. In your metaphor, one is only allowed to patent the journey, not the destination. When you buy a train ticket to Chicago, you aren't buying the right to go to Chicago. You are buying the right to sit in that train, riding on those specific rails. The train company can't stop you from going by car or plane. Or even from going via a different train company on different rails.
Under your completely backwards idea of the patent system, one could parent the IDEA of a flying car whether one had any idea how to build one or not.
Unfortunately, patent lawyers have gotten really good at writing patents that sound specific while actually being nothing but an idea.
besides the point... I find very few people that can give so much valuable information in a single shot, with no cuts like you do. You are a natural teacher Matt. Great video. Thx
Chris from DP review/Petapixel may be his closest rival
Came here to say this.
Succinct and informative. And I wholeheartedly agree with you Matt - RED’s broad patent has held back innovation whilst enabling their own survival.
Now, what’s interesting is that Nikon - uses the Sony Video chip - so how did that not open the door for Sony???
@@TheGeoDaddyinteresting point, hopefully it did
It’s surprising just how attainable RED made digital cinema, but they very quickly made themselves villains with their business practices and product design.
True villains are cripple hammer Canons and Sony overheating Alpha 1 and A74. All businesses want to stay alive and do whatever it takes - people should walk with their wallets
@@stopthefomo no, that's just stupidity, refusing to put a proper cooling solution in the thing
Yup and with the patent they still are barley hanging on. I think if they keep going this direction they will disappear.
Amazing engineering team. Greedy CEO
That's capitalism. No company does things for the greater good, only for greater profit. Same with new phone companies that promised so much, but in the end did the same scummy choices as the big companies as soon as they make decent money
Hopefully RED"s death grip over RAW video patent is eventually removed. Seems like it's holding the industry back.
Appreciate you sharing your insight on this Matt! ♥
It's not holding the industry back though. That's just Red envy. Several companies that sued Red over internal compressed raw recording ended up with licensing deals, so they're able to deliver cameras with internal compressed raw recording.
Been happily shooting internal RAW on my Blackmagic cameras for years now. Partially debayered or not, I really can’t tell a difference in any kind of meaningful way. Thank you Grant Petty.
now if only they could figure out autofocus...
@@AmauryJacquot and previewing still images
and full frame sensors
Come now, kids. BMD is too busy figuring out cinema that doesn't cost a second mortgage.
You are really good at telling stories. Comprehensive storyline, the right tempo - and a good voice!
Needs to do a story on DJI
😁 What did you think of this storytelling style of video?
Oh and if you like the colors, you can get them here - whoismatt.com/luts
I learned a lot thanks 👍
Nikon is to thank if the market becomes more competitive, not red. 😉
Shooting on that Potato huh? 😂
@@Tvj_films8452 ?
It was actually the Jennitech guy who figured out the strategy that Nikon used. His YT vids are amazing.
@@Tvj_films8452 I second edouhoekie, ?
@@potatofuryythere's a song where Nikon is compared to other brands as a potato, it's a joke of course, Nikon is a strong player & offers unique gear just like other manufacturers
Matt, you may be overlooking a - IMO very likely - second scenario of what happened in court between Red and Nikon, one that will definitely change the camera landscape as we know it, yet not in the way you imagine. Here is what I suspect actually happened:
Assumption: Like it or not, Red's patent _is_ valid and does hold up in court, as we have seen demonstrated in previous court cases.
However: Nikon is a very large technology company in and of itself, which holds a whole library of patents relating to photography and - yes - video themselves.
What probably happened: Once Red was daft enough to sue Nikon, they - Nikon - delved _deeply_ into their own patent portfolie, and probably discovered a 'nuclear' patent or two of their own, which Red is breaching in the Red cinema cameras. Thus Nikon sent their attack lawyers over to the Red team and basically said that either A) Red (discretely) gives Nikon a non-exclusive licence to use compressed raw video in Nikon's cameras _in addition to_ agreeing to never sueing Nikon for patent infringement ever again, or B) Nikon would sue Red into literal oblivion by preventing them from ever making another video camera again. Thus: Red needs to settle amicably outside of court, or get obliterated.
Result if true: Nikon, along with BlackMagic Design (via their loophole), will be the only camera manufacturer apart from Red, who can offer compressed raw in their cameras going forward. Sony, Canon, Fuji et al. all gets left outside in the cold.
This kind of MAD (mutually assured destruction) patent deal is very common amongst the major tech compagnies, and is an extremely common way in which patent lawsuits gets settled out of court. AMD versus Intel, Amazon versus Apple, yadda, yadda. And now Nikon versus Red.
This is a very interesting theory and possibly true -- unfortunately, it's all confidential. At the same time, though, I would have expected Nikon, if it had any countervailing patent infringement claims, to publicly assert them in their defense against Red's lawsuit. I have not heard that Nikon did that, but instead that Nikon defended itself by arguing that Red's patent was invalid.
The truth is much simpler. They held pre-orders for their cameras with the tech. You can’t disclose the information that you want patents on publicly before you file for the patent… it’s invalid. Expect the rest of the industry to follow this.
That is pure speculation 😂
The glaring flaw in your theory is that Canon and Sony HAVE internal raw recording, though they don't offer it for all of their cameras.
That means that they're not being left out in the cold. Fuji just hasn't pursued licensing Red's raw compression technology yet, and my guess is that it's due to the fact that Fuji hasn't been pursuing the professional filmmaker market thus far.
Just because RED's previous court cases went in their favor doesn't necessarily mean they have a water tight patent. It could me the court didn't know enough about what was being presented, as I doubt it was a jury of software or camera engineers.
That being said, I could absolutely see RED doubling down on their control over the idea of compressed raw video
This is potentially wonderful news. Also, your beard looks perfect.
Well explained Matt with minimal fuss. Yours has to be one of the most watchable Photo/video channels out there. Clean, clear, concise. Nice.
Thank you for explaining the facts. I will avoid using Red products for the rest of my life. Hopefully others follow in Nikons footsteps. I know its just business but holding back innovation for an entire industry is bad. Apple and others are not any better but I never knew that Red was responsible for this much pain in my workflow. Now that I know, I can't stand even looking at that logo. I hope they fade into irrelevancy.
Red is not holding it back. Its just that other camera brands don't want to pay royalty fee for using RED patents.
@@cristopherubina532 red having a patent so broad was a mistake anyways, i woudnt pay too. The patent should only apply to RedRaw, not the idea of "compressed raw format video".
Would you like to pay someone that have no input on your product just because they had a similar idea??
The way I see it they came up with it so technically without them we wouldn’t have had it, they broke past the boundaries of the time and innovated so they have the right to patent it. RED is a fantastic company, I wouldn’t look past their cameras. R3D Raw is the best in the game. Also codecs like XF-AVC developed by Canon and XAVC-I used in Sony cameras are amazing and give plenty of flex in post.
@@ggreloaded5269 imagine if someone patented the idea of a "pocket size rectangle device with a screen", everything from a dumbphone, a flipphone, a ipod, a iphone, to a Z Fold, wold have to pay royalties, even tho they have wild different implementations and design.
Their patent isn’t the idea of compressed raw. Red’s patent specifically covers recording a compressed raw format internally on the originating patent device. The idea of compressing a raw video file is already a genius invention that no one in the industry figured out and was likely years away before Red, a brand new unknown company at the time did it. Then to implement this recording format directly into the capture device in real time is also years of work to implement.
The likes of Sony and Canon said, “that’s a great idea” and tried to basically copy the idea and was blocked. Black Magic, another smaller company at the time, figured out a different way of compression, again, stroke of genius. Black magic understands just how powerful this scheme is and keeps their method to themselves as well. Even thought it’s not “true” compressed raw, it is from an end user perspective with a couple caveats.
Without that patent and Red’s willingness to pursue litigation, the industry would have stolen the work of Red’s engineers and ran with it with no mention or compensation to whoever was responsible for creating such a sophisticated recording scheme. Where this breaks down is that Red licenses out the patent for an exorbitant amount of money. So much so, that it’s not practical for even the likes of Sony or Canon to implement. The camera would need to cost over $100k to make internal raw worth it, and no one is buying cameras for that much.
Damn, Nikon was the one to step up to the plate! LFG
Wow that's a heck of a story Matt. I had no idea Red were holding back the industry so much purely for their own financial gain. Not exactly a team player are they! I've read it below in other comments and I too will never buy a Red product having just heard how badly they have been holding back all of us creators. I hope that Sony, Cannon, Panasonic et al pool their collective resources to crush Red. Truly appalling. If this becomes common knowledge Red may well have an industry backlash on their hands.
It was actually the Jennitech guy who figured out the strategy that Nikon used.
Its unfortunately not accurate. Financial gain is exactly how innovation happens. You realize RED has less than 40 patents? Nikon has over 40,000. You think Nikon does it for the good of the people or financial gain?
@@ScottBalkum exactly. This idea that companies exist to feed the community new cool stuff is hilarious. The need to feed themselves first.
It's not holding the industry back in any way... because as anyone with a brain can see, there are other camera that can record compressed internal raw. None except for Black Magic have done it differently from Red's approach because they couldn't find a more efficient compression algorithm, and most of them licensed Red's compression technology.
That's how patents are supposed to work; you want to use someone else's IP, you license it. The law suits over it are just a side effect of lawyers wanting to force their clients into paying them more for bogus law suits when smart companies would skip the law suits and just seek license agreements. That's how Canon got C-Rraw Lite and Red got the EF mount.
Sony has internal raw recording on several of its CineAlta cameras... because it a struck a licensing deal with the much smaller Red.
They're obviously not being held back by anything, as proven by the success of Venice 2, while Red is continuing to compete by going the route of higher frame rates and its cameras are continuing to sell quite well.
@@SkyCoreLLCJennytech? what did he do?
Thank you Matt. you expose the facts very clearly. As far as i know Nikon thesis in court was that Red advertised his technology of compressing raw before to patent it. I think anyway that is more about how TicoRAW technology works, and that Red was afraid to loose is patent. Clearly they have found a settlement that will permit Nikon to continue to record compressed raw internally. Nikon in the lasts years it seems that wants to appeal to videographers also than photographers, with z6 and 12bit raw (externally), new remot grip, z9 with internal compress raw and z8...and last new is that is developing his cinema lens series.
i think the videomaking world will benefit from this and we'll se more nikons in the video field.
I hope red goes bust seriously hate them for this.
Thanks, Matt!
Very informative - I had no idea why there is a limitation with internal RAW recording 🤔
It was actually the Jennitech guy who figured out the strategy that Nikon used. His YT vids are amazing.
@@SkyCoreLLCI keep seeing this name in comments here, what did he do?
Manufacturers should have leave a possibility to install unofficial "hacked" firmware that will be able to compress RAW video stream, but instead of releasing such firmware, just leak it to hackers that will distribute it further, while official firmware would never be able to do that. Problem solved :)
This is how spreadsheet vendors got around Microsoft trying to claim copyright on the hotkeys used in Excel, back in the DOS days. They just made it so users could assign any hotkeys they wanted by importing downloadable configuration files.
That would become a customer support disaster, so it will never happen.
@@winterlightstudios4340 It would actually reduce technical support requirements, because no hardware manufacturer supports hacked firmware. So, anytime there is hacked firmware on a piece of hardware, the manufacturer would never need to provide support at all. It doesn't matter if said hacked firmware actually, originally came from the manufacturer. All they have to say is that only the original, official firmware is supported. Now, it would be nice if said manufacturer included a feature to roll back the firmware to the original configuration.
@@GrantSR That's a nice and idealistic theory, but in no way realistic. Even if a camera manufacturer adopted that attitude toward support, the manufacturer would be the one blamed for problems with the camera resulting from hacked firmware induced problems. Camera manufacturers take vast amounts of flak for user stupidity all the time; just look at Black Magic and the ire it received from people too dumb to take BMD's recommended media seriously and ended up with dropped frames because they used media that BMD STATED doesn't work.
@@winterlightstudios4340 That is a really good point. I was only addressing the issue about it becoming a "support nightmare." I wasn't really thinking about it becoming a "PR nightmare."
I do wish, though, that companies could make more products that customers could "safely" experiment around with. Products that could be easily reset to their default states. I think we would get a lot more innovation that way.
I saw this as someone who is struggling with the insane menu design on my Sony A7R2. Soooooo much of it seems to have been designed by programmers who knew they were going to get laid off soon. It's almost intentionally terrible. You used to be able to install apps on that camera, but they are ending that "really soon now," and there is no way to install those apps other than directly via the website. It is impossible to download those apps separately, and install them from your computer. This would have been a perfect thing to make available via open source. But, instead, they are just killing it off. It's just kind of disappointing.
This is why Nikon is awesome!
Recently Jarred said on a Komodo X livestream that they have always been willing to work with all camera manufacturers. He basically said they offer licensing for the compression but no one has been willing to work with them. Not sure if it’s just a cost thing or what. But I find that info very interesting and very important. The odds could be that Nikon just decided to bite on the license deal to give them a competitive edge over sony and canon. Food for thought.
This is why I alway go back to Nikon. I switched to Fuji ad didn't buy any Nikon camera since D810 but now I getting Z8. I was testing it already and was blown away by it. It's expensive but crazy capable with photo and video.
Z8 looks durable, I like the portability of Sony but they don't feel all that rugged 😢
Tico Raw is the raw compression method that Nikon uses which should be able to be used by other camera companies. It likely got around Red's patent due to a different method of compressing the raw signal. I'm so excited about this!
Im debating switching to nikon JUST for their internal raw. If Sony brings this to the a7s3 i would however absolutely be thrilled. They already have the internal cfexpreds cards to do it …
Don’t…Nikon isn’t worth it 😂😅
@@JwadeProductions7 why? I feel their lens lineup looks very weak compared to Sony…i love Sonys lenses and compact size a LOT. But internal Raw man…
@@m0nztam0nk Nikon makes a great product. It’s the switching your whole eco system spending tons of money to get to where you were with Sony just for internal raw.
That’s my take on it. When maybe this wakes up red and they just license the process like they have with DJI and such
@@JwadeProductions7 yeah, you are ofc. correct…ive invested too much to switch. Also the a7s3 has been an absolutely flawless camera since i bought it…also, the Sony G-Master Lenses are just absurdly awesome…i wont do it, but i would rly love sony to implent compressed raw as well
@@m0nztam0nk you and me both hell im still on the S2 and doing all my work with no issues. Time to upgrade to FX3 though 😈
Having worked with many startups, and seeing them get robbed by larger companies who steal their ideas after a “business meeting”, I say GOOD FOR YOU RED. Staying competitive in the cutthroat business of cinema cameras under $10K is hard enough so whatever it takes for Red to stay alive. I own all Sony gear and accept their sucky codecs
Matt, I hope to see more videos editing raw video files. I have the Nikon z9 and most tutorials are downright confusing. Everyone has a different way.
This has me excited about the future lineup of bodies that will benefit from this, just think of Nikon having a Cinema lineup of bodies and Cinema lenses designed on the new mount. Heck, they may have the potential to give RED a run at some point. It will be game over when or if they have internal record within the Z6III!
Maybe RED backed down because, unlike Canon, Sony et al. Nikon don't compete directly with cinema bodies and lenses. Maybe Nikon have pledged not to go there and RED therefore agreed not to risk potentially ruinous litigation which seems like it could have fallen either way. The case is dismissed without prejudice, which means RED can sue again at any time and no related case law has been established for other companies' lawyers to get excited about. All of which might be considered a kind of win were it not for the negative publicity now being generated, almost all of which against RED if the comments here are any guide.
@@way2deep100yea a lot of attention has been directed towards RED in recent years, hopefully all this will lead to a positive resolution where different manufacturers can implement raw into their cameras
This is interesting news. Thank you for making this video!
Could you elaborate more on the difference in the implementation of compressed raw in Red vs Blackmagic? Perhaps that would be a nice topic for the next video.
Black Magic initially used cinema DNG due to it being a free codec... but incredibly unwieldy. For Black Magic it was the right choice for cost reasons, and its first camera was only 2.5K, so the bulk wasn't that big a problem. Then BMD added compression to cinema DNG so that the Pocket camera could actually work, since it was based on SD cards, which at time were pretty pitiful performance wise.
BMD put a lot of R&D effort and money into developing BRaw, which uses a partial deBayer in camera to both save space and reduce compute overhead on the computer side, necessary to enable a 12K camera.
You'll hear a lot of people whine that Braw isn't true raw because of yada yada idealistic silliness that means nothing, and people who actually USE Braw are quite happy with it, because it's very good.
I think the people who complain not only haven't used Braw but also are blindly ignorant of the reality that Black Magic dominates the color grading stage of post production, and to maintain that position BMD needs to maintain both top notch color science and also keep paying attention to what actual professionals are offering as feedback. And most of the professionals who've worked with Braw are quite happy with it, because it's a great codec.
Amazing that it took me like 5 years to learn this tidbit. I started with photography and always felt editing photos was pretty easy. Then when I switched to video I was like “WTF IS THIS?!” … it made no sense and I just convinced myself that it must be some weird video anomaly and insanely expensive to implement the photo equivalent workflow with RAW…. TIL
I went from video to photo & was pleasantly surprized by extra editing capabilities of raw, it's upsetting that raw video is not avaiable in cameras like a7Siii
Great explanation Matt. I wonder why more companies don't just do what Blackmagic did with BRAW. So much better than not having any internal RAW option at all.
Only most of them do...
Thanks. This was enlightening. I have caught up with the court case between Red and Nikon, but did not understand what this was about.
Canon, Apple, Pana, etc. could say: "Your Honor, our new model does not record internal raw, the memory for this is at the LCD screen"
Ruck Fed LOL
Fascinating. Super interesting vid Matt! Fingers crossed that crack gets wider... sooner! haha
Cheers
-Ryan
This is exciting news! I literally have to take deep breaths to stay calm whenever anyone talks about RED's clear abuse of patent law. Seems like that may come to an end in the coming months/years. Bravo Nikon!!
This is incredibly informative, and also very surprising that it's not brought up in conversation more. Even today if you go on so many "camera rankings" or "the best cameras for so and so" most of the "cons" include "can't record internal raw." But this shines a pretty great light on the fact that it isn't really that big a fault on those companies and therefore not really "their" con to be that accountable for.
I was literally thinking that Matt, I was literally mentally screaming at the screen. What about black magic??? 😂 That makes sense though. Only asking because I currently film with a black magic pocket cinema camera 4K, and I’m wanting to move to a more appropriate event camera, but it’s frustrating having to give up raw.
That's what I'm saying. How can you not mention Blackmagic????
blackmagic raw is not officially considered full raw since it does the debayering process in camera, hence they dont have to deal with red.
@@ascari100 RAW is also laegely a marketing trick. Do you often need to debayer your RAWs in a different way? Or do you usually touch the RAW processing settings? Perhaps WB but I believe it usually happens after debayering. CAC is probably done before debayering and it's baked in BRAW where as I think at least Canon allows you to choose later.
I have also heard some claims that RAW doesn't exist because it doesn't truly capture the light but whatever happens after fixed color filters (which is technically true 😂) but well you really also can't change the electronic parameters of the sensor in post, e.g. the electronic gain can't be changed in post. Some cameras also allow changing WB electronically (by adjusting the gain between colors) as well as digitally.
Notice; the smallest of the 3 companies; Nikon Sony Canon; was the one to stand up to Red the bully...
Thanks heaps for explaining it simply and I hope they can come up with their own compression patents 😊❤
But Blackmagic with Braw is a Raw internal encoded format as well. right?
Ruck Fed
I never used ARRI cameras, but I think it’s actually exciting for other companies to offer a clean raw output more often too. If you calculate the bit rate ARRiraw has exactly 12 but per pixel per frame , which nothing else I saw comes close . I think you have VariCam pure which records pure, but it’s not as popular and also very expensive camera
My white balance can't wait!
The patented aspect is illuminating. I don’t know internal recording workings, but couldn’t there be some type of intermediary data transfer device, like a vertical battery grip, that externalized a step of the data writing?
I can't believe they were even allowed to patent that. This is blatant patent trolling.
RED is a leach on the film industry. They know the only thing that keeps their market is their patent on an idea instead of a technique. If the FX3, R5 or whatever got these updates the industry would be much much more competitive again. It would be a good thing if the EU got involved (for the EU market at least) like with Apple's petty USB C arguments. But I doubt they'd have much interest in a niece like video cameras instead of something universal like phones sadly.
I’d love to see a FX3 with internal R3D. Jarred Land CEO of Red stated that Red does license internal compressed Raw to other camera companies. And when he said that he was speaking directly to the Nikon lawsuit. As for Canon… they already have internal compressed Raw… far more compressed than the 3x or greater that is mentioned in the Red patent. Canon and Red share IP. Reds feature Canon’s RF mount. They are 100% compatible with Canon RF lenses. They ship with Canon RF to EF adapters. Ever wonder the compression ratio that is needed to allow a Canon C70 to record Raw to a v60 SD card?
Imagine a world where we had multiple compressed raw format, programs like Davinci accepting all those files. Mannnn that would be awesome
Nikon could either differentiate their compression so much it didn’t fall under the patent or it found code in Reds compression software that invalidated the patent. I would think it is the later where they found Red used something that was actually public use or something that was already patent in someway.
Do you use a teleprompter? This is a great informative video! Diddnt even need b-roll! Good job thanks for the info!
JESUS! FX6 and FX3 with internal 16bit RAW…. OMG… can’t even imagine the world of possibilities
Canon RAW is compressed. They have "LT", "ST", and "HQ" modes, which correspond to 5:1, 3:1, and 2:1 or thereabouts. They have a deal with RED (who use the RF mount for their cinema cameras). I use a Sony and am not flag-waving for any particular company, but I think that's a pretty lazy oversight if I'm going to be honest.
No other company would have given us Sub 10k Digital Cinema Options with that technology. Komodo and now K-X would not exist. If not for RED the cinema cameras you all KEEP complaining you want, would exist...at $40,000 a pop cuz greed. 90% of the complainers wouldn't be able to afford these theoretical non-red cameras and thus wouldn't be recording in RAW anyway. You complained for nothing. Go get a Komodo. I hear a bunch just hit the market.
Just Changed Video Cameras Forever ! = Really, a tiny crack appeared...
WTF, !!! PLS, DON'T CLICKBAIT ME AGAIN !
It’s times like this I truly love my Sigma FP. Can’t beat CDNG raw, even with its other limitations.
Imagine a world where technological breakthroughs were openly shared. Imagine companies succeeding on the merits of their production quality, rather than by throttling the advancement of the medium they are championing.
this is why contrary to popular belief, capitalism limits technological development
Yea! Super interesting video!
For anyone interested take a close look at the way canon and red have worked together. C70 has internal compressed raw. Komodo and raptor has RF mount and canon looks like it has given Red their autofocus technology though clearly limited in it’s implementation. Canon strategy towards hybrid shooting and selling a shed load of lenses and staying away from cine cameras. Very interesting.
Canon do have lots of cinema cameras though, they just aren't popular on narrative stuff.
If Red's only real sales advantage is the ability to record internal RAW that really doesn't speak much to their ability to compete beyond a format.
Their whole tactic is to suck you in to their ecosystem trap to sell you expensive propriotery crap.
But thanks to that they are the only other company able to use the RF mount 😊 ...which largely exists because the EF patents expired. Surely it reduces the flange distance but it's not such a huge deal in the field where the majority of lenses are huge anyway. RF also keeps the annoyance of the play in the mount, i.e. you can accidentally turn or shift the lens when you touch it.
Red makes great cameras even if your shoot them in pro res with performance that gets really close to alexa. At least with raptor. This idea that raw is the only thing they have to offer isn’t really factual
@@joshkiddfilms1295good point, I think that every brand brings something valuable & unique to the table, regardless of shortcomings
Sounds exciting! Hope it happens! Let’s go Sony fx4 with internal compressed raw!
Wow, that's impressive. It's actually very easy to get a patent invalidated in US District court or at the PTAB, so if Red went to the wall against big companies like that and they still have a patent, that means that patent is definitely not too broad. Good for them, and maybe we should all thank them for inventing this thing and disclosing it to all of us for free in exchange for only 20 years of exclusivity (that exchange is what a patent is).
You're framing this as Red not wanting to take the risk of a ruling on these recent invalidity measures, and that probably played a part, but the main thing that happens when a patent lawsuit gets "settled" is that the Plaintiff got paid and Licensed the defendant in exchange. If the Defendant buys a license, there's not more dispute, hence no more lawsuit.
I like your brain ❤
There's a big problem with RED too, they started selling cameras with the compressed raw a year before they file the patent which should mean the patent should not be valid. I have an R5 and shot a concert and had like closed to 1tb of space on my 2tb card. Also jini tech has some good info on red too. www.youtube.com/@JinniTech/videos
Just over 5 years ago, (before they had committed to trying mirrorless) I was wondering if Nikon was on its way out. Now they are crushing it. I'm wondering if they are going to get into Cinema Camera market. They've proven they are quite capable, and they got N-Raw. Now how about something in that Ursa-Mini, Eva-1, C500, FX7 world of form-factor and IO?
Glad Nikon stepped up to the plate......Good info
Sure hope RED doesn't sue Matt for this video... 😬
Thanks Matt! Red's patent is set for renewal in 2025 or 2026, if I remember correctly. It's a good time to see which companies will jump onboard to challenge Nikon. I would absolutely adore it if the Lumix S cameras gained internal compressed RAW, for example. Or even the Sony lineup.
Panasonic would propably be up to it quickly. They always put everything they got to the newest cameras and arn't prone to overheat anyways.
@@cmxpiipl Yep.. been using GH5, and now S1.. not a single overheat, ever. Panasonic cameras are tanks, and now they have new heat dissipation tech too
Am I missing something here? Shouldn’t they challenge Red instead of Nikon? I thought that Red is the company that holds the patent?
@@jamesma524 he ment challenge as in competition not a legal case against them.
@@jamesma524 Oops... typo, sorry. I meant challenge Red patent, and collaborate with Nikon to challenge the patent
I really hope my A7iv gets an update in the future for internal raw, would be game changer
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
@@JerimiahCook😢yea Sony's firmware upgrades have been slacking, but I'm sure that they are listening to this feedback - it takes time to implement strategy changes
What about Prores Raw, isn't this compressed Raw? DJI Inspire 2 have this..
it's a workaround that generates bigger file sizes.
But how come the C70 records raw lite ? Do they pay a license or something ? Trying to understand more
I'm by no means an expert in any of this, but wouldn't RED have raked it in if it had licensed out it's process? I mean, I'll probably never purchase a 34,000 camera, but I've surely bought cameras in the $500 range. I think licensing would have allowed RED at least a bit of revenue from a market segment that they'll never be able to tap.
I'M SO EXCITED! AND I JUST CAN'T HIDE IT!
I think you're looking at this thing wrong, I'm hoping that computers, SD and CF Express cards catchup in terms of processing power and affordability, I don't want them to compress the raw in camera losing quality and flexibility in post. Just call it something else, cause once you compress it it's no longer raw.
The best part about UA-cam is you can say whatever you want, whether it’s factual or not, and then hundreds of people will comment with their perspective as if it’s fact, when it’s usually not.
This is pretty cut and dry. CEO of red is on record saying Nikon licensed the IP. This would follow a similar pattern as DJI recently, and makes more sense than some of the other proposed ideas as to why this didn’t finish in court. I.e. “Jarred is lying. Red is broke. Nikon had some groundbreaking strategy etc.”
Honestly, I think it’s a brilliant marketing strategy for Nikon if you think about it. Nobody was paying any attention to Nikon for video. Not on a large scale. Now they are Robin Hood with this false narrative, and everyone is aware their cameras can shoot internal raw they licensed and they have generated a new interest in their cameras.
I understand the logic behind why people don’t feel like red should have been awarded the patent in the first place, but the fact is they were and it’s held up multiple times in court. So that’s where we are. I don’t see why people get mad at red because they won’t give it away. I think that’s unrealistic to expect a business to do that, and if Nikon or Blackmagic or Sony held the patent, I think they’d be acting in the same fashion.
DJI’s model of passing the cost of having craw to the user I think is really logical, and has me scratching my head as to why other companies aren’t doing this.
Nikon acquired Red... ahahah
Don't forget Blackmagic. They have been offering Internal Raw since their first camera, and now, with Blackmagic Raw, they have made it available to every filmmaker.
He mentions that in the video. But its different.
Tell me you didn't watch the video, by not telling me that you didn't watch the video
Great video Matt. I am glad Nikon appears to have somewhat won this game of “chicken” as it were. Now for Sony to lawyer up and do likewise.
yea others should follow suit, everyone should have easy access to raw video
Microphone input jack on my Canon 90D broke today so I guess I know what brand of camera is going to be buying in the future 😂 wow.. It's such bs that Red was able to do this
Am I wrong to think that this patent is why N-RAW 8K/60fps from my Z9 won’t work in any editor except DaVinci?
Very early models of the URSA 4K had cinema dng built in as a codec in camera. Optional Firmware update forced it to get removed.
I've often wanted these camera companies to create an external recorder that plugs into and gets power from the camera like the GoPro media mods. So long as the mod could do all the compressing, it could probably even be controled from the camera body. Just my mind running wild for a minute.
Yeah, I'm surprised this hasn't been done yet
By the way small correction, Red didn’t invent the first raw video compressed format! They simple took existing technology and patent it so others couldn’t use it.
So many ‘um actually’ comments from people who clearly didn’t sit through the entire video
well I got a 10 years old camera that can do intenal raw and I simply love the image quality (BMPCC-OG)
Hope the other players in the industry team up and litigate RED into oblivion. Their pricing policy and "everything is proprietary" attitude makes me loathe that company with a passion.
Why don't we all gather and file a petition??? Would this possibly work? We have to do something about it! :)
Wow, I always thought Red was cool. But now they just sound like very greedy bullys. Thats too bad.
Just because Red settled, doesn’t mean that Nikon came close to winning. Red might be infringing on Nikon patents or something similar, and Nikon could have said, “you want to go down this route?”
I don't think it matters. Select a flat colour profile and go to town post edit with colour correction etc.
Thanks for the very interesting info, Matt! 🙏🏻That would be so amazing if this change will come for Sony 🤩
its like having a patent on using sunlight to gain vitamin d without using a shade
That software patent seemed to be a mistake and should be appealed. It's like if Microsoft patented operating systems, which they can't. Different software algorithms to compress internal raw video should clearly be allowed.
Unfortunately we don't know what really happened.
It is possible that Nikon had enough evidence to win and RED bailed out. It is possible that Nikon saw that they would lose and payed money or exchanged Nikon-patents to get the license. Probably RED knew they would win but decided to make some money in the few years until the patent runs out.
If anybody else starts to do the same, it is possible RED just let them do it. It is also possible that RED will sue them and Nikon might support RED to keep an advantage over all the others.
The fact that it is possible to handel the whole patent issue in secrecy is like a minefield. Every other company don't know what exactly is allowed and has to risk to produce cameras and get sued years later for an unknown amount of money. It is not possible to go to a court or the patent office and get an answer to the question "This is my product, this is the patent, is this allowed or not?".
This is a general design flaw in the whole patent system.
Nikon just bought RED lol
Matt. Your content is so good. Please rotate your camera clockwise 2 degrees so it's straight.
What about c-raw light in the C70?
This patent is now owned by Nikon/Red. Good luck with this compressed Raw video tech in other cameras, unless of course they are willing to pay royalty fees to Nikon/Red. Nikon did not buy Red for most likely a nice sum of currency to just let all this technology being used for FREE by other companies. Sony, Canon, Fuji, or any other company operates the same way.
Wishful thinking, it's NOT happening.