Thank god. The actual patent (roughly; I researched it myself, but a few years ago so memory fuzzy) involves compressing frames/video before debayering which makes the streams more easily compressible; instead of after debayering, and as part of a camera (internal RAW). Yeah.
In the past 15 years, I have purchased five Lumix cameras including the new L10 (which I have yet to receive). I like their cameras a lot. The dedication to pursue this battle is another reason I am certain to buy more.
Thank god. The actual patent (roughly; I researched it myself, but a few years ago so memory fuzzy) involves compressing frames/video before debayering which makes the streams more easily compressible; instead of after debayering, and as part of a camera (internal RAW). Yeah.
Wasnt the patent pretty much "and then I dump raw sensor data to a JPEG2000 codec"?
In the past 15 years, I have purchased five Lumix cameras including the new L10 (which I have yet to receive). I like their cameras a lot. The dedication to pursue this battle is another reason I am certain to buy more.
Unless I’ve missed it; Lumix has nothing to do with this long standing patent battle. Could you elaborate on the supposed relationship?
Lumix is Panasonic, the people who fought this battle in court.
Don't the Lumix cameras support 4k recording with the Apple ProRES codec? https://www.dpreview.com/news/3429948804/apple-loses-patent-...
....what? Lumix and Red cameras have almost no market overlap. Only one model series even comes close to Red's cheapest camera.
I think you have your answer right there.
This is a terrible patent (it's basically a list of features) and unfortunately Red was able to milk it for almost 20 years.
> One possibility the abolition of the license fees reportedly due to Red from users of Apple’s ProRes RAW codec.
This would be great but I’m not going to hold my breath.
I've been waiting for this result for a long time - great news!!
Wow that’s big!