DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Digital Video Industry News (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/)
-   -   Canon purchases 24p license (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/70494-canon-purchases-24p-license.html)

Ash Greyson July 8th, 2006 10:03 AM

There is no real world difference between 24P native or "real" 24P and 24P progressive pulled out of a 60i stream. The Vari shoots everything at 60p. Someone at Canon told me a while back that the license is specific PER CAMERA, meaning you can buy a blanket license or pay a per unit. There is some formula. The XL2 is a REAL progressive camera that uses the exact same pulldown process as the DVX and even the higher end cameras that embed 24P in a 60i stream.

I understand that the HD-SDI also has a VERY expensive license but it is associated with audio and video. I was told it increases the price per unit by about $6000. That is why you have no audio over SDI on the XLH.

Maybe Canon is purchasing it for a GLH1 camera, or the XLH2 but dont be confused about the XL2 which is a real progressive 24P camera.



ash =o)

Greg Boston July 8th, 2006 10:17 AM

From the summary that Glen posted...

Quote:

A grain simulator provides random noise with filtering which simulates grain pattern imagery. Preferably, the noise is digital pseudorandom. The random noise is added to the digital-sampled video image and modified by a gray scale modifier.
I guess Canon decided not to play ball and this is why they removed the film grain from the XL2. Probably had a confidential settlement based on the number of units sold to that point. I remember when they removed it the reason was, 'because the software is no longer available'.

Hmmm...very interesting indeed.

-gb-

Daniel J. Wojcik July 12th, 2006 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse Redman
Patents are almost universally rejected by the patent office. It often takes several rounds of "explaining" a patent to the patent office before a patent is issued. This often takes two to four years of proving to the patent office that your idea is unique.

And yet they always manage to allow things like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5443036

Jeff Kilgroe July 12th, 2006 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel J. Wojcik
And yet they always manage to allow things like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5443036

ROFLMAO!

Any patent clerk that stamped his approval on that submission should be fired.

Tony Tibbetts July 17th, 2006 09:50 PM

Didn't Canon also acquire the AVCHD license? Which has 720p 24fps specs? Maybe a solid state GL3/GLH1. Hmmm... that could be very cool.

Rafael Lopes July 20th, 2006 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts
Didn't Canon also acquire the AVCHD license? Which has 720p 24fps specs? Maybe a solid state GL3/GLH1. Hmmm... that could be very cool.


That would be the way to go. I'm sick and tired of how sony keeps teasing us.

Zack Vohaska July 20th, 2006 08:22 AM

Forget a new camera! I just want P2 prices to drop!

Robert Sanders July 25th, 2006 03:44 PM

I didn't know Canon used P2 cards.

;)

Mark Kubat July 25th, 2006 10:11 PM

why not true 24p then all the time???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe
... Sony had to cough up for the CineAlta and even the CF24 modes of the FX1/A1 camcorders.

Gosh, really? So even more stuptifying as to why Sony put that silly nilly CF24 mode that *bites* instead of "true" DVX type 24P???

David Kennett August 4th, 2006 02:58 PM

I would be surprised to see Sony paying royalties to anyone! They seem to use pretty much their own stuff. Ever see a Sony DLP set?

Dithering (adding noise) has been a standard anti-aliasing technique since the earliest digital audio days.

I always thought that to qualify for a patent, an idea had to unique enough NOT to be obvious to a knowledgeable person in the field. The patent system was supposed to encourage development. Since the lawers got involved, it seems to have the opposite effect - oh! that's been always.

A friend of mine who holds the original patent for digitizing video (1973) suggested to me to enclose any unique circuit in black epoxy and put a part number on it!

Rant's over!

Marvin Emms August 12th, 2006 11:25 AM

After reading the whole thread and trying to see things from both points of view, I finally gave up and fell over the following website trying to glean some more information on the hopefully pending camcorder.

http://www.studentfilmmakers.com/new...cle_1172.shtml

Which would be completely uninteresting, were it not purportedly written by Robert Faber himself. Its a peculiar mix of 'patent speak' and blatent self promotion I happened to find very amusing. I particually like the whole written-in-the-third-person-quoting-himself bit and he didn't even use the word 'multiplicity' once.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network