Canon purchases 24p license
 

Just heard on the Two Minute Drill that Canon have purchased a 24p license.

Does this mean a new camera is on the way? :)

Simon is talking about http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/T...inutedrill.mp3

If it ain't there, try http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/TMD/archive

This is the direct link...

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/T...inutedrill.mp3

so what is the 24p on the XL2? Did they not have a license? Or is it not real 24p?

24P on the XL2 or other Canon camcorders isn't true 24P. The CCDs, even on the XLH1, are interlaced CCDs and progressive images must be interpolated from two interlaced fields.

While there is technically no direct licensing requirement in terms of patents/copyrights, etc.. for someone to produce a 24p/24FPS camera, it seems that most manufacturers are paying royalties to 24P, LLC. A "company" that holds the patent on acquiring 24 progressive frames per second from a digital imaging device, in order to replicate the appearance of film. Robert Faber, who holds the patent, is nothing more than a bully and it is outright extortion that he collects royalties for such a patent as it is very vague and extremely all-encompassing. Faber actually chased down Sony several years ago when they started shipping some of their intial 24p capable HD cameras and Sony lost (actually settled out of court). All licensing of 24P from Faber is handled confidentially on an individual basis and several cases have supposedly bordered on blackmail and illegal activity and they all involve a patent that should never have been granted in the first place. When Faber applied for his patent in '92, it was hardly an original idea then and various camera makers were already talking about such cameras and were playing with prototypes. It's almost as bad as the early '90s patent application by the Pizza Hut Corporation to patent their stuffed-crust pizza... A novelty of many pizza kitchens world-wide that has been around for at least a few hundred years. Perhaps I should go apply for a patent on 300FPS acquisition via a digital imaging system and then whenever upcoming digital cameras capable of 12.5X slow-mo arrive (240FPS digital are right around the corner), I can start collecting money for every slow-mo shot in every major motion picture.

Check out this link to a blurb at studiodaily.

Anyway, all that this shows is that Canon is developing or even preparing to release a 24P capable camera. Beyond that, I don't think anyone really knows what Canon is up to and they're very good at keeping quiet about their new products. It could be a new 720p consumer HDV camera or a 1080p pro camera, or anything in between. 24P and variable-rate progressive technology from 24P,LLC is currently used in just about every progressive-scan camera out there, including the Varicam, HVX200, DVX100, etc.. It's a small license, and could mean a lot of things, but it shows that Canon is taking a step towards a camera that has true progressive frame shooting abilities.

Actually, the XL2 does indeed have progressive scan CCDs, and its 24P implementation is exactly the same as that used on the Panasonic DVX100. In other words, 24P on the XL2 is as "true" as it is on the DVX100.

Would RED have to pay this Pencil neck?

I think RED can afford it.

AHh yes im forgetting. Cheap camera, billion dollar company!

I think one problem is that 24F isn't supported by FCP, the second most used NLE, and maybe other NLE's(?). Does anybody know how the XLH1 has been selling? I know the XL2 has made quite a bit of money, maybe not DVX money, but quite a bit as I see it being used almost everywhere else if not a DVX.

Also, maybe they don't want to stick to their "F"-style progressive scheme, maybe they want to save a whole lot of trouble and just do progressive with the option of true 24p.

I'm not exactly sure about numbers, but it seems to me that the XLH1 is selling pretty decently, considering the price tag, and that most people thought no one would buy it. It may not be as big as the XL2, but it's certainly selling.

And that begs the question of how Canon managed to do that without having to pay a 24p license?

Or Panasonic for that matter, right?

Nope. Panasonic have the license.

Perhaps they did for the XL2...went with the F mode on the H1 to avoid such license, and have decided to purchase a 24P license for their forthcoming offering whatever it is.

A new camera? Well it would seem likely given the timeline between their previous GL series offerings. The GL2 would be up for replacement with some type of HDV camera. I suspect that's where the licensing is going.

-gb-

Does JVC have the license for the HD100?

I don't think so, I think they came up with their own style of 24p that was more or less the same thing, but HDV-ized. But I'm not sure, anybody wish to clarify?

well maybe Canon came up with their own style of 24p for the XL2. Probably just as easy to pay the guy for a license.

Maybe Canon is really going to surprise everyone with the next camera. The rebates end today on the GL2 etc.

Nope, they got it from Panasonic. The XL2 and the DVX100 share the exact same 24P implementation. Technologies are traded and licensed among manufacturers all the time... Canon's Frame mode originally came from Panasonic as well (although they've improved on it since acquiring it in 1997).

ok but I take it is not the same thing that the 24p license lets you use. Maybe they won't even use it. Just avoiding court problems. The license is probably cheaper than lawyers!!

No argument there -- you're probably right! No doubt the license is much more affordable than litigation.

Especially in Japan. I was told years ago by an engineer in our semiconductor company that Japan shares their trade secrets with each other but then they compete in the marketing of their respective product offerings.

-gb-

This is a common problem is the patent system, which system often gets exploited legally, and illegally, with relatively little done to stop it, and stream line it for business. How "obvious" is it, to catch any frame rate alone 24p. I would like to know how valid it is, maybe it is something unique. Unfortunately, rather than doing their job, various patent offices have come down to requiring a costly process to catch mistaken patents after they have been issued, a long and costly one. I don't know why companies just keep on paying rather than ganging up and invalidating patents, it can be cheaper in the long run and would reduce the amount of cases. To reduce inducement to deliberately falsely patent and exploit, there needs to be jail, automatic search for bad patents, suspension on suspicion where there is obvious proof, with open use in the mean time (and post restoration of royalties if proven valid) and all future patents involving such a person thoroughly examined and proven (at extra cost in deliberate cases).

I'm reasonably familiar with Faber, having met him at his facility when I had various projects processed through Filmlook in the 90's. His system for converting 60i footage to 24p may now seem like not such a big deal as it can be had via shareware plugins, but at the time it was pretty revolutionary. Being granted a patent on it meant that he not only had something that worked, he was smart enough to have the patent worded in such a way that it protected his invention. I don't know if he built on other people's work to create the process, but let's remember that Edison did exactly that for certain of his inventions and he is still celebrated to this day--it's part of the process.

There are numerous aspects of the camera manufacturing process that have patents held on them by different manufacturers and the others pay licensing fees to incorporate. Had Sony patented the 24p process, Panasonic, JVC and now Canon would be paying them for the license, and would this same personal attack be taking place? I don't know the particulars about allegations of "blackmail and illegal activity", but I do know that Faber had a product that worked and worked well, and is now reaping the rewards of having foresight to go for his patent on it--it's not like he scammed a patent on a theoretical concept that he hadn't even gotten to work.

Guess what I'm saying is: this is the American Dream; make smart business moves and make your bundle. He has every right to protect his patent and I'm sure it's a long and painful process to be able to fight against the legal arms of massive corporations for this.

But I am open to hearing more substantiation of why he is being touted as a bad guy in this.

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.

Patents are only as good as they hold up in court. So if the patent on 24P was not valid, I'm sure that any one of the companies we're talking about would not hesitate to challenge the patent. All of these companies have patent lawers that would love to prove their worth by not paying a licensing fee. Lawyers from each of the companies mentioned have examined the patent and weighed "how good" the patent is. Just the fact that all of these companies are agreeing to pay as opposed to challenge is one sure sign that the patent is probably a valid one.

It seems that every company that has to pay a license to a patent holder thinks they are being blackmailed. Our patent system is currently under attack (against the small entrepreneur and for large corporations). If patents loose their effectiveness, only large corporations will invent new things and profiting from your ability to come up with new ideas will go away.

Very good point Jesse.

Instead of illegal, don't you mean it's immoral or shouldn't be legal? I don't see how you could exploit the patent system illegally. Wouldn't the law (whether or not you consider it moral or just) be on your side?

2- In my opinion (what shouldn't be legal, not legal advice standpoint), a patent for 24p acquisition is frivolous and shouldn't be allowed. Specific algorithms for 60i-->24p conversion would be something that should be patented... but not 24p acquisition. I mean, film cameras already do 24p acquisition...

3- (Speculation) If you are the patent holder in this case, you don't have to sue the 'infringing' company right away. From a real world / business standpoint, you'd wait until the infringing company has generated significant revenue... therefore the award for damages would be higher.

The reason the 'infringing' company doesn't want to get into a lawsuit is because:
A- The court might issue an injunction to stop sales of the infringing product.
B- The patent-holding company has a small chance of winning. So they might score a home run and win a fairly substantial settlement.
C- Even if they lose, they have legal fees to pay for.
So it could be cheaper for them to pay for a license instead of getting into a lawsuit.

But again, this is just speculation...

What I find odd though is that Fabers original software converted 60i to 24p. How does a patent like that affect a camera that has a true progressive scan CCD or CMOS and records to solid state or other non-tape format in true progressive scan? I can't see how his patent could cover that. Yet it has been mentioned on oither sites that Panasonic had to pay him when they developed the Varicam which doesn't have any form of interlace conversion in sight. Unless there is something more going on when it lays the information down to tape?

He must have it worded pretty darn good. Smart guy. Good lawyer too.

Probably the most relevant thing about all this is that the original patent is only going to be in effect for a few more years, and thus all of these licenses will expire at that time. Unless his later patents were also cleverly worded enough to protect the 24p concept.

Thing is though, does that mean that everyone with a telecine machine has to pay a fee to him too? The more I think about this, the more I think this patent is absurd.

I believe his patents are for reverse telecine--60 to 24, whereas telecine is 24 to 60 (traditionally speaking--of course these days there is one to one 24 fps film to 24p DVD)

So why did Panasonic need to pay him for the Varicam? Also, all of the cameras that do 24p lay down the footage in PsF form. Ie 24p to 60i, exactly what the patent is for. So telecine comes under that banner too depending on the transfer. Film to 60i video for example.

I can only theorize, I'm not an expert on this. I do know that the basis of the patent specifies video as the originating format, excluding film, which is why telecine is not involved.

I think you can read the patent here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/5,335,013

The patent document also talks about 3:2 pulldown during telecine.

Faber has some other patents, listed on his company's website.

It might be the threat of good lawyers that keeps these companies licensing the patent instead of risking a lawsuit. I'm guessing part of it is because people don't know what the outcome of a case will be (think about it: if people knew, there'd be a lot less cases going to court!).

The purpose of a patent is sharing of knowledge in exchange for exclusive, first use rights. After the patent expires, the knowledge is already a matter of record and part of the vast data pool for others to spring off from.

Generally, it's a favorable win-win situation. As an engineer, I often consult the patents to ensure that we don't infringe. There are plenty of folks out there whom merely conjure up ideas and commit them to paper in hopes of snaring someone whom actually got their hands dirty, inventing the same thing.

In many cases it can be a long legal battle to see whom truely owns the idea. That idea should go to the one whom did the work, and not merely hire a crafty lawyer and be first to file. Yet, it's cheaper to just pay a fee.

Sure you can't patent a "tire", but you can patent a "tread" design for a tire. However, at the time the patent was issued, if the concept was novel, it's patentable. Some of you may laugh, "24p, indeed", but if this guy was the only one to file a claim, and had device or process in place to back it up, then it's reasonable to see why it was granted.

His patent is worded to extend coverage over any form of 24FPS imagery that is captured by electronic means. It's actually a very lengthy and word-heavy patent that is very generalized and all-encompassing. In other words, it's a steaming pile of BS. It all comes down to having a pretty good patent attorney that knows the system and having it reviewed by patent clerks that are uneducated (for the most part) on the technical aspects of what he was applying for. His method of 60i to 24p conversion wasn't the first, nor is it unique, but he was the first to patent with it. This is the bulk of his patent and obviously why it was granted. However, the additional fluff and items included in order to protect his intellectual property are where it gets sticky and the patent goes beyond protecting his conversion method and includes any form of electronic and/or digital means of aquiring 24P video. Sony fought him in court and settled... Even though Faber's patent may be a bunch of crap in regards to most 24p implementations, the fact is the patent was granted. In the eyes of the courts, he holds the patent on such a process, no matter how generalized and can demand compensation.

Faber probably wouldn't be so poorly thought of if he handled the situation differently. But nearly every 24p license is handled confidentially and rumors abound of each company paying differing sums, related to their perceived net worth or financial muscle rather than a legitimate licensing and pricing scale. It's extortion at the fullest extent of still being legal and even that is questionable... But it's cheaper and easier to simply pay than it is to fight it out.

Any device that records 24p into a 60i stream or 25p into a 50i stream, etc.. or vice versa is covered. The Varicam records 24p (and other frame rates) into a native 60i stream.

The sneaky guy also managed to squeeze in coverage for direct 24p recording and playback and direct acquisition of 24p for processing into any other format. So Panasonic had to pay for Varicam, DVX100, HVX200... Sony had to cough up for the CineAlta and even the CF24 modes of the FX1/A1 camcorders.

So when does it expire? Patents are good for 17 years if I remember correctly.

Yeah, technical patents are 17 years by default, but they can be renewed under various circumstances or new patents can be filed to perpetuate and protect previous patents. Faber's latest patents surrounding 24p and held by his companies (24P, LLC, etc..) are dated '94 and '96. So there's at least 8 more years to go, provided he doesn't keep finding a way to renew or augment them with new filings.

While we're on the subject of frivolous patents, check this one out... It should be classified under the "should never have been granted" category. Nothing truly unique and very poorly documented