On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:43:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> 1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.
>> 
>> The same technique can be applied to JPEG as well, but you will run
>> into posterization much sooner.
> 
> Indeed, I quickly discovered that it's usually hopeless to try.

Just depends on the tools and one's willingness to experiment.

>>> 2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?
>> 
>> A slight under-exposure can usually be compensated for in
>> post-processing without too much quality loss. With over-exposure, some
>> detail is generally lost.
> 
> A slight anything is better than a drastic something. ;-)
> 
> If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black. Same
> problem as if it's over-exposed.

Sure, that's why I only tend to slightly underexpose the image - I find I 
get good results that way (and who argues with good results?).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
>> decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
> 
> Well, it's the end user doing the decoding. And if I upload an h.264
> video to a host and that host distributes it, the host isn't doing
> encoding or decoding any more than the routers are. So while this may be
> business as usual, it doesn't sound like the legal system has figured
> out the reality of the situation yet.
> 

Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
user doing any patent infringment.

>> If the video encoder
>> paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
>> be asked to, then the video host should not be liable.
> 
> That would be my guess, yes, but this is the legal system we're talking
> about.
> 

Patents have been relatively clear of all the drama that surrounds
copyright enforcement. There is still that trouble over what patents
should be allowed to cover, but enforcement seems to be pretty stable.

> And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
> software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video
> back to the USA?
> 
> I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
> 

Now, that would be a fun one. By patent law, as long as all of the
infringement took place outside jurisdiction, it should be in the clear.
So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.
Now, the trouble would be that no one in the patent coverage could watch
the video, unless they sent it back out of the area and received back an
unencumbered format. At which point, you are better distributing the
first format to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Now, they mention
>> YouTube, and I suppose since currently YouTube does both encode from any
>> video type to h.264 and then display through a decoder that they are
>> distrubting, their flash player, that they might be liable to pay a
>> license as well.
> 
> Youtube doesn't distribute a video decoder. Flash has it built-in, so it's 
> Adobe who is distributing the decoder.
> 

So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
> user doing any patent infringment.

Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.

> Patents have been relatively clear of all the drama that surrounds
> copyright enforcement. There is still that trouble over what patents
> should be allowed to cover, but enforcement seems to be pretty stable.

True. That doesn't make it less costly. :-)

>> And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
>> software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video
>> back to the USA?
>>
>> I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
> 
> Now, that would be a fun one. By patent law, as long as all of the
> infringement took place outside jurisdiction, it should be in the clear.

One would hope.

> So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
> is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.

I disagree with that. Decoding infringes the patents, at least in the USA. 
If I buy a patented device someone else built, I'm not allowed to use it 
without a license. Most people who build the device buy a license that 
allows the buyers to use it without restriction. However, MPEG-LA doesn't 
sell that sort of license, or it's prohibitively expensive.

> Now, the trouble would be that no one in the patent coverage could watch
> the video, unless they sent it back out of the area and received back an
> unencumbered format. At which point, you are better distributing the
> first format to begin with.

Yes, exactly.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.

It depends what license Adobe bought. Maybe they only bought a distribution 
license, and not a use license.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> So Adobe pays the license, it still isn't the end user's responsibility.
> 
> It depends what license Adobe bought. Maybe they only bought a
> distribution license, and not a use license.
> 

They are distributing a product with the intent that someone uses it. It
would take a very determined judge to read their distribution as intent
only to distribute without the user actually using the product. Which,
if that is their intent, they are already in violation of some many
consumer protection acts that they would be liable for any cost to the
consumer.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.

> If I buy a patented device someone else built, I'm not allowed to 
> use it without a license. Most people who build the device buy a license 
> that allows the buyers to use it without restriction. However, MPEG-LA 
> doesn't sell that sort of license, or it's prohibitively expensive.

That's just silly. How in the name of God are you supposed to know 
whether a device you bought from somebody else requires a license, and 
if so who you need the licsense from?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> > Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
> > user doing any patent infringment.

> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.

  I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
distributing patented devices. You are still free to take a patent (all
patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.

  This makes a lot more sense to me, in more than one way. Most importantly,
a patent forbidding someone from building the patented device himself and
using it in private is more or less unenforceable. Laws which are
unenforceable are pretty useless.

  With physical devices it might in some cases make *some* sense to forbid
their private building and usage if the user somehow gets significant
benefits from it, espcially if the device is something you use in public
(let's say for example, something that you put on a visible part of your
car). However, given that you can (or could until very recently) patent
methods instead of devices in the US, it starts making less and less sense.
If you patent training a cat with a laser pointer, how exactly are you going
to enforce it? Are you going to put survaillance in everybody's home to see
that they are not breaking your patent?

> > So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
> > is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.

> I disagree with that. Decoding infringes the patents, at least in the USA. 

  Luckily that's not the case here. (Well, yet. Companies are lobbying the
EU really hard to make this happen. Let's hope the EU makes the wise decision
for once.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
>>> user doing any patent infringment.
> 
>> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.
> 
>   I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
> distributing patented devices.

GIYF.  http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/rights.html

> You are still free to take a patent (all
> patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
> if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
> you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.

Not in the USA.

>   This makes a lot more sense to me, in more than one way. 

Me too. Sadly, that's not how it is in the USA.  IANAL.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:21:59 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>   I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
> distributing patented devices. You are still free to take a patent (all
> patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
> if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
> you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.

Just for clarification:
http://www.prh.fi/en/patentit/hakusuomi.html
http://www.prh.fi/en/patentit/lainsaadantoa/patenttilaki.html

Most importantly:
  "The exclusive right shall not apply to:
  (1) use which is not commercial"

Swedish patent law is very similar.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message