Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>> insane.
>>
>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>> in this one...
> 
> What kind of camera have you got?  (I suppose I could look at the EXIF 
> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.

Yeah, that sounds right.

> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible 
> when you can tell how it will affect the image.

No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down 
*relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter 
speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have 
to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence). 
It's not relative to what the camera chose.

Post a reply to this message

>> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
> 
> Believe me, it is worth it. Especially a lens at that price (Just a 
> guess: 400mm f/2.8 aperture, which would be one heck of a lens!)

It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm 
strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final 
page, just to see how silly the price is.

Post a reply to this message

>> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
>> jaw-droppingly expensive...
> 
> It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual work
> with it, as far as tools go.

Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's 
exorbitantly expensive. (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.

My point-n-shoot previews the effects of manual shutter speed and aperture on
the screen... it's pretty reliable, it usually only takes me one or two test
shots to get the effect I'm after. I don't quite understand how it does this for
the exposure times; presumably it's just a precalibrated brightness
change.

Post a reply to this message

> Still, given that it's a high-powered zoom lense, you need to hold it very 
> still anyway...

A rough rule of thumb is that you need a shutter speed of 1/focal length or 
faster to get a blur-free hand-held shot.  With the Canon 600m F4 (costing 
just over 7K) you would be limited to using it in daylight handheld, or 
maybe just about under floodlights if you crank up the ISO setting and can 
tolerate a bit of image noise in the darker areas.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
>> manuals.
> 
> I just read a recent discussion where someone went thru a bunch of user
> manuals for all the high-end cameras, including like the things that TV
> studios and digital movie production houses use, and they *all* say you
> have to go get your license for any commercial use. Indeed, individual
> viewers also need a license to watch any video that was *ever* in MPEG
> (h.264?) format that ever had any sort of money transfer associated with
> it.
> 
> So if you take a video with a camera that records it as mpeg, transcode
> that to FLV, share it via youtube (where youtube makes money serving
> ads), and I watch it, I technically need a license to watch that video.
> 

We read the same discussion, then.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
I suspect this is the one.

Engadget cleared up a lot of her story with this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

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.
People building the encoder chips are already paying licenses to use the
patents, it's just software that hasn't been paying. I think there is a
mistake in the Engadget story, in that distributing an h.264 file would
still not be patent infringement for the end user. 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. 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.

Obligatory car analogy; think of Honda Hybrid owners. They do not need a
license from Toyota to use the car. They don't even need a license to
replace parts, as long as those parts are bought from people who hold a
license. And if they buy unlicensed parts, no one is going to come along
and repossess the car.

/still not legal advice

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4be27992@news.povray.org...

> >> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> >> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> >> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> >> jaw-droppingly expensive...

> > It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual
work
> > with it, as far as tools go.

> Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's
> exorbitantly expensive.
> (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)

Yes, that's the bottomline; it's a professional application for
professionals. Average home user has a lot of other choices that should
satisfy their needs for free or for a few bucks at most. Unfortunately,
piracy of it is beyond critical mass, so everyone thinks of Photoshop when
all they need to is crop a couple of pictures, which encourages them to
pirate it, fueling the fire.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>>> insane.
>>>
>>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>>> in this one...
>>
>> What kind of camera have you got?  (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
>> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds right.
> 
>> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
>> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
> 
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.

The camera should have a way of telling you what it thinks optimum
exposure is. Without any training, you can gauge from that.

Or you can guess from the Sunny 16 rule, f16 and 1/ISO shutter speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule

Looking at the manual for the S304 manual mode, it looks fairly simple.
f2.8,4.8,8.2 apertures, really weird choices on the 4.8 and 8.2, but
those are what it has. Since you have expressed that you want the stuff
in focus to be in focus, while the rest gets blurred, use a lower fstop,
2.8 is really narrow. Then, it looks like you do not get a shutter speed
adjustment, just aperture priority mode, so you don't have to worry
about the math or gauging the light available from the sun. Just tell it
the aperture, and let it go. If that is still too bright, could be that
the camera isn't as smart as it pretends to be, and dial the exposure
down, -1 or what ever.

Ap priority is in the photography menu, should show up on the bottom of
the lcd after being selected with "1/5000f2.8" or what ever, based on
the speed it thinks is good, and the aperture you selected. But for
heaven sake, get it out of auto mode.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:02 +0200, scott wrote:
>>
>>> And typically pros will not let the camera do *any* processing, and
>>> import the raw sensor data to their computer for manual colour,
>>> sharpness and exposure control.
>>
>> Exactly - the adjustments I made were pretty basic with GIMP (similar
>> to the ones you made), but if RAW format images were available,
>> there'd be a lot more room to adjust things like exposure.
> 
> ....but once the image has been taken, the exposure has already
> happened. How can you change it after the fact?
> 

When shooting in RAW, the camera is not recording 'this pixel is X
amount of green.' It is recording only 'sensor location x,y received Z
amount of light.' The editing software looks at that, not at the
interpolated (RGB,HSL,HSV,CMYK,whatever) image. So, if you know that Z
light was received over T time, and you want to know what it might look
like had you left the shutter open for 1.5T, just go through and bump
everything to 1.5Z, then interpolate to get the image to display. This
gets much less accurate as you get past one full step exposure, 0.5 and
2 times the light.

This still won't recover data from areas that were saturated, as if the
sensor is all at Zmax they will all reduce equally. It can, since there
often there is some light hitting the sensor at all locations, be used
to push an exposure up and get more detail out of dark areas. You can
also change the curve of the sensor response by group, affecting only
the red, green, or blue sensors. You can do this with a JPEG as well,
but my suspicion is that if you use a RAW the curve would be applied
before the sensor elements are interpolated.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/5/2010 5:35 AM, scott wrote:

> They looked decent enough to me! And typically pros will not let the
> camera do *any* processing, and import the raw sensor data to their
> computer for manual colour, sharpness and exposure control.

Some do, some don't. I know one pro who does motorsport shooting and 
never uses raw images. He wants to cram as many exposures onto his flash 
card as he can, and generally knows how to nail the exposure and white 
balance in-camera so he has hardly any post process to do on the image.

Wedding photogs are another group of pro's that some will do jpeg rather 
than raw, simply because they want a ton of images.

Though most that don't have high volumes of images prefer raw. I prefer 
raw simply because I'm a control freak.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 5/5/2010 3:53 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html
>
> Similar deal. No contrast anywhere, half the frame is bleached white,
> and it doesn't even appear to be properly in focus in places.

Nice knotty tree. Lovely texture on that log.

What you may want to do is find out where your camera's exposure 
compensation setting is and bring it down a little.

Of course, you can always try to adjust the image in post, here's an 
example with the log picture. Not the greatest, but definitely gives 
richer tones. (I'm using Aviary for this, which is powerful (in the 
right hands) I would have preferred the Curves tool in Gimp or Photoshop.)

http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/3855500/3855504_9d0a_625x625.jpg

>
> These images are scaled down; usually the full-res image is horribly
> grainy too. (Because, let's face it, usually it *isn't* a dazzlingly
> bright June afternoon, and my camera is supremely insensitive to light.
> If it's not blinding sunshine, it wants to use the flash...)
>


> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.

Sure it can! Careful management of exposure, and judicious 
post-processing work can make any image really pop. If your camera has a 
very noisy sensor, look into something like NeatImage to clean up the 
noise. I use it for extremely high ISO images (e.g. ISO 3200, or 3200 
pushed 1 stop) and it works great.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

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. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Same story here, except 8 used to crash about 50% of the time when I 
> tried to crop an image.  Got X2 now and TBH I don't remember it trying 
> to index all the images on my HD (maybe I turned it off somehow, I don't 
> remember).

It only does it once at the start, of course. :-)  Maybe you don't have 
enough images to notice, but I carry several thousand fairly large images on 
my machine.

(OK, make that 40,000 images totaling 60+G. It takes a while to scan them all.)

Look in your appdata\local\corel\thumbs and see what you have there. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:24:07 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the  
> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the  
> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some  
> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the  
> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to  
> get kicked out.

No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO  
setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO 
> setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.

OK.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:56:35 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
>
> I've actually wondered this myself - raw editing software gives you the
> option to adjust the exposure; obviously, you can't pull details out
> doing this that are completely washed out or completely underexposed, but
> it is possible to bring additional detail out by making changes to the
> exposure setting (ev) after the photo has been taken.
>
> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the math
> behind it.

When the camera creates a JPEG file, part of the raw data is discarded and  
the rest is then adjusted to fit in the 0-255 range. The camera picks a  
black-point somewhere near the low end of the (raw) range, and all values  
below that are made black (i.e. 0) in the JPEG. Similarly, a white-point  
is selected, and all values above that are made white (i.e. 255). When you  
edit a RAW file, you have access to the parts that would otherwise have  
been cut off. If the exposure was somewhat less than perfect, there can be  
useful data in those parts.

Also, the raw data has a higher bit-depth than a JPEG, typically 12 or 14  
versus lossy compressed 8. This gives you more leeway for making  
adjustments without getting posterization.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:00:07 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> Also, the raw data has a higher bit-depth than a JPEG, typically 12 or
> 14 versus lossy compressed 8. This gives you more leeway for making
> adjustments without getting posterization.

That makes sense to me - thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 08:16:58 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 5/5/2010 5:35 AM, scott wrote:
> Wedding photogs are another group of pro's that some will do jpeg rather
> than raw, simply because they want a ton of images.

That's not strictly true - I know a couple guys who do wedding photos and 
do their captures in raw format.  They just bring several large memory 
cards with them so they can capture lots of images.

Though I suppose it depends on what they're photographing at the wedding; 
if it's the lucky couple, then raw is probably  more commonly used than, 
say, photos of guests at the reception.

> Though most that don't have high volumes of images prefer raw. I prefer
> raw simply because I'm a control freak.

Same here.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 09:09:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case
>>> you're insane.
>>>
>>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the
>>> batteries in this one...
>> 
>> What kind of camera have you got?  (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
>> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds right.
> 
>> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
>> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
> 
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.

Well, yeah, but "somehow guess" is something that comes with taking some 
trial photos (which I tend to do) until you get a feel for what the light 
levels should be like for a particular setting.

My camera (a Canon PowerShot S50) lets me see what the exposure will be 
without taking a picture - so I can adjust it before even shooting.   I 
typically set the value to -1/3 because I can use raw tools to lighten it 
up (that idea of not overexposing the image that someone else mentioned).

Then when I process it, I typically will increase the colour saturation 
to some degree, as well as adjusting the white balance (my camera's auto-
balance isn't that good; I usually manually adjust the white balance in 
the camera so it's "close" and then do a final adjustment on the image 
when I'm reviewing the image).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:24:07 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the
>> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the
>> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some
>> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the
>> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to
>> get kicked out.
> 
> No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
> setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.

There you go. So if you have the raw sensor output, you can change the ISO 
setting after the fact?

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:56:35 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>>
>> I've actually wondered this myself - raw editing software gives you the
>> option to adjust the exposure; obviously, you can't pull details out
>> doing this that are completely washed out or completely underexposed, but
>> it is possible to bring additional detail out by making changes to the
>> exposure setting (ev) after the photo has been taken.
>>
>> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the math
>> behind it.
> 
> When the camera creates a JPEG file, part of the raw data is discarded and
> the rest is then adjusted to fit in the 0-255 range. The camera picks a
> black-point somewhere near the low end of the (raw) range, and all values
> below that are made black (i.e. 0) in the JPEG. Similarly, a white-point
> is selected, and all values above that are made white (i.e. 255). When you
> edit a RAW file, you have access to the parts that would otherwise have
> been cut off. If the exposure was somewhat less than perfect, there can be
> useful data in those parts.

In other words, the RAW format gets you High Dynamic Range.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> However pros use the raw sensor data from the camera and not a JPEG.
>> This allows them some margin to adjust the exposure later without adding
>> any artifacts to the final JPEG image they create.  Because of this it
>> is extremely important not to saturate the sensor (ie 100% white) in any
>> areas, it is impossible to get back detail in areas that are at 100%.
>> If you under-expose it you can scale up the brightness without
>> introducing artifacts (because usually the raw sensor data is higher bit
>> depth than JPEG).
> 
> ...in other words, you're not changing the exposure (i.e., the number of
> seconds that the shutter opens) at all, you're simulating it.

In consumer cameras that show the image on the LCD screen all the time, 
there is no "shutter opening for N milliseconds". The sensor is getting 
light all the time.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 23:09:18 +0200, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
>> setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.
>
> There you go. So if you have the raw sensor output, you can change the  
> ISO setting after the fact?

Not quite. The amplification controlled by the ISO setting occurs before  
A/D conversion. By applying amplification to the raw data (i.e. after A/D  
conversion), you also amplify any noise introduced by the A/D process. The  
result is similar, but slightly worse.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 May 2010 23:10:25 +0200, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> In other words, the RAW format gets you High Dynamic Range.

Sort of. Higher than what you get from a JPEG anyway. Not what is usually  
referred to as HDR though.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>> ...in other words, you're not changing the exposure (i.e., the number of
>> seconds that the shutter opens) at all, you're simulating it.
> 
> In consumer cameras that show the image on the LCD screen all the time, 
> there is no "shutter opening for N milliseconds". The sensor is getting 
> light all the time.

Sure. But when you take an image, it integrates the sensor output for 
the duration of X seconds. You can't unintegrate it, or reintegrate over 
a different time period, for example. (Unless you got it to shoot a few 
trillion RAW images and save them all...)

Post a reply to this message

> My camera (a Canon PowerShot S50) lets me see what the exposure will be 
> without taking a picture - so I can adjust it before even shooting.   I 
> typically set the value to -1/3 because I can use raw tools to lighten it 
> up (that idea of not overexposing the image that someone else mentioned).

1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.

2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:56:50 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.



> 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.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

>> 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.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black.

Almost never.

-- 
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 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

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

Wikipedia:

"""
The rights conveyed by a patent vary country-by-country. For example, in 
the 
United States, a patent covers research, except "purely philosophical" 
inquiry. A U.S. patent is infringed by any "making" of the invention, eve
n a 
making that goes toward development of a new invention—which may 
itself 
become subject of a patent.
"""

So here, you don't even get to try it out yourself to see if you can make
 it 
better.  Actually, I thought that patents explicitly did *not* cover use 
for 
research purposes, so either Wikipedia is wrong, the law changed since I 

learned it, or I'm misremembering. It would seem terribly counter-product
ive 
to let patents exclude research, given that the whole patent system is 
intended to promote research.

-- 
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 20:59:00 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Actually, I thought that patents explicitly did *not* cover use for  
> research purposes, so either Wikipedia is wrong, the law changed since I  
> learned it, or I'm misremembering. It would seem terribly  
> counter-productive to let patents exclude research, given that the whole  
> patent system is intended to promote research.

I tried looking it up, but it is just too much effort. The actual  
legislative text (35 USC 271) says very little; most of the rules appear  
to have been set by courts. Finding and digging through all the relevant  
court rulings is a bit more effort than I am willing to put in for the  
sake of curiosity.

I did find this little analysis on the experimental use exemption:
  http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/nl/nlassets/pdf/stlc1.pdf

A couple of somewhat relevant quotes from that article:

>  the experimental use defense is strictly limited to activities
>  performed "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for
>  strictly philosophical inquiry."
>  The CAFC stated that any use which has the "slightest commercial
>  implication" or is "in keeping with the legitimate business of the 
>  alleged infringer" cannot qualify for the experimental use defense.

>  The sweeping holding in Madey v. Duke would appear to preclude
>  experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit
>  research organizations, including federal laboratories, research
>  foundations and research hospitals.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On 5/5/2010 5:24 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the
> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the
> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some
> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the
> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to
> get kicked out.

I thought ISO essentially amplifier gain. e.g. A CCD (or CMOS) cell 
accululates a certain number of photons, which builds a potential, a 
fixed time later, after the exposure has been taken, some circuitry 
reads the potentials, send it through an amplifier (whose gain is set by 
the ISO setting in the camera's software) then to a DAC, and encoded in 
a file, rather than pre-charge the CCD....

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I thought ISO essentially amplifier gain. 

I come to the conclusion that my understanding of the topic was likely 
incorrect. :-)

-- 
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 5/6/2010 12:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> That's not strictly true - I know a couple guys who do wedding photos and
> do their captures in raw format.  They just bring several large memory
> cards with them so they can capture lots of images.
>
> Though I suppose it depends on what they're photographing at the wedding;
> if it's the lucky couple, then raw is probably  more commonly used than,
> say, photos of guests at the reception.

Like I said, some do, some don't. I would imagine some of the more 
high-end photographers that spend a lot of time on each image will do 
lots of post work, but that really depends. If they're using external 
lighting, and have everything set exactly right, they may be using jpg 
for the sheer convenience of not having to go through the processing 
portion. But, I can definitely see a wedding photographer using raw, 
especially for the posed pictures.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 5/6/2010 3:10 AM, Invisible wrote:

> It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm
> strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final
> page, just to see how silly the price is.

That's not the most expensive Canon lens... That one is a 1200mm f/5.6, 
which is around USD 80,000 :D

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm
>> strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final
>> page, just to see how silly the price is.
> 
> That's not the most expensive Canon lens... That one is a 1200mm f/5.6, 
> which is around USD 80,000 :D

I'm fairly sure Jessops don't sell that.

I said it was the most expensive one *in the catalogue*. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 12:12 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>
> I'm fairly sure Jessops don't sell that.
>
> I said it was the most expensive one *in the catalogue*. ;-)
>

Ah, I misunderstood then, I thought you meant *Canon's* catalog ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm fairly sure Jessops don't sell that.
>>
>> I said it was the most expensive one *in the catalogue*. ;-)
>>
> 
> Ah, I misunderstood then, I thought you meant *Canon's* catalog ;)

Actually I was looking exclusively at Nikon, but anyway... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2010 8:28 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Actually I was looking exclusively at Nikon, but anyway... ;-)

See? that's what I get for being a total Canon fanboy :D
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message