Apertus, the Open Source HD Movie Camera

osliving writes "This article takes a tour of the hardware and software behind the innovative Apertus, a real world open source project. Led by Oscar Spierenburg and a team of international developers, the project aims to produce 'an affordable community driven free software and open hardware cinematic HD camera for a professional production environment'."

Comments

Big names supporting this?

[akirapill]

Oh silly me, I read the summary as "Led by Oscar [winner Steven] Speilburg..."

Re:Big names supporting this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh silly me, I read the summary as "Led by Oscar [winner Steven] Speilburg..."

Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it Sparky?

Re:Big names supporting this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the name "Apertus" suggests it's supported by both Aperture Science and Hogwarts.

Re:Big names supporting this?

[lennier1]

* Cake not included

Open hardware?

[toastar]

Is open hardware really that big a problem? It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.

Re:Open hardware?

[Culture20]

I think there's fear that any Indie film that makes it semi-big will be hit with large fines from MPEGLA since they're using the mpeg encoder in the cameras in cheap cameras.

Re:Open hardware?

[V!NCENT]

Now that there is Ogg, WebM, HTML5 video, the 'Ubuntu' video editor for Gnome and the Kdenlive video editor for KDE4, all HD camera's are still recording to h.264 by default.

This is a huge problem for free software because it not only involves patents when dealing with h.264, but also a license.

Now you might think: *yeah well license... bla bla bla bla bla. Free software doesn't concern me.* But if you knew what kind of a threat this poses not only to free software, but also to you; you'd be very, _VERY_ concerned. (unless you wouldn't mind George Orwell scenarios, but in any case you asked what the problem was...)

You see the license you get with your camera, even expensive proffesional camera's, basically sais; all your base are belong to Mpeg-LA, even when converted to another format. This sucks, but oh well you can alsways buy a different camera because capitalism rules! But in this case it doesn't; try finding HD camera's that do not shoot in h.264 first.

For more info Google is at your service ;)

Re:Open hardware?

[spire3661]

And MPEG-LA would lose in court. You cannot enforce a license like that. Its like Ford saying i cant use my vehicle for commercial purposes or I would have to pay Ford special commercial use tax.

Re:Open hardware?

[bieber]

They're not manufacturing their own sensors, or really even any hardware components as far as I can tell, apart from the support system which is ultimately optional, and probably a lot simpler to manufacture than electric components. The project is really more about shoe-horning various devices together into something that's more modular and extensible than the commercial alternatives, and aside from the weak imaging element (which is kind of critical), they're doing a great job. Stick a camera with a 35mm-sized sensor that can do HD at 30fps on the front of it, and it would be a really great camera to shoot a film with.

Re:Open hardware?

[causality]

And MPEG-LA would lose in court. You cannot enforce a license like that. Its like Ford saying i cant use my vehicle for commercial purposes or I would have to pay Ford special commercial use tax.

Never underestimate the insanity of modern intellectual property law.

Re:Open hardware?

[DurendalMac]

So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?

Re:Open hardware?

[jedidiah]

> So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?

When you play with someone else's ball, they get to dictate terms.

You don't have to be a "zealot" to understand this. HELL, the film industry fled the East coast over this very nonsense.

That is why there is a Hollywood to begin with.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see the license you get with your camera, even expensive proffesional camera's, basically sais; all your base are belong to Mpeg-LA, even when converted to another format.

That's just FUD OSnews has been spreading. The license of one of the contributors cameras stated that only a noncomercial license was included. That basically includes encoding and decoding as well as all the other stuff the MPEG LA doesn't want money for, like putting it on the internet or selling 100k records. It doesn't include a broadcast or large scale distribution license, but if you are doing that the people broadcasting it or authoring and pressing the discs pay that anyway. Nothing in the H.264 license agreement prohibits conversion to another format for distribution and soon after OSnews released the article claiming that an MPEG LA representative confirmed to Engadget that it isn't true. OSnews later decided to add a small paragraph to their three page rant saying that yes, the MPEG LA said their interpretation of the license is wrong, but they don't believe them anyway.

OSnews article: http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA

Re:Open hardware?

[toastar]

Yo' know, I don't mind George Orwell scenarios as much I mind Franz Kafka scenarios.

Re:Open hardware?

[westlake]

Is open hardware really that big a problem? It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.

The optical and mechanical requirements of a production-grade camera are demanding. Three - large - HD sensors are the norm. I don't see the savings here.

Re:Open hardware?

[cgenman]

MPEG-LA basically claims certain financial rights over your project in exchange for the right to use the h.264 codec. This means that if you shoot a scene in h.264, but switch to something else to release on the web, they still have rights over you. If a contractor shoots in h.264 but sends you the video in a different format, they still claim rights over you. As far as I know, pretty much all HD cameras shoot in h.264.

Some of this is definitely winnable in court, some isn't. But if you're an independent filmmaker, you don't have the money to go against one of the biggest legal groups in filmmaking.

So yes, this particular situation is a bit Orwellian.

Re:Open hardware?

[V!NCENT]

"That's just FUD OSnews has been spreading."
Just for fun; get your camera manual and read what it says.

Sure, Mpeg-LA publicaly stated that they would not sue you or take you data, but it _does_ belong to them. And right now you might not need a license. Sure you're totaly right.

But to call this debunked? I wouldn't. I couldn't. I could and would not because whenever Mpeg-LA changes their mind then you don't have a single something to stand on.

Three characters:
1. M
2. P
3. 3

Does that ring a bell?

And not to piss of Germans, because they have nothing to do with the past, and not to compare Mpeg-LA with mass murder and hate crimes against humanity, but if Hitler would have told Stalin that "I will not try to screw you. Realy you have my word!" then would you have bet on that?

Re:Open hardware?

[DurendalMac]

There is no possible way that provision is enforceable. Have you noticed how it has doubtlessly been violated all over the place? Not one lawsuit from the MPEG-LA. It's not going to fly and they know it.

Re:Open hardware?

[westlake]

Now that there is Ogg, WebM, HTML5 video, the 'Ubuntu' video editor for Gnome and the Kdenlive video editor for KDE4, all HD camera's are still recording to h.264 by default.

Of course they are.

Just about the only place you will find WebM video is on YouTube. Transcoded from H.264.

HTML5 doesn't specify a video codec.

H.264 is used in such applications as players for Blu-ray Discs, videos from YouTube and the iTunes Store, web software such as the Adobe Flash Player and Microsoft Silverlight, broadcast services for DVB and SBTVD, direct-broadcast satellite television services, cable television services, and real-time videoconferencing. H.264/MPEG-4 AVC

H.264 is mobile devices. The cell phone. The Flip pocket HD camcorder. H.264 is industrial and security video. The world is larger than the web - and H.264 has been out there for almost ten years.

A casual search of Google Shopping for "H.264" will return 42,000 hits.

127 pages of relevant results.

 

Re:Open hardware?

[IndustrialComplex]

There is no possible way that provision is enforceable. Have you noticed how it has doubtlessly been violated all over the place? Not one lawsuit from the MPEG-LA. It's not going to fly and they know it.

It's enforceable as far as you have the financial means to say that it isn't.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

all HD camera's are still recording to h.264 by default.

No, only consumer cameras are (mis)using h.264.

The workflow for pro cameras is ArriRaw / RedCode for capture and encoded to ProRes or DnXHD for editing.

Re:Open hardware?

[jcwayne]

I'd like to agree with you, but you seem to think "HTML5 video" is a codec.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the manual liked in the article before I posted. That's why I'm saying it's FUD. I don't see how anyone would assume that a license clearly limited to the H.264 codec in the camera would apply to any content after format conversion, especially when the H.264 license itself is limited to the format. It's FUD just like your claim that the MPEG LA is asserting ownership to my data is FUD. They want a cut from encoder, decoders, broadcast and payed distribution in their formats, which I disagree with because I'm against software patents, but that doesn't change that your claims are pure fiction.

Yes, MP3 rings a bell. Fraunhofer came out with their submarine patents after the fact and wanted fees for encoders and decoders. They didn't want anything for distribution and didn't assert ownership on the content as your post seems to claims.

Since you already have to resort to invoking the Nazis it's all to clear that your arguments are thin and you instead resort on demonizing your perceived enemies.

Re:Open hardware?

[Abu Hurayrah]

This is not correct. I am not defending MPEG-LA, but I think it's important that we get the facts straight. Once video has been converted from H.264 to another format, MPEG-LA cannot assert anything over it. This e-mail exchange which I archived on Libre Video explains this point using their own, documented words.

Re:Open hardware?

[aristotle-dude]

I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

Would you care to say how, I, as a hypothetical consumer using a purchased good for commercial use would be infringing on a patent by use of said good when I was not a party to the original patent license? I'm not a party to the license agreement therefor it does not apply to me as an end purchaser and owner of the final product.

If I were to encode the final video product in MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 and attempt to sell it then I would require a commercial license but not for using a camera.

Re:Open hardware?

[Culture20]

using the mpeg encoder in the cameras in cheap cameras.

I hate to tell you how to mod since I clearly don't know how to type, but "-1 redundant" is intended to express distaste for redundant concepts that are found in prior posts, not grammar-nazi distaste for redundancy in sentences.

Re:Open hardware?

[falconwolf]

It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.

This is one, but not the only, reason why I oppose patents on hardware.

Falcon

Re:Open hardware?

[brunes69]

They can indeed enforce it if they can prove the camera it was shot on originally encodced the video in an MPEG-LA codec.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

What. First you claim this is some wild exaggeration, then you claim it's too ridiculous to enforce.

Make up your goddamn mind.

Re:Open hardware?

[Jiro]

The problem is that you need a license to do the format conversion, and you only have a noncommercial license for that, too (or no license at all if you're using OSS tools). So even if the end product isn't covered by patents, they can still sue you. Naturally, when they sue you for doing the patented format conversion, the amount they will demand as a settlement will just happen to be at least equal to the amount they would charge if you were distributing a patented end product.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

They take you to civil court, they don't have to prove a damn thing. Its a preponderance of the evidence. And here is the preponderance, all cameras use H.264 now pay us, unless you have millions of dollars to pay your lawyers and years before this thing gets sorted out. Oh I hope your little indy film is still relevant by then because its not seeing the light of day until their judge says so.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read the fine print on your bill.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am not party to the license agreement whereby firm X grants firm Y the right to use part Z of X’s “intellectual property” under condition C, it does not mean that I have the right to use Z disregarding C just because I’m not party to the agreement.

Instead, the law says that I _don’t_ have the right to Z in general, unless allowed by an explicit exception in the law or granted a license by X, the “owner” of Z. (Read: beneficiary of the state-granted monopoly on the use of Z.)

What you *might* mean is that patent law in the US (AFAIK) specifies that you can’t make and sell devices that use a patented technology without a license; I think using such a device when made by someone else would be legal, but IANAL, and you didn’t quite say that. Also, cameras contain software, and you might only be given a limited license to use that software; that is, if you make professional use of a camera sold for “home use” you might be infringing your software license via copyright law. (I honestly don’t see how copyright law can be invoked if you’re not copying the software nor did you install it on the camera, but IANAL and “US law surprised me in the past” would be an understatement.)

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nikon DSLR's don't.
They're deliberately using older tech. (read that as patent expired)
Which is why Nikons can be used professionally, where Cannons cannot.

Re:Open hardware?

[Bassman59]

Nikon DSLR's don't. They're deliberately using older tech. (read that as patent expired) Which is why Nikons can be used professionally, where Cannons cannot.

True, if you want to take a photograph, a cannon isn't very useful.

Having said that, many many professional photopgraphers use Canon equipment, so please stop talking out of your ass.

Re:Open hardware?

[Abu Hurayrah]

They can indeed enforce it if they can prove the camera it was shot on originally encodced the video in an MPEG-LA codec.

They would have to also prove that you did not have a license to convert it in the first place. I encourage you to read the (unfortunately rather lengthy) post I referenced in my previous comment where you can see that they have no rights after the video has been encoded.

Re:Open hardware?

[yyxx]

So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?

Are you so stupid not to recognize that if the printing presses (e-book formats, video formats, etc.) are entirely controlled by a few big corporations, we can kiss our democracy goodbye?

Re:Open hardware?

[DurendalMac]

Point out where I said it was an exaggeration, you idiot. Go ahead, point it out. By the way, saying that something not being open source does not make it Orwellian does not mean I called the H.264 license a "wild exaggeration". Reading comprehension. Look into it.

Re:Open hardware?

[DurendalMac]

Are you so stupid as to thing a misinterpreted and unenforceable clause in a license equates to all media being entirely controlled by MPEG-LA? REALLY? Are you such a fucking paranoid lunatic that you think that paying a small license for commercial distribution in a digital format (not just H.264) means it's now "entirely controlled" by that company? And that means that they'll now control everything that's published? Are you fucking KIDDING me?

Congratulations on being part of the reason that FOSS advocates are seen as ranting, paranoid zealots.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the whole article that you linked to and I must say "Did you RTFA?"

Your point of once the video has been converted to another format is key here. Any product that incorporates H.264 needs the licensing; this includes conversion programs. There is no and can be no open source solution to this.

If you get hardware that records to H.264 you will need licensed software to convert it, which ties you to non-free, charge whatever they want, change or go out of business companies.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPEG LA doesn't differentiate between commercial and noncommercial use. They differentiate by distribution medium and volume. The rest of your post is pure FUD. They never claimed they'd demand money in that scenario, it's nowhere in the license, their license applies to distributors, not to end users and there'd be no way to prove the conversion was made with an unlicensed decoder since a) every H.264 encoder has to have the same output and b) compiling your own encoder is allowed under the license as long as you don't distribute more than 100k units a year.
By the way your comment about settlements seems to suggest the license is very expensive. It's at worst 20 cent per encoder, 2 cent or 2% of the price (whichever is lower) per sold disc, at most 10 cent per payed subscriber per year and less than 1 cent per viewer and year should you have a TV station. The fees have a maximum cap per year and don't even start unless you distribute more than 100k units in the H.264 formats. Again the license is specific to distributing that format; they make no royalty claims if you distribute your video after format conversion.

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention.

So you're saying that if I take pictures with my digital camera and sell prints I am violating MPEG-LA?

I call bullshit.

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

I'm not sure I believe you. There's no contract that I am party to when I bought or use my camera that says I can't sell prints or set up a portrait studio.

You are misunderstanding the case, I think. That doesn't mean there's not a lawyer crazy enough to sue me, but the case would be tossed in a heartbeat.

Re:Open hardware?

[unixan]

Is open hardware really that big a problem? It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.

The hardware behind Apertus is actually Elphel. They make "open source" cameras based on existing chips. The video codec is performed by an FPGA (loaded with GPL-licensed firmware made by Elphel).

Here is more about the hardware.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except here, MPEG-LA wants to dictate terms on users of their balls, of anything the users do of the balls they bought, but also on other people balls, and the manufacturing of about anything that is spheric (can't make a video codec that does not infringe on their patents, or so they claim)

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

What are you talking about? This article, and every post about it, is discussing VIDEO. Still cameras, prints, and portraits have nothing to do with MPEG or MPEG-LA, because they don't involve video compression.

Now, if you change your argument to 'nothing says I can't use my consumer camera to create and sell commercial videos', then you are wrong. As I explained, you don't need to be a party to a contract that says that, because the LAW says it ('anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or uses a patented invention without authorization infringes the patent'. Where did you get your authorization from? Not from the camera manufacturer (who is not the patent holder), because they don't have the authority to give you the authorization.

As to your assertion that such a case would be tossed in a heartbeat, I gave you a link to a case very similar to this that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the parties that were claiming the same thing you are (using a consumer patent license in a commercial setting is legal) LOST. If you have any cases showing otherwise, please present them.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

Uh, no. MPEG has nothing to do with 'pictures' or 'prints'. MPEG concerns video. And, yes, if you take videos over 12 minutes long and sell them you need a license from MPEG-LA.

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you care to say how, I, as a hypothetical consumer using a purchased good for commercial use would be infringing on a patent by use of said good when I was not a party to the original patent license?

That's just it: you were not a party to a contract. You don't have permission to use the patent. Patent licenses, unlike EULAs, are contracts that increase the licensee's rights, giving them the right to do something that, by default, they would be prohibited from doing.

If I were to encode the final video product in MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 and attempt to sell it then I would require a commercial license but not for using a camera.

How did you ever get permission to use the camera that you bought? I don't think you ever did.

The whole point of patents is that government force tells people they're not allowed to do certain things without getting permission from a monopoly first. And then to make it extra fun, there isn't any practical way for people (if they don't have multimillion dollar legal teams) to even get a definitive list of the things they're not allowed to do without permission, so you never know when you're infringing someone's patent.

That is how fucked up patents are. Hate 'em yet?

Re:Open hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no contract that I am party to when I bought or use my camera that says I can't sell prints or set up a portrait studio.

That's true, but there's also no contract that you are a party to, which says you can encode video using a patented codec. In the absence of any contracts, using a patented codec is prohibited.

And that is where the camera manufacturer's indemnities come in, and then from there, that's where their declaration that the good is intended for amateur use only, comes in.

Re:Open hardware?

[spire3661]

This argument would never stand up in a modern court room. Cars have patented proprietary engine modules etc. The car manufacturer in no way can stop me from operating my vehicle in any way I choose. Could you imagine the public outcry if a car manufacturer started saying that in order to use their proprietary engine code you cannot operate the car commercially? It makes no sense at all and would be struck down imho.

Re:Open hardware?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Yup, sure seems like they've got us by the balls, doesn't it?

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

Let's say you own a building. You sign a lease with someone. Part of the terms of the lease is no commercial use of the space allowed. That party does a cash transaction with another party (no lease) to allow him to use the space for a month. Third party sets up a store in the space. Have you, as the property owner, lost your ability to control the use of your space? No. The law is that no-one has use of the space except you, unless you authorize it. You did not authorize use of the space for commercial purposes, so the store is there illegally, and you can take action against it.

This is similar to the situation here. The patent holder (MPEG-LA) and camera manufacturers agreed on terms for the use of the patents, including that the products not be licensed for commercial use. The patent holder does not lose the right to enforce the patent just because you bought the camera from another party. The law is that no-one is allowed to use your patent without your permission, and you did not give permission, so you can take action.

Your car scenario could happen, and it would probably be upheld. But it won't happen. There is no real difference between 'commercial use' cars and 'private use' cars. The car manufacturer has no interest in making such a distinction. So they will negotiate a license with a patent holder that doesn't have such a restriction, even if they have to pay a higher price, because it is worth it to them to have the commercial business. Camera manufacturers on the other hand see a big difference between 'consumers' and 'commercial users', and don't mind having such a line drawn. They would rather negotiate a lower price for the patent in order to meet the price requirements of their biggest market - consumers - and if that means no commercial use of their product (without an additional license being purchased by the user) that is OK with them.

Re:Open hardware?

[Roman Coder]

Don't I need to be informed of, and agree to, this requirement, when purchasing the camera? I didn't see any EULA when I bought my camera.

Also, isn't the camera manufacturer already paying MPEG-LA for that, when they obtained the right to put the tech in the camera hardware? It seems like to me what you are advocating is akin to "double-dipping" in obtaining fees by MPEG-LA.

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

that's where their declaration that the good is intended for amateur use only, comes in.

I'm looking through the material that came with my cheap Canon video camera, and I don't see anything that says it's "intended for amateur use only".

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

Your car scenario could happen, and it would probably be upheld.

I don't buy it. Are you saying that car rental companies have to pay special license fees to patent holders of technology in their cars to stay in business?

Nobody would ever start a trucking firm, or a taxi business or a car rental agency if that was the case. No, I don't think it would "be upheld" or it would have been tried already. Hertz and Budget have deep pockets. Some patent troll would have tried their luck. Same with the biggest US trucking companies and even UPS.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

No, I did not say that. I said it COULD happen. In the very next sentence is said it WON'T happen. Then I listed the reason it won't happen: the car companies are not interested in segmenting the market. Both commercial and private uses are vital to their business. They will not agree to a license structure that treats commercial and private use differently, because it would be bad for their business. Furthermore, it doesn't even make much sense for the patent holder to want such a split. If one transportation company is doing 10X the business of another, they will probably have about 10X as many vehicles, so the patent holder will have 10X the money. That is fair to the patent holder, the manufacturer, and the end purchaser.

On the other hand, there is a very good reason why video patent holders, manufacturers, and consumers would want to split the market. The market for commercial video cameras (units sold) is tiny compared to the consumer market. But the revenues from the videos created using the patent in the commercial market is huge. A video that grosses $500M does not require 5000X the number of cameras that a video grossing $100K requires. So how do you structure the license fees so that they are fair to everyone? If you try to get all the fees from the sale of cameras the camera consumer is paying the whole thing, and the commercial ventures get basically a free ride. That is not fair to the consumer. It would also drive the price of a camera way up, which is not good for the consumer, manufacturer, or patent holder. So the fair thing to do is to split the market. The consumer can get a fairly cheap camera which is good for the consumer and manufacturer. A commercial venture that makes more money pays more than one that doesn't. That is fair to everyone.

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

Still cameras, prints, and portraits have nothing to do with MPEG or MPEG-LA, because they don't involve video compression.

So what you're saying is that MPEG and MPEG-LA is some special category of patent with reach that regular patents don't have; that MPEG and MPEG-LA are "super-patents" with powers that allow them to reach out across transactions and forces people who buy certain cameras to never use them professionally.

That's just silly.

I've got a video camera that encodes MPEGs. I've looked through the box after your numerous posts to see if there's anything that says I may not use this camera on any project that I could sell.

I'd love to see that on the box "Warning: this camera may only be used to take snapshots of your kitty and children. If you are a real estate agent, you may not use this camera to record a walkthrough of a house which you are selling, and if you take movies of a wedding, you must not accept fifty bucks from the father of the bride under penalty of law."

I think this argument is your version of "There's toxic liquids in the center of a golf ball. Seriously, I read this in Popular Science. If you open a golf ball and let the fluid out, it will eat your skin down to the bone, so you better not open up a golf ball and I'm not kidding. I know this guy, he's my sister's friend, and he opened up a golf ball and this stuff just exploded out and hit him in the face and it ate his lips and eyelids off and now he can't wink or drink through straws because he has no eyelids or lips!"

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

As explained, no you do not need to agree to anything. The law says you need authorization to use a patented invention. A manufacturer can not sell you something it does not have. The manufacturer does not the right to sell you a commercial license. There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.

As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?

Re:Open hardware?

[Roman Coder]

There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.

Where is the notification that either the device I purchased is for personal use only, or that I have not purchased a commercial license? I don't remember seeing any? I don't remember agreeing to any shrinkwrap/EULA at purchase time either.

As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?

I bought the camera to take pictures, not to just purchase the cheapest device that I could use.

As far as the fee amounts goes, that is not my business, that is between the patent holder and the camera maker. If the camera maker is losing money to the patent holder, then raise the price of the camera.

And it is 'double dipping' if the patent owner charges the camera maker for the right to use the tech, and then wants to charge me again for the same tech.

I'm paying for the camera to use it in every way it can be used, unless I'm told up front that it can't be used in certain ways. At purchase time, no restrictions on its use was communicated to me.

Show me where it says the device I purchased has restrictions on its use, and I'll retract my statement.

Until then, I bought the hardware, its mine, and I can use it how I see fit, unless I agreed to otherwise at purchase time.

The onus is on the camera maker and seller to tell me when and under what conditions I can use the camera, otherwise, I can use it whatever way I want to.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

Are you really this dense? How does the line you quoted turn into some sort of 'special patent' rant? Let's try to take this real slow...

You said there is no contract that says you can't sell prints or set up a portait studio.

I pointed out that patents that cover MOVING PICTURES have nothing to do with STILL PICTURES (prints and portraits).

Just for the record, there are millions of OTHER patents that have nothing to do with portrait photography.

Now for the parts that seem so hard for you to understand...

You need a license to sell a video (over 12 minutes long) encoded with H.264. This license comes from MPEG-LA. Purchase of a video camera (ANY video camera) does not include that license. It does not matter if the camera says that or not.

You need a license to drive a car on a public road. Purchase of a video camera (or car for that matter) does not include that license either. Again, neither the camera nor car manufacturers need to inform you of that.

You CAN use your camera for any damn thing you wish. You can make the top-grossing movie of all time with it if you want. Neither the camera manufacturer nor MPEG-LA give a rats ass what you do with the camera.

If you want to SELL your H.264 encoded video you need a license (to sell the video, not use the camera). That license comes from MPEG-LA, not the camera manufacturer.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

The device is not 'for personal use only'. The device can be used for anything you want, and no-one has anything to say about it.

However, if you are selling videos, you need a license from MPEG-LA (to sell the videos, not to operate the camera). It is not the camera manufacturers responsibility to tell you that (although most do).

I recently purchased a car, and nowhere in the sales or vehicle documentation does it say I need a license to drive the car on a public road. Does that mean I don't need a license?

I also purchased some lumber, and again they didn't tell me I need a building permit to use that lumber to build a house. Does that mean I don't need one?

I don't know where you got the idea the onus is on someone else to tell you what you are required to do. That is YOUR responsibility alone.

If you are in the house-building business it is YOUR responsibility to know what the various codes are and what you are required to do, not the company who sold you the tools you use.

If you are in the video business it is YOUR responsibility to know what licenses and permits are required, not the manufacturer of the camera.

Re:Open hardware?

[Roman Coder]

Show me where it says the device I purchased has restrictions on its use, and I'll retract my statement.

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

I'll try, but I am seriously beginning to question your ability to comprehend it.

The things that say there are restrictions on the use of the device (H.264 encoder) are:

1) The fact that it is patented, and
2) US Patent Law which says you need permission from the patent owner to use a patented thing

Now, perhaps you could show me where you got that permission from. Don't say the camera manufacturer, because they don't have the authority to give it to you, regardless of what they do or don't tell you.

If I lease a piece of property from Joe, and later turn around and SELL that property to you, do you own it? Obviously not, because I didn't have permission to sell it to you in the first place. Can Joe now come and either throw you off the property or demand payment from you? Yes indeed. Does the fact that you 'bought' it from me matter in the slightest (as far as you and Joe are concerned)? Nope.

Re:Open hardware?

[aristotle-dude]

You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.

Sorry but no I do not. I need a license to encode and distribute the video either by download or physical media for profit. I do not need a license to operate the camera and produce my own "copyright" original works. If I am purchasing commercial quality encoder then I would end up paying a "commercial" license for that product. End of story. The company that created the camera already paid the license for the encoder on the device and I most likely will not be taking the raw video and distributing it but will use another "licensed" product to create the final consumable product.

If that is not good enough for the MPEGLA then they can eat shit and die because they have no right to profit from my "copyrighted" intellectual property.

Re:Open hardware?

[PopeRatzo]

No, I did not say that. I said it COULD happen.

So, let me get this straight.

You're saying that in an alternate universe where MPEG-LA and the Supreme Court said things that it did not say in this universe, it might be possible that you COULD be violating a patent by using a consumer camera for professional purposes, except not.

OK. Got it.

A video that grosses $500M does not require 5000X the number of cameras that a video grossing $100K requires. So how do you structure the license fees so that they are fair to everyone?

I guess now I can understand why patents are so completely worthless. Because of people who think like you.

I suppose you believe there should also be two tiers of super-sharp nanotech chef's knives. One for someone who cooks for their family and one for a master chef who owns a chain of restaurants.

If I invent the greatest oil paint ever, should I have two levels of licenses? One for somebody who paints still lifes in their family room and another for famous artists whose paintings sell for hundreds of thousands?

How 'bout this one? Think of all the patents involved with your desktop computer. There should be a divided market for personal computers. One for the kid who play WoW and another for his older brother who uses his computer to build a website which becomes the next Facebook. I mean, according to you, it's the only way to make licensing "fair".

I have no doubt that you're going to go down swinging with this idea, bws111. You'll aver to the end that of course there should be two price levels for golf clubs with patented technology. One for the Republican congressman who plays 160 rounds of golf per year with his 10 handicap and another for Tiger Woods.

But you would be completely insane. However, you have inadvertently made a great case for why our current patent system is completely useless.

So the answer to your question, "How do you structure license fees fairly?" is, "You do NOT structure license fees "fairly". You make your invention, you license it, you make some money and then invent something else. Your patent should not grant you fortunes for your descendants to the tenth generation. Your patent should not be a tax on everything. Your patent should not pass beyond whoever uses your invention to manufacture a product and sells it to someone. YOU GOT PAID BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR GOD'S SAKE, NOW SUCK IT UP AND INVENT SOMETHING ELSE. Don't be a baby and expect that the world owes you riches beyond measure just because you had one fucking idea, even if it happens to be a good idea.

Re:Open hardware?

[Roman Coder]

No, I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm just not agreeing with it, and doing so without being insulting.

When you purchase a DVD, it says right on the box its for home and non-commercial use only. I'd expect the same thing on the camera, to validate your point of view on the subject at hand.

Otherwise, its reasonable to expect that the camera manufacturer has paid all relevant licensing fees to patent holders for me to be able to use the camera for any reason I want, without worry of patent infringements.

If nothing else, you'd think that MPEG-LA would force camera companies to include a piece of paper in the box when you get the camera that says "If you want to use this for commercial purposes, you have to pay us too!".

In any case, I'd love to see this challenged in the court system. Even the one we have currently.

We might as well leave this as "agree to disagree" at this point, since we're basically talking past each other at this point. I'll even let you get the last word! :)

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

I apologize for the insulting statement. I also agree that the manufacturers SHOULD put such a notice in the box (I honestly thought they did, I know the camera I bought came with such a notice). My only point in arguing this is that it really bothers me when people make statements about legal issues that just are not true, such as saying that you don't have to have a license just because you were not party to an agreement. The current situation may indeed suck, and a court test would be nice, but I would hate like hell to BE the court test case!

Re:Open hardware?

[bws111]

You can write whatever little rants you want claiming all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true.

Now, I cited an actual Supreme Court case, which apparently you did not read. So here are some of the pertinent things from the actual case, not mere supposition:

This is what the petitioner claimed:

"The owner of a patent cannot, by means of the patent, restrict the use made of a device manufactured under the patent after the device has passed into the hands of a purchaser in the ordinary channels of trade and full consideration paid therefor."

That sounds exactly like the arguments made here, doesn't it?

This is what the SCOTUS had to say about that:

"But that proposition ignores controlling facts. The patent owner did not sell to petitioner the amplifiers in question or authorize the Transformer Company to sell them or any amplifiers for use in theaters or any other commercial use. The sales made by the Transformer Company to petitioner were outside the scope of its license, and not under the patent." ...
Pertinent words of the license are these: "To manufacture . . . and to sell only for radio amateur reception, radio experimental reception and radio broadcast reception. . . ." ...Patent owners may grant licenses extending to all uses or limited to use in a defined field. 76 U. S. 799-800; Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. v. Brooklyn, 14 F.2d 5; Dorsey Rake Co. v. Bradley Co., No. 4,015, 7 Fed.Cas. 946-947; Robinson on Patents, 808, 824. Unquestionably, the owner of a patent may grant licenses to manufacture, use, or sell upon conditions not inconsistent with the scope of the monopoly.

Do you understand that? Patent owners CAN restrict use to a defined field (with several cases demonstrating that). Also, UNQUESTIONABLY (their word, not mine) a patent owner can put conditions on the use of a patent.

Now, I understand that you don't like that. I never said I liked it or supported it either, and I wish you wouldn't imply otherwise.

Finally, please point out where I claimed the SCOTUS said things it did not say. And if you have any actual cases backing up your points, please provide them.

Re:Open hardware?

[yyxx]

Are you so stupid as to thing a misinterpreted and unenforceable clause

Really? And you know this how?

And that means that they'll now control everything that's published? Are you fucking KIDDING me?

I already can't view my DVDs on a Linux box or transfer iTunes movies I have purchased to other devices. Amazon and Apple both have deleted content they don't like from people's devices. YouTube, Google, Yahoo, and others delete controversial content frequently, often completely ignoring fair use provisions. The only reason we can still break DVDs is because the crypto in them was deliberately weak (due to export restrictions.

In a few years, all books, videos, photos, almost our entire history and intellectual life will be on the Internet. Patents and cryptography will ensure that you can view it only on devices controlled by a few companies. That's what we're heading for.

And morons like you are cheering it along.

Re:Open hardware?

[DurendalMac]

Really? And you know this how?

Misinterpreted because the MPEG-LA came out and fucking said so. Unenforceable because it's so grotesquely overreaching that even the most chunkheaded judge would rule against them if they were ever fool enough to try a case with it.

I already can't view my DVDs on a Linux box or transfer iTunes movies I have purchased to other devices.

If you can't figure out how to watch a DVD on Linux then you're either a mini Stallman or just fucking incompetent. There are a ton of ways to do it. iTunes is iTunes. It is a single implementation. You can still rip a DVD to whatever format you want and slap it onto another device.

Amazon and Apple both have deleted content they don't like from people's devices.

Flagrant fucking lie, douchebag. Apple has never used their killswitch, nor have they remotely deleted ANYTHING from an Apple device. Amazon nuked Kindle content only because of some very ugly actions on the part of a seller, and then went back because of the outcry. They're not going to do it again. They might choose to go after the seller instead, like they should.

YouTube, Google, Yahoo, and others delete controversial content frequently, often completely ignoring fair use provisions.

Do you honestly think that they have the means to go through EVERY SINGLE TAKEDOWN and determine if it's fair use or not? Guess what? YOU can fight it if you think it's fair use. It's not their damned job to take a bullet for you.

In a few years, all books, videos, photos, almost our entire history and intellectual life will be on the Internet. Patents and cryptography will ensure that you can view it only on devices controlled by a few companies. That's what we're heading for.

Yes, and I'm sure all of it will be completely restricted! Oh, wait, there's still a TON of stuff out there that is completely free and far from DRM-happy. You can go ahead and publish whatever the hell you want online. Make something and put it out there free of charge, free of copy protection. That's your right. It's your stuff. By the same token, companies who want copy protection are free to use it. Don't like it? Don't buy from them. You want a book? Buy the hardcopy. They can't restrict that. History? Sorry, you can't copyright history. A history book, sure, but not history itself.

And morons like you are cheering it along.

And morons like you keep screaming that the sky is falling. Congratulations on marginalizing yourself as a nutwad that people ignore. If you had three braincells to rub together, you might realize that a better plan of attack is to go after several specific things and explain rationally why they're bad instead of screaming that people who don't see that the world is ending are idiots. Go stand on a street corner next to the lunatic armageddon preacher where you belong, asshat.

Re:Open hardware?

[yyxx]

I think your posting speaks for itself.

Free or Open

[Anonymous Coward]

community driven free software and open hardware

So it isn't open source, just community driven? Oh, that's right... the "community" can't agree on a term.

Re:Free or Open

[Pojut]

I never understood all the hate towards open source by trolls here on Slashdot. Like anything, the way the open source community operates has flaws just like any other community....but what about it butthurts people so badly that they have to troll about it?

Re:Free or Open

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be the utter scorn the OSS community heaps upon anyone who actually wants to make money on their products.

Re:Free or Open

[Yvan256]

In OSS, if everyone can't agree on something, it either stalls or splits projects into forks which isn't always a good thing. Stalling means you can't rely on whatever the group is/was working on, and forks means the workforce of the old and the new forked project has been split too, sometimes leading to the death of the original, the fork or both.

In a company, someone or at least a group usually has the last say in how something should be done so that things can move forward. Like Oracle buying everything left and right and closing doors to projects used world-wide. Oh wait...

Re:Free or Open

[causality]

I never understood all the hate towards open source by trolls here on Slashdot. Like anything, the way the open source community operates has flaws just like any other community....but what about it butthurts people so badly that they have to troll about it?

The fact that they don't have to participate in it if they don't want to has never stopped the less-enlightened from railing against something and hoping it fails and ceases to exist. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to participate; they cannot rest until no one else may participate either. This is by no means limited to Open Source, software, or computing. It was in fact a huge driving force behind movements like Prohibition.

Re:Free or Open

[DurendalMac]

Um, no. I think very few people here have a beef against the idea of open source. I use some open source software when it suits my needs and works well enough. If it does what you want it to do, why not?

I think the anger is lashing out at the FOSS community. While some are level-headed, some are not and come off like raving zealots. I've never seen tech zealotry on the level of a FOSS fanatic. Even the most obnoxious Apple yuppie fanboy can't hold a candle to the lunatic ravings of the FOSS nuts. It's sad, really, because we get some good stuff out of the FOSS community, but there are just too many asperger's-riddled neckbeards who refuse to budge on the smallest, stupidest things and will sure as hell let you know it.

It's not open source we mock. It's the hardline element of the open source community.

Re:Free or Open

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be that you implied everybody who isn't a fan of open source is less-enlightened and your general bullshit attitude like mac fans. Bitches love to bitch, haters love to hate, and bitches and haters aren't just open or closed source.

Re:Free or Open

[Hodapp]

A casual perusal of any open forum on the Internet will readily show that zealotry just as intense is plenty rampant. See: Politics, sports, cars.

Re:Free or Open

[Kjella]

Pretty much every closed source software is in it to do business. That doesn't mean they always play nice when maximizing profit like lock-in and forced obsolescence, but most of the time they're looking to satisfy the customers because it leads to more sales and being able to take higher prices. The project shapes to meet the demands of the users. Open source on the other hand, for the most part goes in whatever damn direction they feel like, and being a user gets you essentially very little say-so. You want it? Fine, you code it or hire us for $$$ to do so. And if the people behind it lose their motivation, it's unlikely someone will come up with enough cash to change their minds.

Hiring a good developer at market rates is expensive - maybe short term in the financial crisis you can get something good for "cheap" but it's certainly the exception. Just think what your own contract rates would be, and you won't get many hours work on GIMP before you could have bought Photoshop for less. For most people on their own desktop hiring people to code something custom for them personally is completely out of the question. That's the problem, there's not one person willing to pay $100 (that'll get you less than two days at minimum wage, and the contractor still has to cover expenses and social costs) but there's probably 100 people willing to give $1. Except there's no working micropayment system and it turns into a waiting game hoping someone else will pay.

That's the big difference between closed and open source. Open source is free if it already does what you want and ridiculously expensive if it doesn't. With closed source software, you're paying even if you only use features they've had for years. That cash goes into funding development so the costs are spread among more users, not that the first user must pay everything. The first person gets the pleasure of trying to plow the road, everyone else just follows.

Re:Free or Open

[ConceptJunkie]

Aw. come on, RMS isn't _that_ bad, is he?

Re:Free or Open

[vadim_t]

It's not open source we mock. It's the hardline element of the open source community.

The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people. And to me, it makes sense. The defining characteristic of being a vegetarian is not eating meat. The defining characteristic of open source is not being closed. You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.

Re:Free or Open

[causality]

Or it could be that you implied everybody who isn't a fan of open source is less-enlightened and your general bullshit attitude like mac fans. Bitches love to bitch, haters love to hate, and bitches and haters aren't just open or closed source.

I actually don't think you're trolling so I'll answer this.

There are reasonable people who can decide that something doesn't suit them. They don't also feel a need to make negative posts all about how something is terrible for everyone else merely because it does not meet their personal needs.

As a contrast, there are the less-enlightened. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to use whatever it is that doesn't suit their needs (be that Open Source or anything else). No, they also have to hate the fact that anyone else would use something that doesn't suit their needs. That's what a fanboy is.

I very much enjoy and appreciate Open Source. If asked, I can help someone to better understand both the philosophy and the software to the best of my ability. If it's relevant to a discussion, I might weigh in with my opinions about it. However, I acknowledge that for various reasons, it is not for everyone. The freedom of others to do what they wish with their own property (computers/hardware they own, in this case) is more important to me than any personal admiration of Open Source I may have.

That's why I am not a "fan" in the sense of viewing everything in terms of "my team vs. everyone else". That's a mindless and in my opinion, childish way to look at the world.

So no, I did not imply that everyone who doesn't like Open Source is less enlightened. You may have a strong desire to read that into my message but it is not actually there. You are supplying that all on your own. What I described as less-enlightened are those people who are not content to do what works for them; they have to also convert the other guy. Try reading my post next time. If you did read it, try addressing your issues with reading comprehension.

Re:Free or Open

[DurendalMac]

And you struggle to find software that does what you want without an archaic interface or simply do without many, many things that others are able to enjoy. It's more like joining a cult that heavily restricts your actions.

Re:Free or Open

[vadim_t]

You do, because you believe the tradeoff is worth it. Things done for the sake of principles are rarely easy.

Fortunately in this area it's possible and quite easy to make a contribution and help fix the problems.

Re:Free or Open

[geminidomino]

The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people.

And those are the ones getting mocked.

You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.

When your main figurehead/Most Illustrious Prophet tells the world that people who don't like his particular brand of Kool-aid are sociopaths because they get paid to write closed-source software, you've moved beyond "working to advance" anything and are firmly entrenched in the "raving fucking nutter" zone.

Re:Free or Open

[vadim_t]

And those are the ones getting mocked.

Please feel free to, I don't mind.

When your main figurehead/Most Illustrious Prophet tells the world that people who don't like his particular brand of Kool-aid are sociopaths because they get paid to write closed-source software, you've moved beyond "working to advance" anything and are firmly entrenched in the "raving fucking nutter" zone.

Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet. I'm a member of the FSF and never spoke to the guy and haven't looked at anything he wrote in the last few years, simply because of a lack of need. He did a fine job of starting things, and at this point everything seems to be working fine on its own.

Re:Free or Open

[geminidomino]

Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet.

Not all members/supporters of the FSF are as level-headed, unfortunately. Take a look at any of the flamewars on ./ (or wait 20 minutes and another one will come up.)
As for the RMS interview I spoke of, ca 2005 I think... http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 (Not trying to convince you of anything one way or another, but just so you know I'm not making this shit up).

JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

Re:Free or Open

[vadim_t]

Well, I've seen him speak, and based on that can tell you two things:

1. He's very strange. As in socially awkward, and this is obvious within less than 5 minutes from when he shows up.

2. He's very true to what he believes in, and as far as I can tell what he professes is very internally consistent.

JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.

This for example has a quite consistent explanation. The way I understand it, in his view, the current copyright enforcement infringes on what he considers to be basic human decency. It forbids helping your fellow man.

For instance, it'd be rather odd to claim that your neighbour must buy his own drill if he needs a hole made somewhere, and that there would be something deeply wrong about borrowing it from you. Most people would also think you'd be a bit of a jerk to refuse on the grounds that each tool must be owned and used by one person only, and that it'd be wrong to deprive the company of the profit it would have if everybody who ever needed a drill even for a short time had to buy one. And of course, the idea of the government making it illegal to lend tools without the company's permission would be deeply offensive to most people.

So what if instead of a drill your neighbour has to write a letter and is in need of a word processor?

So for him, basically it goes against basic decency to refuse to help a friend in the name of a corporation's profits.

This way of seeing things may not agree with the way things works currently, but I don't think that there's anything especially crazy about it. So taking this further, if you participate in this system you're yourself doing evil by helping perpetuate something that's antisocial.

Re:Free or Open

[DurendalMac]

It's not like the FSF doesn't have its share of nutballs. Remember the whole, "Let's DDoS the Apple genius bars and ask all these questions" idiocy? Yeah, because low-level tech support guys have total control over company policy, and grandma certainly isn't going to get a negative view of the FOSS community when the fat, smelly neckbeard is taking up time at the genius bar. I couldn't believe that ANYONE, even FOSS zealots, would find that to be a good idea. I guess some are completely lacking in any social graces and don't do things to help the community, just fulfilling their own warped sense of self-righteousness.

Re:Free or Open

[DurendalMac]

There are far, FAR greater atrocities going on in the world, but RMS chooses to whine about software. Yeah, because copyright and closed-source are certainly the worst things going on right now! People are being brutalized and subjugated all over the world, but dammit, he wants people to stop making a living writing code with licenses he doesn't like!

Re:Free or Open

[vadim_t]

RMS knows software, so he talks about software. It's not possible to have everybody work on "the world's largest problems", whatever you think those are, because people have very different competencies. I don't think RMS would make a good social worker for instance.

BTW, if you believe people's subjugation is such an urgent matter, what are you doing arguing with me here? Go do something to fix it already. Exactly the same thing your're criticizing him for is applicable to you, right now.

Good luck with that...

[Eggplant62]

Didn't I read someplace that MPAA, in collusion with camera equipment manufacturers and the camera operators' unions, is looking to place patents on these devices so as to preclude competition?

Re:Good luck with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

The device supports also supports RAW which MPAA will not be restricting.

CODECs?

[Yvan256]

In terms of video codecs the camera supports .mov, JP4 RAW (requires post production conversion), .ogm, and JPEG sequence plus optional tags like geo information/GPS coordinates.

Last time I checked, .mov was a container, not a CODEC.

A .mov file can use a lot of things. Quicktime 7 gives me PNG, JPEG, JPEG 2000, DV, DVCPro, Apple Pixlet, MPEG-4 and H.264 as video CODEC options. Older Quicktime versions would have offered me older CODECs too.

And what's JP4? Never heard of it. I sure hope they don't mean their camera runs on jet fuel.

Re:CODECs?

[Abu Hurayrah]

Details about the JP4 codec can be found here: http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=JP4

Re:CODECs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi!

About JP4 please check: http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=JP4

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Elphel-camera-under-the-hood-from-Verilog-to-PHP/ search for "Color processing in Elphel cameras"

http://blogs.elphel.com/2010/07/jp4-workflow/
Regards

Re:CODECs?

[Eternauta3k]

I, for one, would only buy a camera if it ran on jet fuel.

Re:CODECs?

[iYk6]

In terms of video codecs the camera supports .mov, JP4 RAW (requires post production conversion), .ogm, and JPEG sequence plus optional tags like geo information/GPS coordinates.

Last time I checked, .mov was a container, not a CODEC.

.ogm is a container too. It's made by the same company that made vorbis (audio) and theora (video).

Is your quote from the article? If so, they just don't know anything about AV.

Open source camera?

[DurendalMac]

Unfortunately, while the camera will have some interesting features and can do some things well, it will be hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher. Further development on future models will come to a standstill as the developers engage in fierce, unyielding debates about minutia. Eventually the camera will be forked into four different projects, with only one making it to market and carrying the same flaws as the first.

Re:Open source camera?

[TheKidWho]

You think they'll actually get one to market? Overly optimistic of you!

Re:Open source camera?

[PhantomHarlock]

Unfortunately, without a profit motive, this tends to be the case.

Re:Open source camera?

[alen]

meanwhile apple will sell millions of iPhone 5's where you personally have to ask Steve Jobs permission any time you use it

Re:Open source camera?

[Revotron]

...hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher.

Score:5, Truth

Re:Open source camera?

[Anonymous Coward]

Further development on future models will come to a standstill as the developers engage in fierce, unyielding debates about minutia.

Let's just ignore the fact they've been doing this for ages now.

fir-St

[Anonymous Coward]

task. Research metadiscuusions

Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[bieber]

Reading through the article, I'm loving just about everything about this camera, except the most important part of all...the sensor, which is absolutely tiny. Forget about a camera for cinema, with a sensor that size you're going to be struggling to get it not to look like a webcam video. Looking at the company that makes the actual camera element, though, it looks like they also sell a model with a more reasonably sized sensor, but it can only do 5fps. If they really want to pass this thing off as a motion picture camera, they need to find a solution that will give them a big sensor at a respectable frame rate. Hopefully that will be possible in the near future, because the rest of this project looks downright awesome.

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[Thagg]

bieber is absolutely right. What makes the Canon 5D Mark II amazing is the large sensor (even larger than 35mm motion picture film), enabling good control of depth of field. No matter what you do, with that sensor it's going to look like phone-cam video.

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[PhantomHarlock]

yea, and it's using C-mount lenses, this thing is obviously not designed to compete with full sized sensors and cameras...

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[Wescotte]

I've been watching the Apertus/Elphel project for some time now. I too wanted a larger sensor to allow a nice shallow DOF. However, the more research I do the more I realize it can still be achieved. The digital cameras that were used to shoot the Star Wars prequels were 2/3" and they achieved a very cinematic look. The C-mount means you can get lens that are capable of doing this at a fraction of the price.

Really, the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels. This allows each photosite to capture more light and thus work better in lower light conditions. Think of a bucket capturing water. The larger the bucket the more water you can get.

Now, right now nobody seems to be manufacturing a full frame sensor that does what you need and is cheap enough. Once they exist I'm sure the Elphel/Apertus team will start using them.

Here is another interesting camera project that seems to debunk many of the perceived size sensor limitations. It' called "Drama" and is designed to be a camera capable of uncompressed video. http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=219424

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[falconwolf]

Really, the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels.

It may not matter to you but resolution does matter to some people. Better signal-to-noise ratios is also important to some.

Falcon

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Ouch, the sensor size is a limitation, you can get a new Canon camcorder with a sensor about that size for about $700 from a reputable shop. Sure, it won't have all the same features but that puts the whole thing into a bit of a perspective. The kit in question is above the base price of a 5D Mk. II, the saving grace of the Apertus is maybe access to less expensive lenses. I see some features that make it more useful in a production environment, but the sensor size is a major limitation.

While the interface looks intriguing, I think an off-the-shelf SLR with modified firmware m be a better bet for indie filmmaker needs. There are firmwares for Panasonic's micro four thirds cameras that nearly double the standard bit rate. With cheap lens mount adapters, a micro four thirds camera can accept just about any lens mount system.

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[rduke15]

the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels

Not at all.

The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.

While this camera may be a very interesting project, and may end up being useful for certain things, it doesn't look like it's real use will be anywhere in the realm of professional film making.

The small sensor is an essential drawback. The C-mount for lenses is absurd (that was used on "high-end" Super 8 cameras, and amateur 16 mm. cameras several generations ago. Good luck trying to rent modern C-mount lenses...), etc.

Looking at the photo in the article, I also notice a ridiculously large monitor, none of the usual accessories on the camera, and the whole thing screwed onto a tripod for stills photography. The people who set up that camera in the article's photo are certainly not thinking of professional cinematography, or if they are, they don't have a clue.

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[TheSync]

The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.

I never understood this - if you want small depth of field, why not just open up the aperture?

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[bieber]

Because when your lens is already wide open, that isn't really an option. For instance, with a 28/2.8 lens on my 20D (appreciably smaller than 35mm sensor, but still much larger than a compact digital) I can get somewhat shallow depth of field at f/2.8 at close range. If I mount it on a 5D Mark II, I can get that shallowness at a much longer range (still wide open), and when you get in really close it's just remarkably shallow.

Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small?

[TheSync]

In doing some reading, I also recognize now that "background blur" is enhanced by more magnification of the background, which comes from the ability to use longer lenses.

This results in the background looking more blurred despite having the same "depth of field".

Lens Not Included?

[mpapet]

I don't get it. The crux of image acquisition is the lens and they don't include one?

I don't see how that contraption could possibly penetrate the production side of entertainment industry. What is the market for this device?

Re:Lens Not Included?

[DurendalMac]

What is the market for this device?

Richard Stallman and those like him. It doesn't matter how godawful the product is. If it's open-source, they'll use it and extoll its virtues despite other products being superior in every other way.

Re:Lens Not Included?

[bieber]

That's because in serious cinema (and still), there's no such concept as "the lens." It's "whichever lens is best for this particular lighting situation/distance/position," and you have a bag full of them that you swap out at will. While you can buy some SLR (and possibly cinema, I'm not really familiar with that world) cameras in a package deal with a lens, experienced users generally won't, unless the package just happens to include a lens that they want to have at a discount for buying it with the camera. Shipping a single lens with every camera would just be foolish, and turn away buyers who either already own or just don't want whatever particular lens you chose. Besides, at this point the entire camera has to be purchased piecemeal and assembled, so even if it were standard to include a lens with a camera purchase, it wouldn't exactly be the single issue standing between them and market dominance :/

Re:Lens Not Included?

[alen]

because even amateur photographers have a few lenses

which one you use depends on your location, lighting, etc

Re:Lens Not Included?

[vadim_t]

Whatever lens you get with the camera isn't going to be a very good one. Good lenses can easily cost more than the camera itself, so of course that's not what they're going to bundle with it.

Re:Lens Not Included?

[drinkypoo]

Prosumer (I hate the word too) level cameras tend to be offered with or without a lens. Often there's two packages, a camera body+battery+remote, and a full kit with all that plus a lens, a bag, and a crappy cleaning kit. So it is slightly odd for something at this level (in small sensor land) to not be offered with a lens, but it's not really that big a deal.

Re:Lens Not Included?

[Kjella]

While you can buy some SLR (and possibly cinema, I'm not really familiar with that world) cameras in a package deal with a lens, experienced users generally won't, unless the package just happens to include a lens that they want to have at a discount for buying it with the camera.

That made it sound like they were bad. The primary reason is that they're all generally bundled with an all-round lens and if you already have an SLR - which is pretty much a requirement for being called an advanced user - you already have it from your last camera. Unless they are changing lens system, which for a professional photographer is a huge decision not taken lightly. The best lenses are never bundled as far as I know, it's more of a "starter kit" for people that don't have any lenses already.

Once Upon a Time....

[Anonymous Coward]

There was this startup called Red (http://www.red.com/)....

The weakest link ...

[BorgDrone]

I love how the article uses crappy low-res, heavily compressed flash video to demonstrate the quality of the camera.

Canon XF300/XF305

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3407

Canon XF300 / XF305 Camcorder. BBC approved broadcast quality camera. $7000.

SOLD.

I don't see much of an advantage...

[PhantomHarlock]

This thing is trying to compete with the RED camera system and the 5D Mk. II. As others have said, the sensor is already behind. Everyone doing 2K on the cheap is using the 5D Mk. II as a video camera - it has a bigger, better sensor than anything anywhere in that price bracket, plus Canon's awesome lenses. The next step up is the RED system for 4K, which is just on fire right now because of its revolutionary modularity. This thing is pretty small potatoes compared to either of those two. It might be good for student filmmakers though. A school could buy a batch of them.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[theJML]

I'd also like to add the T2i or the 7D. It's "Good Enough" for 1080p, continues to use great EOS lenses, does it cheaper than the 5D mk II and is $1k or less. As TFA points out, the cost of the system their pitching has a camera that STARTS at $2k and "More advanced sensor frontends could drastically increase this price". To me, Drastically increasing $2k puts you closer to a RED camera, and not quite so drastic, the 5D mk II, so the $2k camera is close to the same as the T2i or 7D and they cost quite a bit less, have chdk firmware (or will soon) and are proven systems with support lines and easily found warranty replacements. Because the last think you want to do is shoot a few perfect takes and then find out that the 'open source hardware' wasn't quite up to snuff.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[Taxman415a]

Well the not being hemmed in by the MPEG-LA's patent trolling would be one big advantage. "It's a shame your film has made some money or become famous, let's talk about damages."

Being limited to the C or CS lenses seems like a pretty big thing when the 5D has a large range of interchangeable lenses, and apparently the Red One can use Nikon and Canon lenses with adapters and even have full electronic control of them. The people developing the Magic Lantern firmware seem to be a fan of the 5D's larger sensor compared to the Red One, etc to the point where they are reverse engineering the camera to add some cinematic improvements to its firmware. That's pretty hard core.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[Wescotte]

Adapters from C/CS to any other mount are cheap. Going the reverse is expensive.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[rduke15]

the Red One can use Nikon and Canon lenses

You can do that, but in practice you almost never do it, except for some very special single shots. These are photo lenses which are not well suited for cinematography. The RED has a standard PL mount that takes any of the standard film camera lenses (Zeiss, Cooke, ...) from your local renting company.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[Art3x]

Being limited to the C or CS lenses seems like a pretty big thing

But they're not. There are adaptors for just every other lens mount. The video clip at the bottom of the article uses an adaptor for SLR lenses.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[jonwil]

Maybe a better solution would be to find an existing camera that's A.Cheap B.Good enough for amateur cinema work (the target audience here) and C.Hackable.

Then you go and produce a custom firmware that only records into non-patented formats.
MPEG-LA comes knocking on your door, you can show them that the footage was NEVER encoded in MPEG.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[Taxman415a]

Maybe a better solution would be to find an existing camera that's A.Cheap B.Good enough for amateur cinema work (the target audience here) and C.Hackable.

And that camera would be...? The whole point of the effort in this article and the Magic Lantern is that no such thing exists, particularly at HD quality. This effort is trying to put the hardware together from scratch and Magic Lantern is trying to hack existing hardware that has the features they want. However you should read up on the things they have to do to decode the Canon firmware just to have the chance to try to improve it. And that's for one of the cameras it's possible for.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[AC-x]

Sure you can get an adapter, but a 1/2.5" sensor has a crop factor of 6, so a 28mm lense becomes a (probably quite soft) 168mm lens and a 50mm lens because 300mm.

Re:I don't see much of an advantage...

[Wescotte]

My understanding is that the sharpest part of the lens is in the center. So the crop factor actually reduces the vignetting effect of a poor lens.So a crappy lens might become usable when combined with a smaller sensor.. It's all a trade off anyway. Smaller sensor = lower cost to manufacture but lens can potentially be more expensive. You just need to find the sweet spot.

Right now full frame seems like the way to go because it's easy to find cheap but good new and used lens. However, not too many cameras (in video) offer such a solution.

Is it just me?

[bracher]

Or is this really the Elphel opensource/openhardware camera, and how Apertus hopes to add things around the edges. The camera is Elphel, as is the sensor and the software. The only thing that seems to be community-designed/built is the "rod" packaging, and maybe the battery rig.

Re:Is it just me?

[Abu Hurayrah]

The homepage for the Apertus project is cinema.elphel.com.

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me? or is the whole point of opensource you don't have to reinvent the wheel?
They are also developing a digital viewfinder and some other on camera controls; but simply the battery and rod system is a complex and worthwhile contribution.

several "open camera" software projects

[peter303]

The one that intrigued me was Stanford's computer science professor Marc Levoy Camera 2.0 Project.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

[falconwolf]

bieber is absolutely right. What makes the Canon 5D Mark II amazing is the large sensor (even larger than 35mm motion picture film), enabling good control of depth of field.

The Mark II only captures 29 seconds of video though. Because of the sensor size, 35mm full-frame, I've thought about getting one. That or a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but that's more than twice the price of the 5D Mark II.

Falcon

Re:Canon EOS 5D Mark II

[bieber]

29 seconds? It's more along the lines of 12 minutes, iirc. If you're shooting something staged and controlled, 12 minutes continuous recording shouldn't be an issue. It's worthless for live video, since it can't even give you a clean video out signal, but for controlled recording it's really quite spectacular for the price.

Re:Canon EOS 5D Mark II

[falconwolf]

29 seconds? It's more along the lines of 12 minutes, iirc.

That's what I thought I read in early reviews, but a review on photo.net says it can record 12 minutes in HD or 29 minutes, 59 seconds in SD. Being able to record 12 minutes, you should be able to break up scenes into small enough segments to record all of it, so maybe with the right accessories maybe it can be a decent movie camera.

Falcon

too big, not intuitive enough

[dh003i]

So...it has the size of a medium format or even large-format camera...but the resolution of a DSLR that is 5 years out of date. Doesn't seem too impressive to me.

Racking focus on a c-mount can be tough....

[Anonymous Coward]

A screw-mount lens ain't necessarily the one you want for production. On the other hand, there is some very nice tiny glass they make in c-mount.

This thing sounds like a video Kras. But with so many low-end video options, who needs something like that?

Now these points of data make a beautiful line

[Arancaytar]

I can't be the only one reading the name Apertus and humming that tune, right?

European taxes on camcorders

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

That's what I thought I read in early reviews, but a review on photo.net says it can record 12 minutes in HD or 29 minutes, 59 seconds in SD. Being able to record 12 minutes, you should be able to break up scenes into small enough segments to record all of it, so maybe with the right accessories maybe it can be a decent movie camera.

The EU defines devices that can record 30 minutes or more of continuous video as "camcorders", and subjects them to special taxation. This is the reason for the 29:59 limit on SD.

Re:European taxes on camcorders

[falconwolf]

The EU defines devices that can record 30 minutes or more of continuous video as "camcorders", and subjects them to special taxation. This is the reason for the 29:59 limit on SD.

Stupid laws like this, actually almost all laws, should be stricken from the law books. Here's a good guide on this: Should there be a Law?

I notice your link says that an EU law is why 29 minute, 59 seconds is the limit of the the Panasonic Lumix GH1 for recording there. However it says the rest of the world does not have that limit, so it should not apply elsewhere, like here in the US.

Falcon

transcoding?

[yyxx]

Is there efficient transcoding from h.264 to WebM? The two codecs are so similar that it may be possible to transcode without decompression and the associated quality loss.

If there is efficient transcoding, that would greatly reduce the problem.

Only a 1/2.5 sensor, definitely not cinematic

[AC-x]

That's the same kind of sensor you get in a small compact camera like an IXUS, you'll never get anywhere near cinematic quality with that because of noise, lack of dynamic range and most of all the small sensor gives a large depth of field, so no fancy depth of field effects. For comparison a 1/2.5" sensor is about the same size as Super8 film.

For cinematic image quality (at least in terms of shallow depth of field) you need at least a 4/3rds size sensor (which is a bit larger than 16mm film), even better would be an APS or full frame sensor.