Slashdot Mirror


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'."

16 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Open hardware? by toastar · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Open hardware? by V!NCENT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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 ;)

      --
      Here be signatures
    2. Re:Open hardware? by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Open hardware? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Open hardware? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Open hardware? by cgenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Open hardware? by Abu+Hurayrah · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty...
    7. Re:Open hardware? by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Open hardware? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Good luck with that... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  3. CODECs? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Open source camera? by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Cinema on a Sensor that Small? by bieber · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. I don't see much of an advantage... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:I don't see much of an advantage... by Taxman415a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  7. Re:Lens Not Included? by bieber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 :/