Apertus, the Open Source HD Movie Camera 152
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the now-that's-a-project dept.
from the now-that's-a-project dept.
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'."
CODECs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Re:Open hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Open source camera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Free or Open (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Open hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Lens Not Included? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.