Jump to content


Photo

"TimeSliceRig" - now available in Germany


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Emanuel Schwermer, bvk

Emanuel Schwermer, bvk
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 March 2007 - 03:32 PM

Hello all.

Just to let you know, there is a "TimeFreezeRig" (MatrixEffectRig) available now in Munich/Germany, for the german and mid-europe market.
The Rig is completely digital, (25 - 50 Canon EOS 30D Cameras), you can use the rig for 35mill, 16mill or HD Productions.
We are delivering complete sequences, including all the postproduction!
If you are interested in using such an "TimeSliceRig" in germany or mid-europe, please contact me off-list (mail@firstcamera.de).
If you write me an email, you will get example clips and pics of the rig via email.

All the best,

Emanuel Maximilian Schwermer, bvk


Soon we will launch our web side.
www.timefreezefilms.de
(unfortunately still under construction)
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 17 March 2007 - 03:54 PM

Hello all.

Just to let you know, there is a "TimeFreezeRig" (MatrixEffectRig) available now in Munich/Germany, for the german and mid-europe market.
The Rig is completely digital, (25 - 50 Canon EOS 30D Cameras), you can use the rig for 35mill, 16mill or HD Productions.
We are delivering complete sequences, including all the postproduction!
If you are interested in using such an "TimeSliceRig" in germany or mid-europe, please contact me off-list (mail@firstcamera.de).
If you write me an email, you will get example clips and pics of the rig via email.

All the best,

Emanuel Maximilian Schwermer, bvk
Soon we will launch our web side.
www.timefreezefilms.de
(unfortunately still under construction)


Hi,

You might want to check that you are not infringing any of Dayton Taylors patents.

http://www.digitalair.com/intprop.html

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 17 March 2007 - 04:08 PM

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.
  • 0

#4 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 March 2007 - 03:25 AM

Hi,

You might want to check that you are not infringing any of Dayton Taylors patents.

http://www.digitalair.com/intprop.html

Stephen


Steven,

So wait. Digital Air is saying that If I manage to get 10 DSLR's together to shoot virtual motion I'd owe them royalties on my 100% original copyrightable footage??!?!?

I think this patent would fall under "previous invention" and "obviousness". Wow that is so odd that this got awarded. Yeah the Matrix Look and the Howard Stern show intro are iconic and all. But non-reproduceable w/o a fee!?!!?!? Wow.

Thanks for the information Stephen.
  • 0

#5 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:04 AM

You know what I find odd, is the complete absense of anything except "Licensing" and Infringement Informtaion" on that site, nothing else...

This paragraph kills me:

"Digital Air licenses its technology non-exclusively on a project-by-project basis to producers of media that use our patented processes and to exhibitors of media that contain products of our patented processes.

We presently offer licenses for any media produced or sold in countries covered by our applicable patents.

If the media is produced by a Digital Air production service unit (Timetrack or Movia) a comprehensive license package is included as part of the service.

If the media is not produced by Digital Air we recommend that producers determine if the process they are planning to use infringes any of our patents before producing the media.

In the event that the planned process infringes our patents we stongly urge the producer contact us for a license prior to the media being produced. We are under no obligation to license media that infringes our patents which has been produced without a license."


Wow, this makes me want to get about 10 SLR's tomorow and photograph something with their beloved method... Wow....

Unless ofcourse they are deemed silly by everyone, and everyone just disregards their legalese-like, umm.....


extortion....

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 18 March 2007 - 04:05 AM.

  • 0

#6 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:05 AM

Here is an interesting timeline on the development of one such system:

http://www.timeslice...ronology_f.html

Be sure to click on the "complete" link under the timeline to see the full story from beginning to end. Those early art-school experiments are quite fascinating.

AJB
  • 0

#7 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:22 AM

Dispatched email to EFF.
  • 0

#8 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:56 AM

Time slice is so 90's. Bit like swing shift. I wouldn't be investing in any of that kind of equipment for the near future if I was an investor.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 18 March 2007 - 11:17 AM

Steven,

So wait. Digital Air is saying that If I manage to get 10 DSLR's together to shoot virtual motion I'd owe them royalties on my 100% original copyrightable footage??!?!?

I think this patent would fall under "previous invention" and "obviousness". Wow that is so odd that this got awarded. Yeah the Matrix Look and the Howard Stern show intro are iconic and all. But non-reproduceable w/o a fee!?!!?!? Wow.

Thanks for the information Stephen.


Hi Dennis,

Basically yes. 24p on video is also patented!

Dayton knows Emanuel, I think he is going to have a chat with him.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:07 PM

Hi Dennis,

Basically yes. 24p on video is also patented!

Dayton knows Emanuel, I think he is going to have a chat with him.

Stephen



I would understand if their patent prevented anyone else from building a 80 lens camera where the film is wound onto a track and exposed.

But trying to lay claim to someones original work becuase it looks like it could have been done with a derivative of their camera system is *CRAZY*.

Nobody would try and lay claim to my film if it was shot on 24p Video. It's my film.

And the sad part is that nobody will tell them NO!

At the point a film would go through any sort of distribution, they'd have to file for E&O, this would include things like Coca-Cola logo's in the shot, and of course a paid-in-full license to Digital Air.

** Their patent pretty much covers any multi-camera cinematography with more than 10 cameras. **

I don't know if their patent covers frame interpolation with less than 10 cameras used.

....

Take the Steadicam patents for example:

It's a 100% original device that stabilzes cameras, at it's very core is an original invention.

But Tiffen does not go after people who stabilize their camera in any other way, or worse yet, ask for a per-play license payment for all shots in a production that could be considered/construed "Steadicam" shots.

Worse yet, Tiffen does not operate a website that could only be called "We Will Sue You If You Don't Do What We Say.com"

.....

I'm sure the person who invented reverb coils has a patent on it as well, but reverb is a standard effect now, nobody is paying royalties, or per-play fees based on their use of reverb or digital delay.

I'll let Digital Air speak for themselves.

"While our original patents describe the Timetrack camera as a means of producing film-based virtual camera movement we have also been issued patents on the process of producing virtual camera movement using any array of cameras - and we have been issued patents on the product of the process (i.e.: the actual media produced by the process). For more detailed information on the intellectual property behind Timetrack please visit [url="http://www.digitalair.com.""]http://www.digitalair.com."[/url]

The sentence in bold I have trouble with.

-> The Actual Media Produced.

I have no problems with patents on their devices.

But:

A Patent on the Media and Original Footage, produced by _ANY_ array of _ANY_ cameras simulating Virtual Camera Movement.

What smart person in the USPTO awarded this?
  • 0

#11 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 18 March 2007 - 04:59 PM

These were done by Tim Macmillan in the early 80s.

Attached File  cube.mov   697.65KB   55 downloads

Attached File  jump.mov   693.5KB   57 downloads

AJB
  • 0

#12 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 March 2007 - 06:39 PM

So if McMillan was doing this in the early 80's how is a patent awarded to Digital Air in 2004?!?!
  • 0

#13 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:50 AM

So if McMillan was doing this in the early 80's how is a patent awarded to Digital Air in 2004?!?!

If you don't apply for a patent, you don't get one. I would have to assume that digital air was the first to apply.
  • 0

#14 Dennis Kisilyov

Dennis Kisilyov
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 March 2007 - 02:06 PM

If you don't apply for a patent, you don't get one. I would have to assume that digital air was the first to apply.


But you would not get one if your invention was invented previously. During a patent application one has to do a exhaustive search that your invention has not been invented already. (At least this is the process in the states.)

But how the hell does one get a patent covering the output of the product. :-(. I think Digital Air is stretching it a bit, I've read their USPTO award, it does not mention this. Maybe they have this awarded in Zurich or AU, but I don't think their published USPTO paperwork allows them to challenge the footage shot with this method.

Still Alarming that Artists would do this to other Artists.

"I patent Oil Paints and Canvases, therefore if you have an oil painting (or what looks like an oil painting), you must be infringing on my patent, therefore your Mona Lisa is illegal w/o a license."

P.S. I did not even know this guy existed, and though this time-track stuff was a standard movie effect, that I allready in my minds eye knew how to reproduce with Digital SLR's from Nikon or Cannon, same DSLR's I've used to make stop-motion animations. Really odd to run into this bit of information.

Edited by Dennis Kisilyov, 19 March 2007 - 02:09 PM.

  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 19 March 2007 - 02:13 PM

P.S. I did not even know this guy existed, and though this time-track stuff was a standard movie effect, that I allready in my minds eye knew how to reproduce with Digital SLR's from Nikon or Cannon, same DSLR's I've used to make stop-motion animations. Really odd to run into this bit of information.


Hi Dennis,

Dayton has been around for some time. He actually owns the camera heads & cameras that were used in Matrix.

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 19 March 2007 - 06:00 PM

Can't someone copyright the dolly move then?

It seems that if one creates completely original software or a completely original tripping method that runs the camera set-ups than they should be safe.

On the other hand, once someone owns a copyright or trademark they must enforce it or they lose it. I don't know how you find out ahead of time if what you are doing is "illegal". The irony is if as a gesture of cooperation you show them what you are doing so they can see it's not an identical copycat method, then you may be divulging your own secrets to them.

What about the classic "downshooter" techniques from the 80's (and perhaps even earlier). I recall Oxberry was big into that, but if someone else figured out how to do the exact same techniques without using any Oxberry gear or software, would they have been infringing as well?
  • 0

#17 Emanuel Schwermer, bvk

Emanuel Schwermer, bvk
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 19 March 2007 - 06:29 PM

Colleagues,

just wanna say I´m reading all your answers and your cogitations, thank you all for sharing!
Although it was not my first intention to start such a deep discussion (just because my couple of cameras in my cellar), but now I think we´re getting into a extreme interesting area.
I think we should invite Dayton Taylor to post his opinion as well, I will write him.

I´m really looking forward to read more of your thoughts.
Especially some more from you Dennis Kisilyov, your post was absolutely my highlight of the day, nicely written, on the point and sooo funny, Thanxx!

All the best,

Emanuel Schwermer
DP / Munich-Germany


PS.
For the moderators:
Sorry for cross posting. It was by accident.
Please remove my posts from all other forums except this 35mill forum.
  • 0

#18 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 March 2007 - 09:20 PM

Hey, I just pattented the f5.6 appeture. If you want to use a lens with an appeture 5.6 times smaller than the diameter of the front lens, well your in violation of my right. Use a 4.0 or an 8. deal with it.

This is lame, its the further over-patentizing of the world. Now adays its possible to patent genes that OCCUR NATURALLY! it seems now artistic expression is up for patent?

Heres the problem I see....it has to be an invention that hasn't been invented before right? the very first 'motion picture camera' was in fact....wait for it....an array of 24 still cameras set in a line to make it seem as though the camera was tracking along side a galloping horse. Hmmm sound familiar? I'd argue against their patent right on that fact alone. Not only is it not new, its about as old as motion picture gets! (oh and it was 24 cameras, not under 10, thats why we have the 24fps standard...unless my history is screwy. I know edison later re-inforced this standard with his camera systems)
  • 0

#19 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 19 March 2007 - 11:01 PM

Hey, I just pattented the f5.6 appeture. If you want to use a lens with an appeture 5.6 times smaller than the diameter of the front lens, well your in violation of my right. Use a 4.0 or an 8. deal with it.

This is lame, its the further over-patentizing of the world. Now adays its possible to patent genes that OCCUR NATURALLY! it seems now artistic expression is up for patent?

Heres the problem I see....it has to be an invention that hasn't been invented before right? the very first 'motion picture camera' was in fact....wait for it....an array of 24 still cameras set in a line to make it seem as though the camera was tracking along side a galloping horse. Hmmm sound familiar? I'd argue against their patent right on that fact alone. Not only is it not new, its about as old as motion picture gets! (oh and it was 24 cameras, not under 10, thats why we have the 24fps standard...unless my history is screwy. I know edison later re-inforced this standard with his camera systems)


Great Story and analogy! If I remember correctly the reason they did that "test" was to see if a horse ever had all four feet in air at the same time.

I think they discovered no, anybody know for sure?
  • 0

#20 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 March 2007 - 11:05 PM

They discovered that all its feet did leave the ground at one point, winning the bet for the photographer. I forget his name, a google search could find it, but I am lazy.
  • 0


Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

CineTape

CineLab

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineTape

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS