| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 2,117 |
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24167 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
How will they ever prove the distances between lighting rigs or your light wattage?
Silly amazonk.
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
1380 Posts |
Wow. I'm going to patent driving on the right side of the road and charge a fee to everyone who does it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Korea, Republic Of
1881 Posts |
Well, I'll be happily taking photos of my coins on a white background and do everything Amazon "patented" all the way over here in Korea. Edited by Matteproof
05/27/2014 6:20 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I guess this means all the pros will be using 1% gray here soon.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5417 Posts |
That is ridiculous... not that it will affect me but it's just, just.... how did anyone ever think it would be a good idea to grant a patent for something that wasn't invented by Amazon but has been used for decades but almost every professional photographer/filmmaker. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I got a huge laugh out of reading the patent. They specify lighting power in kilowatts. Multiple times in the patent writeup; too many to be a misprint. The first time they actually use the rig described in the patent, it's gonna melt the photography subject into a puddle on the stand. Forty kilowatts would turn a Morgan back into a planchet. I was making them too hot to touch with 100 watts of halogen. You should look at some of the other obvious facts of life which Amazon Technologies has obtained patents for. It's kind of astonishing. http://stks.freshpatents.com/Amazon...-Inc-nm1.php |
|
Valued Member
United States
157 Posts |
It's unfortunate that the author of the article makes a bold statement that simply isn't true. I'm a patent attorney, and the article referred to is inaccurate from start to finish. Amazon didn't get a patent on simply photographing against a white background. While the concept is discussed, Amazon discloses the technique as existing art. If you really want to know what they got a patent on, read the claims in the patent, especially claims 1, 2, and 23. To infringe, someone has to do EVERYTHING listed in the claim. Each of those claims has a lot more detail than just shooting against a white background. So, you need not live by the fear the author of the article either ignorantly or disingenuously engendered. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
7075 Posts |
SsuperDdave  Your post made me go read the claims. Anyway, that patent will affect very few people. Quote:
the author of the article makes a bold statement that simply isn't true. You got that right bkprewitt. Also, the tungsten lights they're using are indeed 5kW and can be rented from ARRI-rental.com. I'm thinking they're not for close-ups.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1599 Posts |
I guess I am ok since I shoot against an 18% grey card!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
I don't quite understand the details of the patent, but wouldn't it be rather hard to enforce a patent on a photographic technique--much less prove a patent was infringed to take a photograph?  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
7075 Posts |
The technique that they patented is a method that will replace green screens and computer generated images for special effects. Instead of using computers to create images, or having a model stand in front of a green screen they have figured out a way to do the same thing with a white background. Now the model can wear green without his/her body 'disappearing'. It probably does even more than that and combined with other patent-able techniques, could make a significant change in the way special effects are produced.....or not.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 2,117 |
|
Posted 05/27/2014 1:33 pm
