[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

telecine standards, patent issues

On Jan 24, 22:08, Bob Festa wrote:

> As a final aside. In the Los Angeles market there has been a great deal of
> standardization of tools in the telecine environment. I think you will find
> that all of the top facilities are URSA, TLC, Renaissance, Power window,
> based. This adds a real sense of interchangability to imagery that floats
> around our community and I think this is healthy for clients who hop around
> quite often. As much as I encourage individuality, I'd love to see some
> standardization in the registration arena.

You're right, there is a default telecine setup in L.A.  You probably
meant 888, not Renaissance.

It is good for the clients, yes.  Some thoughts about the evolution of
those standards:

1) The Armand Serabia (spelling?) lawsuit that resulted in large
licensing fees and (aren't some still pending?) settlements threw a
wrench into the development of telecine color correction.  Example:
Dubner dropped out of the market --and perhaps Harvey and company
would have had a really nice product by now.  His color correctors
were the old standard.

2) The Encore/Dave Walker lawsuit and restraint of trade (EPR cannot
be purchased in the Los Angeles area).  Dave's device was possibly the
best of the registration systems...

3) daVinci's patent on anything having to do with "windowing" in
telecine processing.  Chutzpah supreme.  What if Grass Valley had
patented wipes?  (maybe they did?)

If we had Dubner, Dave Walker, and windowing in a Pogle, wouldn't it
be a better world?

Disclaimer: as a businessman, if I had the opportunity to patent
windowing and get away with it, I probably would.  But I shouldn't get
away with it.


Rob Lingelbach KB6CUN  | 2660 Hollyridge Dr LA CA 90068 213 464 6266 (voice) 
rob at xyzoom.alegria.com | "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or 
rob at alegria.com        |  cat are not the better for it."  --Abraham Lincoln