CineStill's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week | The PetaPixel Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- This week’s podcast is brought to you by OM SYSTEM. With the hot temperatures of summer behind us, there is no better season for outdoor photography than autumn. Fall colors, crisp morning air, and golden light all set the stage to capture portfolio-worthy images. The OM SYSTEM OM-5 is the ultimate companion for the outdoor enthusiast. Built to endure your adventures, this mid-range mirrorless camera is a rugged marvel, with its weather-sealed body to safeguard against dust, water, and extreme temperatures, ensuring unmatched durability. The OM-5 offers advanced technology to deliver stunning image quality and exceptional performance in any condition. From breathtaking landscapes to action-packed moments, the OM-5 empowers you to embrace your adventurous spirit while preserving the memories of your journey.
Learn more about the OM-5 and the highly respected M.Zuiko lens series by visiting explore.omsystem.com/petapixel or your nearest OM SYSTEM authorized retailer to get your hands on the OM5 and 12mm lens today!
--
CineStill, once one of the most popular film brands, is facing widespread backlash for defending its trademarks in a manner that is being described as intimidation and bullying.
Chris, Jordan, and Jaron welcome PetaPixel News Editor Jeremy Gray onto the pod to discuss the situation and present all the facts so you can make your own decisions on how to think of the once-beloved film brand.
Story on PetaPixel: petapixel.com/2023/10/11/film...
Story on 404Media: www.404media.co/cinestill-800...
We use Riverside to record The PetaPixel Podcast in our online recording studio: creators.riverside.fm/Petapixel
We hope you enjoy the podcast and we look forward to hearing what you think. If you like what you hear, please support us by subscribing, liking, commenting, and reviewing! Every week, the trio go over comments on RUclips and here on PetaPixel, but if you’d like to send a message for them to hear, you can do so through SpeakPipe: www.speakpipe.com/petapixel
--
In This Episode:
00:00 - Intro
04:14 - Sigma should make an APS-C L-mount camera: petapixel.com/2023/10/11/sigm...
09:30 - Sony adding haptic feedback to future camera shutter buttons? petapixel.com/2023/10/16/sony...
13:30 -7Artisans' new $479 9mm f/5.6 lens for full-frame is insanely wide: petapixel.com/2023/10/13/7art...
17:42 - The story behind CineStill's terrible week
45:38 - Tech support
1:02:35 - Never read the comments 
Наука
CineStill sent courtesy letters instead of cease and desist letters because they're afraid any appeal will result in a reversal for their trademark approval.
At the heart of the debate is Cinestill’s core practice: repurposing Kodak cinema film by cutting, repackaging, and removing the remjet. Given that their business model stems from modifying an already existing product, it’s paradoxical for Cinestill to challenge other businesses that adopt a similar approach. Also, Cinestill’s trademark claim on “800T” seems to stand on shaky grounds. The designation “800” is indicative of the ISO speed, and “T” denotes tungsten balance. These are industry-standard terms, not unique brand identifiers. Asserting a broad trademark claim over such general terminology could be seen as an overreach.
Ethical business practices involve consistency in actions. If a business capitalizes on modifying another brand’s product, it can be seen as hypocritical to prevent other businesses from doing the same. This inconsistency raises questions about Cinestill’s motivations and whether they are genuinely rooted in protecting intellectual property or merely suppressing competition.
It would also be interesting to know what geographical region the trademark stands for (US only?).
I disagree with your take. They OWN the trademark, it IS legally their property, and they have every right and even a fiduciary duty to protect it. If you are going to be in business, you cannot cry about the laws when you violate them. You don't have to like the laws, you can think it is unfair, too bad. The laws exist to protect the rights of ownership. As for suppressing competition, if you use someone else's trademark, you are a thief pure and simple.
@@johnjon1823 There's a difference between them legally being able to do it and ethically should they and as customers we have the right to call out shadey buisness practices. I suspect their trademark will be revoked as it prevents other manufactures from describing their product, I guarantee Kodak (who actually make their film) would not allow them to trademark "50D" or "500T" and given that Kodak doesn't have those descriptions trademarked CineStill shouldn't either.
well said!
@@johnjon1823
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. While I respect your pov on the sanctity of trademark law, it's crucial to examine the broader context in which these laws operate. Trademarks are designed to prevent consumer confusion and protect the goodwill associated with a particular brand or product. However, this protection isn't absolute, especially when the trademarked term is descriptive or generic in nature.
There are a few points that warrant further discussion:
1. Trademarks are meant to distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others and to indicate the source of the goods/services. It's crucial that they don't prevent the use of common, descriptive terms that other businesses might need to describe their products. Consider a hypothetical scenario where "Max's Fried Chicken" was granted a trademark not just for the unique "Max's" but also for the term "Fried Chicken." If this were the case, no other establishment worldwide would be allowed to use "Fried Chicken" in any of their branding, even if that's precisely what they sell. This could lead to confusion for consumers who might believe that only "Max's" offers genuine fried chicken, depriving other businesses of the right to accurately describe their products. Similarly, the terms "800" and "T" are, by all accounts, industry standards. They describe the ISO speed and tungsten balance, respectively. If every business started trademarking standard descriptors, it would inhibit fair competition and might mislead consumers about the nature of a product.
2. The Spirit vs. The Letter of the Law: While a business might have the legal right to a trademark, there's a broader ethical question at play. Using the law as a shield to potentially suppress competition isn't always in the spirit of why these laws were created. Trademark laws are meant to protect businesses from unfair competition and consumers from confusion, not to create monopolies on common terminology.
3. The core point of the initial comment was not to diminish the importance of laws but to highlight the potential inconsistency in Cinestill's actions. If they repurpose another brand's product and then seek to prevent others from doing so by wielding trademark laws, it seems incongruent.
Therefore, legal decisions, including trademark grants, are not always final and can be revisited if they're shown to have adverse effects on the industry or if they're based on potentially misleading grounds. The very existence of appellate courts and legal reviews indicates that our system acknowledges the possibility of initial oversights. While respecting the sanctity of legal rights, it's essential to ensure that those rights align with both the letter and the spirit of the law and uphold the principles of fair competition and consumer protection.
Cinestill should never have been given that trademark in the first place. You can't trademark industry standard designations for products or services. You can't trademark the inch or the name of a color or even a song title. The trademark was given in bad faith, applied for in bad faith and CIneStill knows it. Personally the penalty should be on them and shut down. Their whole business model is garbage.
Yep it's like if Kodak was given the trademark for 200 with their Gold film, and no other company was allowed to make it.
I'd say it's like if Ford was given a trademark for 4-cylinder and nobody else was ever allowed to make a 4-cylinder ever again
"Their whole business model is garbage." I wouldn't say that, as they make Kodak ECN-2 cine film compatible with C-41 processing - that is a service well worth the money they ask for. Going after small sellers because they know that they have no power to challenge the other company doing what they do is just despicable.
Agreed; getting a trademark on "800T" instead of just CineStill, to use the Allen wrench example, is allowing Black&Decker or whomever to trademark "3/32", ball-head".
I shoot a lot of film. I've been meaning to try Cinestill, but won't now. What a shady greedy corporate move especially for a company that is actually selling you Kodak film.
CineStill are just repackaging Kodak Film, they don't make the film. Kodak made a Cine film (5289) called 800T in the 90s! Therefore, the trademark should have belonged to Kodak! Also, best to my knowledge all the other 800T films in the market are made from Kodak film. Therefore, they can't be counterfeit, can they?
Idk if I buy leather from the same people Gucci do and make a bag and call it Gucci it'd be counterfeit
@@aaronlabarre501that would be a fair statement if the bag was made of leather and called leather. The film is not called 800t arbitrarily It's called that because it's a convention. The big mistake was to use an industry name for a repackaged product.
@@aaronlabarre501the end product falls in a different use and category. If you source and sell leather in the samr color that gucci also sells when gucci only dyes them and cut them, then in this case gucci has no ground saying you are selling counterfeit items
@@aaronlabarre501imo this analogy is not correct. It would be a counterfeit if you call it Gucci, so there you are absolutely right. But in this case it's more about the bag aspect. Calling it 800t is like calling the Gucci bag just bag. If someone would call it cine still 800t, then it would be a counterfeit, because cine still is the trademark. So like this commenter and also in the Podcast suggested, the problem is more with the fact that it was possible to patent/trademark the word bag/800t.
That's not entirely accurate, Tony. CineStill is indeed re-spooled kodak motion picture stocks (various versions of vision 3) but CineStill remove the ramjet layer before re-spooling so that the film can be developed in C41 chemistry instead of ECN, which is designed for motion picture film stock with the ramjet layer. Jordan mentioned that you can't use motion picture stocks in still cameras but that's not true. You can use them just fine if you load them into canisters and many people do that themselves and sell it for a fraction of the price. You can even develop the film in C41 and colors vary only a tiny bit and you lose only about a stop or DR. The only extra step you need to do is wipe the ramjet layer carefully for every roll after developing the film using mild soapy water.
Now about the trademark, Kodak does make the base film stock but it's technically not the exact same product, and Kodak doesn't own the trademarks for 800T or 500T or 250D. They are more like slang words, but usually they refer exclusively to Kodak's vision 3 stocks.
That said, granting CineStill the trademarks for those words was a d**k move. What CineStill are doing is just what you'd expect someone who owns the trademarks to do.
You know it's a photography podcast when all three of their zoom setups are immaculate and absurdly high quality
With complimentary lighting colours!
@@mr_k4tz...and no colour is clashing with each other, even the background 😊
Someone will have to challenge the trademark in order to overturn it by filing a petition to cancel the registration with the Trademark & Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
And nice to see new blood like Jeremy on the podcast but give him some coaching so he's more comfortable on camera.
19:45 Cinestill is not "making" anything - the film is Kodak Vision, all Cinestill does is removing the remjet layer and putting the film in Cinestill branded boxes.
20:20 This trademark protection should never have been granted. If anyone has deep enough pockets to defend themselves in court, that trademark would not hold up for very long. Trademarking "800T" is like trademarking "1 Gallon". Intel by the way lost their trademarks on letter and number combinations for their CPUs, e.g. P5, i7 and so on. It was not deemed worthy of protection. 800T is not worthy of protection. What Cinestill is doing is corporate bullying - and I will not buy any of their products anymore. They can go **** themselves for all I care. I am ordering my modified Kodak Vision from China now.
In with you on this one. I'll purchase no products from cinestill, no exceptions.
These guys are scum.
As the person with a few of the top comment on a few posts on this matter as soon as Jeremy started speaking I kind of didn’t really consider the impact I might have on people outside of Reddit (he sounded terrified). The article did read as if it was deliberately overlooking at lot of the legitimate reasons people feel upset, if someone set out to write an article to change the narrative in cinestills favour it would be similar. It did feel like you were trolling a lot of people who form a part of your audience. Great eloquent response. F cinestill though, I’m going to have to choose how to shoot my roll of 400D in my fridge as my last roll from them.
I think the fact that Cinestill pursued to own that particular trademark, speaks volumes.
The legal obligations I understand from a business perspective, I just don’t think they deserve owning the trademark to a description of a tool. It very much goes against the grain (no pun intended) of the film photography community. Like you said Jeremy, it’s a relatively small market and to show this lack of character is going to give the company a bad odour for some considerable time.
I had no problem with the article btw, I didn’t understand the dumb outrage comments at all.
I have to say though, skipping the nitty gritty in the podcast was not the right thing to do. All Cinestill does is ‘produce’ a customised but in essence repackaged film. In my opinion that context does really matter in how to approach the issue.
I'll never get tired of watching companies, big and small, get smacked down for shameless corporate greed
There sure is and has been for a few years a 9mm f/5.6 rectilinear full frame lens - Laowa 9mm f/5.6 W-Dreamer. Also, SonyAlphaBlog and Philip Reeve have already reviewed the 7artisans and found that Laowa is also wider, as its actual FoV is 135 degrees, while 7Artisans is 'only' 132 degrees. Also, keep in mind, Brightin star also released exactly same focal length and aperture lens, only with an added rear filter mount. Brightin star and 7Artisans have a history of releasing same, but re-packaged lenses, so it may very well be the same construction as 7A, save for the added filter mount.
It was interesting to see how you blew right past the basic problem of the very questionable trademark just like 'the mob' blew past the questioon if an ybody actually has been sued. As somebody who hadn't heard about this before, it seemed very obvious to me that the basic problem is Cinestill grabbing that trademark and now hiding behind legal logic deriving from it to harass competitors.
These guys are in cinestill pockets. They don't have photographer's interest in their priorities.
Jaron, having an editorial firewall is something thats been lost in network news for a long long time. I've only had one station I worked at have the firewall between reporters / talent, that you have. Its the way it was, its the way it should be, and the way it needs to be kudos for that.
It's common knowledge in the IP rights legal field that the TM office doesn't grant TMs based on common words. The issue is this: is 800T a common word or designation? That is the only issue that presents legal questions. Apparently the person in the TM office wasn't aware of how common the designation 800T is. I argue that the trademark should have never been granted in the first place.
It's worse then that. Look at the name for KODAK VISION 800T aka 5289
It’s not common, 99.99% of people would never have heard of it.
@@kiwimike2330 It's common in the target market. You can call a toothbrush 800T if you want. It's like granting a TM on the word Toothbrush.
Why haven't they sued Kodak that uses 800T in their product name? Oh wait Kodak can afford lawyers.
@@TravelerNick Toothbrush is a common word that 99.999999999% of the public know. 800T is some weird obscure camera thing that only 0.001% of people have heard of, so not the same thing really.
@@kiwimike2330 It's not the general public that matters. It's the target market.
You can call your film Ford or any other trademark and get away with it because nobody is going to confuse the two.
800T is not obscure in the film market. Once again why aren't they going after Kodak?
Thank you for answering my audio, I started with the a6000 but now I shoot with the a7c. I will look into the recommendations you gave me, I appreciate it a lot, specially the remark from Jordan which I did not know. Kindly have a nice day!
you don't even mention the fact that the trademark consists exclusively of technical details? As in a technical description of the film's speed and color balance?
I’m pretty against their original article but they do call out in this video that it is exactly that, a technical description
They do mention it... They spent a nice chunk of time talking about the trademark itself first.
Poor CineStil was "forced" to file a trademark and defend it. Why don‘t people understand???
Sure, Cinestill have the right to send warning notices, and would have the right to sue if they wanted. Consumers also have the right to find their trademark claim ridiculous, complain about what they consider to be intimidations and stop buying their products 🤷 Film is a small market of amateurs and enthusiasts, probably if there were to be some effects on sales they will show quite soon.
That's like a steakhouse trademarking "Medium-Rare Porterhouse". It's unreal that the ™was granted.
Considering the audio: @Jordan, how are you setup that's different from the rest? Your audio never peaks. I find that the other 2 mics clip a bit now and then (notably the episode at Apple HQ didn't clip for anyone). Is that just my playback/setup or are you doing something different?
Seems like Cinestill should add a word to the name of their 800T that can be legitimately trademarked. Maybe.... Cinestill Nightvision 800T? They probably can't use "vision," though, for obvious reasons.
I used my d7500 and my 6" dob for some pretty nice images of Jupiter and Saturn using manual tracking. The fact that the d7500 applied a 1.5x crop for 4k video actually worked to my favor because I think that means you get about 1:1 sensor pixel to video pixel ratio. You really need this if you want any kind of detail when stacking 1000s of frames for planetary images.
The image quality definitely improved when I finally got a QHY CMOS camera that would give me RAW video output... but that d7500 was no slouch!
I absolutely loved my Sigma SD Quattro but hated it having the SA mount sticking out away from the body. An updated Sigma SD quattro would have me back in the sigma camp. I really enjoyed my DP merrill too, fits in my pocket, enjoyable to use. I also like really old cheap CCD cameras. K10d, sony a350 and anything fuji is fun.
Cinestill can stick it.
What I don't understand is Sigma make athe tiny FP camera but then don't make any pancake lenses to make a small streetshooting camera
The 45mm 2.8 is about as close as we get. It's not too big, just a bit longer than a pancake.
I’ve been asking for one for 4 years now
In response to the guy with the Z6II. Something i've found challenging and interesting is adapting old manual glass onto the regular camera. A lot of the old AiS lenses are optically pretty decent and relatively inexpensive.
Quick question, I'm a hybrid shooter, and I wanted to know which was better, the Sony a6700 or the Fuji x-s20... I'm also pretty sure you said that a comparison between these two cameras was coming up soon, what happened to that?
The mistake was to trademark it in the first place, both with Cinestill requesting it and the trademark office granting it. But, given that, the way this played out is pretty much a given. They have the trademark and feel obligated to defend it.
26:51 You're missing the point here - Given they applied for this trademark protection YEARS after they started marketing "their" film and the trademark is less than two years old, it's pretty obvious they did this to stifle competition and consumer interests very purposefully. They cannot compete on price, the product is identical - so they resort to these bullying methods. That trademark protection needs to go. It also needs to go because it sets a dangerous legal precedent for other consumer goods.
Laowa had a 9mm f5.6 rectilinear full frame lens prior to this 7Artisans one. So no, it's not the first one.
Yep. It’s also wider. The 7Artisans is around 9.5mm while the Laowa is 8.9mm. (Per both claimed FOV and tests by others). That half a millimeter actually makes a pretty significant impact.
Looking forward to the G9 II OM1 video!
Funny enough, I have been wondering the same about all the (fairly) recent releases of APS-C L mount lenses. I do hope something will be released. I still own, and use, my digital Leica CL and would love to see other L-Mount Alliance members come out with APS-C cameras as well.
You recently had an article about the new Austrian Audio Micreator. Could you try this one out for your podcast as well?
Would love to see the iPhone vs G9 II video. Please do it! If you could sneak the FX3/FX30 too in the video that would be *chef's kiss*.
"CineStill 800T" would be a trademark, not "800T" itself. I wonder how they've got it trademarked (after appealing).
Happy days I heard the name Pentax mentioned again 😉👍
Thanks for that podcast! I wanted to know, if you were me and you will do the GR20 hike (180km/110miles) in Corsica, would you rather take a Sony A7C with Sigma 16-28 and Tamron 28-200mm for 1534g/3,39lbs or a A6400 with the new Sigma 10-18mm, the Sony 18-135mm and a DJI Mini 2 drone for 1237g/2,73lbs ? As you can guess, weight is a big concern !
Many, many years ago, when Intel was going from their 486 CPU to their new x86 platform, they wanted to call it the 586. They wanted to trademark or copyright the 586 name because other companies (Cyrix, AMD, etc) had been using 486 for their CPUs, and Intel felt it was diluting their brand. They were told no, you can't do that with a number. So they went with Pentium. Wouldn't the same apply to a film naming convention that's been being used for decades? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like a precedent for this has already been set?
Agree with Jordan: why add jitter just to cater to the nostalgic minority, who, I feel, have never experienced shutter shock in old SLRs or don't recall it if they did. Although slight, there's always a chance the haptic *blip* might resonate with other camera body systems, and be more significant than anticipated. Not to mention that the more complex the design, the greater the chances for something to go wrong.
BTW Brightinstar has announced their 9mm with an included 10step ND on the back. Would be nice to find out how neutral that ND is.
The solution to the shaking the camera during haptic feedback seems obvious to me: Wait till the sensor is done to do the feedback. Even with 1/10th of a second shuter speeds, that will still be a delay of only 100 ms, likely far, far quicker than you can reasonably be expected to perceive. And even if you can notice the delay, I think that is a perfectly acceptable trade-off to have.
There was already a Laowa 9mm f5.6 lens for Sony e mount. Rectilinear also.
And it is actually a bit wider than the 7Artisans as well (135 degrees vs 132). The Laowa also available for multiple mirrorless mounts (E, M, Z, etc.) So 7Artisans is a bit late to the party, but cheaper!
What Cinestill did is the same as if Ford had built an engine with six cylinders in a two bank wich work onto the same crankshaft, trademarked it as V6 (a strange name, I know) and now tells everybody: You can built engines with 6 cylinders and two banks working on the same crankshaft, but you may not name it V6, 6-V, or any other combination of 6 and V. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I have no need for 800T film. I also think that their films are way to expensive, they are even more expensive than Kodak C41 films, so I have never bought any of their products. But still, ridiculous and people refusing to buy their stuff in the future is understandable to me.
How do You include a type of colour balance in a trademark?
As for a camera for an interesting experience - Multiple times have have done the research to purchase a Sigma SD Quattro H and lenses. They are supposed to be slow working cameras, but give interesting results. There is currently one in stock at KEH.
Patiently waiting for Sigma to come out with their next Foveon sensor camera
I got three copies of the 12mm, including the limited edition black version, the other two I bought used in pristine condition for less than this offer. It's VERY easy to find a great used deal on this lens.
Chris is right - I use PSC-C L-mount lenses on the Sigma fp l. The images are 26 Mp.
For the Z6II photographer looking for a fun option to use just to do things differently, what about a Pixii rangefinder? They would involve a long wait to get them to the U.S., true. But they offer that Leica-esque shooting experience without being nearly as high priced.
Hello Trio, a very good day or evening, I wanted to buy S1R is it a good investment or shall I wait for 2nd iteration if Panasonic is coming with, or shall I go with canon R5 or wait till R5ii comes out in 2024. At present I’m using 5Div, 5DSR.
If Jeremy shrugs any harder about the Cinestill situation, he's gonna dislocate his arms. He spends so much time saying, "I understand that the angry mob feels like they've been betrayed". JFC.
The OM system link in the description redirects me to a 404 lol.
The real question who was the fool who granted the trademark in the first place.
The guy in tech support asking about buying a fancy high end full frame camera to do family pictures and stuff like that should obviously just get something cheaper and more compact like a G9II or an OM-1. Micro Four Thirds makes so much sense for enthusiasts. Especially if he’s going to use a super telephoto.
I don’t really understand the CineStill story. The writer was suggesting that it would be understandable to be angry if CineStill was just trying to protect their profits and squash competition, but it’s ok because they’re legally obligated to protect their trademark. Well, if they applied for the trademark in the first place and went to so much effort to get it, why else would they bother other than to protect profits, and maintain a dominant market position over smaller competitors? So of course the entire thing is immoral and wrong.
Yeah, that's like if I trademarked the phrase "large soda". I'm the only the company that can sell large sodas now, and call them "large sodas". Even if they're not suing people (yet), this is complete horseshit that shouldn't have been allowed by the courts.
There are some Leica TL bodies that are APS-C with an L mount. I'm sure there are dozens of owners of that camera.
Hello, very good podcast, but the music in the intro is way too loud when compared to the voices :(
CineStill can't trade mark 800T. That's like a company trademarking the word "film". Can Sony trademark ISO12800?...I hope a company takes this litigation on so this trademark can be corrected.
Wrong they can and they did.
That's why I want a company to litigate this because I see the trademark being overturned. I'm going to trademark f2.8 😂@@kiwimike2330
Re: sigma apsc L mount lenses - have you guys forgotten about the leica TL and TL2? It's a lens option a fraction of the cost of the native leica
I like this power ranger vibes, everyone has one color
Intimidation is not defined as action that might make someone "feel intimidated". A person could feel intimidated unnecessarily, or unreasonably; that wouldn't be anyone's fault but their own. The definition of words isn't granted to any person who claims to feel victimized.
Tech Support: Is there a relationship between pixel density and perceivable diffraction given a fixed sensor size? I.E. Would I be able to notice the effects of diffraction sooner on a 40MP vs a 26MP APS-C sensor? Would you also be willing to discuss the effects of pixel density on low light performance given a fixed sensor size? There is so much conflicting information on the internet and I would truly value your wisdom. Thank you all so much!
At the same reproduction ration (viewing size), the effects of diffraction appear the same in both cases. Of course in the higher density case you can print larger, or zoom-in more into the image, in which case you can see the effects of diffraction sooner in the higher-density case.
On your second question, it's fortunately pretty easy to go to dpreview's studio comparison tool and compare images from different cameras at a fixed print size. For the most part, the sensor size and half-decade of manufacture is by far the biggest predictor of noise levels in the image, and not the resolution.
The first one's interesting. At a fixed print size, I would guess No (IE I'm assuming the lens is solely responsible for diffraction and not the architecture of the photosite), but if you're always zooming to 100% then the answer is most certainly yes.
I think the reaction to the original article was unfortunate but entirely predictable. Antagonizing ill-informed people and having statements from cinestill making up one-third of the article doesn't seem like illuminating, impartial journalism even if the core substance is true. Film shooters have had direct relationships with catlabs, much less so with cinestil. No surprise who they gave the benefit of the doubt. And that header image and title? Come on guys.
Sigma should continue the Leica CL. (APSC). Or maybe Panasonic.
I'd actually really like to hear Chris and Jordan's take on the Samyang 85mm f/1.8 RF - one of the best RF lenses to-date. It's tack sharp, affordable, has great autofocus, beautiful bokeh, and was removed from the market by Canon lawsuits over their reverse-engineering the RF autofocus mechanism. PetaPixel never made any mention of this event and i don't believe the lens ever got a review by the team. I regularly choose it over my Canon L glass and would argue it is one of the best budget RF lenses out there.
Missing from the trademark discussion:
a) there are service that monitor trademark applications and usages in a specific field, and
b) the public can file an objection within 30 days after any application is published.
Neither of those factors were discussed.
(The monitoring services runs ~$200/yr, so cost is not an excuse for any company engaged in interstate commerce for not using it.)
BTW, PetaPixel itself is a descriptive term. Would anybody be upset if you guys obtained a trademark?🤔
Sony’s haptic, shutter button could be used to improve weathersealing by making the button not a button at all, but rather a force-touch, sensitive surface, as Apple has done for years on their trackpads, or previously did on the iPhone with depth touch. This removes a mechanical point of failure and a place for water or dust ingress.
Really what should be happening is Kodak Eastman and Kodak Alaris to stop being stupid and sell all of these Vision3 films themselves. They’re not, so really Cinestill is just like anyone else repacking the Vision3 emulsions.
You mean in still canisters? You can order the films from dealers or direct from Kodak. Even small 400 foot rolls.
Laowa has a full frame 9mm 5.6 lens
Laowa has a 9mm f5.6 for sony full frame., so 7Artisans is not the first.
I don't understand about that haptic shutter button. I know when my Nikon D7200 fires, and I can also feel the half press. So they already have it. That Nikon shutter button is way superior to the no feedback shutter button on the Canon T7i and Olympus EM1-mk2.
13:33 the Laowa 9mm is slightly wider
The pace of this episode was sooooo slow. It needed a 1.5-2x playback speed for half the commentary.
Yikes you guys are scary.
There are two reasons to send out a letter complaining about TM infringement.
1) To warn people you intend to sue.
2) You don't think your TM would survive in court and you hope to scare people into surrender without suing.
The fact they haven't sued doesn't make them nice guys. At most it means the backlash has scared them. But it could be they know the TM would be tossed.
Bringing up Kleenex? You know that's a made up word. It's the exact opposite of 800T.
Final point. If you think this is upsetting people. Go look at any thread on Red trying to enforce it's patents on RAW.
It’s weird that they were given a trademark for 800T but given that they were, should they simply not defend their business? Their statement was super interesting given that unstable film at lower quality was mistaken for theirs (they apparently got complaints about competitors’ film).
Cinestill big mistake was to use an industry standard measurement name for a product. Call it cinestill that's a nice name. Imagine calling a product 10 ft donuts and sending courtesy notes to anyone selling a 10ft product.
For feedback, please include native Bluetooth so I can pair my Shokz bone conduction headphones so I can hear my camera take a photo and please make that sound be like a Nikon FM2's sweet shutter sound.
Yes bring us an APSC L mount ASAP.
6:09 Let's not forget the Leica CL please. Still a thing.
I will carry on using Fujichrome Velvia 100 120 while it is still being made.
They say there is no such thing as bad press and... well... this time I have to agree. I'm suddenly thinking to myself, "All this drama over ISO 800 tungsten film? I need to get a roll, chuck it through the ol' Spotmatic and see what the fuss is all about!" So... well done there..?
Now I'm going to read the article...
We need more Manscaped and Magic Spoon ads 😂
If Sigma came out with a 3:2 Foveon S35 sensor that can shoot internal 10 bit 422 open gate with decent rolling shutter and external raw it would sell like hotcakes. A competitor to the X-H2S in L mount, basically, but with Foveon instead of Xtrans
As long as they give it a good grip and evf.
It would sell like hotcakes, but I don't think foveon would be capable of that kind of video performance, you would need an insane processor and large battery to back it up, you have to remember that foveon cameras essentially have 3 sensors, that's 3x the megapixels to process, for it to do video even reasonably well it would have to be like 12mp or something
The trademark should have never been granted. That’s like trademarking SLR or Mirrorless or CAMERA. It’s ridiculous.
Another thing… any defense of the trademark is a step in the direction of a lawsuit. So active suits may be misleading but it’s not entirely wrong if the threat is there and naturally it would be.
Hey you could always ask Cinestill to be a sponsor if OM drops out.
I don't shoot film now(despite having used it for decades) and so I really don't care about the CineStill thingy, therefore I skipped over that section. Thanks for the time markers.
KODAK VISION3 500T ....all this CineStill issue is just stupid and a bad move from them.
If I can't call the ISO800 Tungsten film as 800 T, maybe I should instead call it T 800. Hasta la vista, baby!
If the standard is that if someone feels intimidated, then they ARE intimidated, we must grant cinestill their efforts as valid. After all, if they FEEL that their trademark is threatened, it IS threatened. Turnabout is fair play.
I feel threatened by this podcast, does not equal this podcast is threatening.
Only that I am threatened by it.
Big difference imo.
I wish people were this enraged when FujiFilm discontinued the ONLY peel apart Polaroid film
Mentioned this on another channel, but I think the Foveon camera will possibly be APS-C again. Will be a huge disappointment if so.
Would like to see Sigma produce an full frame foveon chipped camera
Tell OM to revive the OM2000 and it'll sell like mad 😊
Dude, no! OM-PenF ftw…
@@HesselFolkertsma I'd love the Pen-F, but I expect Cosina still has the design and capacity to start cranking out OM-2000 bodies tomorrow😁
I'm all for a 4Ti...
@@alen2937 Ditto, no chance of that though. I bet the XA is possible. I know it took Nikon years to re-engineer the processes to create the FM3A and s series, and they still had had access to engineers That worked on those.
I did a google shopping search for 800T and one of the first results was for a competitor's product labeled T800. 😂Problem solved.
cant call it that either.
@@airdailyx did Cinestill actually also successfully trademark T800 as well though. I'd think that'd be harder if they don't actually sell product designated T800.
There would be plenty of ways around it.
eg BestCineShot ISO800realT
Looks like Cinestill has deleted all negative comments on their Instagram posts. Looks like they “won”.
Finally: breeze-proofing!
Chris's' voice is just slightly out of sync and it grates on my nerves somewhat, especially when the video cuts to a full-frame shot of him.