Amazon Granted 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
It's pretty specific about the studio stuff. Sizes, light intensity and such.

Still, it's a picture against a white background. I don't get it. Why? Unless they have a good reason to patent it and make money, I don't see why they would do it...
 

cdig

n00b
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
21
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Check what it really covers:
1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.


and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial

"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
These seems to be aimed at the many Youtubers who film with this kind of setup. Time will tell if they all start getting sued.
 

w4ffles

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,320
I think it's a precautionary measure, so some patent troll doesn't get the patent first and sue Amazon.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
If you want to get past all the technical detail of the patent, it's just that useful photography trick #77 where a person or product is illuminated by one light with the background light being a stop more powerful.

Here's your prior art: the Get A Mac ad campaign, which started in May 2006. It's shocking that Apple isn't the one who applied for this patent. I'm sure it was done before that, but I think Apple is the one that made it famous.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
It's pretty specific about the studio stuff. Sizes, light intensity and such.

Still, it's a picture against a white background. I don't get it. Why? Unless they have a good reason to patent it and make money, I don't see why they would do it...

It started off as a dare and a bet between two lawyers.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

So, it's a photography studio sized white box. Similar to what you can make at home for selling ebay items and such. Or in other actual photography studios.

I looked through the patent and didn't see much that really stood out as different or anything that hasn't been done before.
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

[...]

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

Because the primary purpose of this site is to make the owner(s) money. The more outrageous the subject line, the more ad impressions, ad clicks, and conversions.

This isn't about reporting on what's true and right, it's about visitor stats and revenue.
 

PigLover

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
1,181
Wow. A patent for photo methods used by my grandfather with his view camera in in the 1930s...and written about in great detail by Kodak in "How to Make Good Pictures" (first published ~1912).

Good job USPTO. Ever heard of "prior art"?
 

pbassjunk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
442
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Check what it really covers:
1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.


and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial

"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.


This is a patent on photography on a white background.

A cyclorama is a background, specifically one of those backgrounds traditionally suspended where you can move around (like the backdrop on a stage). It's white.

The lighting described is standard 3 point lighting. This predates photography.. I'm pretty sure the old oil and canvas masters subscribed to it.

The pedestal is plexiglass. Most are, especially when you choose a white background.

85mm is an extremely common standard prime lens size. It's a traditional full frame portrait lens. A crop sensor (assuming Canon) turns it into a 135mm lens, which is another common standard prime lens.




This is bog standard photography stuff. Hell, this specific patent stuff has been taught for generations to damn near every photography student who ever shot and processed Kodak tmax 400 film, because this is how you made that shit look good.
 

pbassjunk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
442
This is starting to get infuriating.

What they (amazon, but every other patent fuckster) are doing is standardizing their inhouse photography process and then patenting it. This is like a company patenting their inhouse company code of conduct.

Someone should patent the traditional lay off process including pink document layout. You could make a killing any which number of ways.

JFC 'greed is good' Murica
 

pbassjunk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
442
This will never hold up in the court battles it will have to undergo.

It's over and done with.

Who's going to waste their money on this triviality? Small guys will be sued into oblivion and the big guys will Netflix it up the ass and move on.

Doesn't need to hold up. It'll never get that far.
 

gs274

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
1,352
I'm honestly surprised that Apple doesn't already have this patented...
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

OK, I can use my own work to substantiate this. I do pinup, glamour, and bridal photography and I've got some stuff from back in 2007 that used an almost identical lighting method that they're describing, with the main exceptions that it is not just theory, but unlike what they're describing my technique actually works. :)

My current setup is eerily similar too; I use a 7x8 foot Lastolite hi-liter background along with a custom modular 4" platform floor that I made that does exactly what they're describing too, albeit with less lights and better results.

The patent is "vaguely specific". For example, it goes on to list the number of lights, the angles the lights are at, their relative positions, the lighting ratio, the camera focal length, and the f/stop of the camera. What's missing is the metered power outputs of the individual lights, why you'd actually want to shoot at ISO320 (an non-standard ISO mind you) @ f/5.6 (which in reality doesn't make much sense since paired with an 85mm lens won't give you a very deep depth of field), the distance in feet the lights are in relation to the background, or even the distance the camera is from the subject. Hell even the lighting ratio is completely wrong.

10:3 is also bullshit.

If you break it down to the lowest common denominator they probably mean 3:1, which for high key white is wrong (even if you're shooting black and white, which is typically what that lighting ratio is used for. Color tends to be 2:1). You'll get so much leaking light around the subject that they'll look hazy. Ideally you'd want closer to 2:1 (or, 1 stop for the background light over the power of the main light).

In all the entire patent reads like a bad joke to anyone that knows anything about lighting.
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
Oh yeah, for more prior art, do a Google search for "Richard Avedon".

BTW, I for one am going to be contacting the EFF and the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) regarding this. As a pro myself I find it deplorable that Amazon was able to get a patent on lighting technique that isn't even remotely correct, nevermind unique.
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
Something else... studio strobe lights aren't measured in kilowatts. They're measured in wattseconds (w/s). ;) Unless you're talking about hot lights, but that's a different realm (mostly video).

In this case, these are the idiots that wrote up this "patent" application:

Sawatzky; Jeremy David Seattle WA
Porter; Christina L. Seattle WA
Strauss; Jeff Burlington KY
Blank; Gil Morris Plains NJ
 

[Tripod]MajorPayne

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
I don't see anything novel or innovative about this methodology.

It's like they've attempted to patent a set of instructions on how to use existing technology, which isn't really patentable. They haven't developed a new piece of equipment or a new method of producing something unique, they've effectively just "changed the settings" on their stock equipment to a particular setting and called it a patentable method.

I simply don't see how this is even remotely appropriate to issue a patent for. If they want to claim that it's an identifying characteristic of their company, they should be using a trademark for that particular form of display. If they want to keep others from using it, they should treat it as a trade secret.

I don't see how you can patent basic setups of lights and gear; nothing "novel" is coming out of this. If they were setting up these existing lights and gear so you could see X-rays or something, then I would say that's a 'novel' method for viewing X-rays, but there's nothing novel or innovative about using 3 lights to get a background white.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
First to file baby, fuck prior art. Did anyone ever file a patent for this obvious method? No? Well then ..

What I'd like to see Amazon do is make the patent open. Although they patented it, they could claim they did it to prevent trolls from abusing the patent system. Allow the patented technique to be used as a open license for all.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
I'm honestly surprised that Apple doesn't already have this patented...

Somewhere a lawyer at Apple just got fired for letting this one slip through the cracks.

I think Apple is borderline a legal firm and not so much a tech company.
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
[Tripod]MajorPayne;1040818495 said:
I don't see anything novel or innovative about this methodology.

It's like they've attempted to patent a set of instructions on how to use existing technology, which isn't really patentable. They haven't developed a new piece of equipment or a new method of producing something unique, they've effectively just "changed the settings" on their stock equipment to a particular setting and called it a patentable method.

I simply don't see how this is even remotely appropriate to issue a patent for. If they want to claim that it's an identifying characteristic of their company, they should be using a trademark for that particular form of display. If they want to keep others from using it, they should treat it as a trade secret.

I don't see how you can patent basic setups of lights and gear; nothing "novel" is coming out of this. If they were setting up these existing lights and gear so you could see X-rays or something, then I would say that's a 'novel' method for viewing X-rays, but there's nothing novel or innovative about using 3 lights to get a background white.

It's not even that specific in the details. Like I said, it's "Vaguely Specific". What I mean is if you read the patent, you'll find references to distances measured in "1.5x", ".5", etc. measured in relation to objects in the scene. Not once do they give specific measurements in feet, meters, etc. Although the power of the light sources are given in kilowatts, not once do they specify how much of that power is falling on the background, subject, etc. In other words they never took a light meter and actually took measurements. They also don't specifically mention the light modifiers in use too. Depending on the light modifier used you'll get different light measurements. Technically speaking, not even the drawing they provide is correct.

If you go by the scale of the crappy drawing, the platform looks like it's roughly four feet high. The reflector on the main light could then potentially be a 22" beauty dish... but then again, in the drawing it's bigger than the platform legs. Not even a Mola would be big enough.... not to mention if you're putting that light that far back you deserved to get punched in the throat. Dishes like that have a sweet spot that you need to place them at, and where it is in relation to the subject is waaaaaaay too far back to be useful. Maybe it's a Breise "focus xx" (since a Broncolor Para is normally used with strobe lighting, not hot lights), but I highly doubt it since they'd mention that specifically in the patent if it was, what size they're using, the focal point used, etc. OK, whom I foolin? :D It's obvious that the turdburglars that wrote this patent are not photographers or videographers.

http://www.brieselichttechnik.de/en/flashlight/products-overview.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awl870oeanM

In a way it's actually comical what they do mention but then fail to mention afterwards. For example, one thing they specifically point out is that the light sources are tungsten and all the sources combined would have a color temperature of 3200k. *Well no shit Sherlock!* The color temp of a tungsten lamp is 3200k. Now tell us what lights you're using, the metered power output, the modifiers used, distances in feet/meters, etc. How about actual hard numbers a photographer/videographer can use instead of vagueness?

You're 100% right, it's not novel and it's not new. It's standard practice to place a light behind a subject and one on a boom to illuminate a background and not need to do a lick of editing afterwards.
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
First to file baby, fuck prior art. Did anyone ever file a patent for this obvious method? No? Well then ..

What I'd like to see Amazon do is make the patent open. Although they patented it, they could claim they did it to prevent trolls from abusing the patent system. Allow the patented technique to be used as a open license for all.

So by your thinking, painters should patent their brush strokes too..
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
If you want to get past all the technical detail of the patent, it's just that useful photography trick #77 where a person or product is illuminated by one light with the background light being a stop more powerful.
Exactly, I thought this was common sense, and we've been doing this for ages at my work where we broadcast the North America director from our HQ conference room to all the various buildings CRs, couple soft lights on him and a light background with five bright floor lights aimed at it and two high lights aimed down at the background. This way the presenter pops... should have pattented it.

And I'm just a IT schmuck, I know nothing of photography and figured this out. Ugh.
 

arentol

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,712
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Check what it really covers:
1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.


and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial

"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

You mean the prior art that consists of techniques taught in tens of thousands of photography classes for the last 50 years, readily available as instructions provided on the internet for 15 years and in photography magazines for 50 years, and used in millions of people and product shots taken by professional an amateur photographers in the last 50 years?

Or are you talking about some other ridiculously common prior art?

Not that it matters much. The patent it idiotic because it specifies a white background. You can actually do it with a gray background and make it look white if you just use slightly brighter lights. So I would love to see them try to enforce this when they could never prove what color background was used for a given shot.
 

Wine

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
489
Patent everything so no one can patent anything. Then after that, make things up as you go.
 

Fifth Horseman

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2000
Messages
455
You mean the prior art that consists of techniques taught in tens of thousands of photography classes for the last 50 years, readily available as instructions provided on the internet for 15 years and in photography magazines for 50 years, and used in millions of people and product shots taken by professional an amateur photographers in the last 50 years?

Or are you talking about some other ridiculously common prior art?

Not that it matters much. The patent it idiotic because it specifies a white background. You can actually do it with a gray background and make it look white if you just use slightly brighter lights. So I would love to see them try to enforce this when they could never prove what color background was used for a given shot.

+10000000000! You nailed it.

I for one openly invite Amazon to try and sue me and prove in a court of law that I breached their copyright for any of the hi key work I do (since the way I do it now isn't how they show it in their shitty diagram). By their own admission the whole idea behind this patent isn't about the lighting style but in that it cuts out a lot of the post work afterwards. OK, prove it that I not only used your "proprietary lighting technique" in my images when I could have just edited it to look that way, but please explain to the jury how your technique is any different from the techniques used in the past 100 years.

Hell I'd actually enjoy watching their legal team squirm like kindergarteners that have to pee so much that I'd sell popcorn on the front steps of the court. :D
 

Koolthulu

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
773
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

Yes, it is plain and simple "photography against a white background". My mother-in-law is a professional photographer and this is exactly what she and pretty much any other photographer does to take a photo against a white background. It's Photography 101 and another great example of the idiotic patent system in this country.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,312
Guys, it is the Patent Offices best interest to issue as many patents as possible.

The patent makes money off all patent applications. ($$$ for gov).

Obviously, by having so may broad patents issued this will cause conflict in the corporate/private sector.

Where will those conflicts be resolved? In the court system which will involve court fees ($$$ for gov).

Companies will end up having to pay big settlements to each other for damages ($$$for gov through IRS).

Lawyers will also receive a large payment for their efforts ($$$ for gov through IRS).

So you want the government to give up ALL of that income, and instead PAY people to investigate if a patent is valid and worthy of acceptance??? Sucka you crazy!
 

dderidex

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
6,328
Uhhh...guys...isn't THIS the relevant part?

The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background.

IE., the effect is to 'shoot through' the plexiglass reflection.

Basically...okay, in MS Office, like, 2010+ (and a million other apps, but I'm sure everyone knows this one) - you paste an image into Word/Outlook/etc, and get the 'Picture Tools' ribbon. The "Reflected Rounded Rectangle" effect you can choose?

This patent seems to be to take photos with that effect without any post-processing - you get an object, and a fading (but transparent) reflection of the object beneath it, against a white background.
 

Vathral

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
220
Maybe Amazon patented this so they never have to deal with patent trolls. Maybe they will never bother to sue anyone over this. They just covering their ass.
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".

Check what it really covers:
1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.


and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial

"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "

Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.

Its a patent for taking photo's on a white background

There is no NEW technology being used here, just old technology and how they set up the lighting and a stand for the model/prop/product to stand on

This is a patent for taking a photo against a white background, so, what, I can make my own patent after this for a white background by using five lights and having the fifth light pointed at the ceiling so it reflects light to the top of the lighting subject? TOO BAD I PATENTED IT GIB ME MONEY NAOW!!!
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,542
Once again....

OBVIOUS UNDER THE ART ..... unpatentable.

PRIOR ART .... unpatentable.

These elements in the patent are obvious to any photography professional and are therefore obvious under the art. They have also been used over the last 150 years by some number of professionals and are covered by numerous instances of prior art.

Just because no one in history has had the unmitigated GALL to file a patent on it, does not make something patentable.

Yes, the PTO needs to be completely replaced from the janitor to the director.... and the rules returned to 1979. I'm not going to get into the who/what/where/when/why, suffice it to say, go back to the rules as of 1979.
 

jimmyb

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,165
OK, I can use my own work to substantiate this. *goes on to describes a setup which isn't covered by the patent*

Good job.

I'm not sure the patent is defensible, but equating it with "photographing against a white background" is retardedly ignorant and pretty commonplace on these forums.
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
Good job.

I'm not sure the patent is defensible, but equating it with "photographing against a white background" is retardedly ignorant and pretty commonplace on these forums.

But that's what it is

https://www.google.ca/search?q=car+...zyATyoIKIDA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1008

OH MY GOD ALL THESE AUTO MAKERS ARE NOW VIOLATING THIS PATENT!!!!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=car+...video+card+pictures+white+background&tbm=isch

WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE AMAZON PATENT?!?!?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=car+...q=squirrel+pictures+white+background&tbm=isch

OH MY GOD THE COMMON SQUIRREL IS IN ON IT TOO!!

Face it, this is a fucking stupid patent, and it passing shows how terrible the patent office is ATM
 

jojo69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
10,928
most amusing to watch the very concept of intellectual property implode on itself
 
Top