Test Frames Legality

[cfavreau]

I would like to incorporate some test frames into some software that I am writing. Some of it is open source and some of it is not.

Which test frames on the swap site are OK to include. Some of them look like they are from Pangolin software and I do not want to use someone else's hardwork without permission.

Here is the list:

All Colours Sharp Dots
Blanking Shift
Gray Scale
Dark Colours
Grid Test
ILDA12K
ILDA30K
Lasermedia
Light Colours
Medium Colours
Orientation
Quadrature

Does anyone have any information. I searched the forum (admittedly not a really really thorough search) and did not find anything.

Thanks,
Chris F.

[cfavreau]

I forgot about the readme.txt distributed with the frames:

It mentions these files as being property of Pangolin and used with permission.

Blanking Shift.ild
Cray Scale Test.ild
Dark Colours Test.ild
Grid Test.ild
Light Colours Test.ild
Medium Colours Test.ild
Orientation.ild
Quadrature.ild

3 Questions:

1) What about the other ones?
2) What does the permission cover?
3) Pangolin please chime in if you would? Your input is very valuable.

[buffo]

I suggest you contact Bill Benner directly using the contact form on the Pangolin Website. It's a much faster way to get in touch with him.

Adam

[loopee]

Hi cfavreau

I posted those files on the FTP site some time ago, they were actually posted on the forum by another member and I just added them to the FTP site.

During this Bill Benner posted that certain frames (the ones detailed) are copyrighted frames from Pangolin.

Bill being the marvellous person he is gave permission for them to remain on the FTP site for members here to use; I added the copyright notice out of Courtesy.

See here: http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6474

Therefore you should ask Bill directly about using the ones detailed

The other files could well be copyrighted also

Troy

[cfavreau]

Thanks very much for the replies. I will certainly contact Bill directly. They are really great test frames and are worth the effort to research.

[mikkojay]

some software that I am writing

Hey Chris, whatcha got cookin?
-Mike

[cfavreau]

Ahh... see there's a question. I would just like to keep it under wraps to the general forum until it is a little more grownup. I'll send some details on another channel.

[cfavreau]

After talking with some wise individuals I think I will just keep the ILDA test frame to include as a compiled in frame. I also may take on creating some test frames of my own. I read the other post that is related (link above somewhere) and the frames originated from Pangolin and were transferred to ILDA format without Pangolin's permission. So in an effort to not carry on the tradition of taking someone's frames that they worked hard making, I will not include them. I encourage others to do the same. Maybe we can come up with a good set of test frames!

[mixedgas]

ated from Pangolin and were transferred to ILDA format without Pangolin's permission. So in an effort to not carry on the tradition of taking someone's frames that they worked hard making, I will not include them. I encourage others to do the same. Maybe we can come up with a good set of test frames![/QUOTE]

I think your wimping out here.

Perhaps you should just email Bill and get permission. Its hard enough to help people tune to the standard as it is, let alone to create a whole new differing standard and have to jump back and forth between two of them. Pangolin doesn't own the LM clone frames.

Bill allows the test frames to propogate for a reason. Its good for the industry.

Laser Media is long gone, so its safe to say the LM test frame is abandonware.

Steve

[Pangolin]

I think your wimping out here.

Actually Steve, I think Chris is taking the most noble approach. Chris and I have had friendly email exchanges. I suggested he stick with only the ILDA test pattern, and ones he makes himself.

The reason is not meant to be mean, but rather in an effort to try to encourage innovation.

Think about it this way: Those test patterns (and others not mentioned) were made by Patrick and I. Most of them were made 20 years ago or more. I can't believe that there isn't any greater innovation in the world than that...

If it's just so easy to take what Patrick and I made 20 years ago and use it, then that's all that will ever exist in this industry. But if people start raising (friendly) objections to the use of our test patterns, it means that new test patterns will be made and thus, this helps push the whole industry forward.

As examples: Lightspeed made up their own test patterns, and so did AVI. Probably Laser Images LASERIUM also has their own test patterns, and of course, Laser Animation has their own test pattern (which we see on other platforms mumble mumble mumble...) My point is -- clearly it is possible for human beings other than Patrick and I to make test patterns. Since it's possible, lets see more of this and less just blindly following what we came up with 20 years ago...

In fact, at ILDA there was a discussion (and actions for which there was a vote, which carried) of implementing standards of acceptable behavior with respect to original development, and subsequent immitation of original development. Think about it this way. If "company X" does all of the innovating, and (because there are no laws, standards, morals, ethics, etc. preventing it) others simply copy what "company X" does, the only thing this industry will ever have is the thinking of "company X". But if, on the other hand, there are barriers (however gentle) which will discourage the outright immitation, duplication, copying, etc. of "company X" ideas, then people will have to just sit down and come up with their own ideas. We believe having a diversity of ideas -- and COMPETITION OF IDEAS is much better for the world at large, rather than simple blind following what one company does.

Bill allows the test frames to propogate for a reason.

Ahh, but we DON'T!! In all cases, we found out that things like this were being distributed after (in many cases long after) it has already happened. When we learned of it in the past, we allowed it as long as the people were willing to include a "proprietary rights notice". (Note that this was the case for test patterns, but stronger action has been taken in the past -- not only by Pangolin, but by six companies in this industry -- against people who have distributed art-ware and show-ware without authorization.)

In Chris's case, he did the right thing and asked us BEFORE he actually started distributing them. This is much more noble and honorable in our view.

I don't know much about Chris, but he comes across as a smart guy. My guess is that, if he wants to, he will come up with new test patterns, perhaps having ideas we haven't even thought of. This -- lets call it "encouraged evolution" -- winds up helping everyone in the end!

Bill