His knowledge would be invaluable to the pirates and thus enduth the CAP code lesson in one foul stroke.

I think it's crap too. We used to have the print numbers physically scratched into the emulsion in an obvious place over four frames on one distributor's prints. These were always placed by stopping 'at some point' (I saw them do it) when being made up to reels at the distributor, scratched on on one reel only, then the print was shipped out. _NO_ record of where it was was ever made, so if you really wanted to, you could have just lopped out those four frames and press record.

They don't do that anymore, but they also don't bother to put them onto spools.

As I noted early in this thread, "All of the proprietary decoding information and technology was given to the MPAA in 1982, and is owned and managed by them." Anyone wanting more information should contact the Motion Picture Association, 15503 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA, 91436.

Dwayne: Peter Eaves has long experience in motion picture labs, as Manager of WRS Motion Picture & Video Lab, and now at FotoKem in Burbank CA. Those who have first-hand experience with CAP Code are just saying that it is successfully used to combat film piracy. Our postings are not "a disinformation ploy to throw us off track", they are simply the facts that can be shared.
We won't tell you how CAP Code works, only that it does work.

1. The CAP code is very real, and very effective in combating piracy, but it is not in John or any other creators' power to give us a demonstration without concent from someone above, and they figure it's either not worth the effort to ask, or they know the request would be turned down anyway. So why bother.

2. The CAP code is real, but it has a few flaws, and if any demonstration were to backfire, it would show the CAP code to be ineffective and only help promote piracy. I can respect the hesitancy in demonstration if this were the case.

3. The CAP code doesn't exist period, and is indeed a scare tactic.

Personally, I'm leaning toward the second truth.

I didn't say you had to see it either, just that there was at one time another form of tracing a pirated print.

My point is that there must be some ex employees with the knowledge it would take to expose it, one way or the other.

Not if they had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Now in John P's posting above, notice he says "I don't recall ever saying that you needed to _SEE_ the CAP Code to decode it." This is a big hint and confirms my suspicions that CAP code does exist and is most likely not applied to the image, but to the SOUNDTRACK, maybe as a series of pops or clicks; the presence or absence of the pops at an expected temporal location forms a binary coding. They would not need to be very loud, and with just 12 pop locations scattered over a reel, you could encode one of 4096 different print codes. The pops would be plainly audible in even the low-quality audio reproduction of VHS, MPEG-1, etc. whereas visual markings might not reproduce well enough. Applying a binary code of pops to the soundtrack is in line with the technology of the early 1980s and could be done by adding small scratches across the optical soundtrack at specific footage offsets.

Import copies of two different prints into a video editing program. Superimpose the two images, synced frame-for-frame, and adjust for perfect register. Invert one of the images and use it as a keying matte, or some such "difference" element.

When combined in this manner, every part of the picture that is similar will be cancelled (leaving a blank screen), but any differences between the two will be revealed on the monitor. If the code consists of unique visual indicators, they will become readily apparent.

You forgot to mention that anyone wanting to actually use that trick to try and locate a difference would have to dupe 2 prints on the SAME projector and without moving the camera (on a tripod of course).

As to the sound coding, I REALLY can't buy that one. Examples of bootlegs I've seen are shot with the builtin microphone and typically have an audience, complete with laughter, popcorn munching and a screaming baby! That would be useless. Also, as you pointed out, there would be no way to alter each of the 4 soundtracks commonly placed on a print...especially DTS. John was clearly trying to throw everyone off again implying a sound coding *or* that something on the image would be invisible. Yet again, a load of crap. I see no way a multiple generation VHS dupe of a print can hold some secret code that is invisible on film or a video bootleg.

John, you've posted numerous times on this ever increasing thread and still seem to think people are interested in "how" it works. Well, it's my observation the reason people are coming up with theories (which are probably getting closer and closer) is because nothing at all has been said by anyone validating the code other then statements like "I know, it is real". ANYONE can get on here and say that, hell even I could say that, but that doesn't make it so. When no demo is offered and no information is given and no documentation can be found anywhere (remember your fake links from earlier), of course people will start their own theories and sooner or later, someone will figure it out or it will get to a point where all reasonable doubt this exists will be tossed aside proving to people that the CAP code does in fact not exist. A demo will prove once and for all that it works (supposedly) and will not give away any secrets. It's great advertising for the MPAA and the studios here promoting to NEVER bootleg or allow a bootleg to occur. And it would only cost the CAP code boys a day's work to strike fear into everyone.

Will it happen? I still say it won't. Dwayne posed an interesting set of theories earlier and I'm going with his #2 theory: "The CAP code is real, but it has a few flaws, and if any demonstration were to backfire, it would show the CAP code to be ineffective and only help promote piracy." The key word here being "flaws", which can mean anything from the the CAP code not being "all that" to start with, the depots not maintaining print numbers during packing or swapping cans on pickup, any professional bootlegger being smart enough to arrange for jumbled reels from different prints (as in paying the film delivery guy to swap them around), or who knows what else?

Yet has much as he feels it doesn't exist, I feel that it does. If I'm right about the white specks (that look like camera negative dirt) it seems to be a simple idea (but not necessarily simple to do.)

I think if you looked at a printer, you would find a set of rollers that guide the release stock past a mysterious device.

 |  IP: Logged