Does the CAP Code cover the entire frame? What if the bootlegger zoomed in to get a full frame picture on his camcorder? I assume that John Pytlak took all of this into account when he designed the CAP Code with Bevan Wright and John F Allen. The CAP Code is either centered (mostly) in the frame, or repeated on the left and right sides. Right? Either that or you only need a few of the dots located on certain frames in a sequence to determine the print ID.

 |  IP: Logged

I wouldn't assume that 2000 prints is still a limitation. The MPA and labs have had 18 years to expand and enhance the use of CAP Code, and it's likely additional or redundant coding methods are in use. Randy's observation of different patterns seems to support this.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

He probably works for the MPAA decoding CAP Code now!

Either that, or the FBI brought in for questioning.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

The pirates usually find out they missed one of the ways when the FBI comes armed with a search warrant!

In this case, "inquiring minds" raise suspicions.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I'm not an expert on this, but to answer Steven's question more specifically, I would think that virtually ANY defect in the print could be used against a bootlegger to track it. For example, let's say someone was to bootleg a print from a theater that was playing print number 855. Now let's say that print had a lab splice 500 feet into reel 4. Since lab splices are so random, a quick analyzation of the videotape with frame counting would show a matching lab splice location. Even if that frame was cut out and tape spliced back together, there is always a disturbance, most particularly with a tape splice that would show up even on video. Thus at that point I would think the MPAA could check a list of suspected theater's prints to see if one of those prints physically matched.

Maybe that same print had a tiny scratch in one of the reels, possibly even being from a lab. It isn't rocket science to take a batch of "suspected" prints to a rewind bench or projector and find out if one of them was indeed the source print.

So I would say that even anti-piracy techniques like the CAP code aren't necessarily the only thing that the MPAA has to go on. Sure it helps, but even a non-coded print should be able to be tracked down. It would just take more effort. Am I right John?

Now that that has been said, John if the MPAA ever decides to give a demonstration, now of *how* they can track down prints, but an end result *proof* that it can be done, I'd certainly like to play around with trying to screw with their system! Just imagine the sheer hell that could be created with the cooperation of about 2 dozen other Film-Techers across the country, all swapping bits of reels around, and then further "processed" by Joe with whatever he could come up with on his fancy video editing systems, including modified CAP coding. I'm not saying they still couldn't track it, which they quite possibly still could, but it certainly would have them putting in a LOT of man hours trying to figure it out! hehehe I would just want a contract in writing beforehand guaranteeing everyone's involvement to be non-prosecutable for the demo. Transferring a film to video isn't worth even one day in jail.

BTW, didn't Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings recently come with a letter to store one can of the print in another room for security purposes? Did ANYONE actually do that? I highly doubt it. Letters are ignored because they are always saying the same thing. That's why no one reads the TAP pamphlets anymore. I'll bet that the vast majority of them never even have the envelope opened.

One other thing, what about the film delivery people? Let's say Joe Bob delivers film to 20 theaters in a given area. What is to prevent good 'ol Joe Bob from dropping off a theater's cans (let's say it was Steve Guttag's print that was destined to go to the Uptown) to his evil twin brother Bob Bob, who sits in the basement for a few hours doing a nice bootlegging job of it, carefully running it reel by reel so Steve won't notice it had been ran before...and then giving it back to Joe Bob to conveniently drop off at the Uptown. Then later as that tape hits the streets Mr.Vee and his goons at the MPAA track down the print as belonging to the Uptown and go arrest Steve for it. Steve had nothing to do with it! He may hate platters, but he certainly hates video even more. How does the MPAA deal with possibilities like that?