my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MPAA, you suck! (Page 15)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19

Author Topic: MPAA, you suck! Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 11-27-2003 08:48 PM                    I suggest that the task of gathering sample images of Crap Code (tm?) be left to those who can do so without cutting the film. One can make a good fair use claim against copyright infringement but outright theft of studio property is not going to be condoned. Especially when its completely unnecessary to steal film frames to obtain the images. Just because you might be able to get away with something is not justification for doing it.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-27-2003 09:54 PM                        i raised my eyebrow at that suggestion too, but then i figured it could perhaps be justified along the same lines as cutting out lab splices. it's an interference in the presentation. personally, i don't think i would do that though. carl  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-27-2003 10:56 PM                  Putting aside any legal issues as Steve raises, I would hope no one would willfully "damage" a print. It would be a perfect example of, as John P. would say, Film Done WRONG! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 11-28-2003 02:06 AM                     I was thinking along the same lines Carl, I would say that a splice is much less annoying than the dots. As far as willfully damaging a print, Hello? the print is already damaged by the dots! Anyway, This may not be the MPAA but I recieved an email today stating that my print for the sneak of The Last Samurai will not only be arriving at 9am on Saturday morning but will be accomanied by a security guard who is to remain with the print all day. I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up handcuffed to the cans like the secret service and the nuclear football. So, now there is no way to screen the print unless we cancel one of our first shows and I have to put up with some cocksucker in my booth all day!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-28-2003 02:21 AM                        You can get a good picture of the frames while the reel is on the rewind bench with light shining through. No need to cut or damage the film in any way. You can get VERY detailed shots with this method.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-28-2003 08:54 AM                     Put tape lines on the floor so that there is about a 10x10 foot boundary, give him a chair and tell him he is not to leave that space if he is to stay in your booth. If he wanders from that square, have security evict him. Don't forget to give him a courtesy cup in case he needs to go to the bathroom.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 11-28-2003 10:18 AM                    I have no problem with the couriers watching from the booth (if the publicist in control of the screening allows it); there is a theatre-type chair by the soundrack and a large spotlight type port to watch through. Typically it's the same one of two guys from Network Courier. However, I have made them sign disclaimers (good indefinitely) releasing me from liability if they slip and bump their head or something. I figure they don't have to be there, it's just a courtesy, so no reason I should assume any risk no matter how small.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-28-2003 11:00 AM                     Actually that's a good idea. Theaters should come up with some painfully long 30 page legal contract for any "non-employee" to have to sign who wants to stay in the booth during a show. The studios would be spending so much damned time and money dealing with their legal department trying to get things cleared that could very well put an end to this insulting foolishness.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-29-2003 02:31 PM                     In another thread, Bruce Hansen asks, "Why should the MPAA dictate to the studios? Shouldn't each studio decide weather to send these things out or not?" The MPAA is a group of studios, and they met together and made an agreement to handle screeners in a particular way. No single member studio has the prerogative to simply break that agreement (presumably; it's not as if they've published the exact text of the agreement and any penalties). --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-29-2003 05:18 PM                     Discussion of screener tapes should continue in a separate thread. This one's getting all clogged up. We already have enough anal retentive moderators, but if you'd like to apply, jHawk, please request an application from an administrator.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-30-2003 09:11 AM                        I love Brad's idea. Hand those security guards with infrared goggles and the guy they send up to the booth to watch the projectionist, a four page document to sign that has all kinds of clauses about holding the theatre harmless in any legal action a patron may level re: the way they were handled (or manhandled) or any other dispute. It also should hold the theatre harmless in any injury the guard might substain while anywhere in the theatre -- like when the 60yr old guard tries to walk up five flights and then has to climb a rung ladder to get to the booth. And while we are at it, how come the studios gets to dictate to theatre owners THEIR contract (which I assume is created without benefit of bargaining negotiations with exhibition). How come the theatre owners don't get to dictate to the studios an exhibitors' Master Contract? Seems to me there really is a tenuous balance of power here -- exhibitors need product, but studios are seriously dependent on a definative number of screens available for any film opening. If only one or two members of NATO decide that they will not play films from a studio that does not agree to the owner's contract, the non-compliant studio would be in very big financial trouble. Just imagine if 30% of the screens available to distribution on an opening weekend are missing from the economic model. Seems that NATO could demand that the Master Contract be negotiated, not simply handed to their members. The fact that exhibition has recently been consolidated by reason of the chains gobbling up other chains, gives them even more power. They could very easily insist that Master Contract be molded more to their liking, or at least that it is authored jointly by bargaining and negotiation. Frank  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 11-30-2003 12:03 PM                     quote: And while we are at it, how come the studios gets to dictate to theatre owners THEIR contract (which I assume is created without benefit of bargaining negotiations with exhibition). Well, for us all of these things are taken care of by home office so we dont really have a say. The guard they sent wasnt too bad. He stayed out of the way and kicked out a bunch of talking people and crying babies. Of course noone with video cameras.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-01-2003 10:55 AM                        Phil Hill wrote: quote: Putting aside any legal issues as Steve raises, I would hope no one would willfully "damage" a print. It would be a perfect example of, as John P. would say, Film Done WRONG! NEVER deliberately remove sections of a print or make unnecessary splices that will destroy the continuity. If you are trying to show examples of a print problem, take photographs of the affected frames on a rewind bench WITHOUT damaging the print. If test samples are needed for measurement or testing, the head or tail leader can be used, if it is replaced with appropriate labeled leader.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-12-2003 11:59 PM                     OK, as promised. On Nov 16, I said, "I'll endeavor to get some scans of the new Deluxe single-frame cap code when I next run across it. That probably won't be for a couple weeks..." Here you go (just a gif for now, but it's clear enough): This is from R2 of Once Upon a Time In Mexico, and is an example of the new Deluxe CAP code (aka "CRAP" code, by some). Printed at Deluxe Hollywood. This is an anamorphic movie, so you'd need to stretch x2 to understand the full visual effect. Note that this was two consecutive frames long, different from the old Kodak CAP code (1 frame), the earlier versions of the new Deluxe CAP code (1 frame), or the new TES cap code (3 frames). (Perhaps frame numbers are/were variable, I don't have good data on that). It does stand to reason that multi-frame CAP codes are harder to defeat, since they will show up better in frame-by-frame compression algorithms, and will defeat CAP code (and dirt) removal algorithms that try to remove single-frame high-contrast small elements. If anyone has the patience or proper tools (editting -style viewer, I suppose), I'd be interested if there's data on how many frames long the new Deluxe and TES cap codes are, beyond my limitted dataset. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-13-2003 01:48 AM                  Great example John! I don't understand why all those assholes bother with the "codes"? What a bunch of fuckin' idiots! I FULLY believe the jerks that want to push "video" into the theatres are behind this. Oh, BTW...I am NOT someone that believes in conspiracies. Wouldn't it make more sense just to put a visible plain-English code there? You know, like all those POS cable/TV stations with their logos. They could print throughout the film in the lower right corner of the frame: "Thank you for watching Deluxe Print #458712AK768" Then there would be NO doubt! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.