|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Single Worst Use of CAP Code, Ever: A Rant
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-09-2004 12:01 AM
The original CAPcoding was subtle, caused little offence, and seemingly helped to track illegal copying onto video.
The original question was probably: "can we mark the print lightly enough to be visually OK, but still to survive video copying?" The answer given by John's team at Kodak was "Yes".
The same question now seems to have a different answer. "Visually OK" is probably the same level, but "survive video copying" now includes severe compression and a range of other digital techniques. The answer now, to the same question, is probably "No". If the dots are acceptable, they won't be useful to identify copies.
But the studios still want "Yes" so they have had to bend their definition of "visually OK", rather than come up with a completely new system.
However, to attach any blame to John Pytlak seems to be particularly useless, and to devalue and discredit the entire argument against the new coding marks.
And if anyone could come up with a way of identifying the source of a copied print that is more visually acceptable than the present version, that was practical and effective, I'm sure the studios and the labs (as well as the projectionists) would be very interested. Nothing forthcoming from here though???
Perhaps a unique pattern of applicator spread on the edge of each print would do the trick (oh! there I go, off into the cyan track argument;-))
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-09-2004 12:19 AM
I am going to use John Pytlak as a HYPOTHETICAL example here.
Let's say that I was commisioned to videotape the wedding of John Pytlak's daughter (I have no idea if John's daughter(s) are married or not in real life, but keep in mind this is hypothetical). It was a fantastic ceremony followed by an amazing reception. Remember, family of the bride pays for just about everything at the wedding. I got some great footage and edited it all together onto a DVD or videotape (doesn't matter).
Obviously, I am going to charge per copy for the wedding. So if John wants 5 copies, he gets 5 copies. If he wants more, he has to buy more copies from me. That's generally the way it works. In order to make sure that John doesn't simply dub down some copies himself and send them off to friends and relatives, I encode the video with CAP code. Right as the bride and groom kiss, huge orange-brown dots appear for 3 frames in a row right on the bride's face! There would also be frames of CAP code as the bride is walking down the aisle, throwing of the boquet, speeches during the reception, and of course the dance with daddy. Each copy of the wedding I gave him would have different CAP code so I could identify which tape/DVD it came from. Would I be within my legal rights to do this? You bet I would, since it is actually my product and I made it and am making money off of it. Would John appreciate this? He'd damn well better!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-09-2004 12:24 AM
Yeah Phil you're right. It is always someone on either extreme (some young "whipper snapper" just getting into the business and thinks he/she knows how to run the company without any experience) or someone so "Valenti-ish" they cannot adapt to current times and situations. So I'll give ya that.
Steve, I don't think most drive-ins open films on the nationwide release date. Since the industry appears to only be interested in that first weekend's worth of profits anymore, and 90+% of all anti-piracy measures seem to stop after opening weekend, I'd say the drive-in thing isn't all that important to them. Still, it's just that all that bitching over and over, shoving anti-piracy stuff down everyone's throats...and yet the most fabulous bootleg could be done at a drive-in is something that the MPAA has put forth ZERO EFFORT toward. (Other than the absurd crap code, of course.)
Dominic has some good points here, but surely even he can see (and admit) how out of hand this whole cap code thing has been getting over the last year or two. Of course he works at a lab, so he won't. Right Dominic? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I still want to put forth my challenge to the MPAA that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to overcome their CRAP coding. I wish someone from a studio would give me official paperwork to bootleg a certain movie of theirs at my choice of theater (of which no one would know) and then let them announce publicly what theater it came from. Either it would work and the fear of God would be put into everyone, or it would fail and then maybe we could get rid of the crap code for a better watermarking technology that doesn't distract from the presentation. Come on studios...who's going to take me up on this? You're paying for the CRAP code on every film you print...let me prove it works or prove it doesn't! Either way, the studio wins on the demo by proving once and for all that it works, or proving that they have been paying $$$ for years on a system that isn't as effective as they are led to believe.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-09-2004 12:29 PM
Brad -- I know about the "formula" to decipher the print number from where the dots appear, but what contradicts that is the three prints of The Village which I saw that had them in the exact same place in the frame on each print. Two of the actors were talking in front of a white wall, and they appeared in a Z shape right in the center. All three prints, same shape, same spot. Could it just be a "deterrent" then, like parking a cop car outside the theater?
Drive-Ins in Florida still regularly show first-run on opening weekend. Sometimes double-features even. The Silver Moon in Lakeland is showing Collateral d/f with Anchorman, and Village d/f with I, Robot. Lake Worth Drive In has the same, minus Anchorman. Both locations often sell-out.
John -- I'm certainly not blaming you for anything and would hate for you to get that impression. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I do however believe these questions need to be asked at an industry press conference or seminar, where they can be less easily dodged and more rabbles could be roused. I assume NATO has no interest in pursuing this. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-09-2004 01:28 PM
quote: Thomas Procyk
I assume NATO has no interest in pursuing this.
NATO is pursuing it, and the labs and distributors are working to improve it. The concerns about the new versions of CAP Code have been discussed at the last three meetings of the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Cinema Presentation.
At ShowEast 2003 (October 1, 2003) the minutes show:
quote:
... the MPAA are continually researching anti-piracy and there are many options. This has been the hot topic in the industry as of late and it will remain the hot topic until there is an answer to it. Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.
At the January 14, 2004 meeting in Los Angeles:
quote:
Anti-Piracy – John Fithian (President of NATO)
There was a discussion about new versions of “cap coding” (Coded Anti Piracy) by the film labs. Several people voiced their concerns about the obtrusiveness of the new cap coding. The code must be forensically possible to find, yet not so that it is a distraction that hurts the presentation. Distributors are working with labs to find better ways of concealing the code so it is not as obvious to the audience.
The Inter-Society Meeting at ShoWest on March 24 also had a discussion of how to improve the newer CAP Codes to make them less visible.
Developing watermarks that are robust enough to survive in poor quality pirated copies, yet not be noticed by the audience, is a significant technical challenge. As Dominic Case said:
quote: Dominic Case
And if anyone could come up with a way of identifying the source of a copied print that is more visually acceptable than the present version, that was practical and effective, I'm sure the studios and the labs (as well as the projectionists) would be very interested. Nothing forthcoming from here though???
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 08-09-2004 03:32 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
... fond of saying that CrAP Coding is only one of many ways they "foil pirates."
quote: Mike Blakesley
Or is CrAP Code really the only arrow in their quiver?
My hunch: for detection of which print the copy was originated from, CrAP is it. There are additional techniques that can further "prove" a particular copy came from a particular print, based on artifact simerlarity, once you have both the print and the copy, to strengthen the case.
quote: John Pytlak
Several new proprietary Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) watermarking codes that better survive poor illegal video copying and Internet distribution are being used, but may be more visible to the audience.
Thats a really interesting quote. Looking closely
quote:
..better survive poor ... copying
Ahhh .. CrAP actually doesnt work, all of the time
quote: John Pytlak
but may be more visible to the audience
But its gonna get worse before it gets better.
Although Mr Pytlak is linked with the original idea of image mutilation, if it hadn't been him, someone else would have come up with the process. Given the mindset ofthe decision makers, it was inevitable someone would come up with this. And it was a long time ago...
The very idea of individualising prints is an interesting one. To keep costs down, the powers that be dont actually want individualised prints, they want mass produced prints that can be marked somehow in a mechanically simplistic way after the printing process. CrAP addresses that nicely - its an add on thing that marks a print, with no disruption to the printing process.
Subtle marking wont work; it'll be masked by compression that video encoding uses. I'm certain you could encode data invisibly using techniques specific to each movie, using a low data rate, but the costs to do this would be high, and would require per print processing. Not attractive to bean counters at all. And given the low bit rate, you would need a lot of movie to extract the data from. A possible way of doing this would be in a common background shot in the movie, have an object present or not present, representing a zero or a one in binary. A car, a tree, a shop sign, something that is a real object.
Data has been hidden in still images using steganographic techniques for a while now, and there is now a MP3 variant. But we know that a photocopy of an image, or an analogue copy of an MP3 will destroy the underlying data. Its hidden by definition, and thus doesnt copy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm not sure what such a test would prove. My objection to crapcode is that it is annoying to watch, not that it doesn't work. I presume it works well enough that they are willing to pay for it and I would guess it's been tested either deliberately or by monitoring file sharing networks for off-screen copies. How well that works, that is, what they do with the knowledge that it was shot off the screen at the Bijou in Podunk is a different matter entirely.
Printer-friendly view of this topic