|
|
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
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-10-2004 12:34 PM
John, per your post on the last page, I have a hard time believing that the machine has to be manually reset with each reel. Ever notice the bar codes that are printed onto the leaders? I would think that as the film passes a scanner, the bar code is read and that not only initiates the "pinchers" (to hold the film and start the accumulator, which gives the lab operator X number of seconds to pull the roll of film off and start another core winding), but I would think that the bar code also would automatically reset the crapper for another reel (whether it's a different crap code or not). Remember, for the purpose of resetting the crapper, the bar codes wouldn't have to be different. All it needs to "say" is that "this is the head of the reel" and "this is the tail of the reel". Those bar codes probably contain other information, but for the purpose of simple automation, that is all that would be needed.
Matthew, for clarification, the original CAP code was called the CRAP code initially as a joke. Nowadays the term CAP code tends to refer to the original code from the 80s and the term CRAP code refers to the current "spilling of red paint on the film" code.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-10-2004 12:52 PM
For the sake of not confusing the new, blatantly visible code with the one John invented, I shall henceforth try to refer to it simply as the "antipiracy watermarking code" or APW code instead of CAP code.
quote: John Hawkinson
Is it possible to be more concerete? I realize the subrun you project for didn't have 3 prints of The Village and so you probably cannot go and pull the three frames in question.
It stands to reason that the 3 prints at the venue in question are probably similar in print number.
Like Paul, I did a screen check for The Village. Since the movie was so boring, I concentrated on the flaws. Without the actual frames in my hand, I couldn't tell you if they were in the exact same place. But they were the same shape. I saw them in Reel 2, once near the beginning against the sky and again in Scene 9 where Lucious is talking with Ivy just before she goes inside. They're against a white wall, IIRC.
I payed attention to when exactly they occured and all 3 were right after the same line of dialog was delivered. (Don't ask me what it was, lol!)
quote: John Hawkinson
CAP coding is a tool that is used by law enforcement, just like many other pieces of detective work (fingerprints, fuzzy memories of witness, etc.). It provides useful clues.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. What sort of clues does it provide other than print tracking? Fingerprints and "fuzzy memories" could lead you to a person. Antipiracy code only seems to lead to a print. They would have better luck fingerprinting all projectionists, then checking the bootlegged copy for big greasy thumbprints at the reel changes and viola!
quote: John Hawkinson
"Is it possible to track down the bootlegging facility by means of the CAP code, or does it simply prove the fact that the copy was made from the stolen print?" Of course you know that the CAP code only identifies a print uniquely, not when it was bootlegged.
I'm confused. I didn't mention anything about a timeframe of when the dupe was made. Unless you meant "where" instead of "when", but then that would defeat the purpose of the APW code, since it's meant to track the print back to the theater. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What I was trying to say is this: If the APW code is supposed to decode into a print number, authorities could see where the print was shipped to and go from there. Let's say the print number comes up for a print that "fell off the truck" on it's way to the multiplex. So now they know the dupe was made from the stolen print. Is that all of the information it provides, or do these dots somehow lead to a trail into a dark basement with the telecine machine sitting next to the shipping containers? I fail to see how they would actually track anything in this case. It would be very interesting to learn how these "bootlegging factories" were tracked down. Did the code lead them to it, or did they just follow the guy home after he folded up his table at the flea market/street corner?
quote: John Hawkinson
Absence of a "clear method of apprehension" does not mean that there is "no clear purpose." It need not be clear to the public in order for the studios to find it effective, and the clarity of the method does not necessarily speak to the clarity of purpose.
Not to get into politics here, but that method of thinking could lead to a very dangerous power structure in a very unstable and fear-laden society.
But on a serious note, if this "security measue" has gotten to the point where it's clearly detrimental to the enjoyment of the presentation, (detrimental to the service that the industy offers to the public) then there had damn well be a clarity of purpose. It should be DEMANDED that it be made clear to the public as to why they're paying increasingly higher ticket prices for increasingly blotched presentations. Are we subsidizing the cost of this "technology?"
As for the experiment, I don't think it will work. You are having to ask permission from the very people who implement/support this method. I can see it already where a theater employee would "happen" to catch you with his or her night vision goggles, or some other form of planned apprehension.
I also fail to see why the MPAA isn't using the CHEAPEST and MOST effective way of apprehending people who distribute pirated content: Download a few copies yourself and track the IP addresses. After a few college kids get dragged out of their dorm rooms in their underwear, word will spread that they don't mess around. Heck, we could even get Phil to do the dragging!! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 08-10-2004 01:08 PM
quote: Thomas Procyk
As for the experiment, I don't think it will work. You are having to ask permission from the very people who implement/support this method. I can see it already where a theater employee would "happen" to catch you with his or her night vision goggles, or some other form of planned apprehension.
Oh no let's make this completely clear, if the MPAA or a studio wants a truly FAIR demonstration, then it has to be by my rules so there can be no cheating. There shall be none of this "ok let this person know which theater you want to go to and we will alert the manager "but we promise not to let the crap-decoder team know where you went!" Yeah, right. Don't waste my time guys.
I would have to receive official notorized copies of the agreement that releases all liability to any parties that have to become involved to make this work and grants permission to do this on any one particular selected title from any studio (preferably any studio, but even if only one studio was willing to play ball on this, that would be ok so long as I pick the actual title over a 3 month period). I get to do it opening weekend (before print damage occurs), and I can go wherever I want to in the US to do it without restriction. Furthermore I should be able to have the option of subcontracting this job out via notorized forms, so the Valenti goon squad doesn't try to just follow me around for the weekend seeing where I go and cheat that way either. (Yes, I firmly believe the Valenti team would do ANYTHING to try and get a hint of what print the tape was made from to prevent them from looking like asses if they can't track the print number from the video.) I most certainly wouldn't do it during a public show. It would be an after hours thing where nobody knew about it but me and the one person with keys to the theater chosen.
I would also have to insist that I be able to electronically edit out 4 one minute chunks from each reel, as well as the first and last 30 seconds. This way lab splices and handling damage could be part of the sections that are cut out so that they are not cheating in that way either. The whole purpose is to test the CRAP code's effectiveness exclusively. Additionally should a copy of that tape somehow fall into the wrong hands, it would be useless without the movie being complete. If it is preferred as a further deterrent, I will gladly NOT record any audio, and even just thinking this through, I don't even see a need to pirate anything but that one reel that that CRAP code is placed on!)
Ever see the movie "Sneakers"? The group is paid to break into secure areas (banks and such) to test the effectiveness of their own security measures. This is no different. The studios SHOULD be very interested in such a proposal.
I don't ever see this becoming a reality. The MPAA would be very much against any possibility of outing any anti-piracy measure as ineffective to any degree. Also I think the studios want to live in denial and pretend that their product is well protected by these measures. Ignorance is bliss.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler
Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-10-2004 01:47 PM
Brad --- I think that the MPAA woud be delighted to know about the effectiveness of the codes. Because, if they are ineffective, they might want to replace them with bigger codes !!
Anyway the experiment would have to begin by having someone influential (like John or the Cyan track advocate, I forget his name(George?)), sending a letter to 1) the MPAA, 2) the studios (who wouldn't want to pay extra for something that doesn't work) 3) the SMPTE, 4) NATO.
Further, an audience survey should be developed to see if the audience notices the codes. If they don't, we probably don't have much of an argument --- but if they do, I'm sure the powers that be would prefer not to lose additional business. At least we would have a tool to substantiate our claims that the codes ruin the presentation.
Finally, the MPAA is worried that the same thing that happened to songs on CDs and CD sales will happen to DVDs. The RIAA went after teenagers to try to keep them from downloading songs. The only solution is to CHANGE THE BUSINESS MODEL. The RIAA is trying to do this by establishing legal sites charging a nominal fee for songs. Better compression techniques (MP4) will make it possible to download films quickly with less loss than previous methods. So if the MPAA thinks they have trouble now --- just wait a year.
Part of a new business model would be to accept that a certain amount of revenue will be lost by piracy depending on the price point of the products for sale. If songs can be downloaded cheaply, there is little incentive to buy pirated copies. The same with films. If sites were established where people could download films at a nominal cost, then there would be less market for pirated DVDs. Lowering the price of DVDs would produce the same effect. Why have a crummy copy of a film, when you could get the real thing cheaply. Anyway, the entire business model of the industry must be analyzed. If not, the industry will find itself in big trouble when technology advances make all the current efforts futile.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler
Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-10-2004 02:44 PM
I think that most people don't realize what a bad product is. I have a pretty close to state-of-the-art screening room and I've had people ask me why I don't just get DVDs. In reply, I say "Why do you go to an art museum to see paintings when you can buy an art book?"
Obviously, people will buy DVDs made on a Camcorder -- so they can't be that quality-conscious. Most commercial theaters are apalling -- being run by kids. People seem to be really concerned about sound quality and oblivious to image quality. Is it possible to educate audiences? Would current audiences even be aware of the of the CAP dots? I've been in rooms where the print is out of focus and no one would ask the operator to fix it. This is the same with framing errors, hot spots, poor shutter timing, incorrect masking, etc. These are the same people who have NEVER noticed cue marks. (People often ask me how changeovers work).
I guess I'm just being pessimistic -- but it seems that all the forces are working to destroy good theatrical presentation (DVDs, the Internet, bad operators, intrusive anti-piracy codes, public apathy, etc.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Jaro
Film Handler
Posts: 74
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 08-10-2004 03:45 PM
What Brad could bring to the equation is independence. This is an important element of experimental design. If the people who created the code, run their own tests, the results cannot be believed. However, by separating the test by having another party (Brad) make the copy without imparting any information to the first party and then challenging the first party to identify the print --- now we have something.
If the codes are ineffective, they would want to replace them with a better system or at the least stop paying for all the extra effort. They could just quietly let it die. If they are effective, they could tout the fact that independent tests were done and vindicated them.
I myself, don't think that anything that visible could be effective, since the enterprising pirate would simply edit out the frames in question, or try to hide the dots by melting the background colors over them with an editing program. If the pirates don't know about the codes, then the level of arrests has been too low to generate fear and the codes are ineffective by definition. In any event, it is just a question of time before the codes do become ineffective.
Finally, I wonder what percentage of movie patrons notice the codes? If it is high, then the industry might want to rethink the system. If it is low, then the industry would say that the operators are complaining about nothing. Simple exit questionnaires could answer this question. The questions would have to be phrased so that the audience would not be led into desired answers.
| 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
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic