Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: CAP-printed copy numbers on leaders?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » CAP-printed copy numbers on leaders? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: CAP-printed copy numbers on leaders?

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02-15-2006 09:07 PM

quote: Dominic Case
Labs put the antipiracy coding onto prints because the distributors insist on it.

OK, distributors:

Why not just go whole-hog and put the fucking CRAP code onto the DVD release as well? I bet the public REALLY goes bananas with all those hideous splotches and dots littering the image, and maybe you'd re-think doing it on film prints as well.

[fu]

-Aaron

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-15-2006 09:20 PM

quote: Dominic Case
Well if you have a concern about focus, you would need to talk to the cinematographer (or possibly the projectionist). Nothing in the lab process (contact printing) affects focus.

Interesting. So why are some prints consistently sharp and others consistently soft? Is this only an issue with prints which are made with an optical stage (e.g. scope prints from super-35 original)? This isn't a case of specific scenes being shot out of focus, but rather of an entire print not being sharp.

As a specific example, consider the US prints of "Brokeback Mountain." I've shown three different prints of this (in two different theatres) and seen a fourth at a third theatre. All were soft. Contrast this with something like "The Squid and the Whale" which (despite being a super-16 blowup) is razor sharp (have shown two different prints in two different theatres). If anything, I'd have expected that the blowup would look worse due to the optical work involved.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-15-2006 09:54 PM

Some venues NEED anti-piracy prints, while others don't.

Think about drive-ins. That is the most effortless place to "camcorder" a movie. The pirate has the privacy of his car, the ability to set up a tripod and a direct connection to the stereo FM sound broadcast. To make matters worse, most driveins are horribly underlit, which means that anti-piracy code has to be really obnoxious for it to translate to a videotape, and then later post-compression to an internet file.

Now think about special movie premieres with all of the goons running around strip searching everyone and watching the audience with their nightvision glasses. PUHLEEEEZE! Nobody is going to pull a camera out during one of those movies and get away with it.

I also dare anyone to TRY and bootleg a movie at a movie grill. With waitstaff constantly watching from the back of the auditorium for the red lights (to indicate "service needed") and doing sweeps of the auditorium, no way in hell could anyone pull it off.

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-16-2006 09:21 PM

quote: Dominic Case
Nothing in the lab process (contact printing) affects focus.

Sorry - this was a bit of a simplification. I should have said "Nothing in the release printing process in the lab affects focus". Focus is an attribute of lenses. They aren't used in printers. However . . .

quote: Scott Norwood
As a specific example, consider the US prints of "Brokeback Mountain."

I haven't seen any US print of this show, so I can't be sure. But I read the following in American Cinematographer - quoting the DoP (Rodrigo Prieto ASC) :'"Ang originally wanted to use Cooke Panchros because he wanted a softer image" recalls Prieto'. They finished up with S4 lenses - '. . a tiny bit less harsh . .' and 'if we needed a little extra softness, we used diffusion'.

Brokeback Mountain went through an entirely traditional lab process - so the focus that you saw was the focus that was on the original negative.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-17-2006 10:19 AM

That explains it--thanks!

| IP: Logged

Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-17-2006 07:50 PM

Aaron Sisemore wrote:

quote: Aaron Sisemore

Why not just go whole-hog and put the fucking CRAP code onto the DVD release as well? I bet the public REALLY goes bananas with all those hideous splotches and dots littering the image, and maybe you'd re-think doing it on film prints as well.

How would this help to track down a pirate? They're going to go out to some random store and buy some random copy. (Or go to some random warehouse and bribe someone to get a random copy before the DVD release date.) Unlike theaters, where knowing about a favorite camcorder spot is actually somewhat useful, knowing where the DVD source originated is practically useless.

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-20-2006 04:23 PM

quote: Aaron Sisemore
Why not just go whole-hog and put the fucking CRAP code onto the DVD release as well? I bet the public REALLY goes bananas with all those hideous splotches and dots littering the image, and maybe you'd re-think doing it on film prints as well.

Maybe you've hit on a great idea, Aaron. IF the public is as upset about the visible coding as you say, then putting it on the DVD release instead of on 35mm prints will drive them all back into the cinemas. [Big Grin]

Seriously, I've spoken to a number of members of "the public" recently. (Yes, really). I've tried to find out what they think of the coding. Almost no-one has noticed it. Those that have, are mildly curious about why it's there. They don't seem bothered by it - absolutely no sign of bananas in their attitude.

Actually, it's not really "the public". Many of them were keen film-goers, festival audiences, and non-technical industry people. The sort who _do_ know that it's projected film they are watching (probably the minority of most audiences).

Really, the coding doesn't seem to be an issue.

Can anyone on this list report any punters asking for their money back because heir viewing experience has been ruined?

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 02-21-2006 03:53 AM

but of course that's no way to gauge their effect. people are often unaware of the factors that make for a good or bad experience.

i can easily "forgive" things like dirt in the image when i'm watching a film. i didn't think it impacted the experience too much... until i saw a perfectly clean presentation (filmguard). it was a new thrill that had been denied me before. the crap code is similar to dirt.

nobody complains about muddy looking prints, yet they're so much worse than ek prints. most people won't notice that a show is (somewhat) out of frame, yet that can crop elements out of the frame and make compositions awkward. and so on.

most people don't complain even when they do notice. i've seen some shows with the most fantastically godawful sound, and the customers will just grumble to each other about it, and maybe not come back.

please, let's lose the craps. and the lab cues, for that matter.

carl

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-22-2006 07:20 AM

quote: Carl Martin
please, let's lose the craps. and the lab cues, for that matter.

As mentioned before, some new technology has allowed labs to do a better job of concealing the anti-piracy codes, yet still allowing the code to be read from poor video copies. Of late, I usually find the codes much less obvious on screen, even when I am looking for them.

There are still thousands of theatres that still use changeovers. Eliminating the lab cue marks will just force them to use "homemade" cues, which may not be done well.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 02-22-2006 02:14 PM

and i don't mean to trivialize those theaters. but they really should find a better way to mark cues than scribing them into the emulsion. certainly there are ways of making temporary or invisble cues.

carl

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.