|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New security featrue on Madagascar 2
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-10-2008 11:08 AM
quote: Chris Slycord
Frank, why did you combine different parts of what I wrote to make a sentence I never wrote?
Where did I do that? I know you were responding to Fred, but the gest of my post is that if all the sound drop does it tell the bootleg police that a copy originates in a theatre and not from a screener copy so they should then look at the CAP codes, then it's pretty useless. I mean, all they have to do is look at the copy and if it were camcorder deal off the screen, they wouldn't need sound dropping out to tell them that. So they look at the CAP code....do we know for a fact that CAPs supply print-specific or even regional-specific information? I suppose that each lab could insert differnt CAP codes for their prints and if they were to track what theatres get them; that would allow them to at least narrow it down to a smaller number of theatres. Then again, they could conceivably do that with the sound drop-outs -- each lab could put them them in slightly different places in the reel or even in different reels. Something like that could be tracked to specific geographical areas or even to specific chains.
But this is all wild speculation of what information these security measures are capable embedding and then delivering, not what we know is factual; obviously the studios think they will work to help them in some fashion. The real question that we've been asking and rightfully so -- do these devices actually catch anyone or at the very least identify problem areas? More importantly for exhibitors, do the studios re-evaluate these systems for their effectiveness and in a timely manner?
If they don't (what makes me think they don't?), then the studios are just adding more and more degredation to the theatre experience without significant results, and at the expense of the exhibitor. Of course that doesn't hurt the studios as much as it hurts their exhibitor "partners" -- you know, the partners who were asked what they thought of putting sound-dropouts in the middle of their presentations. I guess the exhibitor "partners" must have agreeded to this, eh?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 11-10-2008 12:26 PM
OK... I'll toss this out, then duck for cover.
I just finished installing an Arbitron encoder system at a local radio station's transmitter site.
The encoded signal hides behind some sort of psychoacoustic masking scheme, making it possible (even with the limitations of AM radio) for a handheld device to track the stations you listen to, merely by having the device within the same listening distance to the radio that you are.
In A/B tests, I haven't been able to detect what the encoder is doing. It has to be within the audible domain, as it's in the transmitter's audio chain... no fancy footwork with the RF section. There's also a monitor at the studio, which is hooked up to the air audio, and shows a visual indicator (green/red) of the encoder's status.
Arbitron can do a real-time test with the station, merely by having someone hold a telephone near the station's off-air monitor, or even a cheap radio.
So, my question is this. If Arbitron can encode a reliable, station-specific indicator within the narrow audio bandwidth of an AM broadcast, why can't something like this be done with a movie soundtrack?
Seems like something like this could work, even with films cam-corded in an auditorium. Then, you could dispense with the disruptive audio reversions, blinking dots on the screen, and even possibly the wanding, cell-phone confiscations and night-scope monitoring that we endure at exhibitor screenings.
Too easy, maybe?
On the other hand, maybe I just answered my own question.
As Brad said, the DTS disks are mass-produced. Every one is the same. You can even copy them at another theatre, should you get a print without one. Really, only the audio actually printed on the film travels with the print.
Maybe... the studios ARE using something like the Arbitron system, and have to revert the audio to what's printed on the film in order to read the code.
Ah... but that wouldn't explain reverting the SRD track... unless the powers-that-be were cheap, and only elected to encode one track... but of course, that couldn't be the case.
| 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
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic