|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Video monitor
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-28-2019 05:34 AM
The DCP format should be flexible enough, so it could be extended with an option that allows for previews for SPLs or the entire DCP package. Both in the form of an unencrypted thumbnail still, video or short video loop. This could especially be useful for stuff like commercials, trailers, logos, etc.
Also, a lot more useful metadata could eventually be added, stuff like:
- The full title of the feature
- Credit offset times
- An offset time for an optional intermission
- A clear definition of the container size and "safe image size" inside the container
- Notices to the projectionist in digital form
- All kinds of other useful attributes I didn't think of ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I guess the reason why nobody dares to do so, is because the entire switch between Interop and SMTPE has already proven to be a pretty big mess. Extending the format with new options will most likely lead to unexpected side-effects on some equipment...
quote: Steve Guttag
I would argue that with the demise of the studio system in records, the quality of recording/music has gone down. It isn't that you can't show good examples from current times but there simply isn't the budgets of yesteryear to develop and make albums. The whole concept of albums isn't there (for most).
I had hoped that the eradication of the middle-men would lead to greater expressive freedoms. Yet it seems to be difficult to make a living on just music, if you're an independent band with just a handful of fans.
One of the major issues today is that the average length of a song has come down significantly. Artists no longer give a song the necessary length to unfold itself, they try to squeeze everything into a 2.5 minute window. The reason is that you get paid per play and not per minute on all those on-line platforms and also broadcast radio. The more songs you can fit into an hour, the more potential profit there is to be made...
I'm afraid that the movie industry might face a different faith than the music industry. It's simply darn expensive to shoot a movie, worthy of a presentation in any self-respecting theater. It's not like you need $150M to shoot a movie, but somewhat more attainable figures like $250K will get you close to nowhere nowadays.
So, in order to shoot good movies, you still need proper funding. Funding that's hard to attain for any small-scale operation. Once the current Hollywood studio system fails, we lose a big provider of those funds.
Right now, post production and special effect houses can ride the "gravy train" of those big jobs coming from Hollywood. It's not only Hollywood benefiting from more choice and more competition, it's also the lower budget, independent and broadcast productions that can benefit from this.
But if Hollywood implodes, it will certainly lead to a big drop in quality of movie productions across the line.
quote: Steve Guttag
There is no price cheap enough for them. I think part of what motivates them is the challenge of getting away with it.
It's also the reason why, in my humble opinion, you shouldn't put all your efforts into fighting them. They will always be there. You should create a culture of minimizing the amount of freeloaders, but you don't do that by almost criminalizing the people that actually pay for your content.
I've always been the "technical guy", but with a somewhat creative background. I know how much time and efforts people put into creating content, I know what it costs to make it and I know that not everybody is living the good life. I understand why studios and content creators want to put locks on anything, although that's not always a good solution. As a technical guy, I hate the practice, because it adds all kinds of complications that, technically, add nothing to the end result.
But in the end, that's also true for the consumer. The copy protection that's still present on almost all physical media hurts the normal guy/girl the most. If he/she wants to make a LEGAL copy of his/her Blu-Ray, he'll be faced with all kinds of roadblocks, including potential big legal issues in many jurisdictions. As a bonus, even if he simply wants to watch the content on the disc, he is often faced with un-skippable copyright notices and trailers...
Meanwhile, the freeloader downloads the same content, without any limitations and irritations, for free, from the Internet.
Somehow, that situation is simply not fair. The guy who bought a legal copy with his hard earned cash is getting screwed over from all sides and treated like a potential criminal, while the guy/girl who just freeloaded it, gets exactly what he/she wants.
This really needs to change. The guy/girl who paid for the content should get a premium product. Since it's already out there in the wild, just remove any useless copy protection and give him a hassle-free experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 05-28-2019 02:44 PM
Building a monitor with a link decryptor would be probitively expensive, and it would only work with a diminishing number of server/projector combos still using HDSDI. I guess it would be much easier to build a small monitor right into the projector within the secure enclosure. An ICP type board could downscale and apply the same watermarking as used for the projection. Then, as Steve says, there is not that much space available on these systems, plus - most of these systems with integrated servers nowadays are designed to see no humans anymore. So, I guess there is little incentive for the manufacturers to build that little extra.
I usually try to schedule my SPL building, qc, etc. ahead of or right after a regular showing, trying to keep the bulb burning. When I need to preview a specific trailer or ad or short, I can do that on a PC running right next to the projector with DCP-o-matic player.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012
|
posted 05-28-2019 03:40 PM
quote: Steven Neumann
Copies have always been made, whether by historical art forgers or modern pirates. But can they financially profit from them without suffering consequences, because selling means displaying their wares publicly? Modern technology makes it easier to create copies but also to find those who have done so.
While it’s true that it’s always been possible to make copies of things using a camera or some other device, the bigger problem is today with digital, it’s possible to make copies that are complete duplicates of the original in every way.
With the advent of the dark web or, even more commonly, torrents, it’s virtually impossible to track down the source of a pirated copy of a film to any particular site or even geographic location. As I posted earlier, even watermarks are relatively easy to defeat now.
Media blocks could steganographically encode origination information into the projected media itself but even that would be easily defeated.
The only real enforcement mechanism is whether the consequences are worth the payoff.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-28-2019 09:44 PM
quote: Steven Neumann
Copyright (or similar) issues have been around a long while, like when Mozart transcribed La Miserere after hearing it in the Sistine Chapel.
Allegri died (1652) over a century before Mozart is alleged to have done that (1770), so even if modern copyright legislation had been in force in either Italy or Austria, it would have been in the public domain by then. Still, threatening the creators of unauthorized copies with torture and execution, as the Vatican is supposed to have done, is, it has to be admitted, a more effective method of enforcement than prowling around a movie theater with night vision glasses...
Sorry to veer this off topic, but there is an interesting comparison between the tactics used to keep classical music and movies perpetually in copyright. When a piece of classical music establishes itself with serious staying power, publishers crank out "scholarly" new editions, which are usually no different from the ones in the public domain apart from typesetting and the spacing of each measure. I have five different editions of J.S. Bach's Toccata and Fugue in F Major, BWV 540, published between 1865 and 1989. Three of them are identical apart from fingering and pedaling suggestions (which, unless the anatomy of your hands, legs and feet is identical to that of the editor's, should be ignored), and the differences in the other two are insignificant: an omitted trill in the second iteration of the trio here, a suggested ralantando at the end of a section in the fugue there, etc. etc. But of course, each new edition has a copyright period as essentially a "new" work, and is used to try to make people buy the same music twice.
The problem for that industry is that most classical music that more than about 6 people want to perform or listen to was written at least 150 years ago, and even Disney never managed to get copyright terms extended for that long!
Same thing with movies: isn't it funny how the real classics are constantly being restored, digitally remastered, etc.? You've got Casablanca on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD ... but of course now you've just got to spend another $20 to have it in 4K on Amazon Prime streaming! Each new version resets the copyright clock, and the old one is pulled from circulation, thereby ensuring that the movie never truly enters the public domain.
In an attempt to return to the topic, the production and distribution sectors of the industry have decided that movie theaters should not have the easy ability to preview and QC content before public screenings. I don't like that, but there isn't much we can do about it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-29-2019 06:22 AM
I'm afraid you are. Even projectionists are humans.
Many multiplexes run a one-man show when it comes down to projectionists. So, in a week opening e.g. three new movies, the projectionist has to sit in QC screenings until like 8am in the morning?
Ideally, if he moves a movie to a different screen, he should also do a full QC on that screen... never gonna happen.
At most single-screens I know of, the projectionist is the theater owner, often also having a day job. They need to catch a few hours of sleep, somewhere...
It's not like late deliveries never happened during the 35mm heydays, or stupid stuff like cans with number locks on them, but in general, there was more time to do QC than with a lot of those hot titles nowadays.
Studios simply shouldn't be so anal regarding their KDM windows... problem solved. Anybody showing the movie to a crowd a few days before the official release will get their collective asses spanked so hard, they will make sure it never happens again...
quote: Leo Enticknap
Same thing with movies: isn't it funny how the real classics are constantly being restored, digitally remastered, etc.? You've got Casablanca on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD ... but of course now you've just got to spend another $20 to have it in 4K on Amazon Prime streaming! Each new version resets the copyright clock, and the old one is pulled from circulation, thereby ensuring that the movie never truly enters the public domain.
At least until recently, we could get everything on a hard copy media that we still could copy (although some workarounds with potential legal implications in some jurisdictions apply).
More and more content is streaming only. If the content owner or distributor decides we can no longer see it, it simply dissapears from distribution...
I'm all for paying those who create new, creative works for their efforts. It's important to keep not only this industry, but many other industries alive. But, I'm against perpetual or quasi-perpetual copyright, like we've got today. There is no such thing as "true creativity", everything new that's created, is based on something that already existed. The things we create are an important part of our history and our culture and have to be preserved and they have to be accessible.
I'd say that a copyright term of 20 years on any original work should be sufficient. It's also in line with the maximum term for patents.
Also, in case of motion pictures, I'd say that in order to be able to claim copyright, you should be required to file at least one original copy with an "official recognized" film archive. After the copyright has expired, those film archives are required to provide a copy of the filed motion picture to anybody requesting a copy at a reasonable cost.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic