Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise.

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise.

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 11-18-2010 11:52 PM

My first thought was that the leak was a marketing ploy. If it wasn't then why haven't we already had a press release naming and shaming the Cinema responsible? I was under the impression the code on 35mm can identify the site, and the digital watermarks can identify the auditorium, date and time.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-19-2010 12:30 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I wonder why Warner Bros. has at least some of its virtual prints (or maybe all, I don't know) "weighing" less than half of what most virtual prints use in hard drive space.

Because Warner Bros. doesn't have very much money. They are extremely poor and cannot afford the extra digital data. Remember, the fewer ones and zeros you use, the more $$$ you save for your ailing company, even if the hard drive or Blu-ray you send the ones and zeros out on is large enough to accommodate more ones and zeros. It makes perfect sense! Any investors in WB should SELL NOW since it is clear that they are going out of business, otherwise they'd use more ones and zeros.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 11-19-2010 07:30 AM

So is that the equivalent of sending out a 16mm print instead of a 35mm print?

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 11-19-2010 09:09 AM

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
If it wasn't then why haven't we already had a press release naming and shaming the Cinema responsible? I was under the impression the code on 35mm can identify the site, and the digital watermarks can identify the auditorium, date and time.

If this was taken from a 35mm print then it would be from reels 1 and 2. The CrAP code tends to be on reels 3 and 4 for a normal length film, possible later on an 8 reel film.

Digital watermarks may be distributed throughout the film, but it may require more material to be able to identify the showing that was filmed.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 11-19-2010 10:04 AM

I thought digital watermarks DID identify the showing... including the auditorium and the time and date.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 11-21-2010 01:10 PM

I did it. . . I'm guilty! I stole a print that I don't even have! (It couldn't POSSIBLY be a screener or other internal source; those EXHIBITORS, that'it; it's THEM!) Louis

| IP: Logged

David E. Nedrow
Master Film Handler

Posts: 368
From: Columbus, OH, USA
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 11-21-2010 01:49 PM

quote: Jonathan
And, this surprises me, this, maybe all of the "Harry Potters" have been Super 35 (not a 4-perf. scope neg. a full-aperture 2 perf. extraction from a 3-perf. frame). Super 35 films are one of the few areas in film presentation where quality has gotten better because of digital intermediates.

I don't believe that's correct re: Super 35. While a scope image is effectively derived from 3 perfs of the frame, the frame itself is 4 perfs with the camera negative using the soundtrack area to produce a higher resolution master -- higher than a standard flat negative when a 1.85 image (4-perfs) is being extracted.

You may be jumbling this up with Techniscope, which was a 2-frame camera original.

-David

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010

posted 11-21-2010 02:01 PM

Huh?

That is not right. 3-perf. (and now 2-perf.) pulldowns have been common for a decade.

Why would you shoot on S35 if the stock cost as much? The difference in the prices of anamorphic lenses is pretty minimal.

Super 35 uses the soundtrack area. Take a look at what area you need (with the soundtrack) to produce a 2.39:1 area with a flat lens and it is only about 2 perf.'s high (so only about 50% of the resolution of scope).

The 1:85 movies are the ones that only use 3 perf.'s although Disney seems to have an awful lot of releases that have shot open aperture (they shoot 4 perf.'s but only use 3).

You have mixed up just about every format there in your post.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-22-2010 03:45 AM

quote:
Bosses at the movie studio are fuming over the leak...

I don't know why, but this makes me chuckle.

quote:
.... and have vowed to take legal action against "those involved."

Yah, and if they find out it came from a director's copy or some one in production or postproduction, in other words, from somewhere inside the Big Duhblya, you can bet you'll never see some assistant director or one of the stars or a producer getting dragged out of his house in handcuffs and his ass hauled off to jail....it will just quietly be burried, never to be mentioned again.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 11-22-2010 06:12 AM

Which is why it would be awesome if we could provide the service of finding out who it was.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-22-2010 10:29 AM

Well, at least in this report they didn't insinuate that it somehow was exhibition's fault as is usually the case whenever they piss and moan about that 6 BILLION they loose to piracy every 10 seconds.

So Harry has earned 125 million in the first weekend....and the leak of this 30 minutes hurts it how? Were those fuming Warner bosses anticipating it was going to make 150 million?

Seems to me, a really smart studio "boss," might extrapolate, while sitting in that botox clinic awaiting his next shots into his forehead, that it might be a good idea to leak 30 minutes of EVERY WB release if it can get this kind of B.O. [thumbsup]

| 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.