Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The CAP code

This is topic The CAP code in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000878

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-17-2000, 02:24 PM:

My guess:

It has to be a fairly simple idea to be able to not get 'lost' while being copied by bootleggers. Since revealing exactly what and how the CAP code is used would reduce it's usefulness, it (like submarine positions) is not talked about. If bootleggers knew exactly where and how many times it appered in a film, they might start editing them out- either by electronic means or just chopping out frames. So, it is used to only "find" that bootlegging is occuring. Additional detective work is then used to gather seperate evidence. Only that 'seperate evidence' would be presented in court, without mentioning CAP codes at all, to preserve it's secret. For that same reason the CAP code system has never been patented. So, don't get too upset with JP for not talking.

The CAP code is an sort of 'watermark' that is placed on a release print. Although unobtrusive, it can be viewed even if the overall image quality is fairly low (as with poor cameras and through muliple generations.) It can be added quickly and easily while release prints are being printed (on high-speed printers.) So, it must be an optical process that is as fast (or faster) than the frame rate of high-speed printers. It must connect to a computer (which regular lab staff do not have access to) to keep track of what code was applied to what print. This is why if a theater gets sent the wrong print, they have to break it down and send it back, even if it's the same feature.

Years ago, several people speculated that it is the small white dots that appear at various times during a film, usually soon after a reel change (trying to disguise itself as camera negative dirt.) Although, today with digital equipment, there is no reason it couldn't be another- less noticable color. It wouldn't be right after a reel change, because of the high damage that occurs many times to the heads and tails of film mounted for platter use. In fact, someone could preview the film and find a few frames where it would be especally hard to notice it (an explosion, random colors, etc.) Reels may get mixed, so it would have to appear at least once per reel to sort that out. But I suspect it is applied several times per reel in case a bootlegger only copies a small portion of a film, like a particularly cool scene. Or, in case there just happened to be print damage to one of the areas it was applied. This does not mean that the code has to be the same each time within the print. To fool people looking for a pattern, it could be different every time it is applied.

Now, I don't know for sure how the CAP code works, but I can assure you that it is real, and has been used to bust people. Living near NY, (that hotbed of bootlegging) I've met some (rather creepy) people who used to distribute stuff (they got busted and told me about it.) And, I'm not talking about the obvious, like that copy of "Titanic" with the big Malaysia tax stamp in the corner. Their stuff was reasonable quality, with no obvious identifing marking.

How's that?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-17-2000, 03:10 PM:

My response was to let me get 10 unidentified Film-Techers randomly selected from around the country to shoot right off the screen with whatever video camera they could borrow (an ideal test as there would be random formats and types of cameras used) one reel from each of the volunteer's 10 prints...not the feature...not the audio...just the image on ONE certain reel of my choice from a movie of my choice. The 10 volunteers would then send me those tapes. Once I received all 10, I would then send them to "whomever" and then that whomever would report their findings RIGHT HERE on the forum. Once they were posted, the 10 Film-Tech volunteers would post to make themselves known as well as to verify their theater/print number as to being accurate or not.

If the cap code is real, then there is no better test to spread the word and inflict fear into would-be (or possibly even current) bootleggers. However, if it is not, then this thread will continue to sit here, like I know it will. No one will take a proposition they know they will lose. Simple and plain as that.

I don't buy it for a second.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-18-2000, 12:52 AM:

I was once told that it's some sort of infra-red signature that's invisible to the naked eye. There's supposed to be some sort of filter that you can hold up to the screen to make it visible. It's supposed to appear like a bar code like in the supermarket.

THIS is the story I was told a couple years ago by one of our techs.

Honestly, I'm not sure I believe it. It SEEMS plausible.

This is the stuff that URBAN LEGENDS are born from!

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 04-18-2000, 05:08 AM:

Maybe one of the creators of the CAP coding process used to work for the NSA. Add that tidbit to your urban legend.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Colin Wiseley (Member # 247) on 04-18-2000, 06:38 AM:

The Truth Is Out There!

------------------
Colin Wiseley
Lyric Theatre
Blacksburg, VA
www.thelyric.com

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-18-2000, 06:41 AM:

Dwayne:
I'm one of the "creators" of CAP code, and I did not work for the NSA. But some of the others on the team did have "government experience".

Brad:
CAP Code has been in use for over 18 years. It has definitely helped identify sources of pirated copies in numerous cases. With billions of dollars in revenue at stake, the MPAA is VERY agressive in prosecuting film piracy. CAP Code is real, and a powerful tool in their arsenal against film piracy.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2000, 01:42 PM:

Congratulations John! But I'm assuming still that no one is willing to perform a demonstration, right?

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 04-18-2000, 06:38 PM:

I'd have to agree with Brad on this one. I think the CAP code is a threat, much like the threat of nuclear weapons. Neither one has to actually be use for them to have influcence over peoples actions. If a person that is going to pirate a movie thinks there is a way that they will get caught, it makes them think twice about it.

Posted by Andy Davis (Member # 262) on 04-18-2000, 08:01 PM:

The CAP code phenomenon seems much like Reagan's "Star Wars" when he said the US had satellites that could destroy ICBM's with lasers. Skeptics disproved the plausability of such a system and no government official gave any explanation of how it could possibly work. So far, no evidence has been submitted on the forum to prove CAP exists. Unless, John P. would like to enlighten us...

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-18-2000, 08:04 PM:

If I could get an offical OK from the 'powers that be" to record films to find if/where the CAP code is, I would. But, somehow I don't think anyone would say OK to that!

To have that theory work, you would have to make people aware of it and belive that it exists. But a quick search of Alta-Vista and Yahoo will only turn up one applicable hit, and that's another guy asking how it works (his posting was unanswered.) So if Jason is right, CAP codes are a pretty well-kept non-secret.

And Jason, I understand your point, but using nuclear bombs is probably not the best analogy. Even though most of us have never seen a live detonation, we all know they do exist.

As I said, talking to that guy pretty much convinced me.

I don't think it is based on some use of infra-red, because that would not reliably transfer to video.

The first I heard that "something" was being coded into prints was when I was running "SW:Empire." There's a scene where the good guys are trying to get onto the new death star using an "older" code. A full screen shot of the code charactors is shown. I heard that in different prints, those codes were different. I doubt that's how they do it today, but that was how Lucas did it then.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2000, 10:20 PM:

All I ask is for a demonstration...that's all. If "they" can prove it works, there is no need to explain "how" it works as far as I'm concerned.

I remember on Empire Strikes Back there was a couple of different audio versions. The scene that stuck in my mind was when Luke is looking around the swamp and talking to R2 when Yoda says "feel like what". At that instant there is a big note in the music as Luke turns around and Yoda covers his face. In some prints, this is the sequence:
Luke: "I feel like...."
Music hits big finishing note
Yoda covers his eyes
Luke: "Like we're being watched!"

In other prints, THIS was the sequence:
Luke: "I feel like...."
Music hits big finishing note
Yoda covers his eyes and lets out a yell "EEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Luke: "Like we're being watched!"

Still, how many different versions could've been made with tiny things like this? Certainly no more than a few and that would still result in hundreds of identical prints. Regardless, I always assumed it was some anti-piracy thing Lucas came up with. I've never seen this movie on video, so I'm not sure how any of the couple-dozen video releases are, but I do specifically remember different film prints differing in little things like that.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

E.T. was another one. That ending sequence when E.T. is walking back to the ship to go home, there is no dialogue and I've seen different cuts of the last dozen shots. Different cuts meaning they were presented in a different "order", less the final shot of Elliot. What can I say, I notice these little discrepencies!

(I hope I didn't spoil this movie for anyone that didn't know E.T. makes it back to his ship.)

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 04-18-2000, 10:36 PM:

I think that I might have started something in that other forum!!

My thoughts on the CAP code is that it more than likely does exist but is something so simple if it was described,it would give it away. John said it was around about 18 years so it aint that "sci-fi" or hi-tech. It has no doubt evolved since then,but the idea still the same.

But like satelite dish descramblers, macrovison (the video copy deterent) and other forms of protecion or encryption, if it exists, there will be someone,somewhere who's found a way to beat it.

--Chris

P.S. Happy 100th post to me. And I did it without padding my posts.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-19-2000, 12:25 AM:

I assume that the MPAA does not apply overseas? I hear that just about every movie can be had on MPEG videodisc from Hong Kong. They usually use a camcorder, but some are telecine. And they are all current movies. Usually within the week they are released here. So maybe they are not originating from Hong Kong. People with high bandwidth connections can (and do) download these movies from the net. The CAP code doesn't seem to be preventing this in any way at all.

I've never downloaded one because
A) MPEG video compression sucks
B) I am not a movie pirate
C) Only have a pissy little 56k modem
D) Who the hell would want a camcorder made presentation of a movie?????

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2000, 06:42 AM:

CAP Code was first discussed publicly in the July 24, 1981 issue of "The Wall Street Journal" in a technology article on "Industry Steps Up Its Battle Against Saavy Video Pirates". More detail was given in an article on the front page of the May 15, 1984 "Hollywood Reporter". An article in Time Magazine on June 6, 1983 notes that "Using this technique (marking prints with an indelible code so that copies can be easily traced), we caught a guy in 24 hours".

I can't discuss the details of how CAP code works, but distributors wouldn't be spending money to have CAP Code on prints for 18 years unless it was effective in finding film pirates. IT IS REAL --- hundreds of thousands of prints have been coded in the past 18 years.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-19-2000, 11:48 AM:

...yet no one will prove it with a demonstration!

I still maintain this is a scare tactic to would be bootleggers and nothing more. In my opinion, lab splices would be more of a believeable method for tracking down a print. Although it would require a bit of work to search through however many prints, no two prints will have a lab splice in the same frame...kinda like a fingerprint.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-19-2000, 12:16 PM:

OK, then, how about this; Record one reel of a feature (R1 would probably be a good choice) and send it to John P. Ask him to send you the print number.

But don't torture the guy if he won't; he may not be allowed to. Also, just because he worked on it's development, doesn't mean he still has access to it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-19-2000, 12:34 PM:

I'm not targeting John directly at all. Perhaps he has current involvement, perhaps he does not. Nowhere have I implied one way or the other or that he should personally perform a demonstration. I'm speaking in general.

Still though, with the panic printing that typically goes on, when would the labs have the time to apply this so-called code to each individual print? Many prints aren't even steady or have a correctly printed digital track...and I'm to believe they can print this microscopic code on each individual print? No. What a joke!

I'm not asking for an explanation of how this miracle code works, just a demonstration. Such a demonstration would NOT give away it's secrets, just prove that it works. I'm fairly certain the people responsible for this CAP code are aware of this thread, or will be very soon. If it REALLY worked, then this request would be no problem and should be viewed as an excellent method to prove to people not to mess with the CAP guys. Think about it, those professional bootleggers are getting their prints from either a manager or a projectionist, right? Is there a better forum for such a demonstration?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2000, 03:23 PM:

CAP Code does not add any time to the production process. There is an extra charge to the distributor, however, so some features are not coded. When CAP Code is used, each print has a unique code, even if there are thousands of prints.

Brad: Please trust me on this, CAP Code has been used on hundreds of thousands of prints since 1982, and has often been of help in tracing the source of pirated copies. If you are showing a print that has CAP Code, and someone shoots a video of it that ends up in the MPAA's hands, they will trace it to your print.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 04-19-2000, 04:34 PM:

I really don't care HOW this CAP CODE works. But just having somebody tell me that it exists is kinda pointless! I mean if Mr. John Pytlak comes and says "Don't copy movies because of the CAP code" am I just supposed to take his word? I value Mr. Pytlak's input to this forum and all, but this just seems a bit suspicious to me.

If indeed the CAP guys allowed a demonstration where random tapes were sent in, and they could say "Tape #1 was print #xxx" I would be absolutely convinced that it was real. But Mr. Pytlak keeps dodging the proposal. Why? This leads me to believe that it is not real.

Maybe it should be called the CRAP CODE.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-19-2000, 06:31 PM:

Thinking this through logicaly CAP code would never be used as evidence in a case because then it would have to be explained completely. I'm sure it is used to narrow down ones list of suspects, at which point gathering additional evidence is very easy.

Posted by Tyler Skinner (Member # 229) on 04-19-2000, 07:14 PM:

Why would you want to tape a movie off of a screen or telecine a release print anyway??
better copies can be found before it even hits theaters. I think Studios should be more concerned about Avid and Workprint tapes being snuck out, all of which ARE coded and will be traced back to the original owner. These are the ones that are more valuable to bootleggers, not the shitty cam-copies with people getting up in front of the camera and talking.
What they do is take these master tapes and put them on VCD, and dupe them to hell. No quality loss, and many times its not even the final cut so it has more footage than the release version.

I say more power to them. Just reminds me of how I just heard Lucas is now preparing a DVD of Phantom Menace. No, he wouldn't release this on DVD after everyone already bought the VHS. He's more concerned with what the viewers want, not with making money.... and a few kids sold a VHS copy of EP1 for 10 bucks, maybe making $500 tops? Oh NO!!!!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-19-2000, 09:16 PM:

As far as piracy goes, I would think that studio people aren't really sitting there saying to themselves, "We've got to stop EVERY LAST person who makes a copy of a movie... We have to wring EVERY LAST penny from the pockets of the people." (Okay, they probably do want every last cent

)

What I think it's all about is that if they let one little guy who copies a video go free then they have less leverage to bust the really big pirates. It's like Copyrights... If you don't defend yourself, you might lose your right to defend yourself in the future. (All facial tissues are called "Kleenex" now)

I don't think Lucas is sitting somewhere fretting over some scumbag sitting in a movie theatre with a Handy Cam. However, If he finds out about one of these creeps, he's sure to bust him. If he doesn't he could get himself into the position where some REALLY big creep who's making a whole shitload of copies could say, "But, you didn't bust So-and-So"

Okay, I oversimplify... but I think you get the point.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 04-19-2000, 10:40 PM:

There will ALWAYS be piracy, no matter what anybody says. Why? Because the pirates can crack any code. Look at what they've done with DVD already.

The pirates are smarter than the people who come up with the anti-piracy schemes. They always have been. Right Mr. Pytlak? Just look at what the pirates have to work with, and then look at what the people who come up with the anti-piracy schemes have to work with. Amazing what the pirates have done. Yup, they are definitely smarter.

Even if the CRAP CODE is real, it in no way prevents piracy. A dub would have to fall into the hands of the correct people for anything to happen. And I assume most pirates would only sell to people they trust. So therefore the CRAP CODE is completely ineffective, unless you try to sell Jack Valenti a copy of a coded flick.

And anyway, I think most pirates would be careful enough to copy somebody else's print, so that place gets in trouble and the real pirate is never found. Remember, they are indeed smarter.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 04-20-2000, 04:44 AM:

The studios have a right to 'protect' there material against 'illegal' copys made of the films.

I beleave John Pytlak when he tells us that the CAP code does work, but understand why he dosen't want to tell us how it works. We don't need to no anyway, right?

Yes it might be the small white dots along the frame line that shows up once and a while, i been wondering what they are for

------------------
It's the new small talk. You do it so awfully well! - My Fair Lady

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2000, 05:50 AM:

Carl:

When a "street seller" of pirated videos is busted, the videos are analyzed by the MPAA. CAP Code allows them to know which print was illegally copied to make the video master. CAP Code doesn't prevent piracy, it only helps PROSECUTE it by tracing it to its source.

Even if a pirate copies "someone else's print" (i.e., at your theatre), YOU are held accountable for the security of that print. If you allowed someone to videotape your print, YOU are considered an accomplice.

There are a lot of "smart" film pirates in federal prison. Others have lost everything they own in fines and civil action. As I said, with billions of dollars in revenue at stake, the MPAA is VERY AGGRESSIVE in prosecuting film piracy.

Brad:
Yes, the position of a lab splice would be kind of a "fingerprint". But it would be too easy to circumvent by adding a few more random splices. Sorry, we dismissed that idea 20 years ago.

Posted by Mark Tan-Wanklyn (Member # 155) on 04-20-2000, 08:42 AM:

John recently said

quote:
When CAP Code is used, each print has a unique code, even if there are thousands of prints. <Snip> If you are showing a print that has CAP Code, and someone shoots a video of it that ends up in the MPAA's hands, they will trace it to your print.

What about the time factor, any identifying mark on the film only proved that the illegal copy came from that print. Prints move all over the country, therefore it doesn't prove what cinema allowed the duplicate to be made.

Mark

------------------

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-20-2000, 10:26 AM:

It would be interesting to see how it would standup in court if the method could not be placed up for scrutiny.
I know that in canada the Library's and stores had to post where the antitheft devices were in books and even TV cameras have to be clearly identifiable to stand up as evidence in court

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2000, 11:30 AM:

CAP Code uniquely identifies the particular print that was the source for the pirated copy. Since the print passes through multiple hands (lab, shipment to film exchange, film exchange, shipment to theatre, multiple theatres, etc.) in its lifetime, additional evidence is usually needed to convict. CAP Code is primarily used to identify areas requiring further investigation. If the prints at a particular theatre have a pattern of showing up as pirated videos, it raises suspicion and gets attention. If the prints handled by a certain trucking company show up as pirated videos, they come under suspicion.

Posted by David Koegel (Member # 25) on 04-20-2000, 01:06 PM:

Then presumably, CAP is also used to figure out the source of prints that end up on the collector's market as well, right?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2000, 01:55 PM:

David:

CAP Code uniquely identifies the print for its lifetime. So yes, the source of a collector's print could be identified even if all other identification (e.g., leaders) were removed.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-20-2000, 02:48 PM:

OK, then. Let's just ask:

Mr.Pytlak, would you be able/allowed/willing to identify either the theater or print number of a feature from a video tape mailed to you?

I ask in a respectful manner. I really don't know if this would be beyond what you would be allowed to do. If you would rather not, then that will be the end of it as far as I'm concerned, and thanks for sharing what you could.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-20-2000, 02:53 PM:

Even if the leaders were removed??? Ok, I know I must be missing something here, but what does the leaders have to do with anything? Other than Deluxe putting their little stickers on the print with the "lab number" (which by the way is different on every reel in a composite print), there is nothing that I've ever seen on a leader to identify. Since leaders are generally not a hot item to bootleg, what would be the purpose of coding them?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2000, 03:00 PM:

John Walsh:

I helped develop CAP Code over 18 years ago, and am pleased that it has effectively helped combat film piracy for almost two decades.

All of the proprietary decoding information and technology was given to the MPAA in 1982, and is owned and managed by them.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2000, 03:10 PM:

Brad:

The question was whether CAP Code could be used to trace the origin of a collector's print. I said yes, even if all the other identifying information, including leaders, was removed. My point was that CAP Code could not be removed by simply cutting off the leaders, since it is throughout the length of the print.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2000, 05:48 AM:

John,

Ok, I thought you meant the labs actually went to the trouble to CAP code the leaders! How useless would that be? After all, no bootlegger would ever copy them!

I'm still not done here. Time for you to make me a believer with my Top Ten list of more questions. Please answer each question individually as they are all generic and won't unveil any real secrets (in other words, no dodging the questions please )

#1 The CAP code is "applied" (for lack of a better term) at the lab, correct?

#2 Is this code applied before or after processing?

#3 What is the actual frequency of CAP coding? Obviously it would be on virtually all "major" prints of interest to a bootlegger, but would you say 1 in 10? 8 in 10? Are there actually studios who code each release regardless of how crappy the movie is? (You don't need to say which studio.)

#4 Are all reels of a print CAP coded or just select ones? If only one or two "chosen" reels are coded, are ALL of those reels in every print coded, or does the reel choice vary from print to print?

#5 Does CAP coding have any effect in regards to that one reel that always comes wound reverse of all the rest in the cans, forcing a rewind of that reel before buildup? (Damn I hate that.)

#6 What is the extra cost to CAP code a typical run of say 2500 prints?

#7 Does EACH print really have it's own INDIVIDUAL code, or are there runs where "these 100 prints" have this code and "these 100 prints" have that code?

#8 To distinguish a coded print, would the MPAA need any given single second, or would they have to have a stretch of video, say 10 seconds worth, or a minute's worth, or an entire reel to track it? (Not to worry, what moron bootlegger wouldn't duplicate entire reels?)

#9 Can all labs print this code? In other words, let's say for example (no I'm not implying anything here) that the Deluxe Toronto lab did not have the capability, but the Deluxe lab in Hollywood did. I'm assuming if that were the case, all prints of a given run would have to be done at that lab. Or, could any small lab print this code? Is any special equipment required?

#10 How are replacement reels handled? Let's say for example that I get a print with a bad reel (very common in today's level of quality control by the way) and need a replacement reel. Now, will that replacement reel have the exact same code that the other reels of my print do? Will it have no code? Will it have a separate code that the depot will track to my theater? Will it have a code stating "replacement reel"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-21-2000, 08:26 AM:

This is probably a service that's only offered by the "major" Hollywood labs. I have the price/service lists for most of the NYC labs (mainly Technicolor, Du Art, and Magno), and none of them says anything about "CAP code capability." Of course, these labs aren't producing large runs of 35mm release prints for theatrical exhibition, so it's probably not worth their while to have the capability of printing it.

I still fail to see how this could be really useful to anyone in tracking down pirates. Even if we assume that CAP code is real, foolproof, and can be used to trace the source of a bootleg videotape to a specific print number, I don't see the usefulness of it. Suppose that it can be conclusively proven that print #999 was the source for a particular tape. So what? That print would have passed through a dozen or more theatres and probably hundreds of hands (labs, exchanges, trucking companies, etc.) during its first-run life. Even if the source can be traced back to a specific theatre, this seems unlikely to help in finding the actual pirates from the thousands of people who bought tickets to see the film in that theatre.

Besides, it's probably not uncommon for print numbers to be mixed up...I've visited lots of multiplexes that have multiple prints of the same title and don't bother trying to keep the print numbers straight. Not to mention that many older titles (admittedly, often ones that are already on videotape and where bootleg copies from film prints are not a major concern) are "composite" prints made up of footage or odd reels from multiple prints...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2000, 06:15 PM:

That brings up an interesting point, Scott. I doubt anyone will actively pursue tracking the CAP numbers once the film is on video. I mean, any professional bootlegger is going to be able to beat the Macrovision copy protection anyway, and a studio transfer will beat the pants off of a bootleg copy anyway.

As for composite prints, I've done this for a couple of studios at their request where they had a dozen prints and not a single one was playable. It takes forever to do it RIGHT, but in the end they end up with a couple of nice, complete prints.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 04-22-2000, 05:23 PM:

If the CAP CODE is so all mighty and powerful an encryption device, then why did the all mighty and powerful Lucas raise such a big stink about such stringent security with his Phantom Menace prints? Maybe Georgey boy's not a believer either.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2000, 02:09 PM:

Hello. I'm filling in for Mr. Pytlak at his computer, as he has been "detained" for a while. For now, you can call me "Mr. Vee".

Mr. Miller and others have asked very detailed questions about CAP Code. Fortunately, the MPAA web site has complete information posted on its web site, including a comprehensive guide for film pirates:
http://www.mpaa.org/CAP/piracy-help/index.html

The Federal Bureau of Investigation also has information of use in pirating feature films and circumventing the CAP Code:
http://www.fbi.gov/programs/CAPCode/countermeasures.htm

INTERPOL mirrors the FBI site, with useful translations available in twelve languages for foreign film pirates:
http://www.interpol.lyon.fr/compte-rendu-CAP

You must accept any and all "cookies" these sites place on your computer.

"Inquiring minds" only NEED to know the following:

CAP Code has been successfully used to investigate and prosecute film piracy for 18 years.

A video copy of a print having CAP Code will be tracable to that print.

Film piracy is a crime , and will be aggressively prosecuted.

Now we'll release Mr. Pytlak.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 04-25-2000, 03:01 PM:

This is probably just adding fuel to the fire, but do measures exist to track pirated video's captured from a "digial" presentation, must like the CAP for film? I can see how piracy could very easily become rampant with the digital technologies. Movies being shipped via DVD's? those would so easily "disappear" Its already been proven that encryption that the MPAA thought to be very difficult to break, was infact easily broken and distributed(DeCSS). Also if someone was to simply point a video camera at a screen that showing a "digial presentation" would they have the flicker associated when the same is done with film, (due to different frame rates)?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-25-2000, 06:31 PM:

Mr. Vee, your comments would be taken much more seriously if your links actually worked.

(John, if you can read this, we're coming to get you armed with some of that unbreakable Vision stock!)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-25-2000, 06:50 PM:

At least with the DLP system, there _is_ no flicker. The refresh rate is 24fps for film-originated material (though that might be able to be changed...I don't know), but there's no dark-screen interval between frames as is the case with projected film images.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 04-25-2000, 08:29 PM:

Any new form of encryption is going to be presented as a challenge to pirates. Valenti's an idiot if he thinks he can scare away or intimidate bootleggers with threats of new and improved encryption that's supposedly unbreakable for these DLP movies. If I were a pirate, I know I'd laugh at him. Hell! I'll laugh at him away. Piracy's gonna be just as big a problem in the DLP arena as it is in film right now. I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the MPAA's ever consulted or worked with ex-pirates to create some of these encryption programs. Remember in Sneakers how the banks hired the hackers to try to break into their databases to help point out and patch up the flaws in their programming? I know I watch too many of these espionage/techno-thriller movies, and I'm probably getting carried away now, but I'm just wondering if some of these hackers have ever been on the MPAA payroll or helped improve the CAP code. Care to comment John? Don't do it if you're not allowed. I don't want you disappearing on us again.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Tyler Skinner (Member # 229) on 04-25-2000, 11:53 PM:

RE: Brad, on your questions on how the code was printed on the film.

Didn't I hear on a previous thread somewhere that most films aren't printed in the same lab, but each separate reel could be printed at a different lab?

How could a code be printed on an entire print if the reels were printed at seperate houses? Sounds like a lot of confusion to me.

Also, and don't ask how I got this info, but bootleggers usually don't include the credits because they think the print # is printed in the credits, or on the ratings band at the end of the movie. I think this is more of a possiblility than a frequency code throughout the film.

tyler

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-26-2000, 12:38 AM:

Well, I can answer that first one. A given print will have all of it's reels printed at the same lab.

On the credit issue, I saw a couple of bootlegged tapes about five years ago and I wrote the lack of credits off to the fellow trying to grab his camera and get the hell out of the theater before he gets caught. I would think if such a CAP code really exists and isn't just an empty scare tactic, that it wouldn't just be constricted to the credits.

John, what about my top 10 list of questions???

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-26-2000, 05:44 AM:

Scott is correct. AFAIK, as it is now configured, a video taken of an image projected using a DLP Cinema projector will not have the flicker seen when using a camcorder to photograph a normal 24fps film presentation from a theatre screen. Piracy is a major concern with digital cinema, and the SMPTE DC28 Digital Cinema Committee has a large team of experts developing encryption and "watermarking" technology.

The links to the MPAA, FBI and INTERPOL were in JEST!!! The specific questions being raised by Brad and others may be of help to pirates, and "inquiring minds" do NOT need to know the answers to them.

Any portion of a film having CAP Code is tracable. It is not restricted to the titles or credits. The CAP Code is placed on...oops, there's that smell again...aseinfgetr slkde[a ha;sfdnrip rega/;nfk;wtw aahalja ljrhtinf okfj;ihpn fha[ramtz

Excuse me, Mr. Pytlak seems to have had a slight fainting spell again. Good bye. Mr. Vee.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-26-2000, 08:25 AM:

Why wouldn't DLP also have the flicker? They (TI) have stated that they project at 24fps so they are beating to hell the little mirrors by flipping them so much. It is not a constant image that is being displayed.

Also, I don't believe that anyone could take the DVD that the DLP movie comes on because of the needed QuVis player to decode each and every frame.

I know that when TS-2 came to our theatre that TI came in within the first week and added a "watermark" to the print to identify where it came from.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-26-2000, 08:57 AM:

Paul:

I'm NOT an expert on the DLP Cinema technology. But AFAIK, although the image on the TI DLP projector is refreshed 24 times per second, there is no blanking interval as might be found on a CRT display. With 24fps film projection using a 2-blade or 3-blade shutter, the flicker comes from the 48Hz or 72Hz frequency of the projector shutter not matching the frame/field rate of the camcorder.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-26-2000, 02:25 PM:

OK, maybe I'm just a moron, but what does "AFAIK" mean? It appears in many of John's posts. John has a few others as well.

Translation glossary, please!

As Far As I Know?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-26-2000, 02:45 PM:

Yes, AFAIK is for "As far as I know" just like IMHO is "In My Humble Opinion"

John, thanks for the clarification, that makes for sense.

Paul.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-26-2000, 03:43 PM:

Ok John, you've not answered the questions, but you did not dodge them this time. Instead you gave us the basic "I cannot answer these for it might help bootleggers", which is absolutely fine. Hey, it IS an answer, and it is obviously honest.

I'll make one last point...just 'cause. So for the sake of this argument, we're going to say that the almighty CAP code has been placed on every single second of every single reel of the next big movie this year. Now, let's say that these codes are completely traceable, even on a 10th generation VHS dupe! Let's also go a bit further to say that the MPAA is going to catch this crook or die in the process. So, how do they expect to catch anyone when the depots randomly slap prints into unlabeled cans, stack them a mile high and THEN wander around slapping the stickers on them containing the destination theater and print number? Huh? How about that one? I think the MPAA might be taking those numbers on the print boxes a little bit for granted, as I know of three depots for sure that do NOT pay any attention to them, and I'm sure there are more.

Now, here is my question that I would actually like for John to answer. Who can I get into contact with to get a demo? Again, if this is so almighty and powerful, such a test would certainly strike fear into would be bootleggers and would be projectionists who would allow such an illegal action to take place at their theater. I stress again, no one has to say "how" on any aspect, just provide the print numbers and theaters the print came from. Note: these will be first run original prints and not hand me down prints for the test. I'm sure I can easily get 10 anonymous Film-Techers to assist with the demo. It will be done fairly.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-26-2000, 04:56 PM:

Brad:

If a feature has CAP Code, precise print tracking is part of the package, and is mandated for labs, shippers, and exchanges. Special handling and tracking is involved.

You can try contacting the MPAA to arrange a "test". But they will be very suspicious of why "inquiring minds want to know". Decoding the videos does cost money too, so it is not something done on a whim or for curiosity.

Again, I know CAP Code has been successfully used to investigate and prosecute film piracy for 18 years. Distributors wouldn't pay for it unless it worked. IMHO, that's the best "proof" that CAP Code is effective.

Posted by Peter Eaves (Member # 451) on 04-26-2000, 05:26 PM:

Hello all.... a newbie here ! :-)

For what it's worth, I can assure you all that what John has been saying is very true! CAP has been succesfully used for many years.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-27-2000, 01:59 AM:

Wouldn't a big movie like Toy Story 2 be CAP coded? If so, then why was it when I broke down one print for pickup, I was told "after the fact" that I was to break the other print down. When I asked why, I was told "actually it doesn't matter. Just put that print in the other cans."

Uh huh. Yeah, the depots really care. I think too many variables are being taken for granted. It's things like this along with no documentation I've ever seen in terms of PROOF that make me continue to believe this is nothing more than a big scare tactic.

Ever hear of the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it is"?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-27-2000, 05:40 AM:

Hello Peter:

Welcome to Film-Tech! Hope you can spread the word about this site to your fellow engineers and technicians at the labs in LA.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 04-27-2000, 06:08 AM:

I get that all the time from Technicolor. "No problem, just swap the cans."

Why do I get the feeling Mr. Vee is really Mr. Jack "V"alenti? I'll bet he's got John tied to a chair right now.

This whole thread is turning into some kind of internet dodge ball with Mr. Pytlak as the captain. No one who claims to have any actual knowledge is providing any proof or is even willing to help set up a demo in any form. Sure anyone can come here and post "I know it works", but big deal! I could come here and post that same statement and as far as anyone is concerned, people would think I actually know what I am talking about.

The CAP code is a bullshit threat. I wonder how many people really believe in this Santa Claus story?

(No offense to Mr. Pytlak. Outside of this thread he provides invaluable assistance to everyone here and it is much appreciated.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-27-2000, 07:35 AM:

Carl:

Providing any specific information to "inquiring minds" risks compromising the effectiveness. It's as simple as that.

As far as running a "demonstration" with the MPAA, it would be like Saddam Hussein asking Israel if he could launch a few scud missles with "dummy" warheads at them to test their defenses and better understand how to defeat them.

Another analogy would be protecting your own home against burglary. Who in their right mind would tell potential burglars their address and when they will be away on vacation, along with details about their home security system? Or let a potential burglar test their security system a few times to see if they can find a way to defeat it?

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-27-2000, 09:35 AM:

Actually, I feel JP has given us several good clues. Based on what most of already know about film distribution, if you just do a little detective work on your own, you could probably figure much of it out.

Of course, I don't know exact deatils. But I believe I know how it works in a general sense; at least enough to satisfy my curiosity.

Besides, if we know, where's the fun? Suppose we all found out that Area 51 is just where the Army peels potatoes? Or if Bob Dylan said; "My lyrics don't mean anything. I was really just stoned when I wrote them...!"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-27-2000, 02:27 PM:

I don't think a demo would reveal anything at all. Just that it indeed works (or not). They would just have to tell us which theatre each tape came from. That's all. Nothing more? Shall I repeat that? Of course, if the MPAA wants piracy to continue, I can see why they wouldn't provide a demo. Maybe that is the case? Otherwise I would think that they would do everything and anything to prevent copying in the first place. That's the idea, isn't it?

I wonder if the CRAP CODE can be detected on MPEG Video CD's? Given the absolute horrible quality and resolution of MPEG, would it still be able to be deciphered?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-27-2000, 03:18 PM:

Supposedly from things I've heard years ago, you can take a 10th generation VHS videotape and they can still track it. Geez, like I said it would have to be pretty DAMN obvious for a dupe of that low quality to reveal anything.

John, no one has asked how it works, a demonstration where the MPAA would provide the print number and the originating theater would NOT in any way give out even a hint of how the CAP code works. Nothing more would need to be said on their end for such an effective demo. Hence the fact my beliefs are virtually being proven right here that it is a joke.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 04-27-2000, 07:20 PM:

I don't see why the CAP code is being compared as an analogy to National Security threats. Piracy's a big problem obviously, but it's not THAT big a deal. I agree with Brad. I don't see how a tenth generation copy could reveal a watermark, code, microdot, whatever, of any kind without the first generation showing us something. And as Carl said, anyone can post and say it works, but that doesn't make it so. For all we know, it could be Valenti himself posing as one Peter Eaves in a disinformation ploy to throw us off track. And Peter, if you are not Valenti, I truly apologize and welcome you to the forum. Now that I think about it, a microdot might actually work. I'll have to think about that one.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-28-2000, 03:30 AM:

What's to stop the guy who ensures these codes go on the prints (and there must be a few of them) getting tired of being treated like just another number (and I think most of us can relate to that) then saying "Take this job and shove it!".

His knowledge would be invaluable to the pirates and thus enduth the CAP code lesson in one foul stroke.

I think it's crap too. We used to have the print numbers physically scratched into the emulsion in an obvious place over four frames on one distributor's prints. These were always placed by stopping 'at some point' (I saw them do it) when being made up to reels at the distributor, scratched on on one reel only, then the print was shipped out. _NO_ record of where it was was ever made, so if you really wanted to, you could have just lopped out those four frames and press record.

They don't do that anymore, but they also don't bother to put them onto spools.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2000, 09:34 AM:

I don't recall ever saying that you needed to see the CAP Code to decode it.

As I noted early in this thread, "All of the proprietary decoding information and technology was given to the MPAA in 1982, and is owned and managed by them." Anyone wanting more information should contact the Motion Picture Association, 15503 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA, 91436.

Dwayne: Peter Eaves has long experience in motion picture labs, as Manager of WRS Motion Picture & Video Lab, and now at FotoKem in Burbank CA. Those who have first-hand experience with CAP Code are just saying that it is successfully used to combat film piracy. Our postings are not "a disinformation ploy to throw us off track", they are simply the facts that can be shared.
We won't tell you how CAP Code works, only that it does work.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-28-2000, 01:23 PM:

For the billionth time we are not asking HOW it works.

Let's say I am a motion picture studio who is interested in using the CAP code on my next big release. I have never used it before and am quite skeptical. In order for me to be willing to pay for it, I would want absolute proof that it worked. Would a demo of its ability to trace a print be provided for me?

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 04-28-2000, 11:41 PM:

First off, I jest about the disinformation ploy. I'm sorry if I come off sounding like Oliver Stone. But if I were serious John, how would telling me Peter Eaves' experience disprove my original point in the disinformation theory?
Second, it seems to me that everyone wants a demonstration that they're not going to get no matter what kind of assurances they can make in not comprising the code. And I'd agree that a demonstration to prove the effectiveness doesn't nescessarliy have to put the CAP code in jeopardy. So the way I see it, there are three possible truths to this.

1. The CAP code is very real, and very effective in combating piracy, but it is not in John or any other creators' power to give us a demonstration without concent from someone above, and they figure it's either not worth the effort to ask, or they know the request would be turned down anyway. So why bother.

2. The CAP code is real, but it has a few flaws, and if any demonstration were to backfire, it would show the CAP code to be ineffective and only help promote piracy. I can respect the hesitancy in demonstration if this were the case.

3. The CAP code doesn't exist period, and is indeed a scare tactic.

Personally, I'm leaning toward the second truth.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-29-2000, 02:48 AM:

John,

I didn't say you had to see it either, just that there was at one time another form of tracing a pirated print.

My point is that there must be some ex employees with the knowledge it would take to expose it, one way or the other.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-29-2000, 09:18 AM:

"My point is that there must be some ex employees with the knowledge it would take to expose it, one way or the other."

Not if they had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Also, I'm sure that regular lab employees are "buffered" from the CAP equipment.

Posted by Mark Fontana (Member # 153) on 04-29-2000, 10:24 AM:

I was involved with watermarking the digital presentations of TOY STORY 2. I won't tell you where the watermarks are, only that they are visual and involved rerendering some scenes with slightly different placement of visual elements. The changes are subtle enough that even people who worked on the movie would certainly not notice any difference without seeing the versions side-by-side. Obviously, this strategy is only reasonable for tracking a dozen or so digital "prints".

Now in John P's posting above, notice he says "I don't recall ever saying that you needed to _SEE_ the CAP Code to decode it." This is a big hint and confirms my suspicions that CAP code does exist and is most likely not applied to the image, but to the SOUNDTRACK, maybe as a series of pops or clicks; the presence or absence of the pops at an expected temporal location forms a binary coding. They would not need to be very loud, and with just 12 pop locations scattered over a reel, you could encode one of 4096 different print codes. The pops would be plainly audible in even the low-quality audio reproduction of VHS, MPEG-1, etc. whereas visual markings might not reproduce well enough. Applying a binary code of pops to the soundtrack is in line with the technology of the early 1980s and could be done by adding small scratches across the optical soundtrack at specific footage offsets.

I am not sure how this scheme could be made to work with digital sound, however. I suppose the optical digital tracks could be marred to produce a fault, but that would probably be too noticeable. And I can't see any way to apply this to DTS without burning CDROMs for each print. Perhaps lack of support for digital sound is the weakness that we are not supposed to know about.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 04-29-2000, 10:31 AM:

We don't need to no how it works, it will only help the video pirates anyway. The CAP code should remain a BIG secret, just like Area 51

------------------
It's the new small talk. You do it so awfully well! - My Fair Lady

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-29-2000, 11:01 AM:

To find a visual CAP code, try this:

Import copies of two different prints into a video editing program. Superimpose the two images, synced frame-for-frame, and adjust for perfect register. Invert one of the images and use it as a keying matte, or some such "difference" element.

When combined in this manner, every part of the picture that is similar will be cancelled (leaving a blank screen), but any differences between the two will be revealed on the monitor. If the code consists of unique visual indicators, they will become readily apparent.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-29-2000, 01:20 PM:

"Import copies of two different prints into a video editing program. Superimpose the two images, synced frame-for-frame, and adjust for perfect register. Invert one of the images and use it as a keying matte, or some such "difference" element."

A while ago, I compared a VHS and DVD of the same film. It didn't take very long to see a difference. That comparison also led me to conclude that while the CAP code can be used for tracing 35mm prints, it is optimized for use in video piracy.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-29-2000, 01:37 PM:

Let me clarify that. I've corrected my post above, to better illustrate the idea.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-29-2000, 05:41 PM:

Tim,

You forgot to mention that anyone wanting to actually use that trick to try and locate a difference would have to dupe 2 prints on the SAME projector and without moving the camera (on a tripod of course).

As to the sound coding, I REALLY can't buy that one. Examples of bootlegs I've seen are shot with the builtin microphone and typically have an audience, complete with laughter, popcorn munching and a screaming baby! That would be useless. Also, as you pointed out, there would be no way to alter each of the 4 soundtracks commonly placed on a print...especially DTS. John was clearly trying to throw everyone off again implying a sound coding *or* that something on the image would be invisible. Yet again, a load of crap. I see no way a multiple generation VHS dupe of a print can hold some secret code that is invisible on film or a video bootleg.

John, you've posted numerous times on this ever increasing thread and still seem to think people are interested in "how" it works. Well, it's my observation the reason people are coming up with theories (which are probably getting closer and closer) is because nothing at all has been said by anyone validating the code other then statements like "I know, it is real". ANYONE can get on here and say that, hell even I could say that, but that doesn't make it so. When no demo is offered and no information is given and no documentation can be found anywhere (remember your fake links from earlier), of course people will start their own theories and sooner or later, someone will figure it out or it will get to a point where all reasonable doubt this exists will be tossed aside proving to people that the CAP code does in fact not exist. A demo will prove once and for all that it works (supposedly) and will not give away any secrets. It's great advertising for the MPAA and the studios here promoting to NEVER bootleg or allow a bootleg to occur. And it would only cost the CAP code boys a day's work to strike fear into everyone.

Will it happen? I still say it won't. Dwayne posed an interesting set of theories earlier and I'm going with his #2 theory: "The CAP code is real, but it has a few flaws, and if any demonstration were to backfire, it would show the CAP code to be ineffective and only help promote piracy." The key word here being "flaws", which can mean anything from the the CAP code not being "all that" to start with, the depots not maintaining print numbers during packing or swapping cans on pickup, any professional bootlegger being smart enough to arrange for jumbled reels from different prints (as in paying the film delivery guy to swap them around), or who knows what else?

As to DLP presentations, if you are trying to put a scare into bootleggers, why say: "AFAIK, as it is now configured, a video taken of an image projected using a DLP Cinema projector will not have the flicker seen when using a camcorder to photograph a normal 24fps film presentation from a theatre screen." Assuming that info is correct, what a great push AGAINST digital cinema! Long live film!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-29-2000, 10:55 PM:

It's sort of funny: Brad has posted good points on why he feels there is no CAP code.

Yet has much as he feels it doesn't exist, I feel that it does. If I'm right about the white specks (that look like camera negative dirt) it seems to be a simple idea (but not necessarily simple to do.)

I think if you looked at a printer, you would find a set of rollers that guide the release stock past a mysterious device.

Although, I have no way of totally proving my point, either. But I like to blab my opinion, so I'm having a good time...!

Posted by Chris Wootten (Member # 283) on 04-30-2000, 07:16 AM:

CAP may be stopping the pirates in Europe & USA, but what about China and most Asian countries. You can buy videos and DVDs for as little as $5.00 of the latest moviesin these countries. Quality is not perfect but good enough to watch. I see them all the time where I am. Nothing is being done to stop this ??????....

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-30-2000, 09:46 AM:

>>You forgot to mention that anyone wanting to actually use that trick to try and locate a difference would have to dupe 2 prints on the SAME projector and without moving the camera (on a tripod of course). <<

Brad: Actually, I was thinking of telecine-transferred prints. With a good program like Media Studio, you only have to make slight x-y corrections to put the images in perfect register (which isn't hard to do). A home video camera would not fit the bill, even if you could keep it steady, because its pickup of the shutter frequency would render the elements unuseable.

But if anyone wanted to locate (i.e. prove/disprove the existence of) a visual code, this method would reveal it by underscoring the dissimilarities between two prints.

Wait! I can hear the questions already: "But what about bootleg movies shot with handheld cameras? Huhhhhh?!" Given that there's a code to begin with, I'm not implying that this is how the CAP people decipher the data. They already know where to look, we don't. This would show us.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-30-2000, 06:24 PM:

Chris has a very good point. Most of the boothlegs that I have seen have come from China. They are readilly available in the US, and the movies are completely in English, just like at the theatre. Some are even in stereo.

Many of these movies are available on VHS, but more seem to be on Video CD (MPEG). The Video CD versions can also be downloaded from the internet.

It is amazing that this hasn't been stopped.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2000, 05:45 AM:

All information and technology for CAP Code was transferred to the MPAA in 1982. You need to contact them for any specific information or a "demonstration": Motion Picture Association, 15503 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California, 91436.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-01-2000, 12:02 PM:

Here is my input on the CAP code, based upon all those years of chemical engineering and physics classes I took for no good reason:

1. The assertion was made that maybe the sound is altered to reveal the cap code. It is possible to do so as there are frequencies that are not distinguishable to the human ear, HOWEVER, microphones cannot pick these up at all! So thats a bust.

2. It is however possible to encode the image of every frame on every print. How you ask? There are frequencies of light that you cannot see, infrared being one of them, but not the only one. You can encode just about anything you want to on to a frame of film with different light frequencies that are not able to show up on the film image, but are there none the less. When you scan the image into a computer (you must use a medical or scientific type scanner, not available on the general market of course) you can view certain frequencies and see whatever it was that you put on there.

The PROBLEM with this is, that even with the greatest of video cameras on the market today, and those that have been with us for years now, have very little ability to pick these frequencies up. It is possible to make this work however. Cheap copies made with poor quality camcorders will not be able to pick up these freqencies, however the good copies, made with high tech transfers just may be able to transfer the image not seen as well.

This is one way that CAP could be applied, and make it real, and possibly even traceable.

Then again, It could be just a really good hoax!

Dave

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-01-2000, 02:54 PM:

I can't go for the infra-red theory. Video cameras will not record much (if any) infra-red, and remember the techonolgy was finished in 1982, when home cameras were very poor (compaired to today.) Besides, several projectors have infra-red filters on them to reduce the heat on the film (a Century JJ for one.) I'd have to check, but I think even regular port window glass would reduce infra-red.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-01-2000, 03:55 PM:

Video cameras won't record IR? Point any remote control you have at your camera and press any button. You will see the IR without any problem.

John, as you said before, anyone contacting the MPAA about such a test would make them suspicious. That's why YOU need to tell them for us. They trust you.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-01-2000, 07:24 PM:

Yeah, you're right. Pointed my digital (still) camera at an infra-red "exciter" lamp, and there it was.

But would it bounce off of a screen to a camera?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-02-2000, 12:55 AM:

Possibly, but then it would be plainly visible. They should do something similar to that, and it would make any video dub absolutely useless. Why not stop piracy altogether instead of just trying to capture a select few guys?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-02-2000, 06:40 PM:

John (Pytlak):

Have you seen those new digital (DV) cameras that supposedly capture non- interlaced images at a true 24 fps? After they are on the computer, they can be output at 30fps and look just like a movie transfer to VHS (or whatever).

Does this pose a threat?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-02-2000, 11:22 PM:

Shoot, I can tell you that will be an incredible threat to piracy! A true non-interlaced camera (like the Canon DV XL1) will capture 30 images per second instead of 60 (referring to fields). One that can shoot non-interlaced images at true 24 frames per second will only require the camera be pointed at the screen, regardless of the projector or shutter blades.

It just never ends! Kinda like this topic.

Posted by Scott Magie (Member # 368) on 05-03-2000, 01:44 AM:

What a disappointment!
I've been watching this thread grow and grow without ever checking it out. It burst into flames and I still didn't check it out. Finally, tonight my curiosity got the better of me. I just wasted an hour of my life reading 84 posts and learning nothing! This is like an epic film gone bad. No... a Jerry Springer episode gone bad. No... Dateline! No...

Maybe I'm not an inquiring mind, but I could care less if the MPAA could play a pirated video in reverse & have it say, "Bow to Satan". As long as I get a print that's heads-out, I'm happy. Piracy's gonna happen. Period. And I say, more power to 'em. If they want to go through all that trouble and risk the rath of "Mr. Vee", so be it. I see my movies for free, so what would I want some crappy vhs copy for? This CAP code thing, be it real or not, is just something to keep honest people honest... kinda like those locks on the poster-cases!

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-03-2000, 03:00 AM:

It's the principle of it all. Some believe anything they are told, others will only accept what sounds feasible to them. So you spent an hour reading 84 posts. What did you learn? You learned this CAP code thing is hogwash. I agree with you, pirates will always be out there and they will always find a way around anything. I don't really think anyone here would plan on bootlegging a movie because we can all get in to see the films whenever we want for free. Why in the hell would we want a video or want any part of it? Again, it's the principle of being threatened and being lied to. I don't ever expect for someone to post the big secret here behind the CAP code, but if was real then I'm sure someone who works in a lab or has contacts at the MPAA could have set up a demo by now that was proposed some 50 posts ago. We are being lied to!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-03-2000, 06:04 AM:

Carl:

CAP Code is real, it has been in use for 18 years, and it is effective. That is the simple TRUTH.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-03-2000, 02:18 PM:

Oh OK! I gotcha now, John. What was I thinking? Thanks for straightening me out with your last post there. If that wasn't convincing, nothing is!

Seriously, I don't think that the THREAT of the CAP code is preventing any piracy here. You're gonna have to do a better job than that, John.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-03-2000, 02:30 PM:

I tell you what I know to be true. For more information or a "demonstration", you will have to deal directly with the Motion Picture Association, on your own.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-03-2000, 07:26 PM:

I don't know. Contacting the MPAA directly for a demonstration sounds like an awful big bear trap. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm a pirate. Personally, I can wait for any release on video. Are you sure contacting the MPAA directly is safe, John? As Joe said above, it sounds a bit suspicious.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Charles Lubner (Member # 157) on 05-04-2000, 01:03 AM:

Why don't we just drop this whole CAP code argument before John Pytlak gets pissed off and leaves the forum? I recall a similar thread about HPS-4000...tempers flared and John F. Allen hasn't been heard from since. If John P. can't/won't give us info because legally the MPAA owns all information about the CAP code, let's leave him alone. He has contributed plenty to this forum and we shouldn't continue to badger him.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2000, 01:44 AM:

Charles,

No one is forcing John to respond. He is however the only person on the forum (other than a couple of guys from Fotokem) who claim to have any knowledge of the CAP code whatsoever. John has been around the forum long enough to know no one is really mad at him, but that just saying "hey, believe this" without any sort of proof at all is kinda ridiculous. We're all just having fun and in the process, each of us is trying to convince ourselves with possible senarios that "could" be feasible and everyone is also trying to find flaws in each other's senarios as well. Whether anyone gets it correct or not really doesn't matter, because the MPAA would be foolish to actually explain it or confirm if anyone actually DID figure it out. A demo however would prove not only it's existence but it's power. If John didn't have a great sense of humor, he would've left a long time ago. Remember the classic thread titled "Kodak Projection Training"? (You can find it through a search.) The CAP code thread is not harming anyone.

John F. Allen's thread is a completely different story. He was greatly insulting many well respected engineers indirectly and was posting completely false information on a Dallas installation. He is always welcome back, but not if he is going to continue to insult other engineers and post about the Dallas system which I have first hand knowledge was nothing more than incorrect information on his part. (If someone wants to talk about JFA, please start a new thread, not here.)

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-04-2000, 02:20 AM:

Just thought I'd further push this thread to the hundred post mark. I agree with Brad. No one here is trying to "break" John into giving us the answer nor are we trying to piss him off. I'm not sure if I speak for Carl though, but I've read the John F. Allen thread and it seemed like everyone wanted a shot at that man. I'm sorry I missed my chance. And I'm sure that no one misses Johnny boy where as saying that we're trying to oust John out by frustrating him is just ridiculous. Personally, I'd like to see this topic surpass the HPS 4000 in posts. Let the thread go on!

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-07-2000, 06:23 AM:

I was breaking down a print tonight and noticed some printed numbers on the sprockets every so often. What's the point of that? Surely THAT isn't the CAP code. That wouldn't show on the screen. Anyone else ever notice this?

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 05-07-2000, 01:50 PM:

Have you checked the frame adjacent to those numbers by the sprockets?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-07-2000, 01:58 PM:

If I'm interpreting the previous post correctly, the numbers along the edge of the film (which usually appear along with the words "EASTMAN SAFETY FILM" or something like that) just specify the type of filmstock (usually something like 5386 for acetate-base EXR color print stock or 2386 for ESTAR-base color print stock and now some number that I can't remember for ESTAR-base Vision color print stock), the year of its manufacture (until recently, Eastman prints had a series of shapes to encode the date; now they just use the actual year), and other such information. This latent edge coding goes back to the silent era and is also present on films for still cameras. The date code can be interesting for helping to identify an old print.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-07-2000, 05:18 PM:

Perhaps the CAP code is real. I'm not going to get into whether it exists or not anymore, simply because I know the answer. But is it effective in every case in which it is used?

Posted by Jason R. Weinsteiger (Member # 456) on 05-07-2000, 10:28 PM:

Boy, you guys sure are curious...

i don't believe that the CAP code exists, but i don't care much either

jasoN

(don't worry, your secret's safe with me

------------------
"That's what life is - a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of muppets." -Dante Hicks

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-08-2000, 07:35 AM:

Hey. Didn't Chris Rhode say he was going to contact the MPAA to put an end to this posting once and for all? Has anyone heard from the man? Could it be he got to smell the sweet smell of splicing cement because of his inquiring mind? Guess I'll have to make other MISSING article pretty soon.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-08-2000, 05:07 PM:

Let's get it over 100 posts!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2000, 09:43 AM:

Giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming the CAP code really is real AND effective...I wonder how it affects dye transfer prints. Can these prints be coded just as easily as regular prints? Is it more expensive to do so? Would it show up as easily to the pirate squad at the MPAA?

I have a feeling the answer is "yes", but am wondering how this would affect them. Being an incredibly huge fan of dye transfer prints, I'd hate for something like the CAP code prevent widespread release of dye transfer prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2000, 06:00 AM:

Brad:

The equipment used for putting CAP Code on prints could be adapted to work with the current Technicolor dye transfer process. Since Technicolor considers the details of their process proprietary, I don't know if they have done so, or whether CAP Code was used on any dye transfer prints.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2000, 02:41 PM:

I certainly HOPE they can put CAP coding on dye transfer prints. I got screwed last year and didn't get a "Toy Story 2" in dye transfer and am hoping there will be more prints like this made this year. Perhaps Dinosaur? BV seems to be the only studio endorsing it, but now they've gotten lost in the digital craze.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-13-2000, 04:53 PM:

Mr Vee will probably get me but here is how cap code works
It is a matrix of dots printed in a controlled pattern slightlightly less density than the rest of the scene.
It varies per lab in fashion and repeates every several feet on selected reels and it can be a fixed number code or in some lab cases a matrix of dots that must be summed to create the code over a number of frames
It is done with a small block on the printer head that flashes the matrix of dots at a highenough burst as not to smere as the film is in continous motion
funny there is a funny smell in the air

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-13-2000, 04:58 PM:

I should've known it would take a "Jedi Master" to figure out the CAP code!

And for all you trivia people, Gordon's last post was not only the post to finally offer some sort of proof to this ongoing saga, but also officially made the CAP code thread the longest in Film-Tech history.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-14-2000, 04:58 AM:

Sequence of dots? Interesting. In a previous post, it was mentioned to look at the frame besides the numbers I noticed on certain reels. I noticed some odd dots on bright frames, the frame next to the numbers. I also noticed that the dot pattern would change, but repeat every so often, so that must have been the matrixed version. I have only ever noticed these numbers (and now dots) on reel #2, no matter the print. But why is it always reel 2? What happens if I order a new reel 2 for some reason? Or cut out one frame every 6 feet? (I can't remember how many frames it is exact, but I know it is every 6 feet or so). Just cut out a frame every time there is a number. I'm not a bootlegger, but the CAP Code would be fun to defeat. I wonder why Keeping the Faith was CAP COded? Who would want to bootleg that? And how much money would the studios lose if somebody did? It was a bomb! (not "Da Bomb").

Posted by Curtis Barnes (Member # 471) on 05-14-2000, 05:13 AM:

I know a guy who does TAP inspections and he showed me the tons of forms they must fill out. These guys have to look at everything. It's really amazing how thorough the reports are. Anyway, he said that the reel 2s are always CAP coded. Until this topic came up here, I had no idea what the hell that was. He told me it looked like dirt on the film and he was supposed to always ignore dirty reel 2s because of it. So Carl must be right that they only code the second reels. I will start checking all of my reels for this starting this week. I wonder how hard it would be to actually crack the code?