Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: CAP code secrets revealed

This is topic CAP code secrets revealed 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=001018

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-23-2000, 06:00 PM:

WARNING do not read this post if you want to continue to enjoy CAP coded movies. The answers within will distract from your moviegoing experience for all future coded films.

Scroll down

Here it is, the proof.

I took this off of a piece of clear tail leader where the CAP code was still printing before the machine turned off. See the number on the edge of the print? That's the number. Look beside the number at the frame. You will see 4 identically colored dots, three of which are near center in a triangle shape and the last one towards the bottom left corner in this pic. These dots repeat themselves every 11 times and apparently it takes all 11 sample frames to derive a sum of dots to equal the print number. The prints I have looked at repeat the next code every 100 frames. This means the MPAA only needs to manually find one frame on a video transfer with a CAP code and from then on they can simply forward the VCR by 100 film frames to get to the next one. (These figures apparently vary from lab to lab.) I'm not sure how these dots are decoded, but clearly it has to do with the placement of the dots within the frame. Perhaps each frame is divided up into a dozen sections and each section is given a value and then the sum of all 11 codes equals the actual print number, I'm not completely sure but that is definitely how it is being done and it proves the CAP code does indeed exist.

It is interesting to note that only one reel out of an entire feature is coded. There is some sort of laser scribing machine that is placed after the processor, but before each reel is wound onto it's core. The sensor which tells the machine when the end of the reel has come for the lab tech to cut the film and start winding onto a new core also triggers the CAP coding scriber to bump the code up by a value of one. So John Pytlak is correct that it really does not take any extra time for the labs to code a print and they are all indeed individually coded. Of course, there really would be no reason to encode an entire feature. However, all of the prints must have the same reel coded or bootleggers could swap reels around between prints to assemble a non-CAP coded print for their evil purposes. Traditionally this is reel 2, but "Dinosaur" featured the CAP code on reel 4 for some reason. If you screen the film and look in bright sky areas of the image for the yellowish dots flashing on for one frame every several seconds, you will clearly see them and they are incredibly distracting once you do! It is like when the first person pointed out the changeover cues. Now I can't not be distracted by them and I never miss them. Remember, I warned you at the first of this post so dont come bitching at me when you keep seeing them!

So in short, the CAP code IS real, but it is damned annoying once you see it on screen. Also, a videocamera could not possibly pick up these dots unless it is a reasonably bright scene, which is why it is printed throughout a given reel. Bootleggers beware!

Thanks to the nameless fellows who emailed me tips on finding the code and offered explanations. To John, I realize you had your hands tied with this one, but it really didn't take me long to figure this out. Even with this information above, it does not make the code any less valuable and in all actuality definitely does add a bit of fear to would be video pirates.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-23-2000, 07:41 PM:

If this is it, I think I came fairly close to describing the CAP code. Dots on the film; a device mounted on the printer, etc.

Maybe the CAP equipment senses how bright the frame is, and adjusts itself some how. So, if, say the 100th frame comes up and it is light, the dots are put on darker. I though they would be white, to make it easy to find even after poor videotape copies.

Pretty cool find, Carl.

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 05-23-2000, 08:43 PM:

Brad, we need to be able to post background music here!!!

*X-Files theme fades up*

Carl is gonna wake up in a brightly lit room telling his story to a craggly looking, stern faced man smoking a cigarette!!

Seriously, there is a reason that no-one has ever told the tail of the "cap code".

*To be continued*

*closing music fades up*

<grin>

Russ

Posted by Mark Fontana (Member # 153) on 05-23-2000, 11:42 PM:

Very cool.

Carl, was this a scope film by any chance? The leftmost column of dots seems like it would be off the edge of the frame for 1.66 or 1.85. I wonder if the four-digit block and accompanying dots are supposed to be centered in the frame instead of being a sprocket or so off as they are here.

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 05-24-2000, 02:08 AM:

Actually it was a flat film. I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps a little slip up at the lab by a sprocket hole renders the CAP code useless?

Posted by Curtis Barnes (Member # 471) on 05-24-2000, 03:49 AM:

This is interesting. It is hard for me to see how it could be captured on videotape 100% of the time. My bet is that the CAP code is not 100% effective. I'm sure that if it is 100% effective, John Pytlak will come on and inform us that it is, and that we're wrong. I'll keep a lookout for his post on that.

Also, what if you removed every 100th frame or so. Not every frame with the cap code on it, but just enough so they couldn't put together the sequence? ie: remove every 1st frame of the cap code sequence. Make sense?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-24-2000, 09:41 AM:

Way-to-go, Carl!!!

>>Traditionally this is reel 2, but "Dinosaur" featured the CAP code on reel 4 for some reason<<

This explains why this reel (and only this reel) has been running out of focus at one of my theatres! I watched it yesterday.

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

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-24-2000, 10:40 AM:

Well, Done Carl. Be sure to watch out for guys playing Elvis and driving upside down in tunnels.

The CAP code does not have to be 100% effective...it only has to be effective enough to catch a few people, so the word spreads that there IS a way to track a print to a particular theatre.

Mark L.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-24-2000, 02:13 PM:

To CAP Code skeptics:

I wrote:

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

It really hurt to hear something I helped invent called "CRAP Code" . I would appreciate apologies from the skeptics out there who questioned my sincerity and integrity.

BUT, don't assume that CAP Code is always on a certain reel. It can be printed on any (or all) reels. It does not always have the numbers on the edge of the print to give away it's location. And what makes you think that this is the only type of CAP Code? I know that multiple coding schemes are used, sometimes all on the same print (for redundancy). You might make 1200 splices to remove the frames with this version of CAP Code, only to find you missed another, more subtle one.

------------------
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 John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-24-2000, 02:31 PM:

Tim: CAP Code would have no adverse effect on the sharpness of the image. Disney may have used different codes (without the edge numbers) on other reels.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-24-2000, 02:35 PM:

Actually the way I see it, it wouldn't matter if the CAP code was printed obviously on one reel and "hidden" on the rest. Who in their right mind would even consider bootlegging a print (or allowing it to happen) when even just one reel was known to have it?

Carl, it sounds like you've got more research to do! haha

My apologies to John Pytlak for the other CAP code thread. (You must admit though, it WAS pretty fun. )

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-24-2000, 03:09 PM:

If Carl should apologize, then that is up to him. But for him to come on here and admit (and prove) that the CAP code is indeed real, and basically admit defeat is apology enough in my book. I believe that it was Carl who referred to it as the "CRAP code" in the first place.

Obviously, I am no longer a skeptic, and I apologize for any misleading or negative comments I may have said, but it was indeed fun! Admit it John, you had some fun, too (although probably not as much as some of the rest of us)!

I have been noticing CAP code onscreen for the last few weeks when I verify a new print. I can't stand it. John, I'll give people your phone number if they complain about print dirt that I can't clean

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-24-2000, 03:24 PM:

Joe,

I was apologizing to John for my not just tossing all disbelief aside and believing him, not on behalf of Carl. I don't tend to just believe anything I hear or read.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-24-2000, 04:13 PM:

Yes, I know. I was talking to John who said that he was hurt by people calling it "Crap code" and would like apologies from skeptics.

Trust me Brad, I don't even read your posts!

Just Kiddin'

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-24-2000, 09:47 PM:

>>It really hurt to hear something I helped invent called "CRAP Code" <<

John: You have my humblest apologies for my part in egging-on the naysayers. BTW, thanks for the info on the reel 4- "Dinosaurs" business... I figured it was a convenient excuse.

I think most of the people here, myself included, have the utmost respect for you. You are held in the highest esteem. I believe we all realize the awkward position you were in with this topic. It is telling of your character that you're still frequenting the forum. I sure couldn't have made it through without getting mad.

We're all the richer to enjoy your company, your advice and expertise.

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

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 05-26-2000, 05:39 AM:

Cool, now it gets clearer what the tiny points are.
It is worth watching the boys listening to Elvis, but some points are outside the picture area, at the fragment I looked at.
It's out there, and real, but will it change anything, now that we know?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2000, 09:14 AM:

The positions of the dots vary randomly throughout the print, to assure that any illegal video copy will contain the CAP Code multiple times, no matter what the format or framing. And additional methods of coding may also be used (for redundancy) on the same print.

Many convicted film pirates THOUGHT they removed all traces of CAP code from their illegal product.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2000, 02:23 PM:

What does "CAP" code stand for, anyway?

I assume the "AP" stand for Anti Piracy?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2000, 02:25 PM:

Coded Anti Piracy = CAP

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-26-2000, 05:29 PM:

John when did your title change from motion pictures to "entertainment imaging" your not shifting to the digital side are you

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-30-2000, 09:15 AM:

The name "Entertainment Imaging" encompasses all methods of presenting images to audiences. But I'm still a "film guy". My job is to make film as good as we know it can be. Their job is to make digital cinema as good as film. (I think their job is more difficult than mine

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2000, 06:18 PM:

Hey John, can you recommend a good digital camera? I don't want to deal with film cameras, because with digital I can have it on my desktop instantly! If I want a print version, I just print it out. If it fades, I'll print out another copy. I figured you'd be the resident expert on digital imaging

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-31-2000, 08:08 AM:

Thanks to Carl, you to will notice the dots appearing in your print.

I was building Big Momma's House and the depot or someone made a big to do out of reel 2 being Cap Coded. Reel # was written in big numbers, inspection label noted CapCode: 0 on label.

Sure enough, the number was printed on the edge just like the picture above. Most of the reel is dark but you will notice the white / brownish dots while watching the feature. I bet the scheme is like those binary clocks or message do-hickeys that use a row of 8 leds on a pendulum and swings back and forth to display a message. This same concept would display the reel number.

That's my take

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2000, 09:48 AM:

Joe:

Information on all the Kodak digital still cameras is on the Kodak website:
http://www.kodak.com/go/digitalcamera

You can also check out the entire line of Kodak digital products at:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/nav/digital.shtml

For a discerning photographer like you, I wouldn't settle for less than one of the cameras in the PRO DCS Series, with 6 megapixel resolution. (Of course 35 mm film still has superior image quality ).

Remember, Kodak's business is PICTURES. We try to offer the best products to meet customer's imaging needs, be they FILM or DIGITAL or HYBRID.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2000, 04:11 PM:

John,

Is the Photo CD spec of 3072 x 2048 as good as 35mm? I ask because if it's not, then why didn't Kodak make Photo CD as high res as 35mm? One of Kodak's main claims to fame on this now obsolete technology was that you could take your disc back in to the manufacturer an get perfect prints made from it, since it is basically just a digitized version of the negative turned positive.

I would settle for nothing less than 256 Terapixels! I think they sell those down at K-Mart for $199 (Kodak brand)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-31-2000, 04:20 PM:

But what is film resolution? Kodachrome 25 is going to have higher resolution than Tmax 3200! (Yes, I'm comparing apples to oranges, but you get the idea.)

Personally, I love Kodachrome.

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 05-31-2000, 05:21 PM:

Here's something to think about...

I still take pictures with film. If I need a digital image I just scan the print.

John, I checked my camera and it is loaded with Kodak film! (Sorry that I had to check, I'll be sure to buy only Kodak in the future). It was Gold asa 200.

Half of the fun of pictures is discovering what was on that roll of un-developed film that you found while cleaning out the car!

Russ

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2000, 05:21 AM:

Joe:
I recall that the Photo CD's highest resolution mode was equivalent to the resolution of 35mm film, within the limitations of the scanners available. The technology is definitely not "obsolete", and is still available for professional users. Information is at http://www.kodak.com/go/photoCD

Scott:
It seems everyone still loves the look of Kodachrome film. Pretty good for a product that has been on the market for 65 years! Of course, it's been improved many times since 1935.

Russ:
What you are doing is very common practice. The "HYBRID" practice of shooting on film, and then transferring the images to digital is very common. That way you're not having to invest in the fast-changing technology of a digital camera, yet have the ability to use the images digitally.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-28-2000, 05:46 AM:

I just noticed this tonight and I thought it humorous.

We've all seen the stickers with the title, bar code, print number (um, yeah right), date/time of printing and so forth on them courtesy of Deluxe Hollywood as pictured below.

However, I noticed a little something odd on my second print of The Patriot. Check it out.

Yes folks, the first print had the annoying little CAP code marks on it...but the second one (noted by "capcode-0") did NOT!

What's up with that? Is this a courtesy toward bootleggers from Deluxe? I'm not getting the point here, but I find it awful funny.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-28-2000, 04:19 PM:

What's also interesting is that the schmucks at Airborne Express (why does anybody ship with these people?) mixed up the cans between our theater and a UA theater about 5 miles down the road. We got their reels 1,2, and 3 and they got ours (we switched them back).

But what if we didn't switch? We could have been bootlegging film all night and giving out free copies to everybody on the planet, and the UA theater would have gotten blamed.

CAP Code rocks!

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 06-29-2000, 12:32 PM:

When Cap Coding was invented, 18 years ago, print orders were 2000 prints max. Since then, print orders have gone up, that's why the Cap Coding is not always on the same reel within a title (ie: Dinosaur), after the 2000th print, they have to switch to a different reel.

And John P., don't hate me just because I'm not a fan of Cap Coding. I do think it's obtrusive (dots on a reel of film, numerous times), but it is the best thing we have presently... Yet, be honest John, you gots to be working on something new to replace Cap Coding, right? The technology is here. Robust, undetectible watermarking in both the audio soundtrack and the visual image on screen (hint).

Anything for a better presentation.

THXfully Yours, Ted

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2000, 03:48 PM:

I'm wondering though for argument's sake...let's say "Bob" is running a 30 plex and he gets 3 prins of a major movie. With Deluxe clearly marking the CAP code status on the leaders and different reels being coded, wouldn't this make it awfully easy for him to swap reels around between the cans to assemble a non-CAP coded print?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-24-2000, 09:32 PM:

I just saw X-Men again today... different auditorium and different print than I'd seen before. This time, the CAP Code just happened to appear in at least three places where the screen was bright... almost a completely white picture and Bang! There were those funny, brownish/orange dots. It was very annoying and, now that I know it was really the CAP Code, it was unacceptably annoying.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2000, 05:55 AM:

The "annoyance factor" of CAP Code is like that of cue marks. Once you know they are there, you notice them. Most people who are unfamiliar with projection technology don't notice cue marks until you point them out, likewise with CAP Code.

CAP Code dots are much smaller than cue marks, and their position in the image is random, so most people don't pick up on them. Remember, it took me months to convince expert Film-Tech Forum members that CAP Code really existed! It needs to be visible in any video copy, but was designed not be be too visible or annoying.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 07-25-2000, 06:48 AM:

I guess then there will be ''dots'' on the rejuvented US prints for Europe as well, as the ''dots'' don't go away when the print gets treated? Hope this makes sense. I've been looking hard to find the ''dots'' on the prints we show in Denmark, havent found them yet!

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2000, 07:42 AM:

Martin: CAP Code is a permanent image, and is not removed by film cleaning, treatment, or "rejuvenation" procedures. European labs are capable of printing CAP Code, so it is likely that many of your new prints have it as well. It may be that they are not printing the verification edge numbers, or using a newer less visible version of code. I'm pretty sure INTERPOL uses CAP Code to track sources of pirated videos, just as the FBI does in the states. Dara MacGreevy is the head of the MPA Anti-Piracy Operations in Europe.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-25-2000, 08:03 AM:

What I saw looked A LOT bigger than cue marks. And it looked like 8 or 9 dots at once... not like the three dots in the example which started this thread.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2000, 08:26 AM:

Greg:

If you saw 8 or 9 dots, it wasn't the CAP Code I helped develop.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-25-2000, 09:43 AM:

If it weren't illegal, I'd be tempted to sneak a camera into that theatre and roll some video so you could help figure out what I saw.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-25-2000, 10:00 AM:

Greg: Please DON'T videotape the movie! I don't want any of my friends sent to prison, and they probably don't allow Internet access in jail.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2000, 03:38 PM:

In order to go to prison, you must first get caught. I don't think that Greg taping part of a reel would have any consequences, primarily because he wouldn't be selling it and would only use it to privately discern what the dots are. Doubt that the MPAA or FBI or Interpol would ever even have a clue.

I'm sure that you taped a reel to test the CAP code once you invented it. Did you do some hard time for that? Now that I think of it, don't most of the Video CD screener bootlegs come from Rochester?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-25-2000, 06:28 PM:

Well, thanks for the encouragement but there's no way I'm going to do any pirating. They always turn me away when I wear the eye patch with the THX logo on it and my parrot usually says something offensive to the ushers.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-25-2000, 06:59 PM:

John's right--the CAP code really isn't annoying (or even noticeable) unless you know exactly what to look for. Just don't tell anyone about it. I've made the mistake of telling my friends about changeover cues and they all hate me now because they can't go to the movies without being bothered by something that they had never seen before. (well, they don't actually hate me, but...)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2000, 07:11 PM:

Ditto to what Scott said. My friends HATE me for showing them the changeover cues. John really did put it best above:
"The "annoyance factor" of CAP Code is like that of cue marks. Once you know they are there, you notice them. Most people who are unfamiliar with projection technology don't notice cue marks until you point them out, likewise with CAP Code."

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-25-2000, 09:39 PM:

It seems to me that, depending on the lab that makes the print, the dots change size.

For instance, on Shanghai Noon they were smaller and darker. The movie was SCOPE, too so they were more oblong. On Big Momma they were big, blotchy looking things but they were yellow brown in color.

Also, some prints have edge numbers and others don't.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2000, 11:34 PM:

I'll probably answer my own question here, but I'll ask anyway:

Does the CAP Code cover the entire frame? What if the bootlegger zoomed in to get a full frame picture on his camcorder? I assume that John Pytlak took all of this into account when he designed the CAP Code with Bevan Wright and John F Allen. The CAP Code is either centered (mostly) in the frame, or repeated on the left and right sides. Right? Either that or you only need a few of the dots located on certain frames in a sequence to determine the print ID.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-26-2000, 01:27 AM:

Well I certainly hope you guys are working on something else. I mean, now that the 2000 print thing has been revealed, an organized, or even not so organized, gang of pirates shouldn't find it to difficult ot make a composite print.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-27-2000, 06:40 AM:

The original version of CAP Code was designed so the code could be read from a pirated video, even if poor quality or cropped severely. We worked with the MPA and FBI to verify it worked reliably with real prints under a variety of conditions.

I wouldn't assume that 2000 prints is still a limitation. The MPA and labs have had 18 years to expand and enhance the use of CAP Code, and it's likely additional or redundant coding methods are in use. Randy's observation of different patterns seems to support this.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 02-26-2002, 01:40 PM:

Bumping this up for those (like me until I searched the archives) that don't really know what CAP code is.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2002, 01:45 PM:

Whatever happened to "Carl Welles"?

He probably works for the MPAA decoding CAP Code now!

Either that, or the FBI brought in for questioning.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-26-2002, 02:11 PM:

I wonder if Greg Anderson's dots on X-men are in fact
the same sort of defect that I saw on Behind Enemy Lines
(assuming that what I have is in fact a defect and not
"intentional").

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2002, 02:56 PM:

As noted in the discussion, my direct involvement with CAP Code ended in 1982. I would assume that in the twenty years since, the MPAA, FBI and film labs have added ADDITIONAL techniques to trace pirated videos to their source to aid prosecution. Today, CAP Code is only one of the tools available to catch film pirates.

Posted by Steven Pickles (Member # 785) on 02-26-2002, 03:34 PM:

John,

How many other ways are there (other than CAP Code) and can you enlighten me with any examples?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2002, 04:08 PM:

Steven asked: "How many other ways are there (other than CAP Code) and can you enlighten me with any examples?"

The pirates usually find out they missed one of the ways when the FBI comes armed with a search warrant!

In this case, "inquiring minds" raise suspicions.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2002, 04:21 PM:

John, I don't think Steven is trying to pirate movies. You must understand there is an odd curiosity in knowing how people can track the source print from a video copy. It's intriguing, much like the curiosity many of us have in knowing what makes an unfamiliar projector tick.

I'm not an expert on this, but to answer Steven's question more specifically, I would think that virtually ANY defect in the print could be used against a bootlegger to track it. For example, let's say someone was to bootleg a print from a theater that was playing print number 855. Now let's say that print had a lab splice 500 feet into reel 4. Since lab splices are so random, a quick analyzation of the videotape with frame counting would show a matching lab splice location. Even if that frame was cut out and tape spliced back together, there is always a disturbance, most particularly with a tape splice that would show up even on video. Thus at that point I would think the MPAA could check a list of suspected theater's prints to see if one of those prints physically matched.

Maybe that same print had a tiny scratch in one of the reels, possibly even being from a lab. It isn't rocket science to take a batch of "suspected" prints to a rewind bench or projector and find out if one of them was indeed the source print.

So I would say that even anti-piracy techniques like the CAP code aren't necessarily the only thing that the MPAA has to go on. Sure it helps, but even a non-coded print should be able to be tracked down. It would just take more effort. Am I right John?

Now that that has been said, John if the MPAA ever decides to give a demonstration, now of *how* they can track down prints, but an end result *proof* that it can be done, I'd certainly like to play around with trying to screw with their system! Just imagine the sheer hell that could be created with the cooperation of about 2 dozen other Film-Techers across the country, all swapping bits of reels around, and then further "processed" by Joe with whatever he could come up with on his fancy video editing systems, including modified CAP coding. I'm not saying they still couldn't track it, which they quite possibly still could, but it certainly would have them putting in a LOT of man hours trying to figure it out! hehehe I would just want a contract in writing beforehand guaranteeing everyone's involvement to be non-prosecutable for the demo. Transferring a film to video isn't worth even one day in jail.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-26-2002, 04:55 PM:

I would tend to agree with Brad that if somebody would be allowed to video tape, lets say, one reel of a movie for demonstration purposes so that the MPAA could do a "mock bust" on the "perpetrator" there would be a LOT of Film-Techers who would go around saying, "DO NOT try to pirate a movie because the MPAA WILL find you and you WILL be busted!"

Such information, flowing down through the personel in movie theatres would go a LONG WAY in preventing piracy before it even starts. (From the theatre level, at least.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2002, 05:01 PM:

Not to mention the fact that I would *think* either a manager or projectionist would be directly involved in many of these pirating operations. Regular floor staff doesn't have access to the theater or booth after hours. Those flyers that used to be enclosed in the film cans "do not copy this film to video, it has been protected" do absolutely nothing in terms of scaring people. Knowing of a REAL demonstration would be terrifying to managers and projectionists.

BTW, didn't Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings recently come with a letter to store one can of the print in another room for security purposes? Did ANYONE actually do that? I highly doubt it. Letters are ignored because they are always saying the same thing. That's why no one reads the TAP pamphlets anymore. I'll bet that the vast majority of them never even have the envelope opened.

One other thing, what about the film delivery people? Let's say Joe Bob delivers film to 20 theaters in a given area. What is to prevent good 'ol Joe Bob from dropping off a theater's cans (let's say it was Steve Guttag's print that was destined to go to the Uptown) to his evil twin brother Bob Bob, who sits in the basement for a few hours doing a nice bootlegging job of it, carefully running it reel by reel so Steve won't notice it had been ran before...and then giving it back to Joe Bob to conveniently drop off at the Uptown. Then later as that tape hits the streets Mr.Vee and his goons at the MPAA track down the print as belonging to the Uptown and go arrest Steve for it. Steve had nothing to do with it! He may hate platters, but he certainly hates video even more. How does the MPAA deal with possibilities like that?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-26-2002, 07:35 PM:

I have even heard stories to the effect that the projectionist had a "buddy" in his theatre with a telecine in the back of his truck. They would show movies for premier screenings that haven't been officially released yet.

The projectionist would play a reel and then hand it off to his buddy who would whisk it out to the truck to be copied. The reel would be returned in 20 minutes, all nicely rewound, and put back into the can. Ostensibly, nobody would be the wiser.
.
From the story that I heard these guys were caught and got busted pretty hard. BUT it would be nice to get the information out there about HOW they were caught... Not the details of the system, mind you. Just that all films are coded for identification purposes.

Posted by Miguel Angel Martorell (Member # 1110) on 02-26-2002, 07:45 PM:

Is the first time I ever heard of this.I was surprised when reading the cans it showed "this copy is antipiracy protected". How do they do it? thought to myself, so does it means that probably I´ll found a cap code everytime I read this.
In little words, how a cap code works?.
I haven´t found any post.
Un saludo

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

Posted by Owen Shave (Member # 1156) on 02-26-2002, 08:23 PM:

I'm interested whether the same codes are used with digital copies of films for digital projection.. I guess they could have a more advanced system for digital but thats mere speculation. If there were better methods for coding of digital prints, could this be something to sway the heads of major studios to use DV instead of film?

Owen
(off to look for some CAP codes)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2002, 02:36 AM:

I would guess that the security mechanisms with digital lie more in the encryption of the programme stream than in attempting to prevent the image from being 'captured' from the analogue domain.

The massive security problem with 35mm film is, being a high quality analogue format, it is relatively cheap and easy to produce a high quality video master from it. A reconditioned Cintel can be easily obtained for around £10k and a Beta SP recorder for around £5k. Add to that bits and pieces for sound processing and a computer with a decent video capture card, and you can be turning out VHS and DVD copies of a film which are every bit as good as legitimate ones sold in the shops for under £20k, which for professional criminals is bugger all. That's why the industry so badly needs a system which enables them to identify the film element used in the illegal telecine process, because doing so represents the only real hope of catching those responsible.

With the content being distributed in the digital domain, there is less need to do this. If you are trying to pirate moving images and sound supplied as encrypted digital data, you have two options: (i) crack the encryption, or (ii) decrypt using legitimate technology and then capture the analogue image. The industry will be making every effort to ensure that the encryption mechanism of any digital delivery system which eventually gets rolled out is crackerproof - and if it is cracked, they'll change it, regularly if necessary.

As for the latter, well in reality this probably means pointing a camcorder at a cinema screen, with a resulting loss of image quality on the dupe. Sales of these poor quality videos are never going to threaten the legitimate market, as the pirate video craze of the early to mid 80s demonstrated. So I'd guess that being able to identify the source element from an illegal dupe is far more of a priority for the industry with film than it is with digital.

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 02-27-2002, 07:48 AM:

Perhaps FILM-GUARD Formula II will get rid of those annoying Cap Code spots that I can't help seeing now.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2002, 10:12 AM:

For Digital Cinema, Kodak has developed significant technology for "digital watermarking":
Kodak Digital Watermarking
Digital Watermarking How It Works
Digital Watermarking Technical Details

Posted by Owen Shave (Member # 1156) on 02-27-2002, 08:22 PM:

I suspected Kodak might have a hand in digital too. Thanks for the links John.. were interesting. As Leo says I think much of the copy-protection / print identification for digital will be related to simply copying the whole movie digitally in some way. If its anything like DVD though I doubt it would take any serious criminal any time to figure out how to hack a movie from a DLP unit. May well be part of the reason they don't trust you to install the movie yourself, they come and install it all for us here. So as with most things you have to put in methods to aid you in the capture of the thieves, rather than prevention of the crime.

Owen

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 07-24-2002, 11:20 PM:

Bootleg Movies in Cleveland, Ohio.

quote:
BOOTLEG MOVIES
by TED SCHWARZ
ARE THEY BEING MADE AND SOLD BY A CLEVELAND-BASED MIDDLE EASTERN CRIME RING?
"He don't talk like no cop. He called me on this phone about movies and DVDs. He ain't no cop... Maybe a minister... He sounds black, though... I see you took them off the counter." -- message inadvertently left on voice mail on July 9, immediately after a telephone call was placed to the Just Dollar store on Superior and Euclid asking about VHS and DVD copies of current movies.
Earlier in the day, bootleg tapes had been seen during a visit to the store. During the telephone call to the location, the person answering said they had neither tapes nor DVDs. A visit the following day found nothing on display. Cleveland is faced with what appears to be a new, seemingly innocuous organized crime group that is distributing and selling bootleg DVDs and videos of current movies.
The crime ring involves what is seemingly a group of largely Middle Eastern males working in independent dollar stores and food markets selling bootleg movies over-the-counter. To some, including entertainment industry experts, it seems like a relatively minor issue. But where is the money going? As of yet, nobody knows that answer.
Over the course of two weeks, the Free Times visited five stores that sold illegal bootleg movies. Bootleg videotapes sell for as little as $3 if the corresponding theatrical movie is about to be released on tape, to $7 for the recent Scooby-Doo movie as it was just beginning to be shown in theaters. One Just Dollar store with the best and the newest bootleg movies, located on Fulton Road near Memphis Avenue, offers bootleg videos of new movies for $10 each, three for $25. The DVDs sell for around $12 for the most recent pictures, such as Like Mike.
Copying usually starts with a hidden VHS or digital camera recording the screen during an early showing of a new release. Then, depending upon the technology used, it is copied either on a computer (digital) or video duplicator, such as those legally made by Go Video.
There are any number of ways for the art to be created. These include cut-and-paste work with posters and downloaded photo websites promoting the new release. The final creation can be cut-and-pasted (common with some DVDs found in various Cleveland stores) to offset printing of the boxes.
Finally, the product is shrink-wrapped (it's $100 for a small machine capable of low volume, up to $2,000 for a commercial unit) and sold to the stores where the tapes and DVDs are offered to the public.
How big a problem is all this? Bill Shannon, the director of U.S. Anti-Piracy Operations for the Motion Picture Association of
America, explained that the industry annually loses between $250 million to $350 million in the United States, and as much as $3 billion internationally. This means that at least 25 lower-budget movies, and as many as a half-dozen big-budget potential blockbusters, cannot be made because of lost profits from theft. The crime can also result in higher theatrical and rental prices. More important, the actions violate federal law, and can result in both a felony conviction for the bootlegger and a reward for the person who turns in the offender.
No one knows the size of the Cleveland problem. Mention the bootleg videotapes and DVDs and you usually hear that they are "everywhere." But ask for specifics and you are usually referred to the handful of independent dollar stores and the occasional food store -- the ones we were able to confirm all are run by Middle Eastern males -- where these are sold.
And this is where the questions must be raised. Are the illegal tapes and DVDs being created by a group of friends, then sold where they work?
This type of situation was described by Bill Shannon, whose investigators have found groups dividing the effort among specialists. One handles the art, another the duplication, a third the assembly, and then the wholesaling is done from another locale, such as a rental-storage shed.
"A poster might be reduced to box-size and color-copied onto the cardboard," says Shannon. "Offset printing is rare, though we have seen it. And some put the art together, misspelling names and sometimes having the wrong story. Spider-Man might have the right pictures and the wrong studio and wrong artist."
Or is the creation and distribution being handled by an organized crime element? This seems more likely, given the variety of locations uncovered in the past few weeks.
Finally, there is the most important question, the one which Special Agent Bob Hawk at the Cleveland FBI office has expressed an interest in determining: Who gets the money?
If the bootleg video and DVD sales are putting money in the pockets of the people producing and selling them, it is an ordinary-enough crime, and will be handled accordingly. But in this post-9/11 era, where any illegal activities perpertrated by Middle Eastern males, no matter how small, are subject to increased scrutiny, suspicions also arise that profits are tied to more sinister purposes. Were such to be true, what might have seemed like a victimless crime could hold much greater import.
Among the independent dollar stores offering illegally created videos and/or DVDs that were either checked by a visit within the past two weeks or called on the telephone are:
9300 Wade Park
7415 Superior
13225 Superior (none showing the day after the telephone call)
4257 Fulton
Food Town Supermarket, Euclid Ave. near Superior Ave.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-25-2002, 12:12 AM:

Now don't get me wrong, I am 110% against bootlegging in any form, but this article got my dander up, mostly because it is the same regurgitate crap that has been coming out of Jack Vallenti's MPAA for decades. We've heard it all before and this sounds like just another of Valenti's ability to grab a reporter, feed him the company line and get an article written about "the cancer in the belly of the industry." Enough already, Jack. But, I appologize in advance if I can't feel terribly sorry for studios that make 120 million dollars in the first weekend, loosing a couple of thosand dollars to street peddlers who are selling horrific copies that 99% of the public will not want to see, to poor people who 9 times out of 10 can't afford to pay $10 a pop to see the blockbuster anyway. And excuse me, as for those independent features, no one is bootlegging or looking to buy pirated copies of EL CIELO ABIERTO.

Problem is, the MPAA would be a lot more convincing if they would DOCUMENT how they are loosing hundred's of millions of dollars a year; how do they reach those figures? Does Valenti pull them out of a hat or elsewhere closer to his person? And how exactly do they figure that 25 independent films and 6 blockbusters can't be made, as a direct result of bootlegging? The article uses those MPAA numbers as facts, but then can't even tell you how many operations are out there, if they are small or large; the reporter asks plenty of questions that would have been a lot more interesting if he reported some answers to them.

He asks this ominous question (but not before saying that the bootleg copies are being sold in store run by men of Middle Eastern decent, "But where is the money going?" the report then asks. But instead of enlightening us with the answer, he says, "Nobody has the answer." Well, how about writing the story when you find someone who does. He asks, is it run by organized crime? Well, he doesn't know the answer to that either -- he just says it "seems likely." Wow....how's that for ironclad, nail-it-down reporting? So what it is -- organized crime or Middle Eastern terrorists?

Sorry, except for the Valenti's little new twist that bootlegging is bad because it somehow, in some vague, unexplained way, supports terrorism, there's nothing new here that we haven't all heard before.
Come on, Jack, do it for us, just one more time. Come on, say it.
Valenti: (clears throat, eyeing the red camera light to make sure it is rolling and says) "Motion Picture piracy is a cancer in the belly of the industry." Ah....thanks Jack; perfect soundbite for the 6 o'clock news.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-25-2002, 12:20 AM:

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, surely at least some of these movies that are being bootlegged have CAP coding on them. So why is it that the MPAA not sure of their origin? Send someone into one of these dollar stores, buy a few copies, track the CAP coding and find out what theater is responsible. Then survey the theater for a week or two and catch them red handed.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-25-2002, 12:50 AM:

Brad,

As already pointed out, the majority of these pirates are noting more than guys pointing camcorders at the screen. So what if the cap code transfers to the print (along with the guy's head in front of the bootlegger). It only proves what print was taped in what theatre, but without other physical evidence, that's not going to catch anybody.
So why all this noise about piracy? I've always believed that the MPAA's main job in hawking this piracy theme was to grab headlines and basically give the studios a dramatic reason to continue to fund it. The MPAA was hastily founded as nothing more than a lateral punt to derail a Congress that was hell-bent on passing regulation legislation on the studios. The MPAA was the answer and Valenti was hired (although he knew nothing about the film business) only because he was well know on Capital Hill through his connection with the Johnson administration. It worked. To his credit, Valenti came up with the rating system that assuaged Congress's thirst for film industry regulation. So Mr. Vee earned his keep for the first few years; but how long can you keep tweeking the Rating system? He needed something new and exciting, so he hit on the anti-pirarcy theme and has been playing it like a virtuoso violist ever since.

His Washington insidership allowed him to enlist the FBI, and before you knew it, those FBI warnings appeared on just about everything that came out of Hollywood. The FBI insiders became miffed that the MPAA had made it look like they were the MPAA's own private police force, many times paying thousands of dollars for the FBI to mount sting operations manuvered by the security people in the MPAA. The MPAA always made it a point to inform the local media when FBI agents were about to uncover a priacy "ring" -- Joe Schmo with his video camera pointed at a movie screen.

Gotta stop -- FANTASIA in the park and I've got to get some sleep. As of this evening, the print is "lost in transit." Swank says they will have it for us sometime tomorrow. We go on the screen at dusk. I am not panicing yet. But talk to me around 3pm tomorrow.

Wish me luck

Frank

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 07-25-2002, 07:13 AM:

From the MPAA's own web-site:

MPAA Anti-Piracy

quote:
To battle the problem, in 2000, the MPA launched over 60,000 investigations into suspected pirate activities, and more than 18,000 raids against pirate operations in coordination with local authorities around the world.

If these numbers are to be believed, then there is a whole lot of bad stuff going on. My son, who was in East Asia last year, could see all our first run movies the week of, if not before, their release on DVD. Yes the MPAA is the strong arm of the studios (not to be taken necessarily in a positive light), but there is a problem here. It was a shock to me to see these types of videos (and CDs) being offered at a public swap meet, at a closed drive-in no less.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-26-2002, 11:59 AM:

Living in a college town where high-speed internet abounds, a few bootlegs pop up now and then. From the ones I've watched, (or rather "looked at" since they were basically unwatchable) I've never noticed a CAP code, and sometimes not even the changeover cue since they're cropped to hell.

Now, I've seen a few pretty impressive ones, a friend of mine downloaded a telecine transfer of Spiderman where the full 35mm frame was transferred, so it would pop in and out of various aspect ratios throughout the movie. Still, no CAP code, and you couldn't see anyone's face unless it was a close-up.

Sometimes, they're entertaining. I saw your typical cam-in-the-auditorium job for a FOX movie where someone horribly coughed right after the fanfare and the entire audience laughed...

If these are the alleged bootlegs that are costing the industry millions (billions?) of dollars every opening weekend, then we can rest assured that quality doesn't matter to people anymore, and DLP is around the corner...

=TMP=

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-26-2002, 01:24 PM:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To battle the problem, in 2000, the MPA launched over 60,000 investigations into suspected pirate activities, and more than 18,000 raids against pirate operations in coordination with local authorities around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I mean. Who can believe such numbers -- that's like what, a "raid" very 10 minutes of every day of the year? And if they are making these so-called raids and there STILL is rampant piracy, that means that pool of pirates are replacing the ones caught it the raids even FASTER than that! Where are all these skilled priates coming from? If you can believe this MPAA nonsense, every graduating college kid must be diving right into the bootlegging business; the pirate recrutment must be running overtime.

It would give the MPAA a lot more credibility if they didn't hype the numbers and put out these shock statements. Then immediately after telling you about the hundreds of millions that they loose because of these guys with the patches over the one eye and the wooden leg, they turn around and boast how the movie industry is the strongest its ever been with records opening records being broken every time a new blockbuster hits the screen. Well, you can't have it both ways -- either piracy is really hurting you, or you're making money hand over fist....decide which it is.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2002, 02:34 PM:

Frank Angel said: "...either piracy is really hurting you, or you're making money hand over fist....decide which it is."

Given a choice, I'd rather be making the money.

Seriously, the film industry needs to make it difficult for pirates to get good copies of films. Theatres can:

* Be on the lookout for anyone attempting to copy a film with a camcorder. Post a notice offering a reward for any employee or customer discretely reporting someone in the audience using a camcorder. Prominently post a notice that camcorders will be confiscated, and then do it, and turn them in to the authorities. You're probably only catching "small fish", but word gets around.

* Limit print access. Leaving film shipments in publicly accessable areas is just asking for a print to be "borrowed" for telecine transfer.

* Get to know your print delivery people. Document shipping and receiving of prints.

* Limit projection room access. Use door locks that require a pass or personal passcode, recording the time of entry and exit to keep a log of off-hours activity.

* Report suspicious activity. Why would prints be delivered anywhere but a theatre or film exchange? Why are thousands of tape cassettes or DVD blanks needed at a back-alley "lab"? Why does that dumpster have scrap cassette or jewel case labels for a current movie? Why is the print on a different platter level than it was when the last show finished last night?

The MPAA anti-piracy awards program is real, and an incentive to report piracy:
http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-27-2002, 05:13 PM:

To continue:

Why is there a telecine projector setup in the booth?

Why is the print being picked up by a guy named Cheech in his SUV instead of the Airborne truck?

Why is your assistant manager always on the phone with a company called El Cheapo Film to Video Transfers Inc.

Why did you find a rack of computer equipment with a bank of three dozen DVD burners and two dozen VCRs in the basement behind the old standees.

And lastly, Why was your projectionist seen at the corner of 42nst Street and Broadway with a display case full of the DVDs of all the titles currently playing at your theatre yelling " Come and get em -- all the movies playing down the street on DVD -- any title $5, two for $9, except STAR WARS Episode 2 which is $1."

Frank

An aside: How times have changed. When I worked in a small town in Texas, we used to leave the film cans outside the lobby -- I mean OUTSIDE the theatre, totally unprotected. The pickup truck came usually within the hour of our closing, but still, being a native New Yorker, I couldn't quite get used to that. But, in those days, it jsut wasn't a worry; they never had a theft. The only trouble they had was once a bunch of Aggies go a cartoon and unrolled the film down the interstate.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-28-2002, 09:48 AM:

"As already pointed out, the majority of these pirates are noting more than guys pointing camcorders at the screen. So what if the cap code transfers to the print (along with the guy's head in front of the bootlegger). It only proves what print was taped in what theatre, but without other physical evidence, that's not going to catch anybody."

Does this camera thing really happen? You couldn't exactly set up a tripod in the middle of the auditorium; I suppose you might be able to balance a camera on the back ot the seat in front. Hand holding, apart from the difficulty of keeping it still, would hardly be practical during a two hour feature. Surely, any use of a camcorder in the auditorium would be pretty obvious; wouldn't somebody notice, and grab the culprits on their way out - with the evidence.

Setting up a camera in the projection box might be a slightly better bet, but any chief projectionist, or manager who did this, or permitted it to be done in their cinema, would be highly likely to get caught, and would face instant dismissal, and prosecution; would they take the risk?

I have see a few pirate DVDs, and have been able to examine one closely. It was of 'Return of the Jedi'. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a DVD release of this title, so it must have been a pirate. The disk was in an Amaray type case, of unknown make. The isert card, actually paper, was printed four colour litho, guite well done, no obvious moire from reproducing previously screened material. The text was in both English and Chineese, or some similar language. The style of the artwork was rather different to that which I am used to seeing here, but may be similar to legitimate material in the part of the world where it was made, I don't know. It had all the usual DVD, Dolby Digital etc. logos, and was probably assembled from scans of various existing material. The disk istelf was a DVD5 (single sided, single layer), a proper pressed disk, with screen printed artwork, not bad quality, but not quite up to the standard of a legitimate product. The copyright notice around the edge was in black, over a white drop out in the image. The registration between the two wasn't quite right, and some of the other printing was slightly blurred.

The sound was, as claimed, DD 5.1.

The video vas in 4:3 format with the picture letterboxed, I didn't measure the exact ratio, and had Chineese, or similar, subtitles burned in on the lower black border. Video format was NTSC, with composite video artifacts visible in places. The disk claimed to be region 6, but was actually enabled for all regions. The whole film was one chapter, and there were no 'extras'. Overall, picture and sound quality were very good. My best guess for the origin of this material would be an NTSC laserdisc, but I don't know for certain.

This DVD was clearly very different from something made by somebody pointing a camcorder at a cinema screen, and a fairly large run must have been made to justify the set-up costs, and would be a serious threat to legitimate sales, but surely, anything recorded with a camcorder in a cinema would be so bad that anybody tricked into buying it would have to throw it away, and buy a legitimate, or better pirate, copy.

There are a number or traders on the internet who openly advertise what are clearly pirate DVDs, and VCDs, for sale, imported from overseas. Surely it wouln not be difficult to take action against such obvious, and large-scale piracy, just look thrugh the DVD newsgroups go to the web-sites you see mentioned which advertise these products, order some, then prosecute them for piracy if the goods turn up, or fraud if they don't.

Surely, this sort of thing must be a much more serious problem than someone trying to record off screen in a cinema.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-28-2002, 04:30 PM:

You are right -- the point and shoot guys are no threat.

However, I did see a letterboxed VHS copy of TITANIC while it was still in the theatres and the quality was about what you would expect from a generation away from a legitimate release, with one exception -- cassette 2 had no soundtrack, although this might have been a fault of this one copy. In the black area below the image, was the text something to the effect of: "Preview copy. Only for AMPAS members. These are the fairly decent copies that are troublesome to the studios because they are good enough that people will buy them.

But it leads me to this thought: the industry might want to stop that knee-jerk reaction of always looking with a collective raised eyebrow at every theatre projectionist as if they were the source of all things pirated and look to some of their own Academy members for a possible source of bootlegged copies.

Frank

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-28-2002, 05:33 PM:

Stephen: if you Return of the Jedi pirate DVD was a 4.7gb single sided/layer disc containing an entire feature, then the bitrate must be pretty low - between 4 and 5, I'd guess. That in itself must have made the picture look not much better than a camcorder job. I never encode below 8.0 VBR as I think you can really see the picture degradation, even on a portable telly or bogstandard S-VGA monitor. The most I've ever been able to get on a single disc was 82 minutes, and that was black-and-white.

If it was a pressed disc from a glass master rather than a DVD-R then these pirates must have made serious numbers of copies. There can't be that many DVD pressing plants in existence - surely Mr. Valenti's FBI friends would be able to identify the facility which manufactured it from evidence on the disc, and then pursue the matter through (international, if necessary) law.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-28-2002, 07:16 PM:

"Stephen: if you Return of the Jedi pirate DVD was a 4.7gb single sided/layer disc containing an entire feature, then the bitrate must be pretty low - between 4 and 5, I'd guess. That in itself must have made the picture look not much better than a camcorder job. I never encode below 8.0 VBR as I think you can really see the picture degradation, even on a portable telly or bogstandard S-VGA monitor. The most I've ever been able to get on a single disc was 82 minutes, and that was black-and-white."

I have several DVDs of more than 82 minutes which are single layer. I don't know how long 'Return of the Jedi' is, I've never seen the film, apart from the few minutes which I watched on this disk. I only have a small television, but I would say that the quality was similar to laserdisc, and certainly better than VHS. My player can display the bit rate, but I didn't look to see what it was on this disk. I have just checked a few of my DVDs, and the bit rate seems to be typically about 6 or 7. These are all commercial releases, I have no exprerience of doing MPEG 2 encoding or DVD authoring myself.

"If it was a pressed disc from a glass master rather than a DVD-R then these pirates must have made serious numbers of copies. There can't be that many DVD pressing plants in existence - surely Mr. Valenti's FBI friends would be able to identify the facility which manufactured it from evidence on the disc, and then pursue the matter through (international, if necessary) law."

This was a pressed disk, and that's just the point I was making; a DVD pressing plant is not exactly something which somebody could set up in their bedroom. This is clearly large-scale commercial piracy, and I cannot understand how it happens. I couldn't walk into a any DVD production company in this country, and have them run off a few thousand copies of a major feature film for me. What happens in the Far East, are the pirates operating on such a large scale that they can set up their own production plants, or do the 'legitimate' plants not care, and are happy to do work for the pirates?

Also, how can organisations openly advertise the sale of what are clearly pirate disks, on the internet. Surely it cannot be too difficult to put a stop to this sort of thing, at least the distribution in this country, if not the production overseas.

If the industry is serious about putting a stop to piracy then they need to go after the people who are importing, and distributing this stuff on a large scale.

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 07-28-2002, 07:42 PM:

There are a few countries that don't follow copyright laws, and don't cooperate with shutting down pirates. Piracy of coarse thrives in these countries. Expensive pressing equipment doesn't seem to be uncommon, as they make a huge profit from the CDs and DVDs.

One thing to look for is these discs are almost always region 0 (zero). Another thing is the copyright notice will generally have a poor english translation - sometimes with spelling errors.

Now why these make it through customs I have no idea. Some vendors that sell them even claim they aren't bootlegs.

Steven Gorsky

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-28-2002, 08:18 PM:

A guy in N.Z. runs 2 day online auctions starting on a Friday night.

This is because we kept complaining & his auctions were being cancelled.
We started to forward these onto the MPANZ but to little effect.
Now between the DVD user group we simply bid for these & do not complete the sale.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-28-2002, 10:54 PM:

I attended the sci-fi/anime/"geek" convention known as MegaCon in Orlando a while ago where Kevin Smith was the featured speaker. On the convention floor, there were several booths of individuals selling various videotapes, from legitimate commercial copies, to re-edits (such as Episode 1 with Jar Jar removed), to downright bootlegs of screeners!! Ironic enough, "Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back" which had not come out on video or DVD at the time, was readily available at these booths.

During the question and answer period with Kevin Smith, someone asked how he felt about his film being readily available for sale downstairs before its release. He said that he wasn't worried about them hurting sales and whatnot, and that he even wouldn't mind autographing one of the bootleg copies if someone wanted. He ended by saying, "...the film made millions of dollars, so it doesn't really bother me that someone wants to make a few bucks on the side." He actually found it flattering that fans liked the film that much.

Then you have someone like Lucas, when his low-definition mess of a movie was available in a choppy, 8-fps AVI file with the sound cutting out every 5 minutes a week before release, screaming and shouting that he will lose "Millions of Dollars" in opening weekend ticket sales.

=TMP=

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-29-2002, 01:09 AM:

There you go, Tom.....proof that more than a few people in this industry are insane.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 08-14-2007, 05:35 PM:

It has been 1842 days since the last post.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-14-2007, 05:35 PM:

Someone today posted to the Wikipedia discussion page for Coded Anti Piracy, noting that Technicolor's CAP codes are described in US Patent 7,206,409 issued April 17, 2007 filed September 25, 2003. Patent assigned to Technicolor and Warner Brothers.

Link to the patent at USPTO (TIFF images)

Link to the patent at freepatentsonline (PDF images)

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-14-2007, 07:55 PM:

Interesting reading John! Here is a direct pdf download to the patent for convenience.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-14-2007, 08:01 PM:

Thanks, Brad. I don't pretend to understand patents, but I would think that much of this patent would be eclipsed by the 1982 Kodak CAP prior art.

Also, it's utterly hilarious (to me) that apparently the patent was first rejected because a pending application for an MPEG-4 decoder was believed by the examiner to be prior art, apparently because it included start codes and resynchronization codes in the MPEG-4 bitstream, and that was thought to be analagous to CAP marks on a film frame (!). Maybe I'm reading it wrong (this is in the PAIR database on uspto.gov).

--jhawk

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-25-2007, 01:29 AM:

While we're at it, while glancing at Deluxe's web site, apparently they have a trade name for their CAP code: "Forensic Coding Technology (FCT)."

--jhawk

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2007, 04:08 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
What happens in the Far East, are the pirates operating on such a large scale that they can set up their own production plants, or do the 'legitimate' plants not care, and are happy to do work for the pirates?

At some point in the last five years I read some article somewhere revealing that it's the former. China, The Philippines and Indonesia are apparently where most of these pressing plants are. They do a small amount of legit pressing to formally justify their existence, but the bulk of their output is of pirate copies of western films and music, most of them destined for Asian and Far Eastern markets.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 08-25-2007, 10:28 PM:

Yeah I think it's the deluxe ones here, they have annoying little shapes made out of dots, like braille letters instead of the sparsely placed dots over there.

It was probably here I heard it, but I remember someone saying that for digital they should modify background features for each print to tell its location, like recoloring inanimate background objects in scenes, lampshades etc...

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-07-2008, 07:21 PM:

I saw my first CrAP coded DVD recently, unfortunately it was a commercial (UK Rental) release.

The DVD of The Illusionist was obviously scanned from a film print (shown by its unsteadiness)

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 03-08-2008, 06:13 AM:

So, Mark,
Where is the coding in the frame you supplied?

I see the buttons of the police officers uniforms. Is that what you think CAP Code looks like?

All of the ones I have seen are dark spots in relatively clear areas of brightness in the image. Because of this location, they are very distracting to the scene being projected.

Why not follow the TV folks and simply put the print number in the lower right hand corner of the image throughout the entire film? You could even put little prompts there for upcoming features. TV has some unique ideas about their audience.

KEN [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-08-2008, 11:22 AM:

The dots are green (not white) and were only visible for one frame (although they were there the frame after as DVD compression artefacts).

They should be more obvious in this larger image.

And an 'enhanced' version with the dots made more obvious.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 03-08-2008, 12:09 PM:

Thanks for popping those up. They are much less obvious than most I have ever seen.

KEN

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-08-2008, 01:02 PM:

I'm not buying that. A film print is a physical medium of which they can "burn" coding marks onto it. A DVD is data, and to put marks on the DVD would require a new master for each disc. Just what discs are you seeing these on?

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-08-2008, 01:13 PM:

It's possible that the print used to created the master DVD had been coded.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-08-2008, 03:31 PM:

DVDs aren't made from prints. Usually, the cut camera negative is used to make an interpositive and that is transferred to tape. Sound would be from 35mm mag fullcoat or multitrack digital masters. Internegatives and low-contrast prints can also be used for video transfers.

A transfer made from a print would look very contrasty and be unpleasant to watch.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-08-2008, 06:07 PM:

DVDs are not usually made from prints. But they can be.

--jhawk

Posted by Richard M. Garbarini (Member # 4693) on 03-10-2008, 01:08 PM:

The idea of the Cap coding sytem was to individualize master copies to assist in identifying the origin of pirated copies. This works two ways: when a pirate is prosecuted, they can tell where the pirated copy originated from. (each code corresponds to a master copy which is tracked.)

It also allows the studios to see which theatres have leakes.

Problem is, when copied with a cam corder, the Cap code is often lost.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-10-2008, 08:23 PM:

The images I posted above are genuine screenshots obtained from the UK rental version of 'The Illusionist', a commercially pressed disk. The first two images have not been edited except for resizing to make them fit the upload limits.

Since the code will be the same on all the DVDs pressed from the master I can only assume that they were used to track unauthorised use of the film version they were made from.

I did not notice any dirt on the transfer, however there was a noticeable instability.