This is topic OK, If you don't like CAP codes, what would you do? 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=001135
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-28-2000, 06:30 PM:
Obviously, it has to be on the print. It has to be able to keep up with hi-speed printing while being applied. It can't be easily edited out.Off hand, I can't think of something significantly better. What would you suggest?
Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 06-28-2000, 06:41 PM:
I know this would not work after the film was transferred to video, but what about getting Dolby and/or Sony to somehow imbed some sort of print number in the digital information on the film.This probably would not be helpful with tracing the origin of pirated tapes, but you could identify recovered prints and get the source theatre/depot.
Russ
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-28-2000, 11:21 PM:
You could just convert the entire industry to digital cinema. That way video copies look really good. None of that annoying shutter flicker.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2000, 06:18 AM:
This is a very simple one. I'm surprised the minds at Kodak haven't thought of this one yet. Just manufacture the rolls of film in 100 foot sections! Then join them together, making sure to intentionally misframe the next splice by one perf and send the final "edited" roll to the labs for printing. The intentional misframing would ensure that at least 3 out of 4 splices would show on screen, thus creating one hell of a mark viewable on even a 30th generation video copy!It would be great! Every single print would then have it's own special on-screen code different from all the other prints! Plus, there wouldn't be any of that annoying CAP code marks that resemble dirt on the film!!! Yes, this would be perfect, as there aren't enough lab splices within prints as it is. 
(Of course I'm kidding. The CAP code is probably the best thing given the circumstances.)
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-29-2000, 08:39 PM:
Film is sensitive to wavelengths that the human eye can't see. (UV, IR, etc.) Film can be made to couple certain wavelengths to certain dyes. And, those dyes don't necessarily have to produce any given "color". That's how multi-contrast photographic paper works, you're just filtering different wavelengths that "activate" different layers in the emulsion.Video cameras are sensitive to wavelengths that human's can't see, either. Further, they don't necessarily have to couple with any color that's visible on the TV screen. (IR light looks blue in a video cam. -- Counter-intuitive until you think for a while.)
Just supposing here but if you built a layer into the film that was sensitive to only a very narrow band of IR/UV light and coupled that to a dye that filtered a wavelength that TV cameras could register but couldn't display, you could put anything you want on the film. For instance, you could put vertical stripes down the film that resemble bar codes in the supermarket. They could be recorded on video tape but since they are just outside of the CRT's ability to display them, the only way to see them would be to play the tape through some sort of video analyzer. An oscilloscope, for instance.
The scope would display a pattern of "pips" like this that correspond to the location of the lines in the "bar code", like this.
--------^---^------^----^^----------------
This could be throughout the whole length of a reel (or reels) and there would be no way of removing it or even finding it unless you scientifcally analyzed the film.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2000, 12:23 AM:
Well, this is a long shot, but most if not all camcorders can pick up IR. Point your remote control at your camera and press a button. See the flashing light on the screen? The human eye can't see that in real life, but the camera can. Now take into account that most cinema screens are perforated, at least the ones that show movies that people would want to pirate. It would cost some money, but there could be an array of IR LED's scattered behind the screen that flash constantly while the projector is running. The human eye wouldn't see this, but the camera could not avoid it, and it would totally ruin any copy made.I suppose the flaws with this idea would be that someone could power off the IR LED array, and there may be filters available for cameras to block stuff like that.
Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 06-30-2000, 02:24 AM:
Joe, my ex brother in law used to be an engineer at a TV station. Had I ever wanted to lead a life of crime, I'd have taken my prints there.There's no screen to put IR LEDs behind. When they showed film (yes, I'm that old) they projected directly into a camera. Used a light source and everything!
I'll try and get him to register here. He's a computer geek now, but he was once a top notch TV guy.
AND! He's older than me so I'll feel better too!
Russ
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-30-2000, 07:04 AM:
Infrared "watermarking" is certainly feasible, as many video cameras do "see" infrared light that the human eye cannot see.------------------
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