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

This is topic Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise. in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006301

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-17-2010, 02:32 PM:

So much for the so-called "security" of D-Cinema: just found this news item about how the first 36 minutes of the movie is already on the 'net:
LINK

quote:
Movie bosses to prosecute 'Harry Potter' pirates
Nov. 17, 2010, 9:27 AM EST
Photos: 'Deathly Hallows'
Bing: 'Deathly Hallows' clips

WENN

Executives at the Warner Bros. film studio are planning to prosecute any Internet user caught pirating the new "Harry Potter" movie online, after scenes from the blockbuster leaked early.

The first part of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" hits the big screen on Friday, but earlier this week, the first 36 minutes of the blockbuster were discovered on several download sites.

Related: More on the 'Deathly Hallows'

Bosses at the movie studio are fuming over the leak, and have vowed to take legal action against "those involved."

A statement from Warner Bros. chiefs reads, "A portion of 'Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part One' was stolen and illegally posted on the Internet. This constitutes a serious breach of copyright violation and theft of Warner Bros. property.

More: Get up to date with a 'Potter' Primer

"We are working actively to restrict and/or remove copies that may be available. Also, we are vigorously investigating this matter and will prosecute those involved to the full extent of the law."

The second part of the wizard tale, starring Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, is due to be released next July.

Makes me wonder if this movie was originated, post-produced and distributed EXCLUSIVELY on film if this kind of thing would still be happening?

Or better yet, eliminate the dvd/blu-ray Hollywood screeners!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-17-2010, 02:39 PM:

Pffftt...come on, Tony. You're not falling for that are you? They leaked it themselves.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-17-2010, 02:59 PM:

LOL, a distinct possibility..but I'll bet the MPAA would have a cow over it. [Smile]

I guess the REAL test will be to see how soon (or if) the "pirated" material is taken down.

Manny said the same thing on the other HP7.1 thread.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-17-2010, 03:25 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Manny said the same thing on the other HP7.1 thread.

Hmmm...yes. Just saw that.

Why did you post the same thing in two different threads? [Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2010, 04:02 PM:

Who cares about the first half hour? If the LAST half hour was leaked there'd be a problem.

The whole thing will be online by 3:00 AM Friday anyway.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 11-17-2010, 07:40 PM:

I bet it would have still happened if it was exclusively on film. Its ok to hate on digital for the real problems it has, this is just stretching it.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-17-2010, 09:58 PM:

Good point Mike.

Manny, this has nothing to do with hating on digital, if you read my OP and stop to think for a minute, you'd realize that the point is, it's a matter of ease of transfer to online with so many stages being in the electronic domain. It is simply EASIER to get it online faster, without having to transfer from film elements first.

Remember that one of the key selling points of D-Cinema was supposed to be immunity from piracy.

And in the last few years piracy seems to have gotten worse, with better quality material showing up online. It is the worst I have seen in the 26+ years I have been in this business.

I think, now, that John hit it on the head, the STUDIO leaked that footage and is doing it for publicity.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 11-18-2010, 01:29 AM:

Better technology exists for piracy as well, I feel that even if D-cinema wasn't used in this we would probably still have a high quality pirated copy out there before it releases.

As for it being the studio releasing it, i'm not sure, but I wouldn't put it past them to use as a marketing ploy

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 11-18-2010, 05:24 AM:

I guess we'll know if this is really a advertising hoax IF no one is ever prosecuted. Time will tell.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-18-2010, 07:22 AM:

What would be cool would be if someone here were able to tell where it came from - either from decoding the crap code dots or IDing the watermarks on the screener. If it turned out to be from a screener then NATO should go after the studios for a practice that is potentially harmful to their business.

Not a likely scenario, but I can dream about it for a couple of minutes.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-18-2010, 04:00 PM:

Tony: With so much of a movie like this being effects driven, even if you went traditional cut-neg, like "Inception," or the "Matrix" Trilogy I bet 70% of this film would come off of a film recorder. . .

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

Even if you did a film without a single special effect, academy aperture, I don't think anyone in Hollywood has done a film workprint since the early 1990s.

So even there you have a chance to steal an electronic copy.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2010, 06:54 PM:

With the way Warner Bros. ratchets up compression levels to squeeze the video bit rate as much as possible on every video medium they sure make it easier for pirates to copy, manipulate and upload the show to the Internet (provided a digital source such as a studio screener is being used).

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-18-2010, 07:39 PM:

Bobby, the DCP for HP is only about 93GB.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2010, 10:34 PM:

Exactly. I wonder why Warner Bros. has at least some of its virtual prints (or maybe all, I don't know) "weighing" less than half of what most virtual prints use in hard drive space. Aren't most D-cinema virtual prints upwards of 200GB or more in size on the disc? There's lots of room to spare on those hard discs. They usually ship 300GB or larger hard discs. Why squeeze the video down to a smaller size when it isn't necessary?

Warner Bros. routinely does this on most of their Blu-ray titles. Sites like DVD Beaver provide all the stats. WB movies on Blu-ray typically have much lower bit rates and take up far less space on Blu-ray discs than titles from other studios. They use lower bit rates on audio or even lossy audio only if they can get away with it. It's funny in a way to see WB put a movie on a dual layer BD-50 and have the feature encoded to where it could almost fit on a single 25GB platter.

Obviously there is a philosophy in place at WB. A stupid one.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-18-2010, 10:45 PM:

That last awful Will Ferrell movie was something like 50GB, but of course that was suitable for the content.

Also the actual discs they are shipping out these days are as large as 1TB. The 1TB discs have come down so much in price, its foolish to go with something smaller, especially since they are now starting to throw as many as 5 different versions of the same movie onto the hard drive.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 11-18-2010, 11:52 PM:

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

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2010, 12:30 AM:

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

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

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-19-2010, 07:30 AM:

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

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 11-19-2010, 09:09 AM:

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

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

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

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-19-2010, 10:04 AM:

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

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-21-2010, 01:10 PM:

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

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 11-21-2010, 01:49 PM:

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

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

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

-David

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-21-2010, 02:01 PM:

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2010, 03:45 AM:

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-22-2010, 06:12 AM:

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

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2010, 10:29 AM:

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

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

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