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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The Single Worst Use of CAP Code, Ever: A Rant (Page 4)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: The Single Worst Use of CAP Code, Ever: A Rant John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-08-2004 07:30 AM                        quote: Thomas Procyk was the last to post ...at least a bit more detail? Sorry for being skeptical, but I'm just curious how it all works. I know how it's supposed to work, but fail to see how it does. Thomas: I've told you all the public domain information you are entitled to know. Disclosing any more would be helping any potential film pirates lurking here with their criminal activities. For more information, you will need to contact the MPAA or FBI, or "do your homework" in researching newspaper and magazine articles, technical papers, and court records. Suffice it to say that CAP Code (and its more recent versions) has been in use since 1982. For over 20 years, distributors have been willing to pay extra to have CAP Codes applied to prints, and to have pirated copies decyphered. It works, or they wouldn't be paying for it. As I noted, I suspect that a variety of coding methods may be used on any given print, ranging from the visible codes, to audio encoding, to image phase techniques, to methods that are still secret. A film pirate removing, altering, or spoofing the large dots may just be fooling themselves, and will be nabbed by one of the other watermarks.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-08-2004 09:31 AM                     Not to worry on the changeover cues...They will be there until the end of studios using film prints. All of the "important" rooms (those that the studio is paying for the screening of whatever title) run changeover due to the nature of the rooms. As such, cues will be there as a CYA to ensure there is no excuse for a blown changeover. The cues are established and accepted by all studios. Rather than removing them, they would rather just go to the perfection of digital projection. As to the rest of the theatres...don't you all get it...you just don't matter...look at the CAP code that is plainly visible, the prints that are contact printed all of the way to ensure slippage and image movement and the 1000 other defects that are allowed because it just doesn't matter to them...when it hits video in the home...the cues will be gone. Steve  |  IP: Logged Matthew Jaro Film Handler Posts: 74 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-08-2004 09:39 AM                        In response to Paul Mayer about cue marks: On older prints there is often a ton of splices in the last few feet. Listening for a splice to go through the gate would not be too useful. The modern prints don't have holes (like the Clint Fahr cue markers made) but black circles that are generally not too noticable, since reel changes often occur on fadeouts. The old TV prints often had multiple sets of cue marks, including diamonds cut in the frame, cues for advertisement insertion, etc. They were very noticable. But that is not the case with modern prints. Besides eight frames every twenty minutes is better than red splotches all over the place. Cue marks aren't bad if you compare them to the 15 minutes of credits that roll by on every film. Are the credits more a part of the film than the cue marks? Often, they will have an awful song at the end of the film that completely breaks the mood and is recorded too loud. The Matrix films are a great example of this.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-08-2004 10:16 AM                        Cue marks are actually part of the SMPTE Standards: SMPTE 55 and SMPTE 301M: http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/numindex.pdf quote: — NUMERICAL INDEX OF STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND ENGINEERING GUIDELINES Any print that may be projected with changeovers needs to have cue marks per the standards. quote: Matthew Jaro The modern prints don't have holes (like the Clint Fahr cue markers made) The Clint Phare cue markers did not make holes. They scribed the emulsion.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2004 01:37 PM                        "An awful song that is too loud??" That pretty much describes the mood of the Matrix films. Cue marks are cool and should stay. I wonder how much it costs a studio to have CAP code put on the prints for a typical run.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-08-2004 05:40 PM                     Alright I've had enough and I'm about to rant! quote: John Pytlak Thomas: I've told you all the public domain information you are entitled to know. Disclosing any more would be helping any potential film pirates lurking here with their criminal activities. FYI John, that kind of response is precisely the wrong answer to be giving and sets most people off on this damned cap code. The people here are TRYING their damned best to put on a great show! When someone comes on and reports a section of a reel that has a lab splice with fogging and sound dropouts the recommended solution is "order a replacement reel" and an explanation is given as to why the labs are so overworked and things like that occasionally happen. GREAT! Problem solved. Granted if the prints had arrived 2 days prior to the opening day of the film, the problem would've been solved before the first couple of thousand patrons paying to see that print would not have had a botched moviegoing experience. But hey, at least there is a solution. But what happens when someone comes on here and complains about this crap code from hell that keeps getting bigger and more obnoxious? Well it's all blamed on piracy and NO EFFORT toward a SOLUTION is given! Yes that's right, it's nothing more than a "well geez, we'd love for you to have a great presentation, but kiss off because the cap code is this new marvel of anti-piracy technology and it's caught at least a half dozen pirates over the last 20 years." If it is really some all-powerful unbeatable code, then somebody needs to get their butt on here and explain it to put the fear of God into everyone over it. Problem is that it isn't all that it's cracked up to be and everybody knows it. Tom, since John wouldn't answer your question, I will. Divide the screen into sectors. Now label the sectors. Place an ugly cap code dot in this sector, and that sector, and that sector and that sector. When you see a cap coded frame, you see which sectors the evil dots appeared in and do whatever the cap code mathematical formula of the month is, which gives you the print number. Voila, sounds great on paper! In the real world it is just ANOTHER thing that is KILLING the moviegoing experience. John adamantly defends the cap code that he helped to invent back in the early 80s, and indeed a lot of thought and care was put into making sure THAT version of the cap code did not distract from the moviegoing experience, for it was VERY DIFFICULT to see until it was pointed out. Kudos to John and the original cap code team for doing it right back then. Back then the dots were so small, even if you knew what to look for, you could tune it out. Not today's bastardization, though. And then there's Uncle Jack. This guy actually wants us to do body searches, rectal probes and confiscate all items from our patrons...all just to make sure that nobody ends up bootlegging a movie via their wristwatch! Oh but that's not good enough! Now we are supposed to be walking the auditoriums every 10 minutes with night vision goggles, because our customers don't mind being treated like fucking criminals. Now this is going to royally tick Uncle Jack off, but this falls under fair use because I am making a point here. I was out at a drive-in recently shooting a theater video tour of the operation and something occured to me. Who is protecting the drive-ins??? The last few drive-ins I have been to I did not see body cavity searching going on. Nor did I even see car searching. Surely no professional bootlegger would dare go to the drive-in where they can set up their videocamera rig on a tripod and bootleg the movie without any real chance of being bothered. And heck, there's FM stereo sound available to patch directy into the camera! No more babbling customers or echo'ey acoustics of a theater auditiorium to deal with! For that matter, lots of driveins could be bootlegged OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLEX thanks to a zoom lens and FM stereo sound! So just to prove the point I shot a few seconds off of the screen. The audio you will here in the background is literally recorded off of the built-in camera microphone which was playing through the car's FM radio. As everyone who knows me knows I am against bootlegging, I intentionally did not bother to set up some kind of FM radio that could be patched into the camera mic to show what an incredible audio recording could be achieved, because the idea of a direct patch-in to the videocamera should be obvious enough. This was shot about 600-700 feet away from the screen and no, I did not bother with any kind of tripod, for the same reasons that I present this to make a point, not to actually bootleg a movie. But here it is in all it's glory for you fine folks...18 seconds shot off of the screen at a drive-in with fabulous "internet compression" added to the image to boot... 1.6 megs Quicktime Clearly the only solution to prevent piracy is to no longer release films to theaters. All movies should just go straight to DVD and all theaters should close. It's what Uncle Jack would want. BTW, if anyone wants to see how annoying cap code is, just log into the chat room. We fully protect our chat room with our own special cap code just as obnoxiously as the MPAA does on the prints that destroy our presentation. Sorry John and seriously, no offence is intended here, but the cap coding blotches have gotten so out of hand, it's hard for me to believe that anyone supporting the current version of the cap code gives a flying shit about presentation. And my demonstration above of the kind of quality that can be had just by pointing a 24P camera at the screen proves that NOTHING will stop the criminals who are dead set on bootleging. Remember the phrase "make it idiot-proof and we'll build a better idiot"? This is really no different. The MPAA can come down harder and harder with more and more obnoxious, insulting and offensive rules and policies to put our customers through, but the pirates will just change the way they do things and very little will be accomplished in the end. At least, what little IS accomplished will be more than counteracted by all of the negatives associated with Jack's recent anti-piracy attempts. With as close as DVD releases are becoming, I'm getting more surprised the MPAA is even bothering anymore.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-08-2004 06:31 PM                  So Brad, how do you *REALLY* about all that? BTW: I agree. And if I hear one more time about "Film Done Right" and then see all that crap code AND how we all should accept it, I'm going to go throw up! No wonder why VIDEO will take over! You "corporate" guys and your hype are shoving it down our throats in a reverse manner by "excusing" SHITTY quality in film! Cut the corporate bullshit! It's getting REAL old! Yours in Christ, >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 08-08-2004 07:20 PM                     I'm speaking here as a consumer...they guy who pulls out the wallet and pays the money that allows this whole business to exist. I pay to see a movie...all of the movie. I don't want to see any dots, marks, scratches or whatever. I pay for the best presentation possible, and if I don't get it, I don't go back to that theatre. Yes, CAP code has caught bootleggers. But has it slowed the flow of illegal copies? Nope! We all know that you can find all of the new releases at the local flea market. Can anyone show me one film where any copy protection code has prevented its being bootlegged? (Digression ahead, but I'll get back to the topic.) I'm tired of the entertainment industry treating me as a criminal. I recently went to the local outdoor concert site, my first visit there. I was frisked...yes, hands on the body, slapping around frisked. The "official" reason was to keep out weapons (yes, the Earth Wind and Fire audiences are certainly a rowdy bunch...throw in Chicago, and we'll have a real riot! Better check them folks out.) The REAL reason they frisk is to keep out any form of food or drink that might keep me from buying a $5.00 or a $7.00 beer. I will never attend a concert there again. And the industry wonders why concert attendance is down this year? If a movie theatre tried to search me, I'd be back at the box office, demanding my money back. I will NOT allow that. Don't you realize you are just giving me another reason to STAY HOME? It's cheaper for me to buy a DVD and watch it under MY control as many times as I want than to go out. If it wasn't for the younger audience looking for an inexpensive place to go, the film business would be in big big trouble. Mr. Pytlak, you helped develop a system that was simple and effective, but its gotten out of control. Some day, maybe we'll have guard towers in the theatres, with the MPAA petitioning Congress for a license to shoot violators.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Stanley Film Handler Posts: 19 From: Chillicothe, OH, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 08-08-2004 07:56 PM                     Mark you just covered it all in your post. Many people feel the same way.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-08-2004 09:08 PM                        You are all complaining to the wrong person. Facts: 1. I worked on the Kodak team that developed the original CAP Code for the MPAA in 1982. So I am knowledgeable about the original technology, and have carefully followed developments in watermarking technology. 2. The MPAA and its member distributors have had all rights to and control of CAP Code since 1982. Kodak had no further direct involvement, other than providing occasional technical assistance to the labs using the Kodak-developed CAP Code. 3. For over 20 years, CAP Code was successful in tracing the origin of pirated prints. 4. Recently, for a variety of reasons, the original Kodak-developed CAP Code has been supplemented by watermarks that are more visible. Kodak was not involved in developing these new codes. 4. Distributors value CAP Code enough to pay extra to print it, and to decypher it from pirated videos. They know what CAP Code is, and view and approve "check prints" having the codes. 5. Distributors have a right to protect their property from piracy. 6. Piracy can occur in post production, in distribution, during shipping, in theatres and from "screener videos". Different safeguards and deterrents are needed at each stage. CAP Code is only one of many anti-piracy measures. 7. The visibility of watermarks is a known issue. Reducing the visibility of watermarks is desirable to make them less distracting to the audience, and harder for pirates to detect all of them. 8. It is likely that watermarks will evolve to less distracting, yet very robust, methods such as the technology Kodak has developed for Digital Cinema watermarking.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-08-2004 09:22 PM                     I guess the one thing sort of forgotten is that the distributor owns the print and can issue form they want (in an extreme they could even send it out prescratched) and as much as we don't like it it is not a projectionist job to remove or alter it The distributor who owns the print has the right to decide in an extreme case if the lost revenue due to capcodded loss of patronage is offset by the longer bootleg prevented window but they with full knowledge put it there in nthe first place  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 08-08-2004 10:01 PM                        All I know is last night I saw some pretty distracting cap code in Collateral. When the cop investigates the first death and he looks out the window to the pavement below, as the camera shows us the bare pavement, big rust-colored dots flash on the screen. It's as if they deliberately selected that shot to make the dots stand out as much as possible. The show was crowded and you could see heads in the audience react to the flash of those out-of-place dots. There's nothing like being jolted out of the movie and into thinking "What the hell was THAT?"  |  IP: Logged Steven Jantzen Film Handler Posts: 30 From: goodwell, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Jul 2004 posted 08-08-2004 10:19 PM                     first of all, Brad and Aaron, thank you very much for the pointers. Even after reading that link brad, I still have not been able to find any CAP code in our copy of the village, though my PM says he sees it clear as day. I guess i'm one of the lucky people that don't ever see it. (I never was any good at the "3d magic eye" puzzles, so go figure). Second (con't with CAP code) I am currently enrolled in college, and as such certain file sharing services are common sites. I'm not condoning bootlegging, a certain amount of skill goes into acting and directing, not to mention the photography and all that entails. I have however had freinds who obtained bootlegged copies of movies, and have such been notified by the movie companies, specifically paramount, to cease such activities. A gentle slap on the wrist if you will, and after that, they took the hint, and stopped. I have watched some of these said movies with them, and even then I never noticed any dots on the screen. (for being bootleg, they were pretty high quality.) Again, I guess i just can't see it. Third Pertaining to the C/O marks I find them quite handy when previewing a movie. Even before becoming a projectionist, when i saw them I really didn't care, it didn't detract from the experience. well, at least not for me. When I build up a print and I go to preview it the night before opening day, I find that with the C/O I can switch my attention from the movie that I am enjoying long enough to make sure the splice goes through correctly, then switch my attention back to the presentation and the actual movie itself. Yes, it grabs my attention whenever the first C/O cue goes through, and then I'm alert to watch the splice. I simply see no problem with them.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-08-2004 10:30 PM                     Steven, log into the chat room and watch the screen. That's cap code. John, let's be completely clear on this. Nobody is pointing the finger at you saying that the evil current cap code marks are YOUR fault. Everyone knows they aren't. Still, you know how corporate heads work. You get some geezer having a coronary at the mere thought of an eye patch and then he starts ranting and bitching and yelling about how pirates are "THE" reason for the industry's problems. (Not to mention any names here of course *cough Jack cough*) He throws out some numbers (valid or not) and everyone nods their heads in greed and corporate politics and then they make a decision to try the idea being presented which "will stop bootleggers". Then next month they try something else because the first technique didn't seem to affect the overall numbers. Then another month or two down the line they implement something else, all based upon the thought that this crap isn't bothering the paying customers, because they aren't smart enough to see the big picture that they ARE losing customers slowly but surely to home video!!! Before you know it, the cinema industry will have all of our customers with the same attitude that Mark Lensenmayer did such an excellent job of conveying above, and the cinema industry gets ran into the ground. But if you want to get technical and you absolutely insist on pointing fingers, sure it is technically *partially*, in an small and minute way, your fault for helping to devise something which ended up becoming this horrific blob of dots destroying presentations worldwide. (Still though, it's not your fault of what it turned into and everyone knows it.) Pointing out the obvious such as "it's the distributor's print" and "the original cap code was effective" does nothing. It's like the old saying "does a bear shit in the woods?" Well duh! This industry needs someone in a position such as yours who TRULY DOES CARE about film done right to speak up against the evildoers at the MPAA and slap some sense into them over the current bastardization of the cap code. With some of the excellent watermarking technology available today (developed by Kodak and others), there is no excuse for people to be using today's CRAP code. The links you have provided on the technology is more than enough to prove my point. Come on John, be our savior. You DO care about film done right, don't you? BTW John, did you enjoy the 18 second movie? Please let me know what print number that came from.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-08-2004 11:16 PM                  Ya know Brad, I'm not sure it's some "geezer" as you say. From my experience in the biz world it is **ALWAYS** the mid 20-30's something asshole marketing guy or pencil-pushing financial geek that feels he has to make a name for himself no matter what the cost is to all...including destroying a company. Oh, and let's not forget the lawyers! I'm not sure which of all those mentioned should be executed 1st. I vote to bring back torture! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.