Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Video monitor

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Video monitor (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Video monitor

Steven Neumann
Film Handler

Posts: 3
From: Lynton, Devon, UK
Registered: May 2019

posted 05-26-2019 06:54 PM

Hello. Using a Dolby DSS220, CAT no 745 IMB, and an NEC NC1200C with NC-80LB01, is it possible to connect a monitor to display the video output in the projection room? It would be useful to test play shows without using lamp hours and see how things are progressing without needing to look through the projector window. The DVI and HDMI ports are described as inputs in the literature I've seen, I'm not sure about the HDSDI BNC plugs, which are marked A, B, Sync In and Sync out. There's an ethernet port marked AUX, perhaps an ethernet connection to a laptop or PC could help?

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 05-26-2019 06:59 PM

quote: Steven Neumann
is it possible to connect a monitor to display the video output in the projection room?

The simple answer is "No".

That being said, I did hook up a system at one of the screening rooms
I work at which allowed me to view unencrypted content in a rack mount
monitor, but it involved using a couple of SDI Distribution Amps, an SDI
switcher, and an SDI compatible monitor, all of which I had available at
that location. It was very useful to check content & playlists for film
festivals, etc, without having to fire up the projection lamp.
But it could only be used with UNENCRYPTED content.

Although it was possible to do it this way, it tied up a couple of thousand
dollars worth of equipment to achieve. You can't just "plug in a monitor"

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-26-2019 09:45 PM

Like Jim says.

The whole DCI ecosystem is designed first and foremost with anti-piracy in mind, which means making it impossible for the decrypted video to be rendered on any display device other than a DCI-compliant projector.

I believe what Jim did was to take advantage of a feature on one specific model of Series 1 HD-SDI media block, whereby it is possible to shut off link encryption altogether. However, once you've done that, that server and media block will only play unencrypted (i.e. does not need a KDM to play) DCPs. Another hurdle is that that DCI "container" (native resolution) is 2,048 pixels wide, not the 1,920 used in the consumer and broadcast sectors. So even if you manage to get unencrypted video coming out of the media block, you then either need a native DCI 2K monitor, or a scaler, to enable that video to be displayed on most monitors.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-27-2019 01:10 AM

I know a few locations that point a camera on the screen.

Problem is though, studios don't like that either...

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 05-27-2019 05:31 AM

Marcel,

The OP mentioned saving lamp hours so that is not going to help either unfortunately

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 05-27-2019 09:51 AM

At several venues & film festivals, I still work with HD-CAM source
material, and one of the things I really like about the HD-CAM decks
(usually SONY's) have a small video playback window that's part of the
LCD control display panel. It's no more than about 1.5in square, if that,
and I don't understand why they can't do the same thing on a DCP servers.
I understand the DCP consortium's over-obsession with anti-piracy, but
geez, IMO it would be very handy to have a tiny, less than 2"sq image,
watermarked if necessary, for testing DCP's & playlists without powering
up the whole system, & without compromising security.

Sony SRHD-5500 HDCAM Deck

(Simulated picture, but this is what it looks like. Why can't they do this on DCP servers?)

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-27-2019 11:06 AM

You mean the servers that fit in the projector and have so little real estate left that they are now using mini-bnc connectors due to lack of space? You want those to have a little monitor?

With all current servers showing via IMBesq systems, what is on the drives is encrypted to the point of the IMB and its output goes right to the projector (typically the ICP or equivalent)...there is no point that an image is in the clear...by the design.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-27-2019 12:41 PM

I guess DCI's justification would be that there was no such thing as a preview monitor for 35mm (unless you had a Steenbeck in your booth!), and so we can jolly well live without them in the digital era, too.

The difference is that there are many defects and issues in a 35mm that can be detected from a bench examination. With a DCP drive, however, you need to ingest it and play it in order to know that you have a show.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 05-27-2019 01:17 PM

I think the early Quvis servers had a small display showing content. Obviously, DCI doesn't like it. It is not easy to create a standard that allows this kind of addition without specifying allowable/necessary picture parameters that would e.g. prevent any kind of piracy. I understand discussions like this would be crazy.

In theory they could have a small accessory LED light source that could be used to give just enough light into the light engine to watch something, somewhere. But that's all weird...

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Steven Neumann
Film Handler

Posts: 3
From: Lynton, Devon, UK
Registered: May 2019

posted 05-27-2019 02:36 PM

It seems that using the projector is the cheapest and simplest method then. I did read elsewhere on the forum about turning off link encrypt for un-encrypted content, but that seems inconvenient and would still require something to decode the output. We could open the lamp housing and get the usherette to shine a torch in there... [Smile]

So there is no socket that a video monitor can be plugged into, which explains why I couldn't find any details about connecting one. Thank you for your help. From an operating point of view a small display in the Dolby Show Manager control panel GUI would have been ideal, but I can see why from a security perspective this was not done, although with a watermark or logo superimposed on a low resolution image before it was output it would not be very usable elsewhere.

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 05-27-2019 06:03 PM

Given how prevalent pirated DVDs or low-res streams (280 lines or less) are, I don't think it would stop anyone.

Keep in mind that a watermarked copy from a low res source like a front panel would still be perfectly watchable on a smaller display like a watch or phone, and watermarks don't stop anyone who wants to watch the latest stuff "for free."

Watermarking is also a very "Spy vs. Spy" scenario:

quote:
“So-called ‘HashCode removal tools’ work in near real-time to strip away any kind of visual marks from a video feed. This ranges from unique fingerprints right down to the broadcaster’s on-screen logo that’s so familiar on many channels, both helping pirates to cover their tracks,” the company explains.

“These tools are so smart, they take a sample of the surrounding pixels and re-use them to replace the visual marks, so the viewer of the pirate stream barely notices any disturbance in the picture.”

Irdeto says that its work with TV companies has revealed an uptick in the use of such tools in recent months. That’s partially down to how readily available they are.

“Research by Irdeto’s anti-piracy team found HashCode removal tools openly on sale via popular selling platforms like eBay and Alibaba for less than US$2,000,” the company reveals.

“These devices fall into a legal grey-area. They don’t actively ENABLE piracy, but they do help pirates to mask their identity. This means the sellers don’t even need to be shy about describing exactly what their products can achieve,” Irdeto notes.

‘Live’ TV Piracy Watermarking Defeated by Devices Sold on eBay

This company even proudly has a demo on YouTube:

HashCode Remove Pro in Action Demo 2

It wouldn't be hard at all to run a low res capture through such a device and then through an upscaler to generate 480p for DVD/streaming release.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-27-2019 06:44 PM

It's obvious that "dewatermarking" would eventually become available. Those anti-piracy measures are a cat and mouse game. Yet, there hasn't really been a confirmed high-profile DCI leak in the history of DCI. Most leaks have been screeners sent out by the studios or leaks on their side...

Although, I'd say that it is pretty hopeless to fight those who would watch such crappy videos, like those captured from a front panel with a mere 300 lines or so. Are those really your paying customers?

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 05-27-2019 07:22 PM

That's the question no one has ever been able to answer.

The recording industry says piracy kills record sales, many younger people say they would never pay money for music. The real answer lies somewhere in between.

Are there people who don't go to a theater because they've watched a 240i video on their phone? Undoubtedly.

Does that reduce the amount a blockbuster like Avengers: Endgame bring in? Not a huge amount, I suspect.

The issue lies in between; what about a movie like the new Aladdin? I suspect Will Smith's genie comes across as well on a 2" screen as a 40 foot one, and a good chunk of the audience first saw the animated one on a seat-back screen in a minivan. :-)

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-27-2019 07:48 PM

There is simply no denying that piracy has both hurt and actually helped creative industries at large, although nobody in the industry is willing to acknowledge the latter.

And although nobody is buying records anymore, almost everybody I know now has a subscription to a streaming service like Spotify. Also, live shows seem to have become the new milking devices, as tickets to those events never have been more expensive.

Yes, there might be the odd case where somebody doesn't want to go to see Aladdin, because he/she's seen the 300x200 pixel version bootlegged from a monitoring screen somewhere, but the number of people that really base their decision on this will probably be so small, it isn't worth the effort to fight it.

In my opinion, the best remedy against such kind of piracy, is simply by offering the paying public a far better product.

The best solution seems to be in the studio's hands though: Just make movies people actually want to see...

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-27-2019 10:13 PM

I belong to no audio streaming services (that I'm aware or take advantage of). I do visit YouTube and have heard music "for free" there but I'm not part of their various means of paying.

I do have a CD collection that continues to grow (not quickly).

I would argue that with the demise of the studio system in records, the quality of recording/music has gone down. It isn't that you can't show good examples from current times but there simply isn't the budgets of yesteryear to develop and make albums. The whole concept of albums isn't there (for most).

I agree however, somewhere between "I won't pay for content" and "I won't pay that much for content" is likely "Okay, I'll pay for that."

Is is true, however, there are people that do not see the copyrighted work of others as something they stole because they have not deprived anyone else of buying it (they didn't steal a physical thing, they stole a viewing or a copy of that thing). They don't get that it wasn't theirs to take, view, copy...etc.

There is no price cheap enough for them. I think part of what motivates them is the challenge of getting away with it.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.