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

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Harry Potter 7.1 leaked online...big surprise.

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 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!

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Manny Montes
Master Film Handler

Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Manny Montes
Master Film Handler

Posts: 270
From: United States
Registered: Feb 2010

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Don Furr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 509
From: Sun City, Ca USA
Registered: Nov 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 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).

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-18-2010 07:39 PM

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

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.