Film-Tech Forums: New Anti-Piracy coding

»	Film-Tech Forums » Film Handler's Forum » New Anti-Piracy coding (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: New Anti-Piracy coding

Jeremy Weigel
Master Film Handler

Posts: 350
From: Edmond, OK, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 03-04-2008 01:11 AM

Can certainly say that I've not seen or heard anything like what Marco or Max have shown in those pics. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1285
From: Berkeley, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-04-2008 02:47 AM

how about turning off the analog led during the course of the movie. a 1/4 second silence during the dropout would probably be better than the beep (and defeat its purpose). assuming the digital track is sound in general.

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 231
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2007

posted 03-04-2008 06:53 AM

Watching 'The Bucket List' tonight, I swore I heard the farting noise described, so a possible confirmation.

| IP: Logged

Richard M. Garbarini
Film Handler

Posts: 5
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Feb 2008

posted 03-04-2008 08:15 AM

I can explain the process a little better. This method (analog bar code) must force the film to the analog to be effective. The "farting" noises (which I was unaware of) are the code, which will be transferred when the movie is pirated with a cam corder. Each print, either by laser or in the printing method, scares the other tracks forcing the analog to be used.

| IP: Logged

Max Biela
Film Handler

Posts: 87
From: Dortmund, Germany
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 03-04-2008 08:28 AM

There were a few different systems in use over the last few years:

1) a simple number scratched into the picture area (one frame, the last movie was Spiderman 1 I think). It's simple, not as distracting as dots appearing every few frames but easy to remove since it was only necessary to remove ONE frame.

2) The original CAP code by Kodak (small brown dots). Nearly invisible but difficult to find in a pirated copy (see older topics).

3) An updated version of the CAP code with big orange dots in one reel of the movie (used by Deluxe)

4) Noise scratched into the analogue soundtrack, at the same time the SR*D track is removed from 6-8 frames. This was done by the German company "EFS". I think there is a subdivision in the UK as well? Since most movies are released with 300-500 prints in Germany it was possible to scratch every single print by hand. The strange thing about it is that it works only in SR*D. Both DTS and SDDS are unaffected. I've seen this kind of mark on a print of "xXx" (SRD/DTS/SDDS) and SDDS was playing just fine as only one of the tracks was removed (->short DCM).
Shortly after the release of "xXx" most studios stopped using DTS in Germany so nearly all prints were SRD only, (Sonys prints had a SRD SDDS track). "Chicken Little", like most movies had a timecode but there were no discs available.
Recently most studios started releasing in DTS again. As mentioned above the DTS track contains "clicks" as well. I don't know how this is done but I think it has to do with the 1.46 firmware update. SDDS is the only soundtrack that's unaffected by anti-piracy codes, however Sony Pictures is the only distributor printing SDDS in Germany.

5) Technicolors system was developed after the release of "Chicken Little" but is based on the same "technology": reverting to SR and playing a noise instead. However it's much more distracting since it "bleeps" rather than "clicks" up to 10 (!!!) times a reel. I could try to record it if it would be possible to upload the mp3 onto the FT server.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 2124
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 03-04-2008 11:56 AM

What are the DTS clicks supposed to identify? The serial number of the unit maybe?

And how does the player know when to play the clicks? Is there a special trigger code on the DTS track (time code on the film or in the audio files themselves) that kicks it off, or is it random?

And by the way, your battle isn't lost yet, Marco.

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 143
From: Reggio Emilia - Italy
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-04-2008 12:12 PM

I sent to Brad a short clip of "deja vu" from an Italian link. What you can hear is from SR and does not show SRD revertion.

Recently the "buzz" has been less noticeable, but unacceptable to me.

This way, next CAP will mute the audio and a female voice will say "This is copy number 125 - this is copy number 125"

I don't really know how DTS coding works. I suppose that a print copy number is enclosed in each print's timecode and that DTS is able to create a tone different from each copy. Seems sci-fi for a 1996 DOS-based device [Smile]

I have a monitor connected to my 6D and does not show anything about piracy.

Ciao
Marco

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 13600
From: Rockwall, Texas, USA (a safe 1465 miles away from COOTVILLE, California)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-04-2008 12:12 PM

Here is the mp3 clip.

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 143
From: Reggio Emilia - Italy
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-04-2008 06:47 PM

What do you think about it?

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 2880
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-05-2008 04:31 AM

You have got to be effin kiddin me! First off, whereas the lab has to put that garbage in thousands of prints, even the most innept of bootlegers only needs to edit out the noises once, and THEN make his ten thousand DVD copies, sans the farts.

Are these MPAA suits out of their freakin minds? A crap code has got to be INAUDIBLE and INVISIBLE so the pirate doesn't know where they are; make them obvious like this abortion and he's got his video editor on line and just cutting away. Do they really think mutilating the presentation is going to stop ANYTHING....especially off-the-screen copies? May they all find red hot pepper juice in their condoms.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 2124
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 03-05-2008 07:47 AM

I think that since it's so easy to hear it, this sound is very easy for pirates to defeat. If nothing else, when you're friendly neighborhood pirate is putting the movie together in his favorite DVD authoring program, all he has to do is cut out those frames that contain the fart noise and blend the audio over that cut. His customers will never know a thing. He could also just blank the audio over those frames. The people who buy his product are not expecting world class quality videos anyway.

I think this is a horribly stupid idea given that the only people who are being inconvenienced by this noise are the people who actually legitimately paid to see the movie. I'm all for putting noises on there that can be picked up by the video camera, and reproduced in the video, if they aren't audible to the human ears. I don't know if that's possible though. Or even make a noise that is inaudible to the ears, but is picked up on the cameras and ruins the quality. That would be awesome if they could come up with a way to do that.

[ 03-05-2008, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Mark J. Marshall ]

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 231
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2007

posted 03-05-2008 08:24 AM

Yep, thats it, its in Australia alright, not my cinema, but guessing a Deluxe or Atlab print.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 571
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-05-2008 08:59 AM

What utter nonsense!

For a group of perfectionists as we all here are, the idea of opaque tape splices is intolerable. What do we think of this latest anti enjoyment scheme? NUTS!

The print in Max's photo is obviously manually mutilated. This could be done to individual prints on an individual basis. That print could be tracked to the projecting theatre.

Marco's photo has a lab inserted code that would require a different sound negative for each print. This would be hard if not impossible to trace to the individual screen from which the video was pirated as all prints would be similarly coded.

I'm afraid that the industry is dumbing down the theatre experience to the point that no one will want to participate. Just look at the number of negative things you can pay good money to experience at the cinema. [Confused]

KEN

| IP: Logged

Thomas Pitt
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 207
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007

posted 03-05-2008 03:18 PM

Just listened to the MP3. If you mean the short burst of 'square wave' about 3/4 of the way through, that's exactly the noise I often hear when watching a movie now!

I think it also depends on the ambient noise of the scene into which the code is inserted. Insert it into a scene with lots of shouting and explosions on the soundtrack, and you're less likely to notice it. Insert it into a quiet scene with gentle speech (like on the MP3), and it's very noticeable!

First the CAP dots flashing on the frames, which contrary to popular belief are VERY noticeable (even if you do it at a camera cut), and now this...

Regarding inserting stuff that is inaudible to the human ear but picked up on microphones, I'm sure there will soon be systems that do that. There are certainly systems that distort the picture on camcorder copies, either by projecting a digital interference pattern or flashing IR lamps behind the screen, not sure about audio though.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Film God

Posts: 11456
From: Bountiful, Utah
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-05-2008 06:38 PM

I got an e-mail fomr a friend of the guy in GErmany whom invented this system. And to answer his question here I have yet to see it on a print... I repair not project.....

| IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Copyright 1999-2009 Film-Tech Cinema LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2
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.