Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 242 posts

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#101

Post by ekianjo »

ddt_Osprey wrote: post #89
e12e wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this - a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k. Often shipped on hard drives, or downloaded via dedicated fiber lines. They key material is distributed separately, and allows for fine-grained control of play back (eg time of day - to the point that if a screening is sufficiently delayed, it may sometimes have to be cancelled if a new key can't be acquired in t…

a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k. Often shipped on hard drives, or downloaded via dedicated fiber lines. This is not a show stopper. All you need is one unlocked copy to drop in the open, and then everyone can work on it, and get it packed up in a more reasonable format. This all works due to proprietary hardware - the modifications to the 4k cinema projectors th…

> a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k

In a way it's shocking that huge cinema screens ONLY project 4k. When we had film instead of digital projectors, we actually had a much higher resolution on screen. It's a shame we replaced it with an inferior technology.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#102

Post by ekianjo »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #36
contingencies wrote: post #31

To clarify for all the other non HD-video nerds, this seems to be regarding DCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package not HDCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content... (which is already broken, and was itself the industry response to the breaking of DVD CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System ). The use of DCP seems to be limited to very high resolution relea…

The point of DRM is to make that time, motivation, and quality equation not make sense. Every day that a new videogame stays off Piratebay is an extra day of full revenue. I'm not defending DRM, but it's important to know one's enemy.

> a new videogame stays off Piratebay is an extra day of full revenue.

Yes and now, You cannot say that people who pirate games are necessarily going to buy the game if it were not "free". That's the argument used by the industry to justify DRM and it makes no sense whatsoever since the market would be like 100 times bigger if you calculate things this way. It would not.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#103

Post by creshal »

Houshalter wrote: post #85
gioele wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.

It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

> hurts the artists

, because?

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#104

Post by semi-extrinsic »

ryandamm wrote: post #57
Yaggo wrote: post #14

The DVD format in NTSC regions has 480 pixel vertical resolution. Even the half-century old NTSC spec has more vertical lines (525). I find it amazing that DVDs are still being sold.

From Wikipedia's article on NTSC: "483 scan lines make up the visible raster" The 525 includes a lot of other stuff. Easy mistake because PAL shows 576 lines (out of 625), but only at 25 full frames / 50 interlaced half-frames per second as opposed to 30p/60i for NTSC. (PAL DVDs are also 576.) While they're all constrained by the scanline in the vertical direction, the analog standards are resolution-limited in the h…

Don't forget the third analog standard: the French SECAM, short for "System Essentially Counter to the American Model".

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#105

Post by spiderfarmer »

ekianjo wrote: post #100
Houshalter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

> It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.

They get reuploaded to Facebook, where they go viral without crediting the author.

If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#106

Post by edent »

ekianjo wrote: post #101
ddt_Osprey wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k. Often shipped on hard drives, or downloaded via dedicated fiber lines. This is not a show stopper. All you need is one unlocked copy to drop in the open, and then everyone can work on it, and get it packed up in a more reasonable format. This all works due to proprietary hardware - the modifications to the 4k cinema projectors th…

> a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k In a way it's shocking that huge cinema screens ONLY project 4k. When we had film instead of digital projectors, we actually had a much higher resolution on screen. It's a shame we replaced it with an inferior technology.

I'm not convinced. If you happen to see a fresh print, with no scratches, dirt, skipped sprockets, or speed issues then - yes - it is theoretically marginally better than a digital print.

Similarly, a highly priced vinyl player might have slightly better sound quality than a cheap CD player.

But for most people, digital Cinema and CDs represent a vastly superior experience.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#107

Post by davidiach »

ekianjo wrote: post #100
Houshalter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

> It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.

@spiderfarmer, the author can credit himself, all he has to do is put a "follow me on twitter @author" or something like that.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#108

Post by ars »

ekianjo wrote: post #101
ddt_Osprey wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k. Often shipped on hard drives, or downloaded via dedicated fiber lines. This is not a show stopper. All you need is one unlocked copy to drop in the open, and then everyone can work on it, and get it packed up in a more reasonable format. This all works due to proprietary hardware - the modifications to the 4k cinema projectors th…

> a typical cinema release is a pretty big file - frame-by-frame encoded as jpg2000 in 4k In a way it's shocking that huge cinema screens ONLY project 4k. When we had film instead of digital projectors, we actually had a much higher resolution on screen. It's a shame we replaced it with an inferior technology.

Film has a lot of noise. The resolution is not as high as you are imagining.

I've seen both, digital is better.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#109

Post by pluma »

Houshalter wrote: post #85
gioele wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.

It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

> hurts the artists

... only if you use the version of youtubedl that comes with the knife-wielding robot.

Re: Pirates Plunder 4K Hateful Eight, but Did They Crack DCP?

#110

Post by pluma »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #105
ekianjo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.

They get reuploaded to Facebook, where they go viral without crediting the author. If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.

> reuploaded

To quote your ggp:

> [re-uploading videos] _may_ classify as copyright infringement. [downloading YouTube videos] definitely does not.

And your gp:

> [Downloading YouTube videos] violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

And your parent:

> Evidence required.

So... why are we talking about re-uploading again as if downloading was the same thing?

Post reply on HN