81–90 of 124 posts
Is this not as simple as dumping the same movie from two different projectors, diffing the output, then obfuscating the watermark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a ridiculous statement. Nobody would even care to break this thing. Look at it's base price, then lookat their customers. It makes no sense to break it.
>Look at it's base price, then lookat their customers. It makes no sense to break it. You're not thinking the same way the motivated pirates think. Some pirates (especially in Eastern Europe, Asia, etc) rip new releases as fast as possible to illegally re-sell or re-stream for lower prices (or show along with ads for revenue). In this way, the pirates get the revenue instead of the legitimate movie studios. So pirate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Look at it's base price, then lookat their customers. It makes no sense to break it. You're not thinking the same way the motivated pirates think. Some pirates (especially in Eastern Europe, Asia, etc) rip new releases as fast as possible to illegally re-sell or re-stream for lower prices (or show along with ads for revenue). In this way, the pirates get the revenue instead of the legitimate movie studios. So pirate…
The DRM doesn't need to be broken. If it can be displayed on a screen, it can be captured. Just requires electronics engineering effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DRM doesn't need to be broken. If it can be displayed on a screen, it can be captured. Just requires electronics engineering effort.
Read their comments, the analog loophole is mentioned in the first one.
The issue is the so-called "DRM" isn't just the encryption of the harddrive files. The DRM protection also includes the watermarks in the video images that survive the HDMI capture. If pirates don't want their $2000 Kaleidescape player blacklisted and bricked, they have to figure out how to remove all forensic watermarks (the invisible low-level "noise" in the image frames) so the illegal copies can't be traced back to that specific compromised player.
It's not impossible but it raises the threshold of difficulties. E.g. using differential analysis to reverse-engineer watermarking now requires buying TWO players for $4000 instead of just one for $2000; and paying for 2 download rentals instead of just 1. And add hours of analysis work on top of that. DRM doesn't have to make piracy impossible; it just has to make the cost/effort equation not attractive. For now, the Kaleidescape DRM scheme is "good enough" for the cost/effort equation to not make sense for pirates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no high quality pirated versions though. The streaming version and even blu-ray is compressed way heavier than these DCP files. I’d buy these cinema versions of films in a heartbeat if they were availble.
1080p/4k as encoded by the streaming sites / blu-ray is sufficiently high quality for virtually all of the viewing public. You're weird (no offense).
I am not working with mastering as the OP. But I can see the low fidelity of streaming services. I watch my content projected to a large screen.
So I am one of those weirdos. I do not mind as I know I am a nerd. But there are more of us than you think but the penny pinchers wins as usual. "The majority do not see it". But they do. The majority went out and bought 4K TVs. They are slightly disappointed as it did not get "that much better". Most would have been just as happy with a 1080P OLED display. But only the geeks can articulate what they want.
The worst local offender is the online Blockbuster. Compression artifacts galore. But as most view content on phones the audio is stereo only. So your "sufficient" is not my "sufficient".
I get the "weird" part. No offense at all. But you are talking about optimizing for what the majority will suffer.
And it is done to save the last little penny. We could optimize for technical excellence but pride has gone out of fashion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollywood is stupid and eroded its own economic advantage by putting everything on streaming. This was already known, but it also makes antipiracy operations much, much harder. Ripping a stream is always going to be easier than getting any unprotected video footage out of a movie theater. The stream is in your own home, you own and can tamper with all the equipment involved in playing it, and the economics of CDNs pr…
> Hollywood is stupid and eroded its own economic advantage by putting everything on streaming You are making a big assumption that they had a choice, that if a movie was not put on streaming, the consumer would go to the cinema to watch it. But many consumers don't, if the movie is not streaming, they just don't watch it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you live? Where I live only professionals and nerds use movie playback that allows single frame stepping, it's definitely a fringe phenomenon here.
I live in the EU, but any good free movie player should allow stepping through video frames back and forth and also playing with any desired speed in frames per second. This is not a feature that requires professional tools. And I do not think that you have to be a pro or a nerd in order to want to see clearly many of the details of the kind "blink and you miss it".
Pros before bros.
Nerds are just wannabes.
The mugglers may suffer as they do not know, care or can articulate it. If they do - they are clearly nerds and we can discard them as a minority.
People conflate pro with premium. The mass market should be able to sustain premium and discount. The market might be too small for pro DCP content. But I would like the market to understand that there are 3 important segments. Pro, premium and discount.
Pro - special specific needs. Premium - for the regular Joe who wants good quality. Discount - for the masses.
Premium market is underserved. Unless you are willing to pay luxury prices for Kaleidescape or the likes.
It is the race to the bottom with streaming providers testing commercials. They have already succeeded with the "junk content" as the big studios wants to keep licenses for their own services.
The quality bar is set for the lowest/cheapest common denominator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people are completely fine watching a 720p x264 1GB version half a year after release. Sure, there are some purists who want as good image quality as possible as soon as possible, but that's a tiny minority. I think the actual motivation is that cinemas are becoming less and less relevant in the age of streaming, so they're doing anything they can to protect the little revenue they have, because the only way cin…
This really downplays the cinema experience. Yes, many people are fine watching a movie at home while doing something else (the current Netflix model of filmmaking is precipitated on this), and others are fine to watch at home in general, but few people would truly say that their setup is close to what you get in a cinema. The screen is much bigger, the image quality is higher, and the sound system is much better as…
The opposite is also true. Few cinemas have a setup that imitates the comfort of watching something at home.
I'm confused why it's encrypted as a JPEG image per frame instead of one AES encrypted video file. Since the same AES key is used for each frame it wouldn't add any additional security imo
One movie can be 200G to 1TB large. The chunked encryption allows it to seek the movie without decrypting from the beginning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who's been working with cinema and video mastering, it sounds like you haven't seen the difference between professional formats like DCP and consumer formats viewed on a proper screen or projector. There's a reason we still have cinemas after all. Even consumer equipment benefits greatly from visually lossless encoded media.
No one goes to the theater because the picture is better. It often isn’t. Projectors aren’t maintained, or set up correctly, and audio balancing is often way off. People go to the movies to see new releases or have dedicated shared experiences
> Projectors aren’t maintained, or set up correctly, and audio balancing is often way off.
This depends a lot on the cinema that you go to.