What is Digg?147 Comments
- britkev1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+85CAM copies of movies seem to be such a small part of the pirated movie scene. This is a small band-aid for a much larger problem.
- InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Perhaps they should work on inserting decent script, plot etc instead. Maybe then I'd pay for it :p
- kevinrosesmom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67Not to mention that I'm sure some people (with sensitive eyes) could probably pick up on these extra frames if a camcorder could. Wouldn't that be annoying?
- V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51Subliminal message experiments continue like the time they used to put "buy popcorn" and "you're thirsty buy a soda" in the movie frames hoping it would pick up concession stands. Hopefully they add things like "you hate Leonardo DeCaprio don't see any of his movies" or "kill the guy talking loudly next to you."
- Protector, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36The subliminal messages myth has lasted 40+ years now. The experiment, when asked to duplicate it, did not perform as the original, the Psych doctor eventually confessed that he lied. It pretty much all stems from books written that accept subliminal messages impact as factual [but in a fictional book], that isn't to say the impact of Subliminal messages is not real though. To the tune that Congress has discussed it.
Stop going to movie theaters and watch DVD's at home. You don't have to listen to the crunching, the cell phones, the children crying, the people talking, broken seats, sticky floors, smelly people, etc. Save and spend your $1500 and buy a good surround sound system, dvd player, and a mediocre large TV until you can save up more and get a 50" LCD bigscreen or a projector for your own 10' screen. On that note, stop buy RIAA protected music, their control of whats good/bad based on marketing and historical records of what is good creates bias that prevents everyone from hearing a diverse sound, only those who seek out Indies and unsigned bands really get a wide selection, the rest is standard operating procedure. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31yeah it seems like this is something that will punish the people who are actually going to the movie to see it.
if it works as well as it claims to, go for it. the only real way this could help is to keep people working theatres from making telesyncs since cam's are essentially useless. - test5477, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30this has epileptic seizures written all over it....
- Jarrod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30I can't imagine how terrible a pirated movie must look that was filmed with a camcorder aimed at a theater's screen to begin with. Why even waste your time watching it?
- lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19i can, i've seen some dreadful cams... and I've seen some surprisingly good ones. Without a doubt the most irritating part of any movie released in the scene is poor sound, the eye is much more forgiving than the ear.
- overlordmead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17precisely, I never download CAM copies because I'd much rather wait for a crisp TS copy... oh wait, THEORETICALLY, I never download....
- bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Ever better they could put subliminal advertisements for pirates!
- sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"...thereby ruining a bootlegged movie."
"CAM" copies are already ruined to begin with. The quality is just that bad. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Did they steal this idea from Fight Club?
- danep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Anybody else find this a little worrying? Yeah MOST people may not be able to see this, but that doesn't mean we won't notice. Headaches, seizures, visual strain... even if it's only in a few percent of the population, I'd still bet dollars to donuts that this is going to cause problems. Heck, we're not supposed to be able to hear those ultrasonic mosquito and bat repellants either, but I can't get within 100 feet of one before I feel like someone is pounding on my eardrums with a jackhammer.
- tungsai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Yeah, they look bad... and sound even worse.. but there's something borgieos about watching a peer-to-peer streaming pirate copy of X-men 3, taped by some chinese guy.
Besides, after seeing it that way, I am pretty glad I didn't waste my $20 on a theatre date on that movie. - bkorte, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@Cynoclast - but don't spend that $1500 at BestBuy or Circuit City - find an independant audio store that can get you a *real* system for $1500. For that kind of budget you can get a home theatre system that would sound WAAAY better than a theatre. Really, theatres sound like *****.
- Pimpalicious316, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11call me a skeptic, but couldn't a fairly simple plugin for any *cough*premiere*cough* video software be written that simply locates the "botched" frames and deletes them?
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11How many people who watch these crappy cam videos would actually pay for the movie in the first place?
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The real solution is to either:
a) start making the movie going experience enjoyable again by:
- making good movies
- properly soundproofing theaters so I don't have to listen to the explosions of the other 3 movies playing
- start charging a sane amount
- offer better tasting, healthier, more affordable concessions
- make the seats comfortable
- get rid of the putrid B.O. + grease smell in the theater
or
b) just release the damn thing on DVD before anyone gets around to pirating it. - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11All prints already contain watermarks put in place by companies like Technicolor. If you ever see 4 to 5 brown sploches on the screen for one frame, that's it.
each print gets it's own unique set in different parts of the movie which allows the distributor to know what theater the film was cammed in. - sandlog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Oscar-time DVD Screeners are all the rage
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9How hard would it be to write a filter to remove those frames from teh digital version of the movie. Only take a slight change to the commercial remover from Myth, in theory.
- Parmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12please, read the article
- echo1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9if it's the "shudder" speed you're worried about why not just wrap a blanket around it.
(it's shutter) - ionbattle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I really hope that's a joke.
- YourTechSupport, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Like...
BOOTLEGGING MOVIES IS BAD
PIRACY IS THE NEW GAY
BUY THE DVD
THIS MOVIE REALLY IS OSCAR MATERIAL
JENNIFER ANNISTON REALLY IS HOT
DON'T FORGET THE SOUNDTRACK - Quickbreak, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23Or ninjas.
- furyg3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They've been using similar tactics for a long time. Their favorite is these 5 orange-brown spots across the whole screen, which in no way are "imperceptible to the human eye." Hopefully this new technique is better.
- analgesia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5probably something like.
"You're not allowed to copy this ***** movie. Don't make other people waste precious time by watching this crappy movie. Don't share it, please" - cogen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, there's a sample in the article, so you could check.
- nahteecirp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The last time I was at a professional basketball game, they had camera flashes that lit up the whole stadium for a split second every 30 seconds or so, and I'm pretty sure they were trying to do a similar thing here (most people don't notice it, but it messes up private recordings.) Unfortunately even though no one else around me could see them, I noticed very well the flashes and it made the game very annoying to watch. I'm already paying enough for movie tickets, not to mention all the previews I have to sit through, so this is just 1 more reason for me to pirate.
- gukid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Aren't movies ruined just by the act of recording them in theatres? Maybe they should make some soda technology that makes people go to the bathroom more often. Or popcorn technology that makes people cough on their powdered flavouring more than they already do.
- JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Someone will figure out a way around it, however this technology, as with RWC/DVS, degrades the image quality for the individuals watching, even if they aren't fully able to see why. RWC/DVS shows up as a glow on the lower half of the screen and fades the original image. This technology would be picked up around the outer edges of the screen (if you were looking dead center). As an example of this, if you have a CRT monitor look to the left or right of your monitor and focus on something else, you will be able to see the refresh rate of your screen. In a large movie theatre (the bigger the screen the worse the effect) you aren't able to focus on the entire screen at once, so around the edges of the picture you will start picking up these inserted frames. Probably not all the time, but every now and again it'll show up, distracting you from what is going on.
My personal feeling is go with the release on dvd/theatres at the same time (currently being tested in some US markets) and those who want to watch it at home can, those who want the theatre experience can. You'll have pirates both ways but the more pirates you have, the more of an indication that your price point is too high and you have an untapped market that wants to purchase your product but won't due to the cost. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Not to mention that I'm sure some people (with sensitive eyes) could probably pick up on these extra frames if a camcorder could."
It's not your eyes, it's your brain, and its inability to process that many frames per second. 1 frame per second given a 45 fps movie won't be noticed during most scenes.
I'm still questioning about scenes in which the camera pans very quickly. That pushes the envelope of how much change between frames the brain can tolerate before the illusion of motion is destroyed. If they throw in an extra, disruptive frame every second (or more?) this could make the problem worse.
So if they avoid doing it during scenes with a lot of motion, I'm OK with it, but for scenes like battles from LOTR, this might be noticeable. - edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Subliminal messages just got added to the list of reasons of why I don't go to theatres anymore and will continue to boycott. Here are some other reasons and honestly what they should be working on:
- Expensive Tickets (A DVD costs about the same as two tickets and I get to keep it)
- Crappy sound (Better at home)
- Bad picture quality (Better at home)
- Kids screaming and crying (None at home)
- Seats not comfortable enough for 2+ hour movie (Did your @$$ hurt after LOTR?)
- Cell phone usage during movie (Did I pay $8 to listen to you talk to your baby mamma?)
- Sticky floors (No need to explain)
- Subliminal messages (NEW!) - TheRealPod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Impreceptable? I ALWAYS see the dots on the screen during a good part. Is really annoying.
- ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is BS. I can already see the single-frame patterns of dots (used for tracking sources of pirated copies) when I watch movies in the theater. That's distracting enough. Now I'm going to be seeing entire distorted frames? I have a feeling I'm not the only one with higher visual acuity than their test audience. I'm not bragging; the fact is that I can see these things. And clearly. Humans can see around 30 frames a second, some people more, some people less. Film is 25 frames a second. Exactly how can they guarantee that it happens too fast for anybody to notice?
I suppose that I, and others like me, will just have to suffer. Thanks again, theaters. - Thunders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They already do this on a smaller scale or at least they did. If you ever noticed dots on a few frames here and there. This is ***** silly I'm sure I will be able to notice them to a degree and I don't pay 9$ for this BS. Not to mention the fact that the best cams/telesyncs tend to come from outside the US.
- scottkuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In an indoor arena, the whole-arena flashes you saw are remotely-triggered flashes for news cameras.
It's a fairly elaborate system that helps to ensure that all news photographers can get good action shots. - combatchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These are the people the MPAA is trying to stop?
- Awperator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4neoform is right - I used to work as a projectionist. As he said, the fight club idea does not work because the sound processing is before or after the light hits the film, so the sound is delayed on the film to account for that. For example, say if you had 1 frame of a penis and the audio on (italics) that frame (end italics) says "*****". You would hear the audio first, then see the *****, because the film audio got processed before the light shined on it. Or on the same token, you would hear it after, if the sound processing equipment hit the film after the projector bulb. So it wouldn't be feasible to have audio on a 1 frame splice-in, because the audio wouldnt get processed at the same time you would see the film. It would be before or after, depending on where the audio equipment is placed. Film is made to account for that fact. It's delayed or advanced by a couple of seconds to allow for the audio processing.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not only is this true, it's overwhelming evidence against the claim that moviegoers "wouldn't even notice" the inserted text, etc.
- procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4LOL. who watches cam bootlegs anyways, thats SOOOOOOO 1999.
- zer0faults, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This has been going no for some time. A recent bust used this technique in New York City to track the cammers. Some groups when this first occured used software to locate the scenes and remove them, sometimes going through the whole movie manually.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The fightclub idea doesn't even work.
(i've tried it)
the problem is that the soundtrack on a movie is about 2 seconds behind the image.. which means you see the *****, then you hear it a few seconds later.. doesn't work too well.. - wintermute1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3After reading this article, why do I get the sneaking suspicion that I will soon develop head-splitting headaches when at the cinema?
Also, the bottom of page one discusses shining ultraviolet light at the movie screen. Let me see... UV light causes damage to the eye, and the cinema is going to blast UV light at me in a dark room, when my pupils are dilated widely open? It is just me, or is this even stupider than the added frames? - 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly.
This product is security snake-oil.
There are plenty of people selling ***** like this to private companies, government agencies and everybody inbetween. The people put in charge of securing everything have to do "something" and expensive, whizz-bang technological solutions are just are the perfect choice.
It's all about CYA (Covering Your Ass).
If this crap is effective the guy who bought will be able to claim that cam rips are down 80% and get nice pat on the back for the irrelevant victory. If it isn't effective he can just point the finger at the vendor who produced it. Then the vendor can politely explain that the company/agency should purchase version 2.0 in order to solve the problem and keep up with the devious pirates. - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I modded you down because your an idiot. Sentence Structure. Meh get a life
- Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that frame insertion is just ONE way to do it. They're talking about a small moving grid overlay that is not visible to the eye but creates a moire pattern in the camera. You can't remove that by snipping frames.
- ArchibaldTuttle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kind of like those dots that show up that you aren't supposed to be able to see but still do?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is