Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Digital Cinema Package

Terrence
Many thanks for the offer. Being in the spirit of a forum and not being the only one interested, may I suggest that you upload your files to this forum so that others may share in your valuable fruit.
 
Wolfgang,
Sadly, I never managed to compile using the build.tcsh correctly on my macintel 10.5 and instead used the script supplied by Terrence, that worked well. The installation of this script is described earlier in this forum (See below)

CC = g++
LIBS = -lm -lasdcp -lkumu -lcrypto
SRCS = ../../src/
BINS = ../../bin/

all : mkcpl mkpkl mkmap

mkcpl : $(SRCS)mkcpl.cpp
$(CC) -o $(BINS)mkcpl $(SRCS)mkcpl.cpp $(LIBS)

mkpkl : $(SRCS)mkpkl.cpp
$(CC) -o $(BINS)mkpkl $(SRCS)mkpkl.cpp $(LIBS)

mkmap : $(SRCS)mkmap.cpp
$(CC) -o $(BINS)mkmap $(SRCS)mkmap.cpp $(LIBS)

install :
install -v -p -s ../../bin/mkcpl /usr/bin
install -v -p -s ../../bin/mkpkl /usr/bin
install -v -p -s ../../bin/mkmap /usr/bin

As you may notice, the lines that you suggest are not in the Terrence version. Thanks for your offering.
 
Christopher, look at those lines again and you will see where to add the -D flags I suggested to the Makefile (which is not a script and is not "installed") you quote above. Let the coin drop.

Plus, these issues really are the most basic obstacles one needs to tackle when building from source code. I wonder why you want to do this. If you don't start to get a _little_ more comfortable with shells, compilers, linkers, make etc. there's a world of pain waiting for you. A bit like building a house of cards on the assumption that allocating 2 cards for the bottom floor should be just fine. Could work but doesn't, ever.
 
Christopher,

I have managed to get it to work on both my mac book pro and mac pro (10.6.2)

It works great using the instructions that you had posted.

I was advised to removed the folders I had downloaded and basically start again.

In doing this I downloaded the newer version of asdcplib, installed it as per your instruction but also adding the important "--with- expat" and then running the make file that Terrence provided. It has do be done in this sequence.

May I also add that I did have issues installing the newer openjpeg-read-only through the Xcode file. The answer was actually in the folder name. It is in fact Read only!! So when you try to build and run the application from within XCode it had permission errors. Therefore, I changed the permissions and it worked. However, I had to manually install Libtiff.3.dylb and jpeg.62.dylb into usr/local/lib only then would the whole J2C encoding work.

So, back to the XML files. My advice would be to take off the folders and start again. Your instructions are spot on. All you need to do when configuring asdcplib is to:
cd asdcplib-1.5.32
./configure --with-expat
make
sudo make install

Duplication of Makefile
The only thing I would add to Terrance's suggestion is that the Makefile won't run as a .tcsh. Therefore, you will need to ctrl click on the make file to 'get info' and delete .tcsh from the filename. .

Then run the new makefile in build/macosx.

That should be it

if this doesn't work let me know and I'll email/upload the new makefile for you
 
A Makefile is a resource for the program make. A Makefile can't be run. The name Makefile is special in that make will look for a file with that name. Renaming a Makefile to Makefile.tcsh doesn't change what's in the file (a resource for make). Renaming a shell script like Foo.tcsh to Makefile doesn't turn a shell script into a Makefile. Ok?
 
Wolfgang Woehl said:
Christopher, look at those lines again and you will see where to add the -D flags I suggested to the Makefile (which is not a script and is not "installed") you quote above. Let the coin drop.

Plus, these issues really are the most basic obstacles one needs to tackle when building from source code. I wonder why you want to do this. If you don't start to get a _little_ more comfortable with shells, compilers, linkers, make etc. there's a world of pain waiting for you. A bit like building a house of cards on the assumption that allocating 2 cards for the bottom floor should be just fine. Could work but doesn't, ever.
Click to expand...

Wolfgang,

I completely understand what you are saying. However, questioning why people want to do this doesn't really help. I don't have any experience programming but I have been able to work through it and make it work for me. You have provided utterly brilliant info to make this happen and for that I would like to thank you.

Clearly, people do not want to pay the ridiculous prices that people charge for software and beyond that to encode on your behalf. The very fact that it is Open source allows individuals to explore possibilities. Yes, it is taxing on time and sanity but for those who persevere a great result awaits. This is the point of Forums like this. It's a community of people trying to make things work and broaden understanding. Remember, this is also a Red User Forum. This question would not be asked of all the people who have purchased the RED Camera.

My ultimate question to you would be Why Not? if it helps broaden one's knowledge surely it is a good thing isn't it. I have learned so much about digital cinema just through this process alone that I feel personally enriched.

Let's keep this forum alive and positive not question why people want to do it because the subtext of your suggestion is that you should give up and not bother, which is not very helpful.
 
Wolfgang,

As I say, I'm no programmer and just illustrating what worked for me. ok?
 
Has anyone been successful in creating multiple reels using Open Cinema Tools? If so, what is the process? I haven't seen any threads anywhere regarding this, so forgive me if I have missed something somewhere.
 
Antony said:
Clearly, people do not want to pay the ridiculous prices that people charge for software and beyond that to encode on your behalf.
Click to expand...

Prices are not "ridiculous," they're based on supply and demand. Anything that's a niche, specialty market is going to carry a higher price because the volume is always going to be relatively low. What you really seem to mean is people with no money can't afford things that aren't free. That I would agree with. But calling the pricing of specialty software tools for a very small market "ridiculous" is like saying it's "ridiculous" that a Ferrari costs over $200K. Yet it does, and people buy them anyway. If you truly need a DCP - and not just because you want to play around with making one - you're likely either delivering a picture to a high end festival, or selling it to a distributor. For most one-off screenings, most theaters have alternative methods of projecting your movie (from Quicktime files, BluRay discs, HDCam tape or similar, possibly things like Red Ray in the future, etc.) that will work just as well for the audience you're likely to attract to the screening. Those that do need DCP's usually need them done correctly - that is, color corrected for proper display in P3 color space at 2.6 gamma, checked for proper X'Y'Z' encoding on a digital cinema projector, assured to play on all common servers, and in many cases, encrypted for security purposes. Requiring all of that means that whomever is making the DCP must be able to meet all of those requirements. The open source tools can do that - that's why the DCI specification was designed around only open formats - but it takes some understanding of the process and some specific rather expensive equipment to be able to check it and ensure that it all works properly.

THAT's why the prices are what they are.
 
Wolfgang,
I have been making independent films for over 20 years. I started cutting on films and 2inch recorders (that gives you an idea of my age). The world of pain started when I disovered that I would not be going to film school (too stupid) and my parents weren't rich. It has continued. The current short film I am making a DCP for has taken me 7 years to make and involved over 60 people.
Since embarking on the DCP route, I have discovered what unix is, what shell is and what commands are. And I am very happy that I have. All that because I have a film that I want to show in a cinema that was shot digitally and I want it projected digitally. To be honest, if you think this is a world of pain, try producing a feature film. That is really painfully, particularly at the moment.
So as a self acclaimed neophyte, I thank you for your precious time. It has not been anymore painful to me than finding a decent idea and thanks to people like yourself, a darn sight easier.
As Anthony so rightly says, this is not just about getting a cheap DCP but also about learning, sharing, understanding and 'broaden one's knowledge'.
 
Just to explain why I want a DCP. I have a single crew showing at a cinema. It has a Doremi server with a Christy 2k. I have seen what HDCAM does to my film and I felt that all my crew that worked for free were worth more than that. HDCAM SR is just too expensive and still not as good as DCP 2K. But primarily, I am just very curious about this technology. It is an ISO standard and therefore a universal distribution solution. This is all very exciting.
 
Thanks Wolfgang, I shall work on that.

M Most, thank you for your patronising contribution.

Do you have any idea what Independent Cinema actually means? I'm sorry to be so blunt but this really isn't the forum for your kind of cooments. Of course I understand why things are priced the way they are, but Why in god's name would I want to deliver to an exhibitor on dvd or tape? For a start those formats can only reach 1920 x1080, and there are on going costs associated with that. The point of even screening your film for cast and crew is to put it there in its full glory. Why would you deny it that opportunity? The technology is there to be used so by damn I will take advantage of it. If you are against the idea of open source, which by the way was not the heart of this conversation, then why are you contributing to this particular forum? Open Source is there so why not use it?

Believe me when I tell you the prices are ridiculous. This is why my own company has built up a production and post production workflow around the RED. We are now in post production of a feature that would never have been possible if we had stuck to convention and paid the "proper" rates. Whether you like it or not Digital Cinema has carved the way for all film makers to get their work shown on the big screen and not be shafted by the barriers of Film.

Also, a Ferrari has wheels and a steering wheel, yes? so does a Nissan Micra. Know where I'm going with this?
 
Last edited:
What annoys me more than anything is that we have now entered a situation where we are having to defend or explain the reasons why we want a DCP.

This is not on!!
 
Christopher, actually I was trying to fire up your curiosity even more. Sorry if it came out wrong. Again: look at the Makefile Terrence posted and oct's build.tcsh. Their purpose is identical: setting up some compiler includes and locations and building three binaries called mkcpl, mkpkl and mkmap. Add the -D ... flags I suggested to the corresponding lines in Terrence's Makefile.

Mike, I'm going to disagree, respectfully, on a couple of things. I think the demand for affordable, easy DCP authoring is way bigger than what you suggest. A lot of things are happening off-major/off-hollywood/off-established distribution chains. Big fish and tiny fish in the same pool. The high quality standard and the simplicity of it are what's making the platform so attractive to all kinds of projects.

None of these off-use cases were part of DCI's intentions, I guess. So?

Also, the Ferrari analogy seems, bluntly said, not quite spot on. The affordable, excellent acquisition quality is here. The color math involved isn't rocket science. The packaging is easy to handle. Distribution and playout trivial. So unless you need to provide for a global release of a major production DCP authoring tools can be quite cheap, free even (like in free beer and free speech).
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
why are you saying they are bust?
Click to expand...

Because they were, at least in early 2009. So I guess they re-financed or were bought or whatever. Would be great for the indies if they are indeed back in business.

"QUVIS, INC. Bankruptcy Filed on March 20, 2009." Source.

"Chapter 11 is filed against QuVIS, Inc. in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas." Source.

"QuVIS, a Topeka technology company that tried to woo Hollywood into using its digital cinema technology, has closed its doors, the company’s founder said Monday." Source.

""Whether or not we can get out of here has yet to be seen," he (CEO) said." Source.
 
Martin Weiss said:
Because they were, at least in early 2009. So I guess they re-financed or were bought or whatever. Would be great for the indies if they are indeed back in business.

"QUVIS, INC. Bankruptcy Filed on March 20, 2009." Source.

"Chapter 11 is filed against QuVIS, Inc. in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas." Source.

"QuVIS, a Topeka technology company that tried to woo Hollywood into using its digital cinema technology, has closed its doors, the company’s founder said Monday." Source.

""Whether or not we can get out of here has yet to be seen," he (CEO) said." Source.
Click to expand...

Well would be good to know before I spend $700 :) and then get nothing.

Ill investigate further. thanks Martin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top