Digital Cinema Package

[Antony Smith]

Wolfgang,

That was embarrassingly easy. Thanks for your help on that.

What about encryption and KDM management. Do you know if these are supported within Open Cinema Tools?

 

[Terrence Meiczinger]

Quvis Wraptor is no longer supported. You can still buy it... but I dunno who gets the money. It doesn't work with latest Compressor and even if you were to take the time to get it working on an older version of Compressor, the packages won't play on a lot of servers. It had a lot of potential, but that was about it.

 

[M Most]

M Most, thank you for your patronising contribution.

I wasn't being patronizing, I was giving a different view, one based on simple economic fact. And one based on what the DCI specification was written for, which was not general purpose projection of one off screenings of independent productions.

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.

Yes, I certainly do have a very good idea of not only what it means now, but what its meaning has been in the past, which are considerably different. You don't have to agree with things that I say, but I think I have just as much right to say them here as you do.

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?

You're saying that. I didn't. I suggested that tape might be one medium, but I also said that you could use BluRay or various file formats as well. Perhaps in the future Red's Red Ray format will be another option for such things.

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?

Where did I ever say I was "against open source???" I not only favor it, I use various open source tools both personally and for work. Not only that, I've repeatedly pointed out here that the entire DCI specification is designed around open formats, and very purposely so. I've even pointed out that I believe that for Red to get its Red Ray format adopted by the industry, it needs to open up the codec. I've also pointed out that to create and deliver a DCP reliably, in a form that can be handed to someone with some confidence, it needs to be checked on projection that is at least similar to that of a DCI compliant theater, and that to create such a room takes some investment. Pointing out why facilities need to charge for things they do has no bearing on my feelings about open source tools, nor have I ever stated anything here that says otherwise.

Believe me when I tell you the prices are ridiculous.

From your point of view, perhaps. Not from the point of view of everyone, especially those who have invested in the environment and equipment needed to do it repeatedly, reliably, and correctly. One could say that the price of a film print is "ridiculous" if all they were doing is making one print for one screening. But from the point of view of a studio making 10,000 prints, well, hopefully, you get the picture.

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.

I really wish you would knock off the unfounded accusations. I have been here since practically the beginning of this forum, and I have worked on dozens of Red projects - in fact, this coming week I'm grading a pilot that was shot almost completely on M/X. Statements like this imply that anyone who works professionally in the mainstream industry is not welcome here. I know Jim doesn't feel that way (just the opposite, in fact), and you shouldn't either. But your statements seem to be pushing that nonsensical "we against the establishment" agenda. For me, that's not what this is about. This is about you feeling that something isn't worth what's being charged for it, and me pointing out why. You don't have to agree with me or even listen, but if you're going to read and respond, at least have the courtesy of giving me a modicum of respect by trying to understand what I'm saying instead of having some knee jerk reaction that I'm somehow an enemy.

 

[M Most]

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.

Well, all I can judge by is the two attempts at marketing such a product (Wraptor and Easy DCP). And to my knowledge, neither have been particularly successful. But if someone wants to come along and do an "affordable" (and, by the way, define affordable) package, I'm all eyes and ears.

I know that people here often talk about "nontraditional" distribution and independent theaters. But the truth is that most independent and art house cinemas are projecting either film or HD. There are very, very few that have what we would consider a Digital Cinema projector. I'm not giving you my own opinion, it's what I've been told very directly by the owner of a major L.A. based independent theater chain. The economics are just not there for independent theaters to go to digital cinema projection systems at this point. Quite frankly, it somewhat surprised me too, but it's the truth.

 

[Terrence Meiczinger]

Well, all I can judge by is the two attempts at marketing such a product (Wraptor and Easy DCP). And to my knowledge, neither have been particularly successful. But if someone wants to come along and do an "affordable" (and, by the way, define affordable) package, I'm all eyes and ears.

Wraptor never really had a chance, since Quvis was already in financial trouble before it was fully finished and thats really the only sub $1000 commercial package I've come across. CineAsset and Qube are both in the $5000 range. I don't think these are aimed at the independent film maker, but more towards theaters or smaller production houses. It just not cost effective unless you plan on creating a fair amount of content, otherwise it would probably be better to send off and have somebody else convert it.

I know that people here often talk about "nontraditional" distribution and independent theaters. But the truth is that most independent and art house cinemas are projecting either film or HD. There are very, very few that have what we would consider a Digital Cinema projector. I'm not giving you my own opinion, it's what I've been told very directly by the owner of a major L.A. based independent theater chain. The economics are just not there for independent theaters to go to digital cinema projection systems at this point. Quite frankly, it somewhat surprised me too, but it's the truth.

This is very much true. For a theater owner, there is very little incentive to convert to digital cinema. At $100k per screen its expensive and unless you plan on showing 3D, there isn't really much additional revenue at this point. Considering most independents aren't swimming in profits, there are a whole lot of downsides to going digital and relatively few upsides. They would be far better off getting HD projector from Best Buy and use a DVD, PC, etc to play alternative content. Even if you had a digital setup, its going to be easier to go with the DVD or PC rather than DCP.

 

[Antony Smith]

Listen, I'm not making anyone out to be the enemy. All I'm saying is that the tools are there to be used. What is the problem? Where do you get the idea that it's for one screening. Does it matter how many screenings?

What I mean by patronising is your "Economic Fact" Comment. Do you not think that people who contribute to this forum are grown up enough to understand this?

Paying less or nothing doesn't, in all cases mean a reduction in quality. I agree, everyone should be welcome here, but surely it's to contribute in a constructive, helpful manner. I apologise for my tone, but it's hard enough out there trying to get content made without all of this nonsense.

I completely understand what you are saying. That's the problem. I will of course afford you the respect when you enter a constructive and positive contribution.

I am a Producer, running a production company that has produced 8 films now, 2 have been shot on a RED Camera that I own. I am experienced enough to know whether a challenge is too big or not and yes it is all about money at the end of the day. That's why I purchased the Red.

I have nothing against opinions, I have plenty of my own but not at the cost of people asking for help.

 

[Antony Smith]

Speaking to a number of Cinemas here in the UK it would appear that many changes are going to happen with the advent of Digital Cinema. Many of them are planning "Alternative Entertainment". Big Events, game competitions, conferences etc etc.

Whether or not these things will work is a matter of opinion, but all cinemas will go Digital over time. I think Distributors are going to have to play a bigger part in its spread. The cost that can be saved through not having to produce prints is tremendous in itself and therefore the financial benefits are with them and not the Exhibitors.

I would respectfully disagree with the DVD comments though. My opinion is that if a film-make has waded through the mud and actually got a film made, with a little extra energy I'm sure they can be capable of creating a DCP (for free). From my experience the easiest option is never the best one.

 

[MichaelP]

I have been hearing about alternative content coming to theaters for several years now as part of the Digital Cinema changeover. Over the past 4 years there has been a screening of RENT, basically a HD recording of a Broadway show, and during the baseball season here in Boston, they project the HD feed of the game in one of the theaters. That's it.

There was a story not too long ago about a filmmaker who made a deal directly with the theater chain bypassing traditional distribution. Perhaps there will be more of that - theaters becoming distributor but who pays for marketing? At the end of the day, theaters care about filling up the seats to capacity and selling refreshments. And whatever content/spectacle does that is fair game. But if no one knows it's there, then it doesn't really matter. Theaters don't pay for all that air time of trailers, ads in Entertainment Weekly, etc. At most it is the movie grid of showtimes in the local paper. So while technology and digital tools can facilitate the process, marketing dollars drives the butts into the seats. Can that change over time? Sure - Social and viral marketing can predict a certain amount of interest directly to the end consumer but that is more a direct distribution strategy than it is theatrical. If I look at two major films that had huge social/viral going for it - Blair Witch worked, Snakes on a Plane didn't.

I have a DCP of my last film all set and ready to go. Doesn't mean it's being shown in theaters. Now if I want to four wall it at my own expense, then I'm all set.

Michael

 

[Antony Smith]

Here! Here! Michael. Couldn't agree more. Alternative distribution is the way for Film makers. Cost is a huge implication to this. These days though, it's not necessarily the amount you spend but how you do it.

Film makers should be in the best positions to sell their film. surely, they would know what market they are aiming for before green lighting the project. Wouldn't you say?

 

[Terrence Meiczinger]

I think pretty much everyone here is looking for a cost-effective way to create digital content. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone is against it or even trying to discourage it. Some points have been brought up about the exhibition side versus the production side. The DVD comments were also in that regard, it is easier and more cost-effective for the theater to do this. We can create all the digital content we want, but there still need to be places to show it.

Theater owners for their part would LOVE to have true alternative content. Except for the larger chains, the distributors essentially control what gets played in theaters. They have all kinds of tactics to pressure theaters into doing what they want. The old... "Oh you want Harry Potter? Well, you should consider playing these movies too." Translation... if you don't play our other crappy movies that will do no business for you, then you are off service and won't be getting the biggest movie of the year. What theater is going to refuse that? So, often they have to drop a moving making them money to pickup a total dud movie.

Digital Cinema has the capability to change things. With some hard work, I do think it will happen in time.

 

[M Most]

I completely understand what you are saying. That's the problem. I will of course afford you the respect when you enter a constructive and positive contribution.

I have nothing against opinions, I have plenty of my own but not at the cost of people asking for help.

Clearly you do have something against my opinion. And not everything everyone says is going to be positive if what they have to say disagrees with your view of it. But it's always nice to know that after almost 2000 posts here I haven't made any constructive and positive contributions.

Fortunately, I think Jarred, Jim, Graeme, Deanan, and a number of other regular posters here might disagree with that assessment. So I'm not going to post anything more on this topic.

 

[conrad gaunt]

Unfortunately, EasyDCP will cost you about 2000 bones to remove the watermark, and you NEED EasyDCP for my particular workflow, but a watermarked DCP is better than no DCP in my situation. From what I can tell, it isn't mainstream enough to have been "cracked" yet. I honestly don't mind paying for it since I intend to use it for commercial use.

Plus, I figured that if people wanted to try to figure out a completely DIY way of making a DCP without using EasyDCP, this method at least provides you with a fully working DCP that could be reverse-engineered to educate one's self on its inner workings. Otherwise, you'd have to deal with trying to bootleg a highly secured studio encrypted one OR trying to translate the DCI Standards documents into practical-use language. Good luck with that! Haha.

What does EasyDCP do? I might be able to save you 2000 bones!?

There is free command line software to convert just about any format into DCI compliant Jpeg2000 files, then wrap them into one big file (not sure what the container file is called). I'll find the link.

found:-

http://www.openjpeg.org/

ps, you can find Mac,Windows and Linux binaries in the download section

if its any use, a GUI would be easy to create. I'm thinking of using it on the back end of my downsampler tool. I've tested it, and it seems to work. There is software for playback too in there I believe, not sure my imac will handle that though (in bootcamp)

ps, Looks to me like open cinema tools might be such a GUI, looks like they're using open jpeg2000

 

[Christopher Lowden]

For what it is worth, it strikes me that FCP or more likely Cinema Tool would be a perfect vehicle to impliment a 'free' DCP export utility. It wouldn't take any money from the pros who do a fine tuned DCP. I have not had much interest a DCP project from the apple site, but I reckon that a few of days work by an apple engineer, robbing all the hard opensource work to front some nice user interface, could turn the thoroughly unreliable cinematool app into something useful. Steve Jobs knows stacks about ripping off opensource. Why stop now? (Incidentally, I work only on mac.)

 

[Agustin Goya]

Hy Everyone! First off all let me thank you all for this great thread, I love this Forum
I'm trying to make my first DCP with opencinema tools. I've managed to create the CPL and PKL for one reel, but was wondering if there's any way to make a 2+ reel composition using opencinema tools ot if I have to write it by had.
TIA for your help.
Agustin

 

[Antony Smith]

Hi Agustin,

I had this issue just a couple of days ago. Wolfgang pointed me in the right direction. It's very simple. You simply add another video.mxf.

You may want to name them video.reel1.mxf sound.reel1.mxf video.reel2.mxf sound.reel2.mxf. write in this order in the .cpl and .pkl .map and the dcp will automatically pick them up in this order. You can check it's working by downloading easyDCP player. It will show you the reel order. It will only play 15 seconds though unless you purchase the license.

Hope this helps.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

Antony

 

[Agustin Goya]

Thanks Anthony! What you say makes sense.
Will try it and let you know.
Thanks Again.

 

[Christopher Lowden]

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.
.

Wolfgang,
I'm taking a taking a wild stab in the dark here, but I notice that your D flags correspond to the mkpkl.cpp and mkmap.cpp lines. I also figure that ccp must be a comple command, therefore by sheer Sherlockholmes intuition, I offer this solution

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) -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64

mkmap : $(SRCS)mkmap.cpp
$(CC) -o $(BINS)mkmap $(SRCS)mkmap.cpp $(LIBS) -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64

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

 

[Wolfgang Woehl]

Right on, Christopher

 

[Christopher Lowden]

These little advances make the rest of the day worth while. Many thanks

 

[Pavel Klepinin]

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.

Definitely right. Just simple translation in russian of the OCT's method of DCP creating and a small shell script causes over 7 pages of discussion on my russian forum (although forum was created less a month ago and was cinema specialists-oriented). Most of these people (forum users) are far from compiling/scripting technologies, they are artists. It's all about cheap dcp-making demand.

To be honest, the major way of using OCT in my country (at least out of our capitals) is to recode adverts in DCP-aided projecting systems. Before I've found OCT, my cinema was suggested to recode clips in DCP for about $120 per clip (just for your information in my town average cost of advert's clip production is $300-500). Now it costs almost nothing. In Russia, the oppotunity of advert's showing is simply a matter of independent cinema's survival, such as the one i'm working at. As for my cinema namely, he have an alternative projecting system and we don't use DCP adverts (for now), but the most do.

As for Ferrari... Just think they want to gain a lot of money just for recoding from one format to another (DCP). Not for creating/shooting etc. but for RECODING. Cinemas payed a lot of money for DCP projecting systems and you (as an artist) pay again to show your clip. Is it right? It's like you've bought a car, but you can carry the people you've been sent only. If you want to drive with your friend for exc. you have to transform him first in a proper box to carry. And this transformation costs you a bunch of money.

P.S. An offer for moders and some gurus, Wolfgang, for exc. Maybe we should accumulate all the knowledges (compiling for different OS's and command line's workflow) in an certain post (the first for exc.), in order to help people to find useful information from this thread. Also it will be easy to keep info up-to-date in a single post.

P.P.S. Sorry. Looks like my english becomes even worse. Hope I've understood all my sentences. Sorry about that.