Last Thursday when the Motion Picture Association of America made public an ex parte communication they sent to the FCC in defense of a waiver request it caused a flurry of headlines about studios going to war with exhibitors over release windows. To be sure, the letter sent by the MPAA’s lawyers, as well as the press release they sent out the same day directly refer to release windows. The headline of the press release boldly reads “MPAA Seeks FCC Okay For Transmission of First Run Movies Directly To Consumers”. However the MPAA may simply be hiding behind the concept of protecting content during shortened release windows as camouflage for their true motive; securing high definition digital content as it is distributed into the electronic ether of the home by controlling which devices can playback and display the content.
The MPAA’s letter was sent as a rebuttal to a communication sent to the FCC in October by Public Knowledge arguing the waiver not be granted. PK (as they are often referred to) is based in Washington D.C. and considers and is a public interest group that focuses its efforts on digital technology. The second paragraph of the MPAA’s letter and third paragraph of the press release reads in part:
As MPAA has detailed throughout this proceeding, grant of the waiver would for the first time allow millions of consumers to view high-value, high-definition theatrical films during an early release window that is not available today. MPAA has explained that release of this high-value content as part of an earlier window, especially with respect to movies released for home viewing close to or even during their initial theatrical run, necessarily requires the highest level of protection possible through use of SOC.
Ignoring the reference to SOC for the time being (I’ll get to it in a bit), one can see how the phrase “close to or even during their initial theatrical run” might make motion picture exhibitors angry enough to storm MPAA headquarters. It didn’t help that outgoing MPAA Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman is quoted in the press release saying:
“Many of us love movies, but we just can’t make it to the theater as often as we’d like. That is especially true for parents of young children, rural Americans who live far from the multiplex and people with disabilities that keep them close to home. Having the added option to enjoy movies in a more timely fashion at home would be a liberating new choice.”
At face value it seems as if the MPAA is really interested in getting this FCC waiver pushed through so that they can simultaneously release films in theatres as well as on DVD and video-on-demand. Thus, it is understandable that John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, countered with his quote in the Los Angeles Times:
“We don’t argue against the use of anti-piracy technology if movies were to go to the home earlier. But they [the MPAA] aren’t telling the FCC or anyone else how early they want to go, so there’s no way of telling what the impact is on the cinema industry and our consumers.”
Fithian is spot on, for other than the “initial theatrical run” verbiage the MPAA never really puts a time frame around the “early release window” they refer to. Reading between the lines of both the MPAA’s letter and their press release it would seem as if part of their goal is to move up the VOD window allowing satellite and cable companies to offer films day-and-date with their DVD release. Right now there is roughly a 30 day delay between a movie’s DVD release and it’s availability on VOD. The MPAA implies that should the FCC grant the waiver then the industry would afforded the opportunity to offer exciting new innovations to consumers. PK isn’t buying the MPAA’s plea, and instead suggests the studios should just renegotiation their agreements with Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (satellite and cable providers) since they are the ones controlling release windows in the first place:
The MPAA’s members can provide this “new service” without the waiver. Grant of the waiver will not protect content from illegal copying, as illegal copies are available well before the proposed shortened window. Further, to the extent there is any value in encouraging the MPAA to make content available to those unable to get to the movie theater, the content is already available from DVD rental services. Grant of the waiver will not “level the playing field” between NETFLIX and MVPDs, as 25 million television viewers would need to purchase new equipment to benefit from the “new service” offered by the waiver.
As the MPAA’s response and press release adeptly point out in a well written and composed manner, PK’s whole argument is seriously flawed. Though poorly expressed, the principle behind PK’s stance very well may point to the real reason the MPAA is requesting the waiver.
In 2003 the studios unsuccessfully tried to plug “the analog hole” on the back of audio visual equipment, be it DVD players, DVRs or set top cable boxes. you see, while content on a DVD or streaming over a cable may be encrypted, it is decrypted during playback and can be sent through analog ports. Turn the back of your DVD player around and you’ll likely see red, white and yellow RCA jacks, all of which are analog outputs. Duplicate copies of content can be made directly through these analog outputs and that is what the studios are afraid. Unfortunately for them, the FCC ruled that a signal should not be transmitted through only one output. Meaning, a DVD player or a set top box couldn’t output content to a television solely through the HDMI port, it would also have to pass the content through the analog ports as well.
What the MPAA is asking for now on behalf of the studios for whom they lobby is the option to use what is called Selectable Output Control, or SOC (told you I’d explain that acronym). What SOC would allow is for a signal to be transmitted over a single output. The output the studios want to use is HDMI, because it comes with High Definition Copy Protection that keeps the content encrypted all the way to the television or monitor. (Similar to the way a digital cinema server and digital cinema projector are connected through Cinelink). SOC would also allow the studios to prevent content that is transmitted into the home from being captured on a DVR.
The problem PK sees with SOC and does not do a very good job of presenting, is that consumers usually have mix and match electronic components in their home. While their brand new cable box might have an HDMI output their television may not. So when they go to order a VOD movie and it doesn’t playback on their television set a consumer may be confused and possibly upset when they find out they don’t have the proper equipment. PK argues everyone will have to go out and get brand new equipment to enjoy any new service made available through SOC. This is not technologically untrue, but the MPAA does a good job of smacking down this concern in their correspondence:
By Public Knowledge’s odd reckoning, however, no consumer-oriented technological breakthrough ever could be introduced to American homes unless and until every single American home had access to the same opportunity at the same moment in time. That is a recipe for holding every innovation hostage until the last consumer adopts a new technology.
So, what does all this have to do with motion picture theatrical release windows? Little to nothing, but by focusing their argument on wanting to provide their content to rural consumers or parents of toddlers, the MPAA is able to appear socially conscious while hiding their true objective. Keep in mind, rural broadband initiatives are a large part of the current economic stimulus package.
Make no mistake however, if studios could get away with releasing certain movies on DVD and VOD day-and-date with their theatrical release they probably would. Just ask Disney CEO Bob Iger who has alluded to the notion numerous times. And it probably won’t be long before such a simultaneous release occurs, but it likely won’t become routine very quickly. Instead, this whole to-do over the MPAA seeking an FCC waiver is the studio’s effort to get something they were previously denied. Few in the media picked up on it other than a few online outlets including David Poland, who may have put it best in his Movie City News column:
]]>I don’t think SOC and the excuses MPAA is making for wanting it to be allowed by the FCC have much at all to do with narrowing the theatrical release window. Nor is it about NetFlix. It is about getting firm control on the electronic post-theatrical universe that is filled with potholes, which include piracy, but are not exclusive to piracy by any means.
Ever since March of 2008 when the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) announced that they would be holding their own trade show in 2011 just before NAB the question has been, who will the organization get to put the event together. Speculation was that Bob and Andrew Sunshine who have been producing NATO’s official trade show, ShoWest, since 2001. After all, the Sunshine’s, who originally started out as the Sunshine Group Worldwide before being sold to Nielsen, have tons of experience organizing annual exhibitor conferences such as ShowEast, Cinema Expo and CineAsia.
Such a guess would not have been far off given that earlier today NATO announced they had hired Mitch Neuhauser to be the Show Manager of their official trade show, the first of which will be held in March of 2011. Presently, Neuhauser works with the Sunshines as Vice President of Nielsen Film Group. He is also already involved with NATO in some capacity as the assistant executive director of NATO of New York.
If you’ve ever been to any of the four trade shows Nielsen holds for exhibitors and distributors each year than you definitely know who Neuhauser is. He is a ubiquitous presence at the events and you no doubt have seen him standing before a packed screening of the latest Hollywood studio offering warning the audience that if anyone is caught using a cell phone they will be summarily taken from the theatre and shot. He’s also warned attendees that a similar fate awaits anyone caught pirating the film. Of course, it wouldn’t be a Nielsen trade show if Neuhauser didn’t ask everyone in the theatre to hold the hand of the person seated next to them and not let go until the movie ends.
In all seriousness though, Neuhauser is the perfect man for the job. He’s got 28 years of experience running conventions such as the one NATO wants to put on and he is adored by everyone whose ever worked with him. The press release announcing the hire is filled with the heads of studios and exhibitors praising Neuhauser’s work. Bruce Snyder, Twentieth Century Fox’s head of domestic distribution may have put it best with his quote:
“That’s a no brainer, get Mitch Neuhauser to run the show for NATO and you can’t go wrong. He gets two thumbs up from this office.”
Of course, Neuhauser was also quoted in the release, stating:
“I truly look forward to working with NATO and its members and the rest of the motion picture industry to produce the very best convention imaginable. Personally, I owe a debt of deep gratitude to Bob Sunshine and The Nielsen Film Group for their tremendous support over the past 28 years and I leave on good terms and with great pride in what we have accomplished together.”
One of the key phrases in what Neuhauser said might be “good terms”, for he will begin his new role at NATO on September 14th, just one month before this year’s ShowEast in Orlando. Although, let’s face it, given that the Sunshine’s and Nielsen are always in the throws of putting on the next trade show, would there really ever have been a good time for Neuhauser to leave? (Answer: Probably not.)
Lee Roy Mitchell, the chairman of both NATO as well as Cinemark, made mention that when NATO decided to hold their own trade show, they wanted to make sure they could benefit from all the experience gained from their partnership with ShoWest, which will remain the organization’s official convention through 2010. Part of his statement included the following:
“We are confident we have taken an important first step by hiring a man who has been so critical to that success.”
This could be the standard praiseworthy line one might expect in a press release. Or maybe Mitchell is signaling that Neuhauser will not be the last hire, just the first, and that additional hires will need to have played a similar role in ShoWest’s success (i.e. Bob and Andrew Sunshine). We’ll let you decide.
]]>
ISDCF Chairman Jerry Pierce
On Tuesday at the AMC Burbank 16 in Burbank, CA, the Inter-Society Digital Cinema Forum (ISDCF) held a luminance level demonstration of digital 3D content which had been mastered for different light levels. The ISDCF is not a standards body and thus the demo was not a test, but simply a way for industry professionals to see what 3D content would look like at brighter levels than the 4 foot-lamberts (ftL) to 4.5 ftL that is common luminance for most 3D movies today. One of the goals was to examine the emotional and technical impact of screening the content at different luminance levels.
Speaking of the content, material from the following films was shown:
- “Journey To The Center of the Earth 3D”
- “Miley Ray Cyrus/Hannah Montana: Best of Both Worlds”
- “The Polar Express”
- “Tokyo Mater”
- “U2:3D”
A brand new Christie XD projector was brought in and connected to Doremi DSVJ2 server. Since it already existed at the theatre, the RealD XLS system was employed as the 3D technology. As well, RealD’s dynamic EQ was used to “ghostbust” the content as it was piped between the server and the projector. The Christie projector was set to triple flash (show each frame three times per eye).
Unfortunately, the ISDCF did not receive raw footage so that they could be timed from scratch. Instead they received material that had already been mastered for 4.5 ftL. Any adjustments made to master the content for higher luminance levels were made on top of this. As well, all of the clips were either set at night or were indoors. There was no daylight footage. All of the clips were originally shot on digital rather than film.
At the outset of the demo, clips mastered for 4.5 ftL were shown at 4.5 ftL to establish a baseline. They were then bumped up to a whopping 14 ftL, which is the standard (and required) luminance for 2D films screened in digital. All light levels were measured to the eye, meaning that the light reaching the eye off the screen and through 3D glasses was at the foot-lambert specified. The material shown at 4.5 ftL looked fine, like any normal digital 3D presentation, however when the luminance was raised to 14 ftL there were some interesting side effects; some of the blacks were washed out, the contrast jumped all over the place, and in certain clips portions of the image were completely blown out. The latter was especially true when viewing the heightened stage lighting of concert footage. At 14 ftL the footage from “Journey to the Center of the Earth”, which was set in a cave, was noticeably too bright.
This may sound like a whole lot of minuses, but keep in mind the material was mastered for 4.5 ftL. As well, the increased instances of ghosting many had expected to see at 14 ftL was negligible. At the demo I attended some of the color timers and cinematographers that had worked on the original films were present and suggested that the double mastering may have caused some contrast and over saturation which potentially could account for certain ghost images.
Because a standard practice for mastering luminance has not been established and a question remains about the impact on the current install base of changing the recommended practice of mastering 3D content at 4.5 ftL the ISDCF chose to perform an interesting experiment. Jerry Pierce, chairman of the organization, began switching up the way clips were mastered and at what luminance level they were shown. In addition to 4.5 ftL, content was mastered at 6 ftL, 10 ftL and 14 ftL and screened at all four luminance levels.
When ISDCF mastered the content for the demo they noted that when bumping up the luminance level from 4.5 ftL to 6 ftL, the had to add a lot of saturation, though every level after that the saturation changes were minimal. Most often, content mastered at a specific luminance level and then projected at that same luminance level looked the best. But not always. “Tokyo Mater”, an animated Pixar short, looked amazing at 14 ftL, yet “Hannah Montana” did not. More often than not 14 ftL really looked too bright. When it came to “U2:3D” the brighter levels brought out a lot of detail in the audience which was rather nice and far more engaging than at darker levels.
The demo lasted an hour and by the end, as Mr. Pierce rattled off the mastering and projection luminance level of each clip at a dizzying pace, I couldn’t help but wonder if it might be some new version of “Three Card Monty”. My own opinion was that the clips looked best somewhere between 6 ftL and 10 ftL.
Overall, the demo was quite useful and ISDCF performed a valuable service by holding it. What the presentation really showed was that there may be no hard and fast rules when it comes to the luminance levels of digital 3D movies. It very well might depend on the content being shown. Only one thing seems certain in all of this; when it comes to showing 3D films at brighter luminance levels some exhibitors may balk as it shortens the bulb life of the projector.
If you were present at the demo and would like to share your own thoughts, I encourage you to leave a comment below.
]]>The Motion Picture Association of America has been hinting for some time now that internet service providers should prevent copyrighted material such as movies and televisions shows from being distributed illegally through their high speed broadband networks. Back in July of this year, the MPAA filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission over the “net neutrality” issue, warning the agency that any laws put into place should allow providers to monitor their network traffic to detect the transmission of pirated intellectual property.
On Tuesday MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman pulled no punches in speaking about the issue at a seminar titled Legal Risk Management in the Web 2.0 World . (Try saying that seminar title five times really quickly). CNet.com quoted Glickman as saying:
“Their [ISPs] revenue bases depend on legitimate operations of their networks and more and more they’re finding their networks crowded with infringed material, bandwidth space being crowded out. Many of them are actually getting into the content business directly or indirectly. This is not an us-versus-them issue.”
The reality is, in the United States ISPs are relatively immune from the liability of their networks being used to distribute pirated material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act established in 1998, an ISP is not held responsible for the illegal activity of their subscribers as long as they “they don’t condone copyright infringement, that they remove infringing material when notified and that they aren’t deriving financial benefit from it.” So, don’t look for your internet provider to boast that they have the fastest bit torrent downloads any time soon.
What it seems Glickman is suggesting is that ISPs either prevent pirated material from being transmitted over their networks or that they throttle the bandwidth speed way back when illegal content distribution is suspected. Such throttling, known as traffic shaping, has been a real hot button topic among hard core techies of late given that Comcast (in the U.S.) and other ISPs around the globe have been caught limiting the bandwidth of heavy internet users.
Ironically Glickman may get his wish in having ISPs join the MPAA in fighting movie piracy, though not due to the efforts of his organization. More so because internet providers find it is in their best interest to optimize their network by curtailing bandwidth speeds to non-commercial users generating the most traffic. In techie language. . . that means those using file sharing programs to distribute pirated copies of the latest blockbusters.
]]>The trade body of the United Kingdom’s cinema industry has appointed former government film deputy secretary Phil Clapp as its new chief executive. Clapp thus replaces John Wilkinson, who stood down earlier this year (or was stood down?) , as head of the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association (CEA). Though Wilkinson remains head of the European Digital Cinema Forum, so the two will have to get on when it comes to UK-European digital cinema issues. What little information there is about the appointment comes from an article in the Hollywood Reporter, which tells us that Clapp, “joins from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport [DCMS], where he most recently was deputy director, responsible for policy on the creative industries, including film.”
Given that digital cinema is the greatest challenge facing the UK exhibition industry, this is not encouraging as the DCMS’s interest in digital cinema has been measured to date, compared to the Department of trade and Industry, which for many years encouraged digital cinema meetings while a new DCMS representative would show up for each meeting. However, this is not a reflection on Clapp, who must have something going for him to have qualified for the post at CEA. The CEA itself has always been the poorer cousin of its US counterpart NATO, unlike whom it does not even have a website, only these contact details. Most interesting to watch will be the dynamics between Clapp/CEA and UK Film Council/Peter Buckingham, that were responsible for the 240 screen-strong Digital Screen Network (DSN) that has made the UK the poster child of government sponsored digital cinema deployments in Europe.
]]>