Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss
Hi FilmMixer, It sounds like we are in the same business.
These two statements sound contradictory to me. If a camcorder can hear it, I'm sure I can.
My understanding is that it is not like the "digital" watermarks that permeate digital media, as when you might use the LSB of each 24-bit audio sample to encode a signature (which would indeed be inaudible). It is an audible sequence that survives re-recording.
I realize that it can be "camouflaged" within the soundtrack, but the fact is that the soundtrack is being adulterated for the sake of profit.
I understand the financial aspect, but I have a stronger understanding for the artistic aspect. Many directors are very protective of there soundtracks, and would liken Cinavia to stamping a copyright notice on a Rembrandt.
Mark.. forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't know who you are, or how you are connected to the sound post production community... you'll have to enlighten me.
I think you are making a big assumption about what most directors would liken this too... none of the film makers I've worked with, where I've applied the Cinavia process to our mixes, have been able to hear it, nor have complained about it.
Most directors come to work with me because I am protective, passionate and capable of forging their artistic visions through sound..
Being careful, and without discussing my speculations about exactly how it works, there is a simple reason why it wouldn't be audible to anyone who didn't know how
to listen for.... that is one of the main reasons that they have been successful in making this a desirable no home use watermark.
As I said, neither myself, or any of the film makers I have worked with, have felt it contrary to the artistic integrity of the sound, or detrimental to the track..
You assume that because it is robust, it must be audible to the point of degradation.. however, having a good idea of how it is being achieved (and most of that comes from intense study of both watermarked and clean versions of the same sound tracks) I am no longer up in arms as I first was when I was told what we were going to have to this...
Having heard / done it now a handful of time, I find it much less obtrusive than the ugly visual serial # marks on film prints... much less so, in fact.
While I'm not at liberty to discuss the films I know it to be on, as I said, I'm sure everyone here has been subjected to it if they've been to the theaters more than 2 or 3 times in the last 6 months..
It's called show business, not show art... as such, financial concerns, in this day and age, usually guide most decisions from a distributors standpoint...
Like it or not, it's the nature of the beast..
(For all.. don't take my comments on this subject as an endorsement of the process... I'm trying to discuss this in an objective manner..
I will say that as one who works hard to earn a living, and understanding how much it really costs to make films, I am sympathetic in studios attempts to protect their investments... I find none of the arguments about why it is ok to not pay for films that a studio invested money in to be compelling...
If you think studios charge too much for a film at the theater, don't go.
If you think studios charge too much, or puts their restriction on what they deem to be its fair use, for a Blu Ray, or DVD, or etc... don't buy it.
Studios and networks may be greedy... that's their right.
Vote with your pocket book... but once again, it's just my .02.)