Copy protection - an answer ?

where do you do the scratch?
inside or outside?

Sorry , Right at the outer edge of the burned portion of the disk.

if you score the inside track it will definately be uncopyable , and unplayable.

cd's and dvd's write from inside to outside of disk.

What a good idea :)

yes, thought it was inside> outside.
I may well have a go with this.

I do a fair bit of stuff where I sell to the individuals, recording at my own risk. I've noticed a fall off in numbers as people have realised that DVD's can be copied without loss - and many people have DVD labeling printers so they can make very good copies.

With a variety of separate tracks, accessed both from menus and sequentially, how reliable is it that this 10 minutes of black is at the outside of the outermost track?

I am wondering if DVD authoring software will necessarily arrange a complex disc with the "last" track written to the disc last, and hence on the outside?

Looks like some experimentation is needed...

Hi
DVD Studio Pro plays the tracks in the order which they are arranged in the project track list, so should be able to do it...
Also I think programs like IfoEdit (or MyDVDEdit for Mac) also display track placement info.

Thanks, Paul.

Presumeably, this track doesn't actually have to accessed in any way by the user menus or sequentially from other tracks? Just create a track with nothing leading into or out of it, and just ensure it is, as you say, last in the project track list?

It just becomes a spoiler track for those trying to read the data from the entire disc. The DVD player will never even try and access it?

This I gotta try...

PS: Never seen Compressor work so fast as when it just compressed 10mins of purest black! Faster than real time!

John if this works I think all on here should have a whip-round and send it to you. What a star, this is what the Doc is all about.........

Am I right in thinking that DVD Workshop 2 allows you to select a copy defeating option in the preparation before burning?
Norman

John
I have been experimenting - burning three DVDs with 30MB between them, i.e:

disc 1 = nearly full
disc 2 = same as 1, but with a 30MB extra track on it (about 10 minutes of "black")
disc 3 = same as 1 but with 2 x 30MB extra tracks on it (20 mins of black)

As far as I can see, the burnt area on:

disc 1 stops about 5.1mm from edge of disc
disc 2 stops about 5.0mm from edge of disc
disc 3 stops about 4.9mm from edge of disc.

How accurate does this scratch have to be positioned? and how small?

Or alternatively, one will have to limit every disk to about only 4GB of actual footage, and then top it up to the brim with as much "black" as it takes to give you a reasonably sized target to hit?

John, how much actual extra data do you put on your discs, and can you really hit it accurately? And is your scratch along only the very circumference of the burnt area? (and not radial?) and hence only a fraction of a millimetre wide?

(I have visions of ruining lots of deliverable discs with a screwdriver!! )

(BTS: No disrespect to your idea - I really want it to work! :( )

BTW: Norman: I would be the first to admit knowing nothing about DVD Workshop 2, but I would lay a pound to a penny it won't stop copying. If the forces of Hollywood can't stop commerical pressed DVD ripping, I'm sure DVD Workshop 2 can't.

(Bolshy, tonight, aren't I?) :)

I cannot lay claim to the idea ,I remember seeing it somewhere on the net and put it in to practice. but thanks for the thought. I Just recorded 10 mins black before encoding to mpeg using storm. I generally use CBR at 5,000,000 bps. The dent or deep scratch at the edge of the burned area should be approx 2mm just enough to bugger up the last few Mb. (Radial) On test , The DVd played fine in all machines. It would not finalise in the duplicater and on a PC came up with CRC errors - so it works for me.I don`t think it`s a good idea to use any copy protection on your authored disk as this means you won`t be able to copy it yourself when you need to. But the idea is just enough to put the kybosh on joe bloggs out there who has a pC with DVD drives. It`s not foolproof as there are ways of re authoring but at least it`s an area not normally known to the said Joe.

I think it's for duplication houses only

http://www.ulead.com/tech/dws/dws20faq.htm

I like that one i'm gonna try that one out. :)
although i'm slightly confused by which direction the scratch should take.
is around the disc or from the outside towards the centre? if you know what i mean

If I may jump in:
John said "radial", which I presume means from centre to edge, however:

I suggest that "circumferential" (along the edge, just inside the burnt area) might be preferable, as it

(a) damages ALONG the track direction (more unrecoverable damage to the unwanted last track) and yet

(b) covers fewer tracks (less likely to intrude into the "wanted" track area).

I am still experimenting.......

This is a very interesting thread. It seems to me that a dividers (pair of) could be more accurate than scribing with a screwdriver. A template could be made for the DVD to drop into, in the centre of which is a small hole for one point of the divider to go into. The divider can then be widened to precisely the edge of the burn. The scratch could be quite long giving even more security (?) You could even have two parallel scratches.!!

FWIW
John

mooblie, says a good point. As an example you couldget an audio CD then score very deep lines from the middle to the edge, as long as the TOC is not damaged the CD will play fine, due to data correction, however, make the score in the same direction as the tracks only a small one and the cd will jump like crazy. I would bet that the DVD is the same.

I understood DVD-R reads outside in and DVD+R reads inside out? That that not the case and if it is true does it make a difference where you score it?
Nice one though.......Neil

I am fairly sure ALL single layer optical discs (well CD and DVD anyway) read from the centre out.

However, I am not sure if dual/double layer discs then start to read the second layer from the edge inwards, to minimise layer jump?

(I ought to dig out my copy of DVD Demystified but it's too heavy to lift.)

i'm not sure the dl do read outside to in as some of the commercial ones i have seem to take an age to switch between layers

I dont want 2 dissappoint anyone but what if u just copy the video files i.e. the VIDEO_TS folder to your computer (which will be on the unscratched surface) and make a finalized dvd video using ur burner?

the damaged 'file' will be the last VOB in the VIDEO_TS folder , and if the last VOB file contains more than the final black section , some of the video will also be uncopyable.

NOT UNWATCHABLE , JUST UNCOPYABLE with conventional copy programs.

could this be the answer to all those little insects that sit on there Pc's using a rip tool and a burner, copying other peoples hard work.
Even kids are doing it. i made a short childrens drama last year gave all the cast and crew a copy each only to find out that the kid that played the lead was using his pc to make copies for his friends.
Alright it was non commercial and no money involved but i still felt like i was being ripped off (literally)

No, because kids will just download software which will copy the disk: it's not exactly hard to find a ripping program which will ignore bad blocks.

Seriously, if you make a DVD which can be played, it can be copied. Maybe not by a forty-year-old school teacher, but certainly by an eight-year-old boy with Internet access. Selling defective disks to your customers in the hope that they don't know any eight-year-old boys seems like a risky business model to me.

"Selling defective disks to your customers in the hope that they don't know any eight-year-old boys seems like a risky business model to me".
So how do we deal with the situation of those that would rip us off ? As stated previously , The sales are going down - This is in part I am sure to Piracy.I don`t quite understand the point defective disk as they are buying the content not a minor cosmetic blemish. Pre orders is very much part of my business though and I`ll defend it as best as I can from those locusts who want something for nothing.The world has changed thanks to technology. To illustrate that you only have to look at the Various scams out there. I think we have to change and adapt to that. It makes us Cynical (which we get as we get older anyway) , and behave in a way which is not in our nature really. Apart from putting prices up to cover the pirates will only invite more Piracy. I need not explain why - Disney knows that only too well.

is there software that will ignore unreadable parts of a disk?
If the scratch is done carefully along one of the tracks as stated earlier
and done right it may not be as noticeable as one thinks.
I am certainly going to explore this avenue

Unicorn, nobody is claiming a uncopyable disc, just a disc that is not copyable casually.

Casual users with a DVD writer will try transferring the files to a HD and back to a writable DVD - and the majority, I believe, will give up when that fails, not knowing what method has been employed to frustrate the copying, or what to try next.

Also: the disc isn't "defective" if all the video material intended to be playable, is playable.

Mooblie i'm not sure that is the case.
There arte a lot of people out there with ripping software and are using them to rip hollywood films i think more people will try the ripping method rather than just copying them.
Infact i actually didn't think about just copying the files if i had wanted to copy a dvd disc i would have gone the ripping route.
(although technically i suppose thats all ripping software does?)

Mad mardy:
Ripping software is primarily designed to overcome Macrovision and/or decrypt CSS encoded files on Hollywood pressed DVDs and compress them to <4.7GB for a single layer disc. I am not sure if it can deal with completely unreadable files VOB files on the disc, which it will assume are necessary for a "successful" rip.

I am still experimenting with this, but I will also try copying a damaged disc (which I produced, and I own the copyright) with some ripping software I don't have. (Cough.)

Freeware,

Mac: http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Utilities/MacTheRipper.shtml

PC: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6533.cfm

:)

Maybe - or a bad business model? I suspect that for most events like this people are simply not organised enough to indulge in widespread copying. (And would just make copies via analogue anyway, if they were really bothered.) My family recently were participants in just such a production as is being talked about, with DVDs of the event on sale. I can't remember the actual price, but being aware of the economics of the industry don't think it was unreasonable. On the other hand, other participants commented that a copy was SUBSTANTIALLY more than a commercial DVD (undeniably true), with technical quality and production values somewhat less (also undeniably true). They strongly felt that THEY were the ones being ripped off. So where does this leave us? I can see both viewpoints, and suspect that the falling sales are due more to the costs of such a DVD being pretty fixed, whilst commercial DVD prices have plummetted over the last few years. Consequently, to the average consumer the school play video becomes poorer value for money in simple market terms. (Yes, I know, but to the average consumer A costs £x, B casts £y, they aren't interested in "business models" - that's simple economics.)

The only solution I can think of is to adjust the pricing of jobs, such that more of the cost is "up-front", with a cheaper cost per copy, and let the person organising the event deal with recouping the fixed costs. By and large they will personally know the customers, and the organisers will be quite keen to maximise orders, to get the cost/copy down.

When such a DVD cost (say) £20, and the latest commercial release was about the same, it's easy to see a fairly high level of sales. When the latter reduces substantially in price, comparisons are made, and it's easy to see sales of the former dropping. Putting prices up will only make matters worse, even induce people to copy who wouldn't otherwise - the "cost savings" just become more worthwhile!

Disney got this one right. Make the costs of the DVD so low that nobody bothers copying it.

To make this work on smaller jobs, you have to cover all your production costs with a fee, charged for the job. Then you can charge say £1 or £2 per disc and nobody'll bother with copying.

"Stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap"

Exactly, I played around with ripping software for a while, out of technical interest. Rapidly came to the conclusion that for an average individual it wasn't worth the hassle, let alone the legality issues, and coupled with the falling prices of commercial DVDs, I see little point in doing other than going the legal route. I'd much prefer to see resources targeted at big scale pirates, selling copies at car boot sales etc than eight year olds tinkering around for the odd personal copy.

Regarding the "school play" type scenario, I think we need to take a pace back and look at this not from the point of view of the person doing the filming ("I'm being ripped off by people copying my work.") or from that of the customer ("HOW MUCH! Just for a DVD - what a rip-off"), but instead from that of the person organising the event.

I suspect they have had to put up with an increasing number of family audience members making their own videos, and I'd be the first to admit that has now got to silly proportions. It's become distracting and sometimes takes over the whole point of the concert/play. Simply banning the use of cameras seems draconian, so hence the idea of employing someone to video on everyones behalf - good idea. However, if a significant proportion of the audience FEEL they are being ripped off (I know, I know, I did say feel) then not only will they just refuse to buy the product, but will start to become very vociferous in saying "if they're charging that much, I demand to bring my own camera in".

And I strongly suspect that the falling sales are due more to people voting with their feet and not bothering, rather than widespread piracy. In the case of such as weddings, it's relatively easy to make your profit on the flat charge rather than per copy charges. Increasingly it may be necessary to get such as schools etc to take their share of the overall commercial risk AND reward, otherwise this whole market sector may go the way of the seafront promenade photographer. A good example of dwindling sales due to public perception of decreasing value for money.

The sell cheap theory does not work.
My stuff that was being copied was originally given away free with a lovely cover and printed disc. They still wanted to copy it for their friends, because it was EASIER for them to do this than give me a ring and order one which i would of provided free. Disney hasn't found a way at all they only have a few productions in circulation at a time and where have you found them cheap?
round here Disney stuff are some of the most expensive in the shops
and you will never see them in the HMV £5.99 section.
I Know someone who regulary rips commercial DVD's for himself, he borrows them off friends and rips them. the sell cheap theory does not work on these people and it won't work at your concerts or school plays.
One person will buy one (a few may chip in) then that one person will make a copy for everyone.

Maybe they thought they were saving you time and expense, trying to help you? Especially if they knew you weren't doing it for profit?

Well, the cheaper they are, the more likely they are to be bought than copied or ignored, and I'd say that is especially true just above and just below the commercial release prices. A popular fallacy is that every copied DVD represents a lost sale, the best research suggests that in most cases of copying, if a copy isn't able to be made, a sale won't result, it will just be ignored, certainly if priced high.

But I'd agree that for such as a concert or school play it wouldn't be possible to solve the overall problem by pricing cheap enough to make the whole exercise worthwhile. But neither would stopping copying, and pricing high. They'll just be ignored. I started off by talking about business models, and the alternative that money is made more from a charge for the job than unit sales, and still feel that's preferable where possible.

Agreed. Charge the organisers for the operation, then sell disks cheap or even give them away. It's the only process that makes sense.

The point is that in a hypothetical scenario of 10 sold copies and 10 DIY copies in existence of any production, totally stopping unauthorised copying is NOT going to lead to a consequent total of 20 sold copies. It may lead to an extra couple, the rest will just do without.

The real effect on this business of cheap DVD burners and blanks is not so much they undermine by allowing easy DIY copying, rather that they diminish the perceived value of a DVD in peoples eyes when sold on a "per copy" basis. No amount of copy protection will change that, just reinforce prejudices that they feel they are being taken for a ride. Several hundred pounds for work and overheads etc may be perceived as fair (just as when employing a builder, plumber etc), £20 for a DVD will be perceived as a rip-off.

Well personally i wouldn't sell a DVD for £20.
I am involved in graduation video's (just the editor/vision mixer)
admitedly students are only on screen for a few seconds.
its very easy for a group to chip together and buy one copy then just dupe it for their friends. the students hardely ever want a copy anyway, its the parents and grandparents who probably couldn't get a seat at the ceremony
who want these. The chances are without illigal duplication copies probably WOULD have been sold as people always want to see their grand kids/kids at these events. The same goes for school shows peole want to show their kids off to friends and family, the proud factor normally means more than just saying "i'm not paying for that" but as we all know if we can get something for nothing we will.
These aren't just rash statements they are facts, i deal a lot with children and their parents, my prod company specialises in childrens program making.

Glad to hear it - but it was about the going rate at the example I previously gave. I'm not saying it was excessive given the work involved and the relatively small number I believe to have been sold. What I AM saying is that we just decided not to bother, and neither did many of our friends - it may have been nice to have, but so are lots of other things, and we can't afford them all.

I'd assume a graduation can spread the fixed cost over many more copies, even make glass mastering economic, maybe? What would you consider a reasonable cost for this sort of product?

well actually the graduation dvd's are £27 which is about the going rate for these type of ceremonys. I must add that i have nothing to do with the pricing on these (it is not part of my prod company) or the marketing.
I don't think the amount involved warrents glass mastering we too have seen our sales fall as soon as we switched from VHS to DVD and the price is the same for either.

.................!

I had genuinely assumed you were going to quote a lower figure! To put in perspective, that is about twice the cost of a standard feature film DVD in the shops, perhaps 5-6 times that of a special offer one - I know we're not comparing like with like, but that's how the customer sees it in value for money terms. I don't condone it, but it does not surprise me that punters therefore feel they are being ripped off and have few qualms about "sharing the cost between a few friends". For a graduation I'd assume a potential market in the hundreds?

I'd understood the break even point for glass mastering was around the 100+ unit mark? That also gives the advantage of guaranteed playback on all players, and presumably the possibility of commercial copy protection?

Not only that but the customer is only interested in the 30 seconds of the final product with their son or daughter in. In other words, you are charging £54 per interesting minute which would make the average movie come in at several thousand pounds on the same pricing range. :)

I know for a fact that people were discussing pirating copies at my graduation in 2000 (back when it was only VHS available) and I'm pretty certain it was because they cost so much for very little judging by the demo they had running beforehand -- my comment was it's not worth pirating it looks so bad at the time. It was ok technically (although still limited to 4:3 even in 2005 which is plain stupid) but so robotic looking as every person was accompanied by the same shot and edit points you began to wonder whether the mix was being done by a computer and not just on a computer. :)

However, offer it at a small price (less than a fiver) on the day and you are more likely to get customers.

Steven

I think the statement about being limited to 4:3 in 2005 is complete nonsense
do you realise how much is still being shot and broadcast in 4:3 and i'm talking broadcast here. A graduation in 16:9 would be the most useless thing in the world, the whole point is to capture the moment involving a person
i don't think that 2 miles either side of the graduate would really go down well
with 4:3 you can get nice and close and really utilise the frame, after all 4:3 is so much more condusive to the human form than 16:9

what is interesting about the graduation is that the numbers were a lot higher when on VHS the drop came about when DVD was introduced.
reason: easier to copy dvd for the nobody for vhs you need two video machines, a load of cables, and somebody who has actually read the vcr manual
for dvd all you need is a dvd burner and a piece of ripping software

In response to Business models. With Communions I charge £12.00 per copy with £1.00 for every sale going back to the organiser to help fund the communion programme for the next year. The Parish priest also gets a freebie for his own records. I have found that greasing the wheels and keeping it reasonable keeps you in work for the following year. I use 2 DVC pro cameras. First is locked off , the other free ranging and a minidisk on the lecturn for the speakers. The production values are very high.25 Children over two weeks (down quite considerably from the usual 40+) and only 18 people ordered DVD. It reall y is more or less the same with the other parish communions that I do. Orders are going down - Why ? Just how cheap can I get ?
The photographer who is charing £28.00 per pack is doing a roaring trade. Piracy can only be the answer. To nip this in the bud , I have had to make it a rule that it has to be supported or the otganisers will have to look elsewhere for a mug who works for nothing . I really don`t care about blemished disks so long as the content is intact.Protect and survive !

Very little off the the main channels from what I can see. Even the BBC's website shoots interviews and value-added material for shows in 16:9.

Until the person watches it on their 16:9 TV (I've had mine for 8 years now, they've been the norm new set for the past 4 easily so it's quite likely the majority of your viewers will own one) and the person either has two black bars either side (deadly on a plasma) or is stretched to look like Johnny Vegas. And as (hopefully) a graduation video will have a long life span then this is even more likely to be the case.

Shoot 16:9 and you give people a video they can watch on their telly in the correct shape without black bars, so in effect you do not lose anything over 4:3 you are just filling the TV with picture rather than leaving it 'dead'.

Plus the fact that well composed 16:9 shots look more natural (are eyes are widescreen remember!) than well-composed 4:3 shots.

I suspect there are other factors as well (increase in home camcorder ownership, increase in expected quality of product based on commercial DVD quality etc) that play as well because of the people I know outside the Computer Science dept at Uni (i.e. non-techno geeks :)), I think very few would know how to duplicate a DVD.

Steven

you would be surprised hown many things are aspect ratio converted

so instead you will hust have a load of dead space either side of the graduate which due to depth of field will be quite blurred. Its still dead space but dead space that is blurred or hold other distracting items.

people have been watching 4:3 on 16:9 tv for years ( and you do have the option of turning it to 4:3)

Do you realise what the percentage of people watching stuff on 4:3 tv's are?

I was involved in a ITV drama last year, (a big budget one) it was shot on film in 4:3 not widescreen

No offense steve but you are not out there doing this stuff i'm not sure how you can possibly know.
please don't elevate you and your friends to high
i know 10 year old kids that are doing it and my dad who is completly useless at anything technical can do it. I would say that more people know how to dupe a DVD than copy a vhs

Steven is quite right. In the UK pretty well all new origination is commissioned 16:9, and 4:3 is seen as very much second best, aspect ratio conversion is certainly used, but only where there is no alternative (archive, foreign material etc) - it should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate 4:3 acquisition. Not just mainstream programming either - ITV news are under strong pressure to go 16:9, and I believe plans are well advanced at Sky too. (BBC News have been widescreen a while now, and I believe only acquire 4:3 when there is a likelihood of pooling. Obviously this should decrease dramaticaly when ITV and Sky news switch.)

I don't believe ITV would commission a big budget, film drama 4:3. I refer to http://www.itv.com/uploads/files/1097685416531_0.6735922195646558.pdf - the official technical requirements issued by ITV commissioning, and see paragraph 2.5 on page 4. 4:3 MAY be permissible for specialist productions, but surely not for big budget drama!? I would have expected Super16 at least, or maybe it was shot 35mm, with the intention of masking widescreen, as for the cinema?

That is not the thinking in most of the film and tv world. In compositional terms, I'd expect "the moment" to be of the form of a presentation, in other words a two shot. Exactly what is most suited to 16:9.

But practically, whilst a large (and declining) percentage of people may indeed be watching on 4:3 tvs, most DVDs they watch will be 16:9 cinema releases. So their DVD players will be set up to either show the centre cut out, or letterbox as appropiate. If that's good enough for Hollywood, it's good enough for a graduation DVD. Equally, a 16:9 DVD is optimum for those with widescreen tvs now, and more future proof for keeping for such time as it may be watched in later years - almost certainly on a 16:9 tv.

Far from being "the most useless thing in the world", a graduation in 16:9 is the most satisfactory, as long as it is shot shoot and protect 4:3 - exactly the same preferred approach as broadcasters use for such as sport. The only reason I can see for still doing it 4:3 is to make as much use as possible of existing equipment - and the customers can just like it or lump it.

John A.V. - your pricing sounds much more what I'd expect, and nobody should rightfully quibble. But when you say "I have had to make it a rule that it has to be supported or the organisers will have to look elsewhere for a mug who works for nothing", is that not exactly what Alan Roberts and I have been suggesting as the business model? Make the money up front, not in per copy sales?

well have it your way but i said that not everything was shot 16:9
and you've basically said that is true in your above statment.
which is different to what steve said that everything is 16:9

you should watch a lot more tv because there is more than just ITV and sky shooting 4:3. and both of these also shoot 16:9
It is also a fact that 4:3 is more asthetically pleasing for the human form, that was an old argument settled years ago. it doesn't mean we won't go completly 16:9 but it is a fact. Like we lost betamax when it was the superior format to vhs not always the best wins.

Not all people watch commercial hollywood dvd's on their tv
and tv's are not only for that their are other things you know

i don't think the drama would be in the cinema, itv drama's don't usually go that way, we are talking of television now which is completly different to cinema both technically and in creative structure.

I think Steven and I are in full agreement. The vast majority on the main UK channels is now commissioned 16:9. Of the rest, plans are well advanced to switch soon, and when it's done 4:3 the broadcasters do indeed consider it "limiting" - just as Steven says.

An argument settled long ago by whom?! I'd understood classical artistic theory had something like this to say: "Another geometrical figure that is commonly associated with Phi is the Golden Rectangle. This particular rectangle has sides A and B that are in proportion to the Golden Ratio. It has been said that the Golden Rectangle is the most pleasing rectangle to the eye." (Phi being 1.618) For the origin of that quote, and more detail than you could ever humanly need try: http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html For the human form in portrait, the Golden Rectangle in the upright version is considered optimum, for other scenes the landscape version is generally preferred. (And IMO that includes a two shot of a graduate and the person handing over his degree ;) )

4:3 was settled upon as in the early days as both lens coverage and tube manufacture both favoured circular coverage. Technically a square raster would have been easiest, 5:4 was the earliest shape in the UK, giving way to 4:3. I don't believe 4:3 was ever considered "more asthetically pleasing for the human form", and as soon as technology permitted, both the cinema and more latterly TV have moved on to wider aspect ratios.

So depressing to see this old and inaccurate chestnut turning up again. Look at the specs of each and there is little to choose between them in theory, neither could be called a "superior format" definitively. What IS true is that VHS came in a variety of prices and qualities, cheap and cheerful low quality Betamax decks were never made. Compare a top end VHS with a top end Betamax in the early 80's (I did, in a test room) and there was little to choose between them. Compare a top end Betamax with a much cheaper VHS machine and hardly surprisingly the Beta machine is better - because it's a better machine, NOT a superior format.

I didn't think it would be in the cinema, that's why I posted the ITV commissioning link, for drama made for TV. The comment about cinema was purely illustrative of the way a widescreen drama (for film or TV) may be made if 35mm film was used. If it really was made 4:3 on film, it appears to be going directly against the ITV guidelines. I don't know what role you had in the production, or what leads you to the belief that it was 4:3 (and guidelines contravened) - perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

Not really, I can usually tell instantly (it's not exactly hard, the picture goes all soft and fuzzy usually). In fact if you look at the BBC guidelines for delivery you'll see that ARC'd material is only allowed when there is no other way to get it -- which is why all their PD150s are fitted with anamorphic adaptors and they helped JVC with the specs for the DV700.

Erm, I rather suspect it was shot on Super16 in 15:9 and then cropped in the TK to 16:9. Which drama was it out of interest.

Actually I have been out and shot stuff similar to this (AV at conventions being recorded for possible use on commercial DVDs) which has been shot 16:9 since 2000. I've just finished editing stuff for the BBC website that was all shot 16:9, when there really was no reason to do so (talking head streams when viewed on a computer screen don't really matter what shape they are -- however again the framing allows for a more naturalistic style). When I record the baptisms at my church, I shoot them 4:3 because my camera is 4:3 and it is a compromise -- the shot would look a lot nicer in 16:9, simply because I'd be able to frame the whole baptismal pool, yet move in closer to the person being baptised.

The problem with 4:3 is that you lose a sense of location when you shame a nice mid shot of a person -- with 16:9 you can frame it so that the person is anchored in the location.

It doesn't matter what I was shooting now, I'd chose to do it 16:9 because I firmly believe it gives a more naturalistic composition.

Steven

I hate to be a spoilsport but could we get back to the original topic.

I would like to know the results of Mooblie's trials, and if anyone else has put the scratch theory to the test.

ref - business models.

Although I sympathise with people taking the end user's point of view, I can't see how people think you can make a profit if you charge some of the low end prices quoted here.

It's one thing to turn up with a camera and shoot a school play, maybe giving the school x copies to be included in a fee of £100, extra copies at £x.

Most of the stuff I do like this relies on me shooting for "free" and selling on to the participants - if you want a bespoke product, you need to pay for it.

The current job waiting to go out had a three man crew running from a start time of 7.am through to 5.00 pm. 8 cameras in two venues. - possible sales 80 max.
add in van hire, consumable materials etc and you have a high cost per DVD.

Not many institutions like Universities will underwrite a video production - far from it. Most graduation offices expect commission from the sales. They also expect things like comp. copies and free video overspill facilities in lieu of a fee. Stuff for which you'd normally charge about £500

My uni ran 16 ceremonies over 3 days - each ceremony aprox one hout long. 150-200 students per ceremony. So you're talking about 16 separate master tapes.

Although an internal dept, we were beaten in the last tender session as we only charged £20 per video. The current bloke charges £40

A mate who also does graduation videos is thinking of stopping as there's not enough money in it at the £25 mark

Well there is a business model right there, variable-data DVDs. Certainly for graduations, you could offer customized versions which only include the person (and friends of) the people buying that copy are interested in. Wouldn't be that hard to do in something like Final Cut Pro either, build up your intro and outro as separate sequences and then have a sequence for each graduand such that you can place them next to each other on the timeline without a jumpcut and then use some simple AppleScript to assemble the finished thing automatically. I'm sure similar things can be done in Avid and Premiere as well. But with an approach like that, you cut out piracy because it is pointless to pirate the disk if it doesn't contain the person you want to see graduate, and you are offering a more watchable product because the viewer doesn't have to sit (or wind) through several hours of people they aren't interested in.

In fact, by clever use of DVD authoring you could probably do it all in the DVD package to save on MPEG encoding time (although that will become less important due to processor speed increases).

It is interesting that this is exactly the track being taken by the print industry were there is a huge amount of research and work being placed into variable data printing (mainly so Sainsbury's can mail shot its customers with custom advertising...)

Here at nottingham it's done in house by the media group, shot on DVCPro50 with 2 cameras while also providing AV support in the main graduation hall along with web streaming and goodness knows what else. It also looks robotic and completely lifeless camera work when watching it so I have no interest in ever buying a copy of my PhD graduation in 2 weeks time.

In fact, they have an archive of all graduations back to 2001 viewable via the web so that probably kills sales a bit too.

To be fair, they can only get away with that because the industry is letting them. AV support of the sort Nottingham uses would cost around £10k in equipment rental alone (based on the costs of doing weekend conventions with 3 camera support and very friendly hire rates) before you factor in operators time.

If only they were that short now, my undergrad one lasted nearer two hours long and I have to sit through it all again in two weeks as I graduate again (thank goodness for iPod is all I can say!).

And this is exactly what infocus, Alan and I have been saying -- the profit on copies business-model doesn't work, and will never work unless you can sell thousands cheapily and conveniently. Which is another problem, it is far more convenient to run off a copy on the computer for a friend than it is to get in touch with the original producer and order a copy, wait a few days for it to arrive etc. even if it does only cost a fiver or something.

And getting back to the original point -- if the disk can be played in a computers as DVD video, it can be copied on a computer very easily no matter how you try and get around it by corrupting the data. (For example, just copy the VIDEO_TS folder files one by one off the disk to your hard disk skipping any that won't copy and reburn -- if you manage to corrupt a VOB needed for the ceremony then you can use something like VLC to copy the needed parts of the VOB as the disk is playing).

What's more as a consumer if I received a disk with a huge scratch like that on I'd reject it straight away.

Steven

2mm A huge scratch ?.
What you suggest in your last post Mr. Bagly is Ok when you are an adult - the ultimate personalisation of product. However what has not been thought about is the historical aspect of Childhood. Do you have a moving visual record of Family & friends & Location be it on Video or Cine? If you have , good then you need give this no further thought. If you haven`t , wouldn`t you like to see yourself , Your old cat / dog , Dad`s car , grandparents etc as it was then ?. By the way the Mrs. gets her Masters degree soon. We will buy the DVD, I will not copy it for anyone else and I will put relevent parts with the family archive.

I put a circumferential scratch placed about 1mm inside the edge of the burnt area, on a DVD-R which had four sacrificial 100MB VOB tracks on the outer edges. The scratch was pretty minor, not particularly deep - literally only just scratching the surface (!), but quite long - about 15mm. (It was very easy to do, with a pair of dividers set to the right width, holding one leg against the outside of the disc, and the other leg doing the damage). This method also helps prevent accidental incursion too far into the burnt area.

The final VOB file cannot be copied using Explorer (Windows), Finder (Mac) or the ripping software I tried. Massive read errors cause the process to abort - yet it does identify the offending file - leaving the user wondering (or probably: assuming) that it's an important and wanted video file - and not a specifically included sacrificial file.

However, as Steven B points out, it is only the final VOB file that is problematic, and even the first portion of that VOB file (before the scratch is reached) it is playable on a DVD player or computer. It just freezes at the scratch when playing. And if you were to play that file by itself, you might realise that it contains nothing. Better would be, as I think John originally suggested, to include a single file with valid/real video, then a chapter point (between the damage and the "wanted part") at which point control jumps elsewhere. But even that can be circumnavigated, as Steven points out (obviously a more determined individual - no offence, Steven!)

So - this method will frustrate only casual copying (not determined copiers), and hence may or may not achieve its aim. Yet, as a "copy depressant" method - it's free, easy and quick to do, and doesn't affect the cosmetic apprearance of the disc - my scratches were VERY light - hard to see except under a bright light and close inspection. (And quite difficult to photograph - as you can see above!)

Will we do it on our wedding DVDs? Not sure.... Sometimes I am suspicious why we never get asked for any copies beyond the first (duh!) and other times, I think "who cares anyway....?". Life's too short.

I am minded to agree with the photographer we were talking to this weekend - they now give away "free" CD-ROMs with hi-res images to all their customers. They present this as a "bonus to customers" - but in fact the REAL reason they do it is because they never want to see their customers again (!) and have to bother with further copies. Obviously their business model and pricing take all this into account.

We certainly don't rely on or even expect many copies to be ordered, and hence we already price the main job accordingly.

Cheers Mooblie

Not so much TAKING it, as appreciating it. And appreciating it is essential for planning a business model, even if that means avoiding an area of work. I commented earlier on the fate of the seafront photographer, which I'm old enough to remember. That's not to say they were charging silly prices given their overheads etc and their product may have been superior to the end users own snaps, but they were perceived as poor value for money - and they stopped being bought.

Playing Devils Advocar here but...

I gotta say that if I knew which 'chapter' was corrupted, perhaps some ripping software allows you to choose which chapters you want to rip?
For example, DVD Decrypter in 'IFO' mode can do that.

Wouldnt this method ignore the corrupted chapter?

Probably. If you've got any means of working out what's in the VOB file that's corrupted, you can decide how to handle it. As mentioned above, this is in no way "copy proof" for someone who knows what they're doing, just somewhat "copy depressing" for the casual copier.

I tried to copy a DVD recently but all I got was a message saying that the disc was 'read only'. How do I make a 'read only' disc.

What sort of DVD was it, Fergie? "Reading" is what you want to do, when you copy it!!

All finalised DVDs (except DVD-RAMs) are "read only", except when blanks, and then only when under the control of DVD burning software and in a DVD writing drive.

Even DVD-RWs are only writable under certain circumstances.

Are you sure it didn't give you message other than "read only"?

my question is this, are all the chapters made in vobs? therefore dont you simply not copy over teh last vob?

one point i would like to make, if its this easy why are the manufacters doing it?

1. each chapter is not a seperate vob.
each vob is a GB of data for first one and same until data is encoded.
look at the structure of any dvd film etc.
2. answer 1 explains why that won't work
3. that was the way that atari made their 8-bit software secure .............

I remember when CDs first came out and they were invunerable. You could ride a tank over them and they would still be perfect.

I seem to remember that didn't last long and their fragility was realised. I remember one of the factors was the coating lifting?

Now assuming DVDs are the same, won't scratching one deliberately be liable to cause deterioration with the rest of the disk or have things moved on since then.

BobA

It was a bought cartoon film. My son asked me to make a copy because the kids ruin CD's in double jig time.

Sorry to open this open this up again, but I need to refresh my memory of this thread.

Recently I was told by a man that he had copied several of my discs for others. When he was told that he was breaking the copyright laws by doing so, he laughed !!!

I decided that I'd visit this thread to see how this was done.

Then before I had done so I had a bride reduce her preordered dvd's from 3 sets to one, because "she would be able to copy them herself".
I'm now editing that wedding and it is sickening me to think that I'm spending so long editing a dvd for her to copy !!!

I tried this 'scratch' method on a dvd today. I producd one disc. Copied it. Scratched the copy and then copied the scratched copy.

The duplicator spotted the 'read error' and would not continue. However on trying the latest (unfinalised) disc in a few dvd players, it played perfectly.

Maybe I'm not scratching deep enough or not long enough, but I'll try agin tomorrow.

Don't know how it applies in the UK but here in the US if she hired you it would be "work made for hire" and she owns it

John

I film communions at 3 RC churches each year. Despite the Number of candidates remaining more or less the same (approx 20 ) The sales last year dipped dramatically at one parish.So much so that I suspected someone making a few bob by offering to duplicate my discs.I felt so undervalued that I was prepared to not continue working for this parish anymore. My price of £12.00 per copy I thought was very reasonable , But if someone is doing them for £5.00, I have to take what steps I deem necessary to protect my income. I now have to operate on a prepay system with a minimum acceptable price.

I film communions at 3 RC churches each year. Despite the Number of candidates remaining more or less the same (approx 20 ) The sales last year dipped dramatically at one parish.So much so that I suspected someone making a few bob by offering to duplicate my discs.I felt so undervalued that I was prepared to not continue working for this parish anymore. My price of £12.00 per copy I thought was very reasonable , But if someone is doing them for £5.00, I have to take what steps I deem necessary to protect my income. I now have to operate on a prepay system with a minimum acceptable price.The Organiser unfortunately has this burden on her. In short , I am loathe to use the scratch idea unless I suspect I`m being done the dirty on.

While this is true of most DVDs, I believe it is dependent on the mastering software.

NeroVision 2 produced a new VOB for each avi encoded, resulting in a large number of VOBs each of a different size.

Dave

according to doom9.org a vob MUST be 1GB exactly or less than 1GB , BUT , some sizes won't play on pc's.

Which bears out what i have found.

Going back to the original of this thread . . . Further to this subject of a method of protecting your DVD from copying by using the ‘scratch’. I have studied the suggestions in this thread and follow what is meant, however a little query due to my age.

We are told that any CD/DVD is written from the inside of the disc to the outside. What I can’t quite grasp is that, having burn a disc of (say) 45 minutes then examining the face, it appears to me that the unwritten section of 15 minutes in as the very centre of the disc. But if the disc is written from the centre, how can this be?

Perhaps as usual I have got it all wrong. Pete

Most drives write from centre outwards , otherwise small 8cm disks couldn't be written to.
HOWEVER
Some software allows a choice of writing direction on dual layer disks , SO , presumably it allows you to write first ( and possibly only ) layer from outside in.

Wouldn't want to see what percentage of drives would read the disk properly though ......

Thought I would give the 'scratch' method a try. Completed the disc with the added 10 mins of black and then added a scratch. Played OK and using Pinnicle Instant DVD copy, it copied fine. I made another scratck - still it copied eventually I had a total of five quite visible scratches and whilst the programme hesitated a lot towards the end it said that it had copied it all to my HD. I then tried to copy using the programme BurnOn cd/dvd.

Here the programme certainly found the faults and kept reporting the errors in the damaged section but after about 20 minutes of retrying said it had copied to my HD. I haven't tried making another disc from this copy as yet.
What results have other members of the board achieved with this idea of the scratch? Pete

I decided to conduct a test using the ‘scratch’ method as suggested. The test programme was made plus extra chapter of 10 min. black. I then made a scratch as suggested. This disc copied fine using Pinnacle Instant Copy. I made another scratch – same result, another scratch, then another finally two quite bold scratches that are quite visible and easily felt by touch. Pinnacle copied fine but hesitated a little towards the end finally saying the copy was done.

I then copied using BurnOn CDDVD. This programme has a progress report and this showed errors at the various scratches and at each error it made 10 attempts then finally it said the copy was completed OK. In theory it should not have copied at all according to wiser folk that me.

With the copy programme on my HD I then burnt another disc and (surprise) the programme plays fine. So what do other make of this? I deliberately damaged a disc in five places to stop it being copied and it copied fine and I have made another disc from it.

It was only a few months ago that I was having trouble in making any discs at all. Why is it always me . . . . .? Pete

typically pinnacle!

Now that the dust has settled is anyone having regular success in copy protecting their DVDs using the scratch technique oulined by John A.V. in June of last year. If so could they offer any advice in the light of their experience of this interesting technique ?
Cheers
Mike

I don't bother - not worth the time/effort/hassle for the supposed level of economic benefit.