Chairman’s Summary

 

Chairman’s Summary - August 2008


This is a once-in-a-while summary of what are critical issues being discussed at ISDCF. This is not a substitute for meeting minutes and only presents the highlights from the Chairman’s perspective.


1. The Evolution of Installed Systems


Currently the installed base of Digital Cinema Systems use version “Transitional 1" (T1). This includes JPEG interop in SMPTE packages with SMPTE KDMs. The next version is anticipated to be version “Transitional 3” (T3) which would allow use of SMPTE DCP (Digital Cinema Packages), meeting the world-wide standard. Mainly a format change of the DCP -- a SMPTE DCP package will NOT play on systems that are not upgraded. Improvements include all 16 channels of audio and open subtitles - but mainly T3 meets the negotiated SMPTE standards for the DCP package.


ISDCF discussions have targeted April 2009 for the completion of updates to all system to be able to ingest and play the SMPTE DCP. The Chairman questions if this target can be reached since there are over 6,000 systems to be upgraded (taking around 4 months?), the necessary projector which can accept SMPTE subtitles has not yet been demonstrated, and as of August 20, 2008 there has not been a single Transitional 3 DCP package produced or tested. If we wish to meet the target, the various players need to get working on the update.


One interesting issue is converting T3 format subtitles to the older CineCanvas™ format to drive older projectors. This should be a formal requirement, but I don’t believe it has been discussed outside ISDCF? This may be the biggest problem with implementation of T3.


There is discussion of a “Transitional 4” (T4) version in the works. This would include support for closed captions (currently under discussion in SMPTE). It may also include additional 3D support - in particular, server/projector generated 3D on-screen subtitles and labeled audio tracks. No date has been identified for deployment of T4.


    1. Chairman Opinion: It doesn’t look like we will make the April 2009 T3 date. We have a serious problem with on-screen captions and older projectors. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.


2. Subtitles/Captions


First, for clarification:


    1. “Subtitles” are ON-SCREEN text and are used for patrons with normal hearing. They may be for translations and/or locale identification. These are part of the program, but may differ between regions.


    3. “Open Captions” are ON-SCREEN and are used to assist deaf and hard-of- hearing patrons. While the entire audience can see these captions, they may include cues for music and effects and identify who is speaking.


    5. “Closed Captions” are not on-screen and are used to assist deaf and hard- of-hearing patrons. These may be on rear screen displays, hand held displays, or other means of delivery to deaf and hard-of-hearing patrons. The entire audience does not see these captions. Sometimes referred to as “Personal Captions.”


    7. “VI-N” or “Visually Impaired Narrative” is an audio track sometimes called “Descriptive Audio.” This is a separate track that contains descriptions of events on the screen, mainly added between dialog lines, that can help blind and visually-impaired patrons. This is normally delivered on headphones and transmitted to the patron with wires or IR in-theater transmission.


    9. “HI” or “Hearing Impaired” is an audio track with enhanced dialog (either dialog with reduced M&E (Music and Effects) or dialog alone).


    11. “DTS-TC” is an audio track with tones that can be decoded to reveal the timecode when playing back. TC stands for (Longitudinal) Time Code. DTS-TC is a modified version of the SMPTE Standard LTC and is not compatible. The anticipated use of legacy DTS-TC is to drive Rear Window ® Captioning systems. There are currently 500+ systems that would be able to continue to operate during an interim period while SMPTE standards for captioning in digital cinema are being worked out. That may seem like a "very small number" of systems, but to the people who use closed captions, it's the *only* way they can participate.  These systems *do not* use the DTS open captioning system, although the DTS open captioning system (projector) *can* also be driven by the same box.


The current deployment (T1) can support Subtitles and Open Captions. The current deployment does not include closed caption capability. [SMPTE is setting the standards for including closed captions in the DCP - it might even make it to T3. Finalization of server to caption device interface would be in T4.] HOWEVER one manufacturer (Doremi) claims to have built-in support for Rear Window Captioning displays, but they have not delivered to date. On the other hand, the DTS-hosted Rear Window systems are deployed today and would continue to operate. Also, while there may eventually be caption server devices that connect remotely to cinema servers, you can think of the Doremi (and others promised) implementations simply as an in-board implementation. At *some* point, each system *must* connect to a "proprietary" display. They simply chose to do it internal to the cinema server.


There is a strong desire to have capability for closed caption support ASAP. There was discussion at the last meeting to encourage the use of DTS-TC so existing external boxes can provide Rear Window closed captions - but it is not an open solution, it is a proprietary solution. In fact, DTS-TC will not be supported in 429-2 audio when T3 occurs.


This is the direction the industry is moving toward:




The standard closed-caption packaging file format is now in an advanced stage in the SMPTE standards process, and *MAY** enter the publication process by end of this year. The standard interconnect from the server is in a formative stage in the SMPTE process, with prototyping by USL. What is the trade-off in promoting an interim solution while a final, open standard is being finalized?


On the other hand, the current analog implementation of Rear Window is "proprietary," but it exists now and serves deaf people now. The deaf community might be upset if an existing service is interrupted for the comfort and convenience of the equipment developers. Exhibitors have already invested substantial resources in Rear Window systems, the only system ever to actually be commercially delivered (???). It seems short-sighted to interrupt the service, and the length of that interruption could be considerable - possibly up to two years from now. While the need for an interim agreement about DTS-LTC is less than ideal, it represents a short-term pragmatic solution.


A proposal has been made to deliver T1 with audio channel 7 DTS-TC and channel 8 VI-N. After T3 these would move to channels 15/16.


    1. Chairman's Opinion: I am very concerned that placing DTS-TC might slow up the final ‘open’ solution. It would be better to encourage server manufacturers to move more rapidly with a SMPTE solution. This is an open spec and all are encouraged to use it in ways that meet their needs, but I don’t think ISDCF should encourage the use of DTS-TC as one of the delivery channels. I am open to other opinions and I reserve the right to change my mind. But I think it is important to put a stake in the ground.


3) Audio Splices (Cross Fade/V-Fade/Butt Splice)


A problem was identified that the current DCI spec requires but does not specify the method of achieving a “transparent audio transition” between reels. Some server vendors use a “butt splice”, others use a “V-Fade” between reels. Both of these solutions can cause audible artifacts. Butt splices can be transparent if all CPL (Composition PlayLists) are pre determined and audio can be prepared in mastering for all splices/transitions in the CPL. This may become a problem for some censorship cuts internationally. On the other hand, V-Fade will have artifacts, but not strongly objectionable artifacts (no clicks/pops). The use of a Cross Fade would be ideal, but this would require putting ‘handles’ on delivered audio tracks and a major change to the SMPTE specification - not to mention the need to change hardware on all installed systems.


Given presentation and discussion from last meeting, it is clear that we have three choices at this time:


1) encourage full use of Butt Splices; 2) encourage full use of V-Fade; 3) change the specification to include a flag to indicate either Butt Splice or V-Fade.


It appears that the use of 1) or 2) will require a minor change to the DCI specification. The use of an auxiliary flag would require a substantial change in the SMPTE spec that has already been approved and passed by ISO (Is that true?).


    1. Chairman's Opinion: We should go forward with the Butt Splice solution and ask DCI to consider making a change to the spec.


4) Naming Conventions (yet again)


A proposal was submitted to include an extension to the naming convention document for Distribution Packages that would include:


  1. •Original Version (a Distribution Package that contains the first release version of a presentation)

  2. •Version Files (files that are shipped with an Original Version that are needed to create other versions of the presentation - alternative language, hard of hearing, etc.)

  3. •Supplemental Packages (files that are delivered separately and added to an existing presentation at the theater - such as a replacement reel, replacement audio track, or replacement subtitle tracks)


The real problem that is being addressed is that information in the CPL is not presented to the user in a consistent way on servers. Some servers only show 40 characters for each CPL. The CPL metadata is not filled in properly. There is not a consistent presentation of the contents of the CPL. The naming convention discussion is a band-aid fix to a problem and is becoming a good tool for archive. We need to fix the presentation problem!


    1. Chairman's Opinion: We should add a comment method to the naming convention to allow extensions to the naming convention for use by individual users of the system. We should push for a consistent presentation from the CPL to the Server Display.


5) 3D Ghostbusting / Subtitles


We identified the need to have single inventory for all digital cinema distributions, including 3D. 3D has not made good progress in achieving this goal due to ghostbusting (left/right crosstalk), 3D subtitles, and standardization/stability of light levels. There seems to be progress on subtitles, however it may mean that all 3D titles must be played on the latest projector generation (not the current installed base). Ghostbusting does not seem to be making forward progress and will need to be seriously addressed by interested parties.



Jerry Pierce, Chairman ISDCF 28 August 2008

 

Chairman’s Summary ISDCF -- 8  May 2008


This is a once in a while status report on ISDCF activities. Comments and corrections are welcome!


ISDCF has been meeting for about two years once a month in Burbank. We have about 50 active participants and 50 lurkers. We cover all parts of the industry -- exhibition, studios, service providers, digital cinema integrators, and digital cinema hardware providers.


ISDCF continues to offer a unique forum to discuss issues and collaboratively find solutions. Philosophically we work on the principle of identifying pain, sharing the pain, letting the group find solutions. Today, with medication, digital cinema is working. The main topics of discussion currently are:


    1. Automated Key delivery

    2. Certified equipment

    3. 3-D

    4. Upgrade paths

    5. Closed captions

    6. TDL -- trusted device list


In the next few paragraphs these topics will be briefly described and their status discussed.


Automated Key delivery


As we move from the current 5,000 screens to over 100,000 screens worldwide it is necessary to have a reliable and accountable methodology to deliver Keys. ISDCF has struggled with solutions for Key delivery for about a year. We believe the introduction of a Return Receipt Message and an architecture for delivering keys and the return receipt will yield a solution that will allow service providers to have confirmation of KDM and message delivery and will allow theater owners to receive these keys automatically and have some confidence of the success of playback. Automated Key delivery remains an important activity at ISDCF.


Certified Equipment


How can a purchaser of digital cinema equipment be assured that it will continue to work over the years? Certainly hardware lifetime plays a role but what if the DCI spec changes? Could equipment become noncompliant and stop being allowed to play studio movies? This concern remains an issue for the industry. ISDCF has discussed this issue many times and it remains painful, however ISDCF is not in a position to do anything except identify it as an issue to be addressed.



3-D Standards


3-D was not in the original DCI charter but 3-D is becoming a significant part of cinema offerings. The industry understands that standards are not fully formed and are rapidly evolving. We need reference light levels, “ghost busting” (left/right crosstalk) solutions, captioning, and recommended practices for 3-D movies. IDSCF continues to nibble at the topics -- but it seems to remain on the back burner.


Versioning


An active group (IPath) continues to discuss the shift to final standards for Digital Cinema Package (DCP -- the main movie) and TDM (Key delivery message -- the keys). There are three transitional stages resulting in what is hoped will be the final spec. These are referred to as:


Transitional 1 - (JPEG Interop) Fully deployed June 1, 2007

    Off the table: Transitional 2 - (Partial SMPTE)

Transitional 3 - (Final SMPTE) Goal: April 2009


ISDCF continues to discuss the upgrade path and encourage all parties to compare notes so that all movies will play at all locations.


Some studios maintain records of current hardware and software versions in the field. One studio has offered to make this list available to ISDCF.


Closed Captions


Captioning for the hearing impaired as not been fully deployed. This has been identified as a necessary element and ISDCF is aggressively following the situation.


TDL - Trusted device list


A Trusted Device List (TDL) is key to cinema security. It gives assurance to the studio that all devices in the theater are known and safety use for delivery and playback the contents. To maintenance the distribution of these lists remained a point of discussion within KDM group. It is anticipated to become a very lively discussion.



Continuing topics -- topics that remained discussed at meetings, are not critical for deployment:


Naming conventions -- the naming of files and headers for display on cinema servers for a shorthand way of describing the event. This is seen as a stopgap measure until Composition Play List (CPL) metadata is properly used and displayed, but critical for current systems.

VI / HI recommendations --  Visually impaired and hearing impaired audio tracks.

European comments on digital cinema



Dead topics -- topics which have completed their cycle within ISDCF:


DCP delivery on hard disk drives -- completed

Caddy/sled recommendation -- CRU was demonstrated at ISDCF meeting. Seems to be the preferred solution.

Forensic identifier -- recommendation made, completed

Distribution area/safe image area -- on back burner

Digital Cinema White Point -- transitioned to SMPTE

ISDCF Chairman’s Status Report - September 2009 –     Jerry Pierce


This is a once-in-a-while summary of critical issues being discussed at ISDCF. This is not a substitute for meeting minutes and only presents the highlights from my perspective. These are my opinions and not a position of the committee. I hope this helps us focus on the big stuff and not get lost in the details.


  1. (1) Upcoming Demo


We are planning on another demonstration in March 2010 to help focus activities toward successful deployment of a full SMPTE DCP and working closed caption system for the April 2010 update period (more on this later). A small group of volunteers has begun to make plans and coordinate the demo. There is some desire to do demonstration of some 3D characteristics (subtitles, ghost-busting, 3D closed captions, etc.). Not sure about that. (Want to help? Send a note to Jerry Pierce).


  1. (2)Upgrades in the field


In discussions at ISDCF there was a desire to have upgrades occur in either October or April each year to avoid the big releases and to limit upgrades to a manageable number. The elephant in the room is the upgrade to SMPTE-DCP package playback. In addition to the core SMPTE-DCP are audio format recognition (VI/HI) and redirection of VI/HI to output channels 15/16. The goal is that deployed systems would continue to playback current Interop-DCP packages and also be able to play back the new SMPTE-DCP packages. One important note: we probably will need to have a start/stop date range of upgrades. With over 10,000 screens no upgrade can take place instantaneously. It feels like this should be a year window to allow for full upgrades to occur.


Well, the date to upgrade to SMPTE-DCP has slipped a number of times. The current goal is for SOME (not all) sites being able to play SMPTE-DCP in April 2010. This will mean that a distributor MUST continue to make Interop-DCP’s if they intend to distribute to ANY theater and would need to distribute SMPTE-DCP’s if they want to use the new SMPTE-DCP. We are potentially moving into a time of Dual Inventory! Our new goal is to be out of this dual inventory by April 2011 when everything will be upgraded to SMPTE-DCP capable.


What’s the hold up? Two major reasons: They both involve the Series 1 TI projectors. They require a software upgrade to allow them to interpret the new SMPTE-open captions. They currently use Cine-Canvas, which is very similar to the SMPTE-Open Captions. TI’s resources are focusing on bringing Series 2 TI projectors to market and the development/deployment of the “TI Security Kit” so the new software has not yet been completed for Series 1.  The second reason is that there are about 10,000 Series 1 projectors in the field and it takes considerable time and resources to roll out this software upgrade.


To summarize: The primary advantages of moving to SMPTE-DCP –

    1. 1)It is called for in the DCI specification;

    2. 2)Move to standardized sound and picture track file (from an unstandardized version);

    3. 3)Subtitles are now standardized XML source format;

    4. 4)Audio Channel Assignment Labels allowing more efficient audio transmission and better support for HI / VI (hearing impaired and Visually impaired) audio tracks; and most important –

    5. 5)Closed caption support specified.


While there are work-arounds to the problems of Interop-DCP, the move to SMPTE-DCP should encourage standardized delivery of all the necessary pieces for digital cinema.


  1. (3) Ghost busting Upgrade

 

There is a DCI requirement to have all Ghost-busting to be done in the theater so there’s a need for only non-ghost busting (single inventory) delivery of 3D. This is particular to RealD’s 3D implementation.


The solution is very difficult to be achieved with a stand-alone box due to the security requirements between the server and the projector. Some server manufacturers have implemented a ghost-busting algorithm in the signal path in the server. Not all server manufacturers have done this implementation and we don’t have a clear methodology for letting distributors know which ones have been updated and telling theater managers when to turn on ghost busting in the server.


There was a proposal to include a requirement for Ghost Busting in servers as part of the SMPTE-DCP upgrade, but it is not been confirmed. It would be nice to know that SMPTE-DCP was a single 3D inventory.


Dual inventory is the norm. In-Server ghost busting is generally turned off today, so far as we know.


  1. (4) Closed Captions


We are getting much closer to fully working closed caption systems. We hope to demonstrate systems at the March 2010 demonstration. The move to SMPTE-DCP will help in this transition since the timed text in the package will be fully standardized. While it can work with the Interop-DCP, it is standardized in the SMPTE-DCP.


SMPTE has also finished specifying the interface between the server and the in-theater closed caption system (rear window, glasses, active in-seat device, etc.). This will allow a wider range of options for the Theater owner.


The long-term goal is use of the SMPTE-DCP and the SMPTE interface to drive closed caption devices. ISDCF is hopeful that full conversion will be achieved by April 2011 with a rollout during 2010 following the March Demonstrations.


3D and closed captions is another serious issue that needs to be addressed. The group has indicated that it is VERY hard to have a rear screen or personal device and have both closed captions and watch a 3D movie. The only solution that has been suggested is to provide a modified set of 3D glasses that turns the movie into a 2D movie to allow for closed captions. Not a good long term solution, but better than a barf bag at each seat.



  1. (5) Forensic Status -


Forensic marking of the Audio and the Picture of digital cinema is one of the most important security features of the DCI specification. ISDCF has addressed forensic marking last year to develop a methodology for reverse look-up to determine theater locations from a detected forensic mark.


The total ecosystem of forensic marking has not been completed. Not all systems currently mark the audio (as required under DCI). Some deployed systems have had undetected failures in picture marking. Recovered pirate content did not contain a valid theater identifier.


Forensic marking is an important area that will need rapid triage.


  1. (6)TI Security Kit


The TI Security Kit is known by many names: Gore Board, Secure Board, and FIPS board. The proper name is “TI Security Kit.” This Kit is for TI’s Series 1 projectors to implement a secure interface board between the projector and the secure link to the server. DCI has not made a statement on the TI Security Kit and opinions vary from distributor to distributor.


To understand the need for deploying the TI Security Kit requires a discussion with the distributor of specific content as well as the deployment entity.


  1. (7)KDM/TDL / CCM / FLM


ISDCF has been working for the last two years on methods for delivery of KDM to the theater in an automated way. A communication architecture was developed - CCM or Cinema Control Message - that will enable reliable communication to theaters for transportation of KDM (keys), TDL (trusted device lists), Logs, etc. This approach should work for all means of Office to Theater communication - constant connection Internet, email, or dial up.


Two sub groups have been formed to work on this. The “TDL Policy Group” is designed to talk about what should be done. You can register for the reflector at http://lists.isdcf.com/listinfo.cgi/tdl-policy-isdcf.com.  The second group is a technical group for implementation issues. The result of this group will be submissions to SMPTE for standardization. You can register for the reflector at http://lists.isdcf.com/listinfo.cgi/ccm-tech-isdcf.com.


The next critical issue in the procedure is to establish methodology for Trusted Device Lists (TDL) and Facility List Manager (FLM). Let me try and explain in (my) version of lay English what this means:


When a new Theater comes on-line with a digital cinema system the distributors of content need to know the Public Key in the media block of the server in order to make a key (KDM) that will play a movie on that screen. This Public Key is part of the server’s certificate, or CERT. A distributor (or their vendor) keeps records of all the CERTs for all the screens that they service. So the question really is: how does a distributor know that a CERT is valid? Is this an authorized screen? How do new CERTs get added to their database? When a Theater is upgraded or equipment changes - how does the database of CERTs get updated? Is there a logical automated way to make this happen?


One very important part of the CCM proposals is the common theater IDs. Within the proposal for CCM is a URL like naming convention. So far it has met with good acceptance.


When we had 6,000 digital screens this was a problem. At some time we may have 100,000+ digital screens worldwide. This will be a SERIOUS problem. In addition, there are at least 20 different distributors all maintaining a separate CERT databases. How do they communicate with each other? Do they? France is centralizing this function... what and how should this problem be addressed?


That is the essence of the problem that is being addressed in the new TDL/CCM sub-committees that are meeting as part of ISDCF. The manual solution is marginally working today and if not improved will be VERY expensive to fix in the future.


Below is a figure from Michael Karagosian that shows the general flow of the information and the names.







Jerry Pierce, 21 September 2009

 

ISDCF Chairman’s Status Report - November 2010     Jerry Pierce


This is a once-in-a-while summary of critical issues being discussed at ISDCF. This is not a substitute for meeting minutes and only presents the highlights from my perspective. These are my opinions and not a position of the committee. I hope this helps us focus on the big stuff and not get lost in the details.


1) SMPTE-DCP Plugfest and the transition to SMPTE-DCP


The goal was to upgrade all systems by April 2011 to support SMPTE-DCP content delivery. I don’t think we will meet this goal. I think we **might** have working systems in the Laboratory that can both produce and decode SMPTE-DCP in April, but I don’t see the roll out happening on a timeline to support full deployment by April 2011. (The original timeline called for 50% of the systems in the field to be upgraded to SMPTE-DCP by last month. We are at 0%)


To summarize: The primary advantages of moving to SMPTE-DCP –

    1. 1.It is called for in the DCI specification;

    2. 2.Move to standardized sound and picture track file (from an unstandardized version);

    3. 3.Subtitles are now standardized XML source format;

    4. 4.Audio Channel Assignment Labels allowing more efficient audio transmission and better support for HI / VI (hearing impaired and Visually impaired) audio tracks; and most important –

    5. 5.Closed caption support specified.

    6. 6.

  2. While there are work-arounds to the problems of Interop-DCP, the move to SMPTE-DCP should encourage standardized delivery of all the necessary pieces for digital cinema.


That being said, the hardware vendors and the software providers are not being pressured by exhibition or distribution to move to SMPTE-DCP delivery. There are lots of requests for changes & enhancements in Digital Cinema, but SMPTE-DCP is not high on the list. So while we are making progress, it is slower than could be expected.


We held a plug-fest / demo in March and a follow up plug-fest in July. We had good participation and made good progress. The next step is to add more authoring facilities and more servers. We had a plug-fest scheduled for November, but due to facility availability this has become a “virtual” plug-fest and will be rescheduled (perhaps January?)


We are close to having successful playback of SMPTE-DCPs, but we have not tested enough authoring systems or playback systems to feel comfortable about a wide-scale field upgrade. ISDCF will continue providing structure to exercise SMPTE-DCP systems, but it will be up to exhibition/distributors to encourage the engineering resources to build/test/deploy systems in the field.



2) Closed and Open Captions


For lots of reasons, we need ways to support closed captions (rear window, glasses, cup-holder displays). The Interop-DCP was not really designed to carry closed captions, but has been modified to carry them. We need to move to the more standard SMPTE-DCP to carry closed captions in the right way, until then we need to have accepted practice described and codified for using Interop-DCP to carrying closed caption data. We need to educate all interested parties on how closed captions can and how CC is being delivered TODAY.



3) FIPS.


The DCI specification calls for compliance with selected portions of the FIPS 140-2 standard. The FIPS 140-2 standard is being changed and the way it is described in the DCI specification the specification MUST be changed - it can’t point to a standard that has been removed.


This has been described and discussed for the last 9 months. We still don’t have a solution proposed or discussed.



4) ETMx (TDL, FLM lists, and KDM Delivery)


Each company that distributes KDMs is keeping it’s own list of theaters, servers, and CERTs. Each theater that comes on-line or makes an upgrade/change needs to notify all the potential companies that may make a KDM for them. Right now this is painful and just plain bad business.


We had hoped that CCM (Cinema Communication Message) would be a solution that would provide a good solution for communication of this information. But CCM has not moved forward. A solution to part of this problem - distribution of FLM (facility lists) has been put forth as a ETMx - basically secure websites that can be used to distribute FLM information.


This is progressing well and seems to be well accepted. I encourage continued design and approaches to solving the other identified issues - in particular the email KDM delivery solution.




No longer on my list:


3D on-screen subtitles


A significant challenge to releasing a 3D movie today is the lack of in-server/in-projector generation of subtitles for 3D. This has moved forward in SMPTE and seems to be on a path to completion. (The expected implementation period is years away.)



Jerry Pierce, November 10, 2010



ISDCF Chairman’s Status Report - March 2010 –     Jerry Pierce


This is a once-in-a-while summary of critical issues being discussed at ISDCF. This is not a substitute for meeting minutes and only presents the highlights from my perspective. These are my opinions and not a position of the committee. I hope this helps us focus on the big stuff and not get lost in the details.


1) March SMPTE-DCP Demo Review


We set out to accomplish many tests and compatibility checks. We carefully scaled back the demo to not test 3D. We reached too far, but we did accomplish a great deal. The event had the feeling of a “plug-fest” where the teams were able to work together to debug and compare notes.


We had five servers, two projectors, five pieces of content from 3 authoring houses. We had two closed caption systems.


The good news is that all tested systems are well on the way to being able to play SMPTE-DCP packages. That includes Dolby, Doremi, GDC, Sony, and XDC. I want to personally thank all involved for bringing systems to the event. Well worth it, in my opinion.


Many things did not work out as expected. It is clear we need to have another plug-fest and it is clear we are not ready for full deployment. We scheduled another mini-demo / plug-fest for July 20. We won’t have the same kind of public invites as the March demo.


I am concerned about making the April 2011 date for working SMPTE-DCP. With the number of installed systems I think it will take at least 6 months for the roll out of updates. With a target of April 2011 six months prior means final roll out would need to begin October/November 2010 - if our next plug fest is in July - will we have enough time?


2) TI Series 1 & 2 Projectors


For the March demo TI had not finished the open subtitle software to display SMPTE Subtitles for Series 1. The Series 2 projectors do not have either subtitle software (as of today’s date). We saw three servers that generate open subtitles internally and do not rely on the projector rendering engine. This may be the wave of the future, but this was not possible 5 years ago at launch so the availability of projector rendering of on-screen subtitles has been very important to the launch of Digital Cinema. I expect to see Series 1 projectors with SMPTE subtitles in a few months followed by Series 2 projectors with both Cinecanvas and SMPTE subtitles.


During the plug-fest we discovered that the NEC projector installed at Technicolor had an old interface board. This I/F board did not have TLS encryption and failed to handshake with some of the servers. After a board replacement all was well. But it brings to light the field upgrade to SMPTE-DCP hardware is going to have some interesting challenges.


My understanding is that TI and Barco have passed CTP! Hot damn.



3) FIPS.


The DCI specification calls for compliance with selected portions of the FIPS 140-2 standard. The FIPS 140-2 standard is being changed and the way it is described in the DCI specification the specification MUST be changed - it can’t point to a standard that has been removed. But changed to what? And in 5 years it will change again when NIST revisits the FIPS 140 standard again. That is the question that is causing problems for manufacturers. A particular product is in the field that is FIPS 140-2 certified should keep working, will continue to play movies.


So the question for a manufacturer - Should I wait for 140-3 or move forward with 140-2? Or wait for DCI to make a statement so I can have some guidance. This is really expensive and time consuming. Is it worth it? AND 140-3 is not well understood! How can I start a design without an understanding. I can’t move forward with a 140-2 design since by the time I get it ready it is too late for certification - that door is closing on December 31, 2010. We are looking forward for some guidance from DCI. Rumors have it that DCI is working this problem and has a good solution coming forward.


Background


The FIPS 140-2 (Federal Information Processing Standards) standard for the media block and secure devices, including parts of the projector. FIPS 140-2 is administered by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), which is part of the Department of Commerce. NIST-accredited independent laboratories test devices and issue compliance certificates. NIST ultimately validates the compliance certificate. FIPS 140-2 covers both cryptographic (ciphers, key size...) and physical security (tamper resistance...). D-Cinema devices represents only a small portion of the installed base of FIPS 140-2 devices and the D-Cinema industry has, historically, not actively participated in the FIPS 140-2 standards making process.


FIPS 140-2 compliance is a high hurdle for DCI compliant hardware. It takes about a year to obtain validation for a particular design and can cost from $30-$100K per validation. When changes are made in the device, including software changes, the device needs to be re-validated. (I think this is true?) Many companies are concerned that the FIPS 140-2 validation process is too cumbersome to allow for fixes, improvements, and advances in the hardware. The requirements that FIPS 140-2 imposes are not seen as the problem.


In addition, a number of FIPS 140-related standards are currently being revised, with, for instance, 140-2 and 186-2 transitioning to 140-3 and 186-3 respectively. As part of this process, NIST is expected to obsolete older standards:  labs are not permitted to issue certificates against older revisions, which are also removed from publication. It may not be possible to refer to older standards in SMPTE and DCI specifications. It is not yet clear the actual impact on fielded hardware - will the encryption algorithms continue to be supported under FIPS 140-3? We don’t know - final documents have not been issued. Many are as a result questioning remaining on the FIPS validation program methodology for continued DCI compliant equipment. I don’t think it will be possible to continue to point to FIPS 140-2 to maintain backward compatibility since it is undergoing change as well. And in 5 years they will do it again.


4) TDL / FLM lists


This is the second time TDL/FLM has been on the Chairman’s summary list. We don’t seem to be any closer to a solution than before and the problem is getting worse.


In a nutshell, each company that distributes KDMs is keeping it’s own list of theaters, servers, and CERTs. Each theater that comes on-line or makes an upgrade/change needs to notify all the potential companies that may make a KDM for them. Right now this is highly manual, expensive for each company, painful and just plain bad business.


The first step in making it better is to finish the CCM methodology so we have a secure way to deliver both KDM’s and CERT’s. Then we need to have a procedure in place for distribution of CERT’s to the appropriate companies and service providers. It needs to be easy for the theaters to enter this and to keep it all safe and secure (the worst thing would be to have a movie delivered with key to an unauthorized location (i.e. piracy at its worse).


This is an area that needs attention and a proposed solution!



5) Disability Access


We need good news, this is good news! The SMPTE-DCP demo held in March was very good at showing progress in all forms of access. We demonstrated five servers all driving the USL equipment using the SMPTE protocol in-theater and one proprietary solution that used the same data. As we continue to have plug fests it is clear we have a solution coming to market for closed captions.


One even better note is that some studios are providing closed caption data in the current Interop-DCP packages. We have not tested these, but it appears that theaters that want closed captions prior to the move to SMPTE-DCP can use this data.


That being said, the companies working on closed caption devices (including USL), are making progress, but don’t appear to be ready for deployment. Good progress, not ready for mass distribution of new new gear.


One of the demonstrations at the March demo was eyewear closed captions. This might be the solution for 3D closed captions since they can present the captions in only one eye and this may be easier to view closed captions while watching 3D presentations.



6) 3D on-screen subtitles


A significant challenge to releasing a 3D movie today is the lack of in-server/in-projector generation of subtitles for 3D. Many releases are having over 50 versions, mainly due to the need to ‘burn in’ subtitles for international release. It looks like there is a document working through SMPTE that will bring a standard to digital cinema that will meet current and future needs. We need to get this into the field as soon as possible and begin testing. Your studio and your service provide will thank you.


7) 7.1 Audio


Don’t you love standards? There are so many to choose from! Just when you thought you knew what 7.1 meant, there are new definitions and enhancements to sound. It looks like we will need to encourage SMPTE to add a few more sound configuration to the document. With the new definition of 7.1 being L C R Rs Ls Rrs Lrs (right rear surround, left rear surround). And ShoWest had a demonstration of 12 channel sound? Oh my goodness.


Jerry Pierce, 25 March 2010