Updated May 12, 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

Current Big Topics:

1. •Fox (Mike Radford) has offered to provide a test DCP package with closed caption information to exercise systems. They will provide both InteropDCP and SMPTE DCP versions. This should help confirm solutions to the Series 2 projector issue as well as the July plug fest. We have started an email discussion list. Please visit http://lists.isdcf.com/listinfo.cgi/flm-x-isdcf.com to join the list. (May 2010 update)
   

2. •Deployment of Series 2 projector based systems is experiencing problems in on-screen subtitles and captions. Solution is to create multiple DCP’s with burned in subtitles. Document will be created to inform theater owners, integrators of the problem and short term solution/long term solution. (Topic introduced May 2010) UPDATE: This document was distributed and is HERE.
   

3. •Federal Court ruling has been made for closed captions for hearing impaired and visually impaired sound track. We are watching and trying to interpret the ramifications of the ruling. (Posted in May 2010 folder)
   

4. •On-screen subtitles and captions for 3D presentations should be generated in the server/projector for efficient distribution of content. The standard is being discussed in SMPTE and will soon go to ballot. This is required before it could be deployed. We hope to see demos of the candidate approach sometime during the June SMPTE working meetings. (May 2010 discussion)
   

5. •The next Plug-Fest for SMPTE DCP will be held July 20 - probably at Technicolor. It will be somewhat ‘closed’ plug-fest for participants - servers, projectors, authoring houses, closed caption solutions - to test and debug working SMPTE DCP solutions in anticipation of roll out in April 2011. (March, April, May 2010 discussions) There will be a planning call Tuesday May 11 to discuss content and approach.
   

1. •Toy Story 3 is being distributed with two audio packages - one with a traditional 5.1 track and a second with the 7.1ds (discrete surround) track. The 7.1ds is a 16 channel version with the new channels on 11/12 with HIVI (if present) on both 7/8 and 15/16. (May 2010)
   

2. •A working group lead by Claudio is preparing a recommended practice for hard drive distribution of BOTH Interop-DCP and SMPTE-DCP packages. There are two approaches in the works - Multiple Top-level Directories and Dual Asset Maps. There seems to be leaning toward Multiple Top-Level Directories, but the group is working on further evaluation. Document is HERE. (May 2010)
   

3. •Methodology for “posting” of FLM information for an exhibitor or an integrator has been proposed by Mike Radford (Fox). Examples are posted at flm.foxpico.com user: isdcf pw: isdcf   Many at the ISDCF April and May 2010 meetings expressed support for this machine readable approach. (May 2010)
   

4. •FIPS-140 issues surrounding changes to the standard remains a concern for all - mainly manufacturers. DCI continues to work the issue, but has not yet discussed their approach to the industry. Many manufacturers offered help to DCI in evaluating their proposed approach. (March, April, May 2010)
   

5. •Measurement of 3D brightness does not have a recommended practice for either qualification of a screen or for a local theater owner to set levels. ISDCF has posted two general approaches for screen brightness measurement, but nothing specific to 3D. We will ask each 3D vendor (i.e. RealD and Dolby) to provide a recommended practice for their systems (March, April, May 2010)