DCP-o-matic

Hi,

when verifying a DCP that I just created with 2.15.41, I get multiple complaints about Assetmap, PKL etc. XML malformed when I verify with 2.15.67.

Is that an issue with 2.15.41, or with 2.15.67?

- Carsten

Not sure, can you send the XML files?

I guess I should. If I remember right, initial verification failed with a hard crash when using the player with the same version that I created the DCP with (2.15.41, I think). I then tried both 2.15.67 and 2.14.32. I was a bit in a hurry, so...anyway, that DCP played okay on our Barco.

- Carsten

Hmm, weird. Player Mac 2.14.32 verifies them okay. I created and verified them in WIN7. Will try again on that machine. Maybe just a quirk.

- Carsten

I don't know if you came to a conclusion on that, but I also get a rather big number of verification errors on 2.15.75 player on Windows 10 that I don't get on 2.15.23 (Win10).

Just yesterday I "re-packed" an old Interop DCP using 2.15.23 and had it verified on ..75 and it came out with multiple exclamation marks.

Today, I verified another Interop DCP created with another, propriety software, and while on ..23 it passed with flying colors, on ..75 it indicated warnings (exclamation marks) on assetmap, PKL, CPL and almost every line of subtitles (and more than one times).

The only error I could tell heads or tails of was "At least one frame of the video data is close to the limit of 250MBit/s", but that is not what concerns me here.

I try to check every DCP I get over the internet (most of them come like that nowadays), since I had to overcome some issues in the past and DCP-o-matic Player makes the job faster and often clearer than having to ingest. (That was meant to be a "thank you very much", in case I didn't... articulated it well enough to be understandable.)

I can understand the validation method getting more strict, but -on the other hand- when the list gets vast, going through and sorting what may be a concern and what not kind of becomes too difficult and beats the purpose.
It would be more handy if it either had some kind of sorting, by filtering what may prove to be critical and what not (but I guess that would have to be presented in another way) or by restricting reiterations that don't help pinpoint the issues (e.g. 23 identical comments on CPL's malformation on line 0). A re-sizable window on DCP verification could come handy also.

As a side-note, I miss being able to drag the pointer on encrypted DCPs and find out the duration of it, even without having a KDM for it. Multi-reel DCPs may become a pain in the ass to determine duration. I would welcome the ability to get info similar to what I get from non-encrypted content, like length, frame-rate etc. when I load encrypted DCPs, if that's not hard to be done. I can always do with going through the CPL files and making calculations of course.

Can I get hold of the XML files from a problematic DCP and some idea of what errors you are seeing?

Yes, of course. Momentarily.
Since there are subtitles included, I will email you a zip file instead of making those widely available.
I'll just add here that I upgraded to 2.15.77, just to check if the result was specific to that version, and I had (without having checked exactly) about the same amount of alerts.
Un-checking all but "errors" on logs didn't make any difference. (It took a while, but I was just curious if changing logging would change validation outcome.)

Hi, thanks for sending the files. I can reproduce the problem here - I'll have a look. Here's the bug report.

I think things should be better in 2.15.78 if you would like to try that.

I can, with conviction, write that, yes. The huge list of warnings reduced to none or a few recognizable.
Thank you very much!