apparently the advent of 3D projectors is severely cutting the amount of light that reaches the screen because projectionists are not changing out the 3D lenses for 2D screenings as they should
Would you believe that a poorly planned security process is at fault of our enjoyment of 3D movies? With more and more thought being given to security, and protecting the intellectual property of the organization, it is possible for those controls to go too far.
Hollywood is making a trade-off here: believing that 3D and digital are the new technologies that will get people back into theaters BUT believing that anything not locked down will be copied and redistributed without payment, the studios et al have opted to secure the projectors. Understandable. But in doing so, they've made it difficult for the people running the projectors to do their jobs properly.
While it is a great idea to make sure that the business is protected, making security too much of a challenge for people to do their jobs results in poor returns for everyone.
Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, 'and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.'
when the designers developed the projector's security, they failed to consider who would be using it, their level of technical capabilities, and their own internal risk model ("If I do this complicated and difficult thing and make a mistake the projector will lock up and the screening will have to be canceled and I'll probably get fired.") The upshot is poor design that defeats the purpose.
When you are designing your next security model, give lots of thought to the business and its ultimate goals. Make sure you are not a hindrance to the bottom line.
Reference: When Threat Models Collide
Post a Comment