|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Screenvision is horrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-10-2009 11:44 PM
I use a TNET-300 video server to do digital ads on my screen.
It can play 1080 but I usually use 720 instead.
At 720, you can get a whole movie trailer in under 100 MB where it can be 150 MB or more for a 1080. It doesn't sound like much but, when you're talking about an 80 GB capacity on the unit's hard drive it can be significant. Further, it takes that much less time to upload and manage files on the server if they are smaller.
Our system upscales to 1080 anyway. To upscale from 720 to 1080, the difference is hardly visible with the house lights on.
If we make still slides with Photoshop/Illustrator or animations with Motion/Final Cut it's virtually impossible to tell the difference unless you really scrutinize it.
Customers waiting for a movie to start hardly pay attention to the ads, let alone scrutinize them for picture quality.
Besides, as the saying goes, "Today's newspapers line the bottoms of tomorrow's birdcages."
Ad material is expendable. It's better to save a little time, storage space and network bandwidth in exchange for a small drop in quality.
I don't know how it works on other systems but on ours, it's perfectly fine.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-22-2009 02:57 PM
quote: Aaron Mehocic
Understandably there are, on rare occasions, complaints from customers that they did not pay for advertising when they purchased their ticket.
Rule of thumb -- for every person who takes the time and effort to make a complaint, there are at least 20 who have the same complaint but just don't voice it. Instead they just tuck that annoyance away in their mind under, "Why I hate going to the theatre and would much rather wait to see it on Netflix, or the RedBox or On Demand cable." Any exhibitor who doesn't appreciate the national perception that theatres are no longer the BEST place to watch movies, and doesn't do everything possible to eliminate all those factors that make patrons come to that frame of mind, will be shooting himself in the foot or worse.
quote: Aaron Mehocic
I'd like to think, however, that our ads are coordinated into specific sets based on rating and look as good as can be expected on the screen.
What's "as good as can be expected?" I expect picture and sound to look and sound as near perfection as I know the technology is capable of producing. Anything else is amateurish. I sat thru a crappy slew of dim, soft focus, ANNOYING ads before the last film I paid to see in a theatre and got the feeling that this was more a price I was being asked to pay than the cost of the ticket. Why should any patron be subjected to garbage and then assume they will want to return for more of it?
quote: Aaron Mehocic
Moreover, I'd also like to report that, although we are a part of the Screenvision network, we do not rely on the quarterly checks to get by.
THEN WHY DO IT? Why do something that degrades your presentation, annoys your customers and risks loosing them as loyal and frequent patrons if you can run the business without what you know is a real negative? It makes no sense, ESPECIALLY knowing how people have become more and more unhappy with the movie-going experience. It's not like it was years ago when the public could ONLY see movies in movie theatres and the exhibitor's only competition was another theatre and who could put on the best show. And back then, I NEVER heard anyone say they hated to go to the movie theatre. Hate going to the movies....no one would have believed someone who said such a thing back then -- we all LOVED going to the movies.
Today exhibitors are competing with a host of other ways people can see movies, yet today exhibitors seem to be LESS attentive to what makes their theatres a more inviting, more enticing environment to see films.
BTW, I say, if Coke wants to REALLY win my loyalty, I'd be allot more likely to remember their product if they gave me a free Coke at the concessions instead of pestering me in the theatre. That goes for every other advertiser. GIVE ME FREE STUFF. I promise I'll really be impressed....just let me sit in peace before the feature.
As for Suckvision honchos thinking they can make their shitty service better by stopping people from discussing it on this forum -- EAT ME.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-22-2009 03:11 PM
Hey Screenvision! Try to censor THIS!
http://www.jobschmob.com/showArticle.cgi?id=2100
quote:
Screenvision Is The Worst Company In The World!!
Posted on 07/19/2008 by LP JR Guy
Viewed: 1378 times
I worked for about eight months in advertising sales for Screenvision, selling onscreen theatre advertising. Warning: Onscreen advertising is one step above being a total scam and a completely ineffective means of spending your advertising dollars. The commercial spots are an insignificant 10 seconds, and are shown mostly in half-empty theatres, to kids with no buying power or people who regard onscreen ads as little more than an annoyance. They are totally ineffective. The company has something like an 8% renewal rate! That's abysmal. It also meant I was searching for new business all the time. Here are more gripes:
The company's compensation plan is a joke. It's really hard to make any money.
The company management is made up of idiots who are out of step and totally clueless as to the realities of the world we live in.
The regional VP was located in our office. I have known door knobs with more brains than this idiot.
My immediate supervisor was a sarcastic jerk who loved to throw around caustic remarks and insults.
I grew to despise the product and the company so much, I started having panic attacks. I felt I was compromising my personal integrity by selling this product.
Screenvision (or as I like to call them, "Screamvision"), has nothing but contempt for their customers once they sign the long-term contracts they demand. I saw too many examples of this.
They bust your stones constantly about weekly quotas (give me a break! A WEEKLY quota?), and the accounts payable people, particularly one girl in the Rochester office who handles the payment of legitmate bueiness expenses, was a complete pain in the rear.
Since I left Screamvision for a much better position, my blood pressure has gone down, my EKG is normal, and I'm done with the panic attacks.
DO NOT ever do business with Screenvision, and don't ever consider going to work for them! They're the Anti-Christ of the advertisnng world.
P.S. -- I found this by simply Googling the phrase, "Screenvision sucks."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-22-2009 09:04 PM
quote: Frank Angel
What's "as good as can be expected?"
Well given what we have been discussing here and the condition in which the rolling stock comes (as evidenced by Emma's photo) "as good as can be expected" is totally in the hands of Screenvision. Obviously the screens are bright, focused, and clean because in the end our business is show business. Screenvision benefits (albeit by default) because myself and the other operators know what we are doing here.
However, what I really meant was that we take the time to carefully sort the ads, apply them to the proper rated feature(s) and build what we call an "ad-set". Everything is homogenous. Every G-rated feature has the same ads - in order - as any other G-rated feature we might be showing. Same goes for PG, PG-13, and R features as well. If we run short, we can sometimes borrow certain ads from other nearby theaters in our company who might have extra. Its a system that works in theory, as well as practicality.
quote: Frank Angel
THEN WHY DO IT? Why do something that degrades your presentation, annoys your customers and risks loosing them as loyal and frequent patrons if you can run the business without what you know is a real negative?
Bottom line: Because its my job. I don't like Screenvision anymore than any of the others who posted here either. But we do what we must do. I like to think that the extra revenue might permit an extra shift during the worst time of the year, or allow me to purchase some additional parts for the equipment that isn't always needed, but is sure nice to have around if something does break.
In the end its just business.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic