Film-Tech Forums: Swank Motion Pictures encourages non-theatricals to switch to Swank Cinema Player

»	Film-Tech Forums » Straight to Video » Swank Motion Pictures encourages non-theatricals to switch to Swank Cinema Player (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Swank Motion Pictures encourages non-theatricals to switch to Swank Cinema Player

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 676
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 10-13-2008 09:40 AM

Swank Motion Pictures is encouraging its accounts to switch from film to their Swank Cinema Player. The exhibitor provides the projector. Resolution is 720 x 480.

Swank Cinema Player Technical Requirements web page

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 10-13-2008 10:39 AM

quote:
Minimum one-year lease for equipment

So if someone has to pay for the equipment to lease does that mean they don't have to pay a fee for playing individual titles? If the answer is "yes" then why would anyone switch?

| IP: Logged

Todd McCracken
Film Handler

Posts: 80
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 10-13-2008 12:58 PM

Hmm, seems a blu-ray player might be a better investment.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 5528
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-13-2008 01:11 PM

This may not actually be a bad idea for their DVD and VHS (!) customers. In theory, it could provide DVD resolution, but with less compression and (again, in theory) better reliability than DVD or VHS.

Are they really trying to sell it to their film customers, though? It's clearly not in the same league as 16mm or 35mm film, based on the information on their web site.

And is their entire library available for it, or only new releases?

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 952
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 10-13-2008 01:13 PM

Resolution is 720 x 480

480p, that is NTSC resolution. Yes, I know NTSC is interlaced, but still, that sucks. You can buy a 720p (720 x 1280 resolution) for peanuts these days, and even 1080p projectors can be had for under $3000.

No good will come of charging admission for something that looks worse than what is available at home.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-13-2008 02:39 PM

I think this is the pertinent quote:

quote:
The Swank Cinema Player is the next evolution in delivering top quality entertainment to your students.

Swanks major market is schools, film clubs/student unions/film class. This is probably a few steps above the crappy 16mm I would see in college back in the 70's.

They don't appear to be even pretending to compete, commercially, with at home.

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Master Film Handler

Posts: 272
From: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 10-16-2008 10:40 AM

It seams strange to be restricting the system to DVD quality when higher quality is now available. It would seem more future proof to have some HD support (even if there is limited HD content to begin with).

quote:
When it is time for the show, the player will seek “permission to play” from Swank Motion Pictures, Inc. via an online connection and will play through your HDCP compliant projector.

This statement (from Swank website) does concern me. It would make more sense to use a key based system (like DCI spec systems) rather than rely on a network connection.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 2064
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 10-16-2008 11:37 AM

Exactly what I have come to expect from Swank. Louis

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 2878
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-20-2008 06:28 AM

Are they making any arrangements for a Virtual Print Fee to help pay for this equipment? [Big Grin]

quote:
4 x 3 presentation, 16 x 9 subject to availability

What's that all about? This really would be the deal buster -- I read it to mean you could conceivably get Pan & Scan versions of the latest titles because that's the format the studios release to the hotel and cable markets as PPV before they go to DVD rental. For the hotel and cable PPV release, they are almost always done non-letterbox/P&S. I'll bet Swank is piggybacking on that PPV window. This means that for the most current releases (for which they charge the higest rental fee) they are not getting versions made specifically for them but the same P&S versions that the cable companies and hotels get.

Same with their DVDs; even though they charge schools hefty rental rates for current titles, they don't have DVDs made specifically for their non-theatrical market, but they send out standard video store DVDs with all the gack up front and with the FBI warning that says the DVD is only for HOME USE. You would think they could press a version specifically for the non-theatrical market without all that crap, given the fact that the school is paying anywhere up to $1000 per show for that Home DVD.

And why only 16:9? Why not anamorphic versions? 720 x 480 resolution? [puke]

Come on -- that's a joke. What is it with Swank -- three steps backwards?

Besides, is shipping out the physical DVD (this is the way they do it now) all that complicated? Netflix doesn't seem to have any problems doing it and I dare say Netflixs is allot bigger than Swank.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 5528
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-20-2008 09:03 AM

Interesting. I read that as saying that films shot in Academy will be available in 4x3 (as they should be) and that films shot in wider formats would be available cropped or pillarboxed or anamorphically squeezed to 16x9. Sure, it sucks for scope films, but I didn't see it as saying that they would be dumping a 4x3 pan-and-scan version on their customers. If that is what they mean, then Frank is right and this is a piece of junk.

I still don't see why everyone thinks that this is such a horrible idea, if we accept it as being intended only for existing DVD and VHS customers and not for their film customers. The picture quality can't possibly be any worse than VHS (can it?), and it is probably more reliable than DVD. Further, it could actually offer higher image quality than DVD, depending upon the type and extent of compression used.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 2878
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-20-2008 11:46 AM

....and the speed of the client's internet connection.

I suppose "subject to availability" could mean that all wide screen titles will be 16:9 but, then why even need to say that given that all titles since the 60s would be 16:9? It sounds too iffy to me. I would want that clarified right up front. I am just going by Swanks other "subject to availability" fine print, like their 35mm film title list which is also "subject to availabilty." That pretty much means 9 times out of 10 you are not going to get a 35mm print.

This system might be security-driven. With this DVD-less system, studios might me more willing to release titles earlier than Swank usually gets them....maybe even right after the break which the studios wouldn't do with the vulnerability of shipping DVDs. This system has no pristine copy-able copy floating around thru the mail or laying around some student dorm in the hands of kids. It also adds that "key" idea as another layer of control.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 10-20-2008 05:33 PM

quote: Frank Angel
....and the speed of the client's internet connection.

Of course. Then again, anyone who goes with this kind of system and uses a slow connection is shooting themselves in the foot. Sure, I'm fine with netflix's "view on the computer" thingy with low-ish quality (due to my slow connection) but I sure wouldn't do the same if I were using that for exhibiting.

quote: Scott Norwood
I still don't see why everyone thinks that this is such a horrible idea, if we accept it as being intended only for existing DVD and VHS customers and not for their film customers.

The only reason I seemed suspicious of it is that it seems strange if you have to both rent the player and the individual movie. Now it would be different if the player rental included access to the movies or if at least the individual movie fee was lower than the one for when you rent a DVD/VHS.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1834
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-20-2008 09:08 PM

Speed of the internet connection doesn't matter. The only realtime internet aspect is the cryptographic key exchange / authorization handshake, which doesn't take any bandwidth. The web page disucces shipping hard drives, as well.

For me, this is bad because it is yet another case of taking the control out of the hands of exhibitors (even incompetent ones, if they're showing VHS...). I also wonder how bulletproof Swank's system and software could possibly be, and would tend to fear for the worst, like it breaking down at the worst possible moment.

It also seems unreasonable to expend any money on a system that only supports standard definition, especially with no quality guarantees. Will it look like VHS, or will it look like DigiBeta?
[somewhere in-between, of course.]

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 2878
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-21-2008 11:10 AM

They will have to offer clients more than just a DVD-less/shipping-less system as the incentive and advantage to buy into this system; perhaps it can allow them to offer booking dates for the latest films earlier than the booking dates for the DVD clients and cheaper rental rates since this digital system will eliminate their having to stock DVD and run a shipping department with the attendant salaries, etc.

Besides, with product now becoming readily available on Blu-Ray, why go with a lesser image quality of this internet system?

And again, I would want writen-in-stone proof that I would never EVER get any hotel P&S crap; bad enough it's video -- if there is even the remotest possibility of getting Pan&Scan versions, then Swank needs to find a dumpster for this system. On occasions we would open the shipping case and find a P&S AND edited-for-TV 16mm print -- right back in the case it would go and out the door. There are certain compromises where you have to draw line in the sand. P&S is one of them, if indeed that is what that rather ambiguous language means.

I will talk to Brian Fox at Swank; he is a teriffic booker over there & will give straight answers (he's always honest about print quality; no BS). I'll report back.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 952
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 10-21-2008 11:41 AM

My suspicion is that many venues will eventually buy their own consumer grade 1080p video projectors and rent blue-ray's from their local video store, rights be damned. In fact, for many rights will not be an issue due to fair use exceptions for class room use. I think Swank is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

| IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Copyright 1999-2009 Film-Tech Cinema LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic^TM 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.