@kwdinc awesome idea! signed up right away, thanks for sharing :D

@kwdinc I really like that you point out the global aspect to this. I see that as the biggest opportunity here. Indie films are the ultimate startups with insane CPAs relative to LTV. How do you allocate marketing money on a film that only nets $5 or $10 per customer?? Understanding how a country or culture responds to a particular film would be extremely valuable to an independent movie house trying decide which markets are the best to pursue.

@kwdinc This really sounds interesting. Always wondered how the decision on the final edit of the films were made. Thanks for sharing.

@ourielohayon Hi Ouriel, It's a huge focus for us to ensure we aren't compromising the films or shows ever. So far, we've won the trust of stalwarts like 20th Century Fox and IM Global and vetted by their security teams. But we know anything we build is never enough. We're constantly building new tech and patenting new ways to secure content while running this. Thanks for your validation and voicing a very legit concern. : )

@sharanr yeah i here you. unfortunately nothing is secure enough and anything can be cracked. for eg anyone will be able to do a screener version by recording from another camera...unless you found a way to block that possibility

@ourielohayon We use forensic watermarking for that. We alter several pixels to indicate a code that isn't visible to the naked eye, but can clearly identify the copy that was leaked. This is specified in the NDA that the viewers sign as well. So unless you're familiar with the exactly which pixels cause the signature at what point in the video, it will identify the copy which was leaked and subsequently the recipient. We're working on some other concepts which will even thwart the recording. But that's still in development. It's the hardest aspect of tech to solve, but positively the most interesting as well. : )

@sharanr @ourielohayon indeed a good idea but cant the steganography be broken by reencoding the video?

@danr_4 @ourielohayon You're right, but it hugely depends on how much you're ok altering the quality of the final stream. In order to hide the forensic w/m you need to depreciate the visuals by a perceptible quality. It's not a 100% failsafe system and by no means are we trying to make that claim. But given the benefit of testing with a worldwide audience, we're continuing to improve our security along the way to get as close to failsafe as possible.

@kleneway Thanks Kevin. We've had requests in the past for kids films based on your genre preferences you should qualify for it.

@sharanr Ha, I was actually more excited about getting to see non-kids films at home without needing a babysitter to go to the theater!

@bentossell Hi Ben. The studios are quite picky on the demographics they want to test with. For example, if they're testing a superhero film, they'll either ask for people who are fans of comic book films (if they're testing to cater to the core fanbase), or on another test could also ask for someone who hasn't listed any comic book films (if they're testing for wide appeal and not core base). So the more info we have about the viewer the better data we can give them on who the film is catering to. We've tried really hard to whittle this list of questions to only the core ones though. They usually ask for more info on education and wage earned traditionally. We've tried to remove as much as possible but still require this rather lengthy form early on.

@sharanr yeah I understand that and obviously makes sense!! I did feel like the questions perhaps don't consider applications outside of the US. Is this standard?

@bentossell You're right, the at home viewing options are very US skewed, but that's predominantly because of our own experience. But companies increasingly want international audiences, so international signups are most needed.

@sharanr ahh I see....then can I suggest editing the location section of the Typeform. I don't live in a 'State' - like many others outside of the US :)

@bentossell Just fixed that, Ben. : )

@ramganesh They are very frequently rough cuts. Sometimes even without the special effects being complete.

@menimor Thank you! I agree with your sentiments!

@sams_antics Thanks Sam!

@xalusk Thanks Xavier!

@mburns87 Thanks Matt!

@gautch Happy to discuss this if you'd like over the weekend.

@lwesleylittle Hi Wesley, A very valid concern. But the email addresses sale game will not gain us anything of significance. Quite the contrary. Each test screening costs the studios about $50-80 per viewer currently. Far beyond what an email address will fetch us. And people willing to commit to watching a film within a small time window and then providing a lot of feedback is far more valuable to us than just movie lovers. Having a large base of testers that we can reach out to is a huge competitive advantage for us. You can be assured that we'll protect this data with every tech we have to ensure we don't lose our test user base to a competitor (which includes the studios running their own tests).

@_manishshahi_ Thanks Manish! : )

@hgulliver Hey Harrison, the webcam feature is an option for you to opt in to. For this, the Studios usually compensate you in cash so they can track the emotive expressions on your face. But it's also far more expensive for them, so they very rarely offer that feature.

@stevefarrugia Thanks Steve!

@williamxlewis Absolutely. I'd love to chat with you. Will message you on Twitter.