Behind the Scenes

JosefK writes: "Film & Video is running an interesting and fairly in-depth article on the technology that's been used by Peter Jackson's crew and WETA for the production of the Lord of the Rings. From satellite video feeds for overseeing remote shoots, to the development of WETA's Massive program for depicting large scale battle scenes with tens and hundreds of thousands of "agents" (and it runs on Linux!), the article covers the gamut of the interesting things Peter Jackson's been doing Down Under." And Salon is running a lengthy article on the increasing use of Linux in the special effects industry.

Comments

A plea to the hard core LOTR fans

[billmaly]

Go easy on Jackson when his films are released. He's obviously done close to everything that a director can do to:

1. Maintain Tolkein's vision.
2. Tell the story as truly as possible
3. Work within the confines of the entertainment industry to do so AND make a movie palatable to Joe Six Pack. (If the film doesn't make money, Hollywood won't support it, fact of life here on Earth, and probably MiddleEarth as well!)

These have all been Herculean tasks, and Peter Jackson has devoted his life to them. I would hope that the LOTR faithful are willing to look past minor transgressions that HAVE to be made to bring a story of this scope and scale to the screen.

Obviously, this will be a far, far cry from the embarressing cartoon of FOTR. Let's hope people can forgive Hobbits that aren't quite rotund enough, elves who aren't quite willowy enough, and dwarves that are perhaps a smidge to tall.

LOTR category!!!

[ankit]

This has been said many times, and I am just repeating it. Taco, can we _please_ have a aseparate LOTR category? It more than deserves one!

Call me a karma whore if you like... But this needs to be said often for it to be agreed upon!

Why should the GPL be a problem?

[Hanno]

I don't quite understand why the GPL should be a problem, as mentioned in the Salon article.

It doesn't forbid writing and selling proprietary software, as long as said software isn't based on GPL'd source fragments.

And in-house tools are an example of software that isn't meant to be published or sold to the public. So when writing such tools, they can use GPL'd source and mangle it in whatever form they want, since the result doesn't leave the company and isn't sold or distributed, they don't have to publish source.

Or did I get something wrong here?

Re:Once again Quake to the rescue

[Thagg]

What Quake really did was single-handedly get OpenGL through a critical couple of years. If it were not for Quake, and Carmack in particular, OpenGL would have been relegated to a few very expensive but low performance (because of low volume) cards; and Microsoft would have a monopoly on yet another field of computing.

I develop software for a visual effects company, and I give thanks every day to Carmack, Daryll Strauss, and the Fahrenheit gang for contributing in their own vital ways in keeping OpenGL viable.

thad

Mixed messages: movies and Linux

[Azog]

What's really weird about Linux in the film industry is that the business / distribution / promotion side of the industry would love to outlaw free software. (SSSCA, DMCA, etc.)

Meanwhile, the production side has realized that it is really useful and is wholeheartedly embracing it.

You have to wonder if sooner or later some pointy-haired boss at the MPAA is going to wake up and go "WHAT! We USE Linux!? We use that communist, anti-American.... Well that had better stop immediately!"

I wonder how the "copyright" industries will try to resolve this - they don't want regular people to have powerful tools like programmable PCs and free software. But they sure want to use free software to make movies.

Maybe they'll go for an approach of requiring "computer licensing" but only if you use "non-approved" software. Most people wouldn't care because most people just run Windows, and they wouldn't need a license. Only Linux users, software developers, and computer science students would have to get licensed.

Kind of like you need a license for a car, but not for a bicycle. (Or continuing the analogy, Windows XP == tricycle...)