More on LoTR Special Effects

What would be the best way to build this? by mmol_6453 · 2001-12-02 13:21 · Score: 1

Large array of boxen...Should one use bootp? Or just mount drives over NFS?

--
What's this Submit thingy do?

Re:What would be the best way to build this? by UberLame · 2001-12-03 02:27 · Score: 1

It is my understanding that bootp points to an NFS server, meaning that if you use bootp, you are also using NFS.

--
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
Re:What would be the best way to build this? by zeno_2 · 2001-12-03 03:34 · Score: 1

Yes

vs. Pixar by abrink · 2001-12-02 13:22 · Score: 1

How far along are these guys, as compared by lets say Pixar or some of the other well known CG shops?

Re:vs. Pixar by 90XDoubleSide · 2001-12-02 13:45 · Score: 2

How far along are these guys, as compared by lets say Pixar or some of the other well known CG shops?
Pixar probably pushes more ultra-high resolution CG than any other house, and therefore they own one hell of a farm, athough they don't use much in the way of OSS. You can read about their latest hardware (purchased this spring) on Sun's site, basically they have 250 SunFire 3800's, with 8 750MHz SunSparc IIIs, 16GB of RAM, and 108GB of disk space each, plus some addtional disk space, for a total of 1.5THz processing power, 4TB of ram, and 27TB of disk space.

--
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Re:vs. Pixar by Pseudonym · 2001-12-02 17:04 · Score: 2

The comparison probably isn't fair because Pixar and Weta do very different jobs. Weta does visual effects and Pixar does character animation. They are superficially similar in that they often use the same modelling and rendering tools.

VFX houses generally have to produce "elements" to match existing photography (matching camera motion, set lighting and so on). That's actually where most of the trouble happens: getting things to match. So a VFX house's best friend is not necessarily the modeller and renderer, but the compositing system (Cineon, Shake, Avid, After Effects etc).

OTOH, Pixar has to build characters and worlds from scratch, like in traditional 3D animation (e.g. that of Aardman). Every prop and every piece of set decoration needs to be modelled, placed and rendered. Their best friend is the animation system (in Pixar's case, often incorrectly referred to by marketroids as "Marionette", but known to everyone inside the company as "Menv").

Note that this skips over a lot of detail (and I'll no doubt be corrected/chastised for oversimplifying things), so take this with the appropriate sodium chloride.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:vs. Pixar by rodgerd · 2001-12-02 20:52 · Score: 2

Actually, you'll mostly be chastised for getting what Weta are doing wrong - they are doing both what you describe as visual effects and character animation, since a number of characters (Balrogs, trolls, etc) are animated from scratch.

Interesting, isn't it? by Astral+Traveller · 2001-12-02 13:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Linux has started to become the platform of choice for extremely complex and involved multimedia production, powering enormous render farms and video storage RAID arrays, yet still, Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work. Linux can render the incredibly lifelike texturing and animation exhibited in "Monsters Inc." and "Titanic", yet it can't even open a simple Word document without formatting errors. While delivering superior performance rendering these intensely detailed and hard-wrought movie scenes, Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake. How did we get into this perplexing state of affairs?

I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego. Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux is polluted with warring egos that suffer too much from the problematic NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. There are a myriad of competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG). We can't even decide on a printing system! I realize that, according to Eric S. Raymond's famous "Cathedral and Bazaar" text, that open-source software is primarily written to scratch an itch and get peer recognition, but this is taking it too far. If all the man-hours poured into KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.

Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars. The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.

I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop. Linux is growing up; its users need to grow up with it, shed their egos and work towards the common goal of creating an excellent working environment.

Re:Interesting, isn't it? by gmack · 2001-12-02 14:19 · Score: 1

This is the diffrence between somone porting their own apps and trying to emulate a file format that happens to be designed to provide it's authors with more leverage.

Do you know *anybody* other then MicroSoft that has maged to render MSword files corrently?

The StarOffice folks giving up and going with XML instead was the best idea they had in a long time.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by ChadN · 2001-12-02 14:22 · Score: 2, Offtopic

And what have YOU, personally, done to help remedy this perceived problem, other than bring up this (oft repeated, and spurriously argued) point of view?

Opening a Word document is difficult, because it requires lots of reverse engineering, and many people do play Quake at roughly equal performance under Linux or Windows. XFree is popular because it is FREE, the others you mentioned are commercial (and with other advantages and disadvantages).

So, no, it really isn't all that interesting. It is a banal view point; if things aren't improving in your specific area quick enough for you, then do something about it (coding, guidance, money, bug fixing, bug reporting, whatever) It seems to me that YOU have the ego problem, expecting that everything should do exactly what you want.

Besides, you are WAY off topic.

--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2001-12-02 14:28 · Score: 1

Hey, AT's a Yes fan, therefore opinionated but not trollish. :)

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Astral+Traveller · 2001-12-02 14:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic

(Sorry for feeding the trolls)
Don't be. I am not a troll, and am well-fed besides. :-)
First, who has the right approach, KDE or GNOME? Which system is better? If we don't know that it would be a mistake to devote all of our energy to one.
Well it should have been obvious from day one that KDE was the better target. GNOME was a hastily-thrown-together mishmash of whatever GPL programs were available at the time, put out solely for the purpose of avoiding the "corrupting" influence of Qt (a point which is moot today) and destroying KDE. KDE was and is planned out; detailed release schedules are maintained and are met more often than not, because everything being done to the core KDE framework is well-planned in advance. Can you tell me, with any certainty, when the next version of GNOME will be thrown together, and what improvements the new version will bring? (I'm sorry for sounding trollish, but GNOME really is a mess. What were they thinking when they decided to do everything in C? Why do I need to install 34 different packages with extremely fragile version dependencies in order to get it running?)
Second, the kernel has no competition? What about BSD?
The *BSD developers make no pretensions of competing with Linux; their development focuses most on its strengths as a server, router and general network bit-pusher. If they were attempting to compete with Linux, you would see more work put in towards implementing 3D support, low-latency patches and other multimedia enhancements Linux has been making great strides in. The fact is, 200FPS in Quake is worthless on a server, and they don't try to compete in this arena. BSD and Linux complement each other, they don't compete.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by The+Milky+Bar+Kid · 2001-12-02 14:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Besides, you are WAY off topic.

No he isn't. Won't all these Linux Render Farms be used to animate Trolls?

--
-- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Carrott · 2001-12-02 14:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Linux has started to become the platform of choice for extremely complex and involved multimedia production, powering enormous render farms and video storage RAID arrays, yet still, Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work.

A rendering application is fairly operating system independent. It only requires ANSI C level functions for opening the source files, crunching the data, and writing the output. There is a little bit of OS stuff for communication between nodes etc, but really nothing compared to making a wordprocesssor.

So if you have a Solaris or SGI renderfarm program, and you recompile it for linux, you quickly get a userbase of happy users who start wanting to run the modeller on this cheap hardware. So you port that too, which might not be that hard if it was coming from another unix.

Writing a spreadsheet that reads Excel files is more difficult than porting your own application which you know you can sell, for actual money.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Pseudonym · 2001-12-02 14:35 · Score: 2

Monsters, Inc was modelled, animated and lit on SGIs and final rendering was done on Suns. No Linux here (yet).

I think you meant Shrek.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by bwindle2 · 2001-12-02 14:54 · Score: 1

Yes, there may only be one Linux kernel.. but it's certainly not without competiton. You've forgotten about GNU/HURD, and the constant performace/feature comparisions to (Free|Net|Open)BSD.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2001-12-02 14:57 · Score: 1

Oh, you're soooo brave and clever, Ms. A/C Who Won't Even Post An Obfuscated Version Of Her Email.

BTW, not that it matters, but for the record I'm a "he."

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by donglekey · 2001-12-02 15:29 · Score: 1

No, he meant Monsters Inc. Pixar has mostly Sun's for rendering. Shrek was almost entirely on Linux.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by krogoth · 2001-12-02 15:30 · Score: 2

You seem to be repeating the same stupid argument that comes up every time a discussion about competition and the advancement of Linux: everyone should work on one thing. Why don't you try applying this? Why don't you send a polite letter to Miguel de Icaza saying "I appreiciate your work, but you would help more if you worked on KDE". Maybe because he would reply with something to the effect of "screw off!"? It is completely ridiculous to think that when someone is working on a project and giving away their work for free, they will abandon it and work on another project just because it has better chances of success and one or two people think they should do that.

KDE certainly doesn't seem to need much help; they are improving very fast (each release of the KDE/KOffice/other associated packages seems to contain as many improvements or more than a release of Microsoft Whatever, which takes longer to come out). Not that I would know, I just use KDE applications whenever possible.

In any case, according to you, it's hopelss. Windows has more customers, and a "functional" Windows XP Advanced Server installation probably involves more lines of code than a functional Linux install with a variety of desktop and server applications, so let's all contribute code to Microsoft!

Hey wait, he's arguing against freedom for coders... could it be RMS???

--

They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by donglekey · 2001-12-02 15:32 · Score: 1

This is correct to an extent, but you don't suppose those renderers would have machine dependant optimizations do you?

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by tswinzig · 2001-12-02 15:38 · Score: 4, Funny

While delivering superior performance rendering these intensely detailed and hard-wrought movie scenes, Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake. How did we get into this perplexing state of affairs?
I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego.

No no no... I think you mean id.

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Black+Parrot · 2001-12-02 15:41 · Score: 2

> Linux has started to become the platform of choice for extremely complex and involved multimedia production, powering enormous render farms and video storage RAID arrays, yet still, Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work.

That's funny... I've been using Linux for mundane day-to-day productivity work for years.

And it's still getting better.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by mmol_6453 · 2001-12-02 15:44 · Score: 1

Windows is a competitor too.

It seems like every week on /. there's a new article about a benchmark showing Linux better than Windows, or Apache better than IIS.

--
What's this Submit thingy do?
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by talonyx · 2001-12-02 15:54 · Score: 1

Amusing as that is, none of the troglodytes here will have read anything by Frued, so it is wasted. A pity.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by obtuse · 2001-12-02 16:00 · Score: 1

You're right. What we really need is one giant software vendor to rescue us from all these damned incompatible competing programs. They're obviously inadequate tools because they don't speak microsoft's private language.

We need to be rescued from this pathetic situation where people make what tools they need, because they can. Don't worry though, Bill is trying to save us, if he's allowed to.

--
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by scanman857 · 2001-12-02 16:45 · Score: 1

can't even open a simple Word document without formatting errors.
Ever think about why that might be? The MS Word format is arguably the most complex and obfusicated file format ever devised. People have gone mad trying to unravel it's mysteries. Not even Micro$loth's own programs can open files made by previous versions of the SAME program.
Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake.
This is simply not true. In fact, with Nvidia hardware, Linux runs Quake 3 about 25% faster than Windows.
There are a myriad of competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG).
The programs you mention here really do not compete very much. While they all achieve the same purpose, they are targeted at different people. StarOffice is designed to make Office users feel at home, KOffice is for more advanced users. KDE is designed to make Windows users feel at home, Gnome is for more advanced users. XFree86 is designed for everyone, MetroX and XiG are used by no one in their right mind.
I really don't understand what you percieve the problem to be. I'm perfectly happy with AbiWord, Gnome, Quake, and XF86.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by zoombah · 2001-12-02 16:56 · Score: 1

It doesn't take a psych major to know what the id and the ego are, moron.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Pseudonym · 2001-12-02 16:59 · Score: 2

Er... that's what I said, wasn't it?

What Astral Traveller said was:

Linux can render the incredibly lifelike texturing and animation exhibited in "Monsters Inc." [...]

Now of course this is true. Linux can do the job. (Rumour has it that Pixar has found that FreeBSD running with Linux emulation is actually slightly faster at running prman than Linux itself for their kind of scenes, though. It's probably virtual memory performance dominating.) However, until someone comes up with a 14-CPU-per-box Linux machine, Pixar will stick with their Suns.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by mrm677 · 2001-12-03 01:59 · Score: 1

"Monsters, Inc." does not use Linux at all. They use Sun UltraEnterprise servers....about 3500 CPUs total. They are currently looking into Linux as a rendering machine, however that would require major rewrites of Pixar's proprietary software called RenderMan. Pixar does not use Maya which runs on Linux.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by Mr_Matt · 2001-12-03 08:05 · Score: 1

...or Freud, either. *duck* C'mon, if you're gonna flame /. for consisting of "troglodytes", at least make sure you're immune from the dreading "spelling flame." :)

--

But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Re:Interesting, isn't it? by PCM2 · 2001-12-03 08:41 · Score: 2

Pixar does not use Maya which runs on Linux.
Actually, Pixar does use Maya for basic model creation etc. But you are correct, they export those models to RenderMan for all the shading (the hard part). I doubt they'd be ready to switch over to Linux in any major way for another year or two. And it doesn't have anything to do with "Not Invented Here" syndrome, it's like you say -- they wrote their software, it's good, they don't want to have to re-write it for a system that hasn't proven itself in terms of stability.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Imagine... by poundincludegeek · 2001-12-02 13:48 · Score: 1, Funny

A bewoulf clus...oh wait. Never mind.

poundincludegeek

CGI with Maya on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2001-12-02 14:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

With SGI's announcement that they are supporting Linux on the new Visual
PC does anybody know if Alias is going to port MAYA onto the Visual PC
but running Linux ? The MAYA renderer should be easy to port as it
requires no graphics capability.

I am thinking of setting up a MAYA render farm and my preferred
platforms would be the Visual PC running Linux. I am VERY wary of using
NT which has an appalling reputation for unstability, requires far more
support than Linux, is subject to multiple upgrades/service packs and
has VERY poor performance under load. Linux would provide superior
through-put, superb stability/reliability and also integrate very well
and easily into my otherwise SGI dominated setup.

Anybody else interested in a MAYA renderer port to Linux ?

Please do not reply if you are trying to tell me how good NT is - the
growth of Linux in comparision to NT tells me what I need to know - even
with Microsoft spending millions of dollars advertising NT its sales are
only comparable with Linux sales - virtually unadvertised compared to
NT.....

Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by chabotc · 2001-12-02 14:47 · Score: 2

'IAMAgfx dude' but isnt 'Alias Wavefront, Maya 3.0.1' for linux, what you are talking about ? check there site .. its been ported to, and available on linux for a bit now.
Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by Comrade+Pikachu · 2001-12-02 15:53 · Score: 1

"Visual PC?" I have never heard of such a thing. Is this a new development, or are you referring to the old NT "Visual Workstations"?
As far as the Maya renderer is concerned, the Maya Batch (network) Renderer has been out for years. It was the first product that Alias ported to Linux.
Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by malducin · 2001-12-02 16:09 · Score: 2

Eeehhh, Alias Wavefront ported the Maya batch renderer to Linux and announced it at SIGGRAPH 99. And of course if you are looking for a reneder farm for Maya, there is also Phortorealistic RenderMan from Pixar (couple it with RAT: RenderMan Artists Tools) which is also available from Linux for a couple of years at least.

Maya itself has already been ported to Linux (v. 4) and to Mac OS X (V. 3.5 I think).

Check it at the Maya press releases page:
Maya Press releases
Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by tolldog · 2001-12-02 17:32 · Score: 2

I have been using Maya for Linux for a while now. Last year A|W had Maya 2.5's renderer ported to Linux. This year they released 3.0 on NT,IRIX and Linux. Soon (or maybe it has happened...) 4.0 will be released for Linux, it is currently out for NT and IRIX.
The speed is there on Linux, most studios are looking at moving from IRIX in the future, or they have moved. We are looking at moving from IRIX in the near future.
Most larger production studios have in house tools as well as Maya and other pieces of software, so A|W's port is only one part of the solution.

--
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by mallan · 2001-12-02 18:55 · Score: 1

The Maya renderer has been available for a couple of years now.

SGI no longer sells 32-bit Linux workstations - they discontinued the entire line (except for the graphics cluster) earlier this year.

--
"Good people drink good beer"
Re:CGI with Maya on Linux by WhyteRabbyt · 2001-12-03 00:57 · Score: 2

Maya 4 for Linux doesnt appear to be available yet...

--
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com

Re:Just out of curiousity.. by RedWizzard · 2001-12-02 14:09 · Score: 2

According to the article (you read the article?) they are using Linux on 40-50 workstations, primarily for Alias/Wavefront's Maya character animation software and Nothing Real's Shake compositing system.

What happens to the old clusters??? by elem · 2001-12-02 14:11 · Score: 1, Redundant

In article on salon.com it says that they use clusters of around 1000 linux boxen, which they replace for every film... it take aprx. 2/3 years to make the film, so by the next film hardware has become more powerfull, so bye-bye old clusters, hello new ones.

What I would like to know is what they do to the old computers... I hope that they do things like donate them to local schools and the such, I know that for most applications it doesn't realy matter if you don't have this year's Pentium 54 with 5gigs of ram, but I would imagine that these machines are tricked out pretty nicely. Does anyone know what does happen to them?

1000 machines x $2000 = $2,000,000
Thats still cheaper than a bigname actor... shocking :)

Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by supabeast! · 2001-12-02 14:29 · Score: 2

Given the replaceable nature of the machines involved, they are probably all leased to provide WETA the most advantageous position possible from a federal tax break standpoint, after which they are probably returned to the owner who sells them to companies in developing nations at discounted prices.
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by Joff_NZ · 2001-12-02 15:23 · Score: 1

.. except that Weta is a company based in NZ, and if the machines are leased, then there may be a taxbreak, but it won't be federal ;)

I have a friend who recently spent some time at Weta, and by the sounds of it the boxes are all high spec, and therefore probably not going to any developing nations anytime soon

--
The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by Torak- · 2001-12-02 15:26 · Score: 1

Weta is a New Zealand company, the movie is being made in New Zealand. "Federal tax break"? Idiot.
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by linzeal · 2001-12-02 15:52 · Score: 1

Don't they have other projects as well. This company wasn't made just for LOTR, was it ?

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by malducin · 2001-12-02 16:14 · Score: 2

Actually WETA is pretty old. At least the worksop (now in charge of doing things like swords and armory for the film) was started by Dan Taylor around 1986. WETA Digital was started around 1993 ( one interesting trivia is that some exILMers help set that up).

They have worked in several Peter Jackson movies most notable Heavenly Creatures and the Frighteners. But they have also done other work like most of "The Ride" sequence in Contact.

The only question left is what will WETA Digital be like after 2003. For the time being they are concentrating almost exclusively on LOTR.
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by rodgerd · 2001-12-03 06:27 · Score: 2

There's still the small matter of the animators and systems support staff. Neither of who come cheap.
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by spitzak · 2001-12-03 07:00 · Score: 2

They are missing video cards, keyboards, and monitors, (and may be missing floppy and CD drives, though the ones I am familiar with are not) and may not be all that valuable to schools.
Re:What happens to the old clusters??? by supabeast! · 2001-12-05 07:45 · Score: 2

The last time I checked, New Zealand had a federal government, to which they pay taxes. Believe it or not, the United States is not the only nation on Earth with a federal government, nor is it the only one where it makes more sense to get yearly tax breaks on least equipment rather than tax breaks every couple of years for new equipment that may need to be replaced yearly.

Linux rendering farm by Anonymous Coward · 2001-12-02 14:16 · Score: 1, Informative

It seems that since the days of the movie "Titanic", Linux has become
entrenched as a major rendering farm OS and is starting to move into the
workstation environment! Get it? Workstations ARE on the desktop! Remember
that it was the workstations were the Winvocates claimed the real work was
done! Seems Linux is continuing on it's course to become of becoming the
dominate OS in computer generated special affects in the movies!

http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue88/4 80 3.html

A great quote:

"Some wonder how Linux will dislodge Windows on the desktop because leading
desktop applications such as Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and Access)
aren't there. But, if you are a motion picture animator most of your
everyday tools are already available on Linux, and the number being ported
or even produced specifically for Linux is increasing at a remarkable rate."

Seems that when the tools are ready, people are more than willing to
switch! Hell, there more than ready, they'll even developed their own tools!

"For character animation, a scan of a paper sketch is done using
ToonShooter. Production software lead Derek Chan explains, ``ToonShooter is
an internal tool we wrote for Linux. It captures low resolution 640 × 480
line art that the artists use to time the film.'' Created more than a year
ago, this Linux capture stand software is deployed in three animation
departments. Chan says, ``Demand was keen for this Linux software, and we
delivered it ahead of schedule. DreamWorks has 60 units in production
now.''

Hmmm, It all sounds like the work that winvocates claimed as the domain for
NT. Departmental changes in OS's. Could this be how Linux takes over the
desk top? One department at a time?

Ironic by gnarly · 2001-12-02 14:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Weta is gathering material from its archives for use in The Fellowship of the Ring DVD release

Weta has a "major" research and development effort under way at the moment into running more Linux-based workstations.

Ironic that Linux was used to make this movie & DVD but Linux users would be prevented (in the US) from distributing the software to watch the movie.

--
:-( is a registered trademark of Despair.com

Re:say what? by istvandragosani · 2001-12-02 14:24 · Score: 1

Actually, no, Gollum does not fully appear until the second half of _THe Two Towers_. He is seen briefly in a couple of scenes in FotR, but that's about it.

--
Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes

Re:Troll? by the_2nd_coming · 2001-12-02 14:28 · Score: 2

commercial application developers will never make apps for KDE....at least most of them. Why? because of QT. yes it is a good tool kit, but most comercial vendors do not want to pay out the butt for a licence to make the app usable. hopefully Gnome will catch up to the level of KDE in terms of features an maturity, that way, lots of commercial ISVs will at least look into developing with GTK+

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

"Linux is only free if you're time is wothless" by autopr0n · 2001-12-02 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux is free. It delivery's an unlimited price performance.

That's not true at all (actually you would say the price/performance ratio is zero if it were). I Linux takes time to install and get running. If you're just a student with some free time then it is free. But if you're running a company with pay by the hour, or actually has work for salaried employees, then Installing and running Linux does cost money. It may be less money then the cost of installing and running windows (even without purchase costs) but you can't just say that Linux has a zero price/performance ratio.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

LotR Topic by heptapod · 2001-12-02 14:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Star Wars has a topic, why not LotR? Steve Jackson's already rubbed the Linux community's collective johnsons hard enough because of the special effects developed on your beloved operating systems and for the simple fact that nearly every "nerd" has read Tolkein's saga.

Isn't this enough to merit a topic already or will LotR continue to play second fiddle to the increasingly mediocre Star Wars franchise?

Re:LotR Topic by Hektor_Troy · 2001-12-02 16:11 · Score: 1

It means you're a nerd, but not a geek.

Nerds are utterly uncool, and have therefore not read The Lord of the Rings.

Geeks have read The Lord of the Rings and that causes them to become cool people.

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Re:LotR Topic by glwtta · 2001-12-02 17:49 · Score: 1

It means you're a nerd, but not a geek.

Ouch. That's perhaps the most hurtful thing anyone's ever said to me, even without your explanation. :)

I do have an excuse though - when I was eight years old, I wasn't in this country yet (nor did I speak any English), so I've never heard of it. But they time I was 12, well it was a bit late, now wasn't it?

(go ahead, slash another of my precious karma points for "flamebait" - I dare ya!)

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:LotR Topic by Hektor_Troy · 2001-12-02 19:54 · Score: 1

Well ... I didn't get to learn english until I was ... 11 or 12 I think. Read "The Hobbit or There And Back Again" in danish when I was ten, "The Lord of the Rings" in danish when I was 13, then "The Hobbit" and LotR in english when I was 15 I think.

And I'm rereading it again - because I'd like to be "up" on the movie, because I can, but mostly because my cute neighbour (on whom I have a crush/am in love with - not quite sure which) is a big fan of the book, I'm taking her to the movie, and I'd like to be prepared :-)

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Re:LotR Topic by glwtta · 2001-12-03 04:17 · Score: 1

Better hope she doesn't get carded! j/k ;)

seriously though, I don't tell people what to read, but that doesn't mean I won't poke fun at what they do choose.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

What rendering software are they using? by Ryu2 · 2001-12-02 14:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

The two articles didn't say. Are they using PRMan, or something else? Or are they using their own proprietary renderer, a la PDI/Shrek?

--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re:What rendering software are they using? by donglekey · 2001-12-02 15:27 · Score: 1

Nice try, but I doubt it. PRenderman is the standard, I am sure they are using that. Mental ray really hasn't been used for a lot of film work. PDI is a glutton for punishment, they wrote all their own stuff, but they are sitting pretty now I am sure.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:What rendering software are they using? by malducin · 2001-12-02 16:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Well PDI, Blue Sky, Rhythm and Hues and other facilities wrote their own renderer because there wasn't any commercial one back then (PDI is over 20 years old!!!). That what Pixar also did when it was still the Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group, they created their own renderer, but later on decided to sell it. But even Pixar uses its own animation software called menv or Marionette (for the media). And besides the advantage is that all these companies don't have to wait for new features and also they can tailor it specifically to their pipeline, not that they want punishment.

Ohhh, and WETA Digital is using PRMan. There is one guy from there that frequently posts at the RenderMan newsgroup. He even posted at least once job openings for shader writers. They also use Houdini, which has a Linux port and it has a great RenderMan connection.
Re:What rendering software are they using? by donglekey · 2001-12-02 16:38 · Score: 1

The glutton for punishment thing was joke. I tend to think that when studios write their own stuff instead of buying programs that are right there to be had, but it makes sense for the most part. Too bad no one has the balls to make high-end 3D quality GPL software, it would clean up, but would be very hard to do. (I have seen some of the projects out there now, and they are cool, but not even close, and Blender isn't GPLed and it sucks anyway, sorry) I didn't know that Blue Sky and Rhythm and Hues wrote their own rendering software, because I didn't really know they got into CG so early, but it makes sense. Old school 3D history is an amazing thing. There certainly weren't any commercial 3D packages when Tron was made.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:What rendering software are they using? by malducin · 2001-12-02 17:00 · Score: 2

Well but because of your lack of smilies you know someone would have taken it literally ;-) (hmm I did forget mine in my first post, Im guilty myself). Well probably we wont see any GPL apps anytime soon besides Film Gimp and a few other things. I guess 3D is just to specialized for people from OpenSource make a run for it. I don't think we'll see a GPL equivalent of Maya or Softimage or avid anytime soon. Then again there is stuff like Aqsis (at Sourceforge) which is a GPL RenderMan renderer. It actually implements the REYES architecture (used in PRMan) and it's moving along pretty well. But besides renderers 3D interactive apps are long ways off.

For comparison both SGI and Alias started in 1982, Softimage in 1986, Wavefront and TDI in 1984. Blue Sky started in 1987, but most people came in from MAGI (like Dr. Troubetskoy sp.?), which itself started in 1966. Some of the Blue Sky studio founders at least were at MAGI in the late 70s or early 80s. Rhythm and Hues was founded also in 1987 but the founders (like John Hughes and Keith Goldfarb) came from Robert Abel's company (itself started in 1971). All these places only had propietary software (and many of the old ones used Crays).

Next year a special edition DVD of Tron will come out. Hopefully the extras will include plenty of info from this earlier era of CGI.
Re:What rendering software are they using? by Graymalkin · 2001-12-02 18:54 · Score: 2

There's a bunch of GPL renderers out there if you care to look, mostly because renderers follow alot of the same mathematical concepts everyone in a 3D modeling class is supposed to know about. There's Aqsis and GMan both of which are compatible with the RenderMan specs. There is though a lack of preprocessors that have a good amount of features. Reason being you need pretty good 3D hardware acceleration to make a REALLY functional preprocessor. Modelers can be a dime a dozen because as with renderers they follow some basic rules. Preprocessors are where alot of companies make their money or spend alot of time developing. In the preprocessor you do stuff like sync 3D animation with flat video elements or just make your 3D models actually do something. This is where stuff like motion capture and the AI stuff in the article comes in.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:What rendering software are they using? by Chris+Johnson · 2001-12-02 23:27 · Score: 2

I dunno. The thing is, you only need one person to do the heavy lifting, and then it's in the GPL sphere and can be taken from there when needed.
My own perspective is from pro audio- specifically, mastering. You might say that you wouldn't see open source people do serious stuff in wordlength reduction or mastering processing, except that it wasn't- the person who did serious work in wordlength reduction wasn't 'open source people', it was me. And I suck at coding, am miserable at file handling, but got the basic algorithms down- in the pure GPL sphere. Enough people know about that now that it can't be taken away...
On the basis of this experience I'd suggest that what will happen is not OSS coders _learning_ to do 3d, but instead some iconoclastic 3D coder, possibly one with poor coding skills _outside_ of the central problem, will throw together something that works because _they_ believe in the concept. It's gotta be an insider rather than a coder project meant to meet a goal- but it may still be somewhat 'hobbyist', for instance it might be directly comparable in output quality but not capable of pro-level workflow (that's what bit _me_ with my own project). But there's likely to be something- possibly even soon. Whether you'll hear of it is another story because it'll be done by a person or people who are primarily geeking out on the project because it interests them and meets their immediate needs- publicity comes much later, if at all.
Re:What rendering software are they using? by donglekey · 2001-12-03 04:25 · Score: 1

Read my post again. I know about Aqsis and GMan and they aren't there yet. The only good and free renderer is BMRT, and it isn't open. As far as preprocessor goes, I have never heard that term used. I think you are relating programming to 3D to much and I also think you know very little about 3D animation in the first place. Most animation packages are animation, modeling, and rendering. The math for rendering is pretty simple at the basic level, and from there I don't know what you are talking about (transform matrices, drawing wireframe and shaded modeles through OpenGL?). What you call a preproccessor is simulation, or in the case of syncing 3D to backrounds, it is called rotoscoping (not a purely 3D term) which is usually just part of an animation pipline. I think you have some reading to do.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:What rendering software are they using? by donglekey · 2001-12-03 04:28 · Score: 1

The beauty about the Renderman standard is that it is very customizable already. It doesn't really limit you very much. Doing something different then your competition is not really the goal, it is doing what you have been contracted to do well. If studios think custom software will help them reach their goes sooner and better, then they will use it, but not just to have something different.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Re:What rendering software are they using? by Graymalkin · 2001-12-03 16:09 · Score: 2

I've been doing simulation stuff too much and the "animation" package analogs are usually called preprocessors. It's all the same fucking thing anyway none of it related to programming. What I was saying is fre renderers and modelers don't mean much without an animation package. As far as I know there's no 3D animation programs under the GPL.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:Troll? by nomadic · 2001-12-02 14:40 · Score: 2

Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation?

They tend to do that when you make points that they can't refute logically.

Re:Troll? by The+Milky+Bar+Kid · 2001-12-02 14:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation?

Possibly, because the link between 'suitability of Linux in Office aps' and 'use of Linux as a render farm for LOTR' was fairly tenuous.

And after you see so many Slashdot Stories turn into Microsoft v. Linux for SOHO users falme wars, you get a bit jaded.

Though if you wait about 10, 20 minutes, someone'll post a story about KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, etc. where your post will fit in perfectly.

Also, you forget the rallying cry of the Linux coders (myself not included): if you don't like it, change it!

I'm also annoyed that it does all this flashy stuff while still not getting the basics right

That's an interesting point - many Linux advocates (myself included on this point) would say that Windows is the flashy one, and Linux gets the basics right. Basics like stability, security....

--
-- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma

Well. by autopr0n · 2001-12-02 14:43 · Score: 2

First of all, I don't think its fair to call what you're talking about 'Linux'. In the strictest sense Linux is just a kernel. But, even if you take the canonical meaning of "all the software that comes with my distro" you still can't really include the 3d software. That stuff is proprietary and expensive. It's well designed for the simple fact that people are paid to make it, and paid a lot of money (and they're a lot of competition in that arena as well)

And lets not forget that there are a lot of competing companies and products out there for high-end graphic synthesis. The difference is that they are in 'traditional' competition with each other, I mean, you could argue using the same logic that if all the major graphic companies merged and worked together you'd end up with something truly amazing, but I doubt that. I think you'd end up becoming stagnant. (and don't forget that these products aren't even Linux exclusives or open source. You can get a lot of these programs for windows or other UNIXs)

And there's another reason that we have competing standards, people have different visions for software, and since they're working for free, they are going to do what they want to do. Who knows of KDE people would be working on GENOME if there was no KDE or vise versa? How do you know it would result in a Super-gui and not some boring half-done shell whose developers are complacent in their lack of competition?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Well. by Pseudonym · 2001-12-02 17:01 · Score: 2

First of all, I don't think its fair to call what you're talking about 'Linux'.

Would you be happier with GNU/Linux? *duck*

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

Re:Just out of curiousity.. by Dynedain · 2001-12-02 14:43 · Score: 1

Although they are using Maya character studio on 40-50 linux boxes (by no means the majority of the machines used by the 225 person workforce) thats not what is doing the rendering.

Most likely, the server render farm is running a completely proprietary software that was developed in house. Most graphics houses the size of Weta have their own proprietary software. After all, thats how Blender came to be, in house software for a Dutch graphics company that they decided to release to the general public. I know that Rythm and Hues (everything from Tron to you name it) in Los Angeles run SGI boxes with their own proprietary software that seems similar to Maya.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....

Re:Troll? by JabberWokky · 2001-12-02 14:47 · Score: 2

commercial application developers will never make apps for Windows....at least most of them. Why? because of MFC. yes it is a good tool kit, but most comercial vendors do not want to pay out the butt for a licence to make the app usable. hopefully Windows will catch up to the level of KDE in terms of features an maturity, that way, lots of commercial ISVs will at least look into developing with Qt and GPLed Qt.

--
Evan "Mr. IronyFish"

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien

Re:Troll? by mandolin · 2001-12-02 14:49 · Score: 2, Offtopic

Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation?

Fine, I'll bite. That's not slightest provocation. You offer one paragraph of barely on-topicness immediately sequeing into three paragraphs of rehashed rant.

Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work.

That depends on what you use it for doesn't it?

it can't even open a simple Word document without formatting errors.

StarOffice (you did say "simple" Word documents..)

Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake.

Client benchmarks that I have seen are dominated by graphics card/driver combinations and as such are dependent on the card vendor. Indeed in the case of the matrox g200 I could actually *play* qIII linux while matrox sat on their asses and refused to release a working windows opengl driver for the longest time. People generally favor linux for quake servers.

If all the man-hours poured into KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.

My guess is we'd just have one "poor imitation of Windows" as you call it. The practical weakness in your argument is deciding whose vision should be followed.

Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars.

*BSD. To a lesser extent, Windows itself. And to a still-lesser extent, GNU/Hurd, which if everybody had swallowed their ego (and worked on it instead of that upstart Linux) probably still wouldn't be ready for prime time.

The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.

These feuds are generally propagated by users such as yourself rather than the actual developers. As such, little productivity is lost.

I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop.

Show me one instance where you have properly submitted a bug report/feature request for any of these office programs you need and I'll reconsider dismissing you as an opinionated parasite.

Sincerely, a fellow opinionated parasite

Re:Rendering HOWTO. 25 mins setup. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2001-12-02 14:51 · Score: 1

Don't tell me GIMP is the same as PhotoShop.

Okay, and I won't tell you that IIS is the same as Apache, either.

BTW, the "s" in Photoshop is lower case. And GoLive sucks almost as bad as FrontPage. And since when is MS Office highly productive?

Typical of someone who apparently thinks that web design consists of clicking widgets and drawing pretty pictures. Check this -- Linux is quite often the preferred OS of people who write those nice little pointy-clicky apps you enjoy so much.

[Sorry -- I know I oughtn't be feeding the trolls, I'm just in a pissy mood tonight. Note, however, that I'm not abusing my +1 for this.]

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Massive by Alien54 · 2001-12-02 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Weta crowd supervisor Stephen Regelous has created software, dubbed Massive, that creates realistic crowds. Every individual in the crowd moves in response to stimulus such as terrain, and to the actions of others. The battles in The Return of the King will see hundreds of thousands of these intelligent agents in frame at the same time, Mr Labrie says, stretching the software to its limits.

Aside from the impressive technological feat, imagine looking forward to the day when effects like these are availble for Gaming Engines.

Imagine Quake IX out in an open plane of battle with literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other things out there all at once.

I am reminded of something similar to the weekend dogfights/lanparties at the Airforce Academy, but with a much larger field of action.

[smile]

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Massive by krogoth · 2001-12-02 15:37 · Score: 2

Imagine getting killed before you can think as you spawn in the middle of a firefight involving the population of a small country :)

With that much going on in one place, I don't think it would be much fun because the overall hit rate would preclude survival for a significant amount of time.

--

They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Re:Massive by tswinzig · 2001-12-02 15:40 · Score: 1

Imagine Quake IX out in an open plane of battle with literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other things out there all at once.

I am reminded of something similar to the weekend dogfights/lanparties at the Airforce Academy, but with a much larger field of action.

Except when you kill someone the MP's won't take you away.

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:Massive by Alien54 · 2001-12-02 17:45 · Score: 2

Imagine getting killed before you can think as you spawn in the middle of a firefight involving the population of a small country :) With that much going on in one place, I don't think it would be much fun because the overall hit rate would preclude survival for a significant amount of time.
I don't know, you could always spawn in a dead zone where everyone has been killed off already, more or less...
But I am sure that there is a whole crowd of people who would go for it. Just as described. say, in an over-sized and semi dormant volcano caldera.
Ten thousand people in a square mile equals one person per 50 foot square (roughly) for a large distance. not so bad until they start mobbing. Start looking for many hole covers really quick.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Re:Massive by Chris+Johnson · 2001-12-02 23:16 · Score: 2

I've done something vaguely like this in the GPLed version of Bungie's Marathon, "Aleph One", by setting up a vast plain with a couple hundred enemy aliens on the other side. You get a whole stockpile of arms and when you wake them up, they charge you en masse.
It's not all that fascinating as there's only 20-50 enemies in your immediate vicinity at any given time. Most of the fun is firing big ol' weapons into _crowds_ of enemies. They can't be projectile-using enemies or you're just hosed instantly ;)
That said- there _is_ a coolness factor to this type of gaming. It's very unlike Quake, but I'm told Serious Sam is more prone to hitting you with a fairly large number of enemies.
Re:Massive by ZaMoose · 2001-12-03 01:49 · Score: 2

Have you tried Serious Sam? Quite a bit of "mob the player" action in that title. A bit like old sk00l player-created Doom levels...

--
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Re:Massive by Thagg · 2001-12-03 02:36 · Score: 2

The way that 'Massive' works is ingenious. A statement of the battle simulation problem is "How do you get all of these simulated actors to respond correctly to their individual environment?"

The solution employed at WETA is to use state-of-the-art graphics hardware to render the view from the eyes of each simulated actor. He then plans his actions based on this view, correctly placing his feet on the changing terrain, correctly attacking bad guys while avoiding attacking good guys, and so on.

Of course, this is only one part of the system. There are a few thousand motion-captured full-body gestures used for each simulated actor to implement these desired goals; for example.

I have been extremely impressed, stunned even, by the astonishing pace of development on this movie. They've come up with shockingly great solutions to very hard problems, on a time scale that I wouldn't have thought possible. If you read the article, John Labrie says that he wishes that he had more time to plan, and didn't have to just react -- but I can't believe that there is any better way to make a movie. When the director-artist-programmer team really starts to hum, you can get amazing progress in a very short time.

thad

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Massive by MeltyMan · 2001-12-03 08:49 · Score: 1

Enemies? I'm still waiting to walk through a forest of TREES and have it look real... ;)

--
"Ummmm..." ...The programmer's "Om."
Re:Massive by krogoth · 2001-12-03 10:44 · Score: 2

Well that could open some new possibilities - I love mass destruction :) Then again, the fun part of taking out 5 people with a panzerfaust is that you miss completely half the time.

--

They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.

Mixed Messages, Movies and Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2001-12-02 14:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

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...)

Re:Troll? by Afrosheen · 2001-12-02 14:56 · Score: 1

Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. Funny that I got modded down as flamebait when your argument was completely offtopic.

Mod this up, and its parent down by Crag · 2001-12-02 14:58 · Score: 1

I was going to say the same thing as ChadN, but it would have been redundant. The post he replied to was redundant (in the context of Slashdot itself) and useless. It was neither interesting nor insightful.

Re:Price perfomance by Alan+Partridge · 2001-12-02 14:58 · Score: 1

does linux run good on thin air then? gotta get me one of those virtual machines!

--
That was classic intercourse!

Treebeard? by jonbrewer · 2001-12-02 15:04 · Score: 1

I'd quite like to see a walking tree.

Re:Fat Pipe ? by aquisgrana · 2001-12-02 15:05 · Score: 3, Informative

New Zealand is well connected to the outside wourld with both satelite and cable connections. Weta is based in Wellington which has a fibre infrastructure. They could I think get fibre where they are. Phone service is about as good as I have tried anywhere, and I have travelled in the USA and Europe.

For ordinary home users, in the main centres there is a choice between ADSL or cable modem, depending where you are.

Then there is the cost of labour, they are probably paying about half what they would have to pay in the US or in Europe. There are some countervailing advantages of course, depending on your interests. For instance there is a good surfing beach about ten minutes drive from Weta's site. Then check out the movie itself for some samples of the local scenery.

Incidently the Weta is a large fearsome looking NZ insect that you would rather not find crawling up your trouser leg, although it is mostly harmless.

Text of article by Joe+Hardy+(_yoda) · 2001-12-02 15:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Given that the server is being given a good hammering at the moment (and not handling it very well), here's the contents of the article (after trying to retrieve it about 10 times)

Lord of the special effects
03 December 2001

By AMANDA WELLS
Weta Digital chief technical officer Jon Labrie was looking forward to a lull after delivering the special effects for The Fellowship of the Ring, the first in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

The facility, based in the Wellington suburb of Miramar, delivered the effects shots in early October, with the film's Australasian premiere scheduled for December 19.

But, Mr Labrie says, things are not proving quite as quiet as expected, and Weta's biggest workload is yet to come.

Work has started on key shots for the second film, The Two Towers, and a detailed plan is being drawn up for tackling the sophisticated effects needed in this film and its successor.

Weta will deliver The Two Towers effects by October 1, 2002.

Mr Labrie says the facility has yet to get a clear picture of the workload for the film, which involves animating several key characters.

Gollum, an evil creature bent on retrieving the One ring he once possessed, emerges in the second film, and Weta's graphic artists have begun bringing him to life. Gollum is shown close-up and must appear believable.

Treebeard, an ent or talking tree, also appears in the second film, along with other creatures for which Weta has developed digital fur.

Mr Labrie says Weta will probably have to grow by another 10 per cent to complete The Two Towers, up to about 250 staff.

The trilogy's second and third instalments contain some impressive special effects set pieces, he says.

The third film features "an extraordinary number of battle sequences".

Weta crowd supervisor Stephen Regelous has created software, dubbed Massive, that creates realistic crowds. Every individual in the crowd moves in response to stimulus such as terrain, and to the actions of others.

The battles in The Return of the King will see hundreds of thousands of these intelligent agents in frame at the same time, Mr Labrie says, stretching the software to its limits.

Massive was developed on SGI operating system Irix and has since been ported to open source operating system Linux.

The deadline for delivering the third film's effects has not yet finalised, but could be October 2003.

In terms of the facility's workload, creating effects for The Return of the King will be equivalent to the first two films combined, he says.

Mr Jackson has kept tabs on filming and effects while offshore through extensive use of videoconferencing. He could view the output of a camera remotely, and artists could transfer frames via an FTP connection.

Mr Labrie says that at the start of the project in 1998, it was hard to conceive how much work it would be to complete simultaneously all three films based on the 1200-page epic.

JRR Tolkien's world is hugely detailed, with a vast variety of landscapes and diverse array of creatures.

Elves, dwarfs, hobbits, trolls, orcs, ents, wraiths and balrogs populate Middle Earth, and purists will be watching keenly for a literal rendition.

Mr Labrie says Weta's naivety was probably a good thing.

"Nobody would want to tackle three films again, not at the same time."

Weta grows seven-fold

Mr Labrie joined Weta Digital in 1995, when the company was set up to provide effects for Mr Jackson's films.

Weta is privately owned, with Mr Jackson's 34 per cent the largest individual stake.

Mr Labrie came to Weta from the US, where he had mostly recently worked on effects for science fiction blockbuster Independence Day.

He has overseen the facility's expansion from 30 to 230 staff.

Weta has created effects for previous Jackson films Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners, but the Lord of the Rings trilogy far outstrips these in complexity and volume of effects.

About 1500 effects shots will be created in total.

Mr Labrie says if he was doing it again, he would spend more time up-front on planning for growth and "less time reacting".

Planning of this kind is underway for films two and three at the moment.

In terms of technology, "there's not a lot I'd do differently," though getting digital asset management up and running was problematic.

"There are still issues to be addressed, but for the most part we have done it right."

The growth of the facility has been "far greater than we anticipated". Originally, Mr Labrie thought Weta would need between 80 and 90 graphic artists to complete the trilogy's special effects.

But artist numbers hit 167 in August, at the peak of The Fellowship of the Ring production, with 225 staff in total.

At the moment, the facility has about 205 staff, with some people leaving to work on other projects or heading home to other countries after the first film was completed.

Numbers will ramp up again in the New Year to hit between 230 and 235 in April or May.

Finding graphic artists for the project is not a problem, Mr Labrie says.

"Everybody wants to work on Lord of the Rings."

Just under 40 per cent of the artists are Kiwis, 31 per cent from the US, 11 per cent from Australia, 5 per cent from Britain and the rest from countries as diverse as Japan, Egypt, China, Germany, Korea, Russia and France.

Weta has amassed substantial world-class talent, he says.

"In terms of pure technical infrastructure, we are one of the three largest facilities in the world.

"We consider ourselves, at the moment, to be one of the top five visual-effects facilities on the planet."

He says Weta staff are focused on the work remaining during the next two years, with the future of the facility after that yet to be decided.

Weta will not be able to support existing staff numbers when Lord of the Rings work is completed without securing another project of the same magnitude, which seems a tall order.

Effects artists tend to be nomadic, Mr Labrie says, and will head off to the next project in which they are interested.

Mr Labrie says the business could become more broad-based, tackling interactive gaming or commercials. "It's hard to make a profit out of visual effects."

This time next year, serious consideration of Weta's future will start.

The Hardware

of the Rings

The facility's technological infrastructure has mostly coped well with its exponential growth, Mr Labrie says.

Adjustments are being made at the moment to network switches and data distribution systems to ensure Weta's technology will scale up again when facility growth peaks for The Two Towers work.

The machine room, housing the processing power at the heart of the facility, will probably be enlarged, and work will be done to increase electricity flow and the Uninterruptible Power Supply service into the premises.

Mr Labrie says Weta will probably look at buying more hardware in February or March to meet The Two Towers' requirements.

Between $20 million and $30 million has been spent on Weta's IT infrastructure so far.

The total is "a little more than we expected", because of some unanticipated costs near the end of the first film's work.

A "rendering crunch" of last-minute work meant more processors were needed to complete the final six weeks of visual effects production, partly because of some late additions to the cut.

Mr Labrie says he has probably exceeded budget estimates made three years ago by about $1 million.

Weta does not have formal hardware agreements in place, but has developed strong relationships with vendors SGI, Auckland-based DVT, and Infinity Solutions, and Mr Labrie says he would go to them first to see if they could supply the hardware he needs.

About 90 per cent of the company's systems are from SGI.

The machine room has about 12 terabytes of storage, with about 20 terabytes in total at the facility.

Mr Labrie says working storage needs will probably hit 30 terabytes for the second and third films.

But adding storage is not as difficult as it used to be, and prices have come down.

By the time the effects for the third film are finished, between 70 and 80 per cent of the hardware will be out of date. These systems will be written down.

Some PCs will be able to be used for the company's next project, along with a StorageTek tape robot which has a long lifespan.

Mr Labrie says Linux is gradually replacing Irix as the operating system of choice in the effects world.

Weta has a "major" research and development effort under way at the moment into running more Linux-based workstations.

Mr Labrie says the facility is running a substantial amount of Linux at the moment, on processors in the machine room that are "the core of the rendering wall".

Between 40 and 50 workstations run Alias/Wavefront's Maya character animation software or Nothing Real's Shake compositing system on Linux.

He says he is looking at "making a more determined move" into Linux for the second film and will probably at least double the facility's number of installed Linux systems.

Linux delivers about two times the price performance compared to systems running proprietary operating systems, he says. Unlike several years ago, sophisticated animation applications are increasingly able to run on the free operating system.

The project has brought with it huge public and media interest.

Mr Labrie says he is receiving a couple of interview requests a day at the moment, from New Zealand and offshore media.

"I thought maybe we'd be able to keep a low profile for a bit longer."

Fans will be keen to check that technology has brought Middle Earth to life correctly.

Mr Labrie says visual effects in The Fellowship of the Ring are "all over the film", with audiences not going for long without seeing footage that has been manipulated in some way.

"There's always some kind of trick going on."

But these are seamlessly integrated into the film's background.

Weta is gathering material from its archives for use in The Fellowship of the Ring DVD release at the moment.

The DVD, which is being produced by New Line, will contain information about the making of the film.

American software company Electronic Arts is creating a Lord of the Rings game, for which Weta is supplying images and models.

The facility has a fulltime staff member dedicated to finding material for the game, though has no involvement in its production.

Mr Labrie is setting up a games company at the moment, with details under wraps for another couple of months.

He has written film scripts in the past, and says he will write storylines for the interactive games the company will produce.

The company will probably launch early next year, and Mr Labrie will continue in his Weta role.

As the facility's infrastructure becomes complete, being chief technical officer is more administrative and takes up less time, he says.

But his focus will remain on the enormous project till it is completed, sometime towards the end of 2003.

--
-- No, no gems to be found in this sig.

Quake?? by slobberjaws · 2001-12-02 15:08 · Score: 1

i dual boot and i do belive that quake 3 arena plays quite a bit better on linux than on windows, just an observation

Friend of mine works for Weta... by Cally · 2001-12-02 15:13 · Score: 2

I love stories like this, 'cos he used to be a total Irix weenie... three or four years ago, when fx/compositing / modelling / rendering programs first started appearing on Linux, we had a big argument about whether or not Linux would beat Irix. Face it, SonyBoy, you lost ;p

BTW AFAICT from the guarded comments he's let slip, the film - the FX at any rate - is going to absolutely rock. My local fleapit is taking bookings now, oddly enough it's on my to-do list for tomorrow.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

Re:Friend of mine works for Weta... by donglekey · 2001-12-02 15:24 · Score: 1

I can't say I blaim him, Irix was the shit comared to everything else back then. Linux was very immature and has come along way. I don't think there were many, if there was anyone at all that foresaw the kind of momentum that linux has now. Now with Irix's XFS on Linux its that much easier. The real advantage is that the hardware has surpassed SGI from a price/performance issue by a HUGE margin. Its not so much linux itself as the fact that a computer can be built for $2000 and be good to go. Linux was just the catalyst that made the switch that much more plausible, and when the software finally came over, so did everyone else.

--

This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org

too much thought involved by eclectric · 2001-12-02 15:14 · Score: 2, Funny

It's much easier to blather on mindlessly about Star Wars, since it has no real substance behind it. Tolkien is *way* too deep for /.

hmm by Iamthefallen · 2001-12-02 15:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I've seen some screenshots and they don't look that hot, have a look for yourself

I vote the guy who made that the least likely to ever have sex...

--
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues

He only appears in a flashback by eclectric · 2001-12-02 15:22 · Score: 1

Gandalf tells the story to the Council of Elrond. He'll probably be seen, but only from far off, or in very small movement shots. He has to move (and talk) a LOT in the second and third films.

I imagine he should look as good as FF: Spirits within, and since he's practically non-human looking, it shouldn't be too hard to pull off.

Re:Troll? by JabberWokky · 2001-12-02 15:24 · Score: 2

What license? MFC didn't cost me $1500. Get a grip.

Where, pray tell, then can I download it and the libraries it depends upon, and what license is they all under? Are you *sure* I can get MFC at no cost? Or do I have to buy products from Microsoft? Qt is avilable GPLed from ftp.trolltech.com, ftp.kde.org, or from the KDE CVS.

--
Evan "Paid member of MSDN till 1999"

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien

Have you seen the network they run? by dustpuppy · 2001-12-02 15:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Apparently it's a Tolkien Ring network - yuk yuk.

Re:Have you seen the network they run? by fatbastard1001 · 2001-12-03 05:40 · Score: 1

hehehehehehe

That is the best laugh I've had in a while, thanks.

Re:Troll? by hetz · 2001-12-02 15:32 · Score: 1

Umm, ok, lets make a quick math...

How much Visual studio costs? lets be modest and say $500? now you know thats for only 1 platform, so if you want you app, for Unix for example - you need something like umm, this? (hint - the price is MUCH more then $1000).

So yes, if you're writing commercial applications for Windows - then you really don't need QT, and MS solution would be much cheaper.

However - if you want a multi platform solution (Linux, Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, SCO, Mac OS X, Windows [95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP]) along with the best documents - then GTK will be thrown out by any serious developer and they'll go with QT.

Of course - IMHO QT should make what I call a "student" edition - but you'll have to write it to them. Maybe if lots of people will write to them they'll do something about it.

--
nah, no sig... move on..

It's big... reliability is important. by Penguinoflight · 2001-12-02 15:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

People mess with me because I run token ring at home. I agree that it's probably not the best choice, but hey, it was free. However, on a huge network like this, (did I see 1000 boxes?) Token ring would clearly outperform ethernet, and Token ring is quite reliable. Not to mess with your +2 funny though.

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14

Re:It's big... reliability is important. by Gendou · 2001-12-02 16:49 · Score: 2

Umm...

While Token Ring initially had a scalability advantage over Ethernet in that Ethernet was contention-based and Token Ring wasn't, any such advantage died out long, long ago. In the age of switches, Ethernet is no longer contention-based either (unless you're one of the five people on the planet still using hubs), which kills the only disadvantage it ever had. Then, compare the base speeds -- 16 Mbit versus 100 Mbit (or, using Gigabit Ethernet hardware, you can actually get reasonably close to a gigabit using ordinary Cat5 UTP).

Token ring just will not cut it any more, and certainly can't scale nearly as far as switch-based Ethernet can. How exactly would you implement your 1000-node Token Ring network? One big ring? Assuming an average of 1ms between nodes, that's a full second for a complete traversal of the ring -- and with the ring being as busy as it is, it'd instantly collapse under the load. Okay, maybe you want to bridge multiple rings together. You're still going to have terrible network performance compared to switched Ethernet, where everything is effectively bridged.

And reliability? Are we talking about the same "token ring" here? Moses on a stick -- I still have nightmares.
Re:It's big... reliability is important. by Penguinoflight · 2001-12-03 01:38 · Score: 1

'And reliability? Are we talking about the same "token ring" here? Moses on a stick -- I still have nightmares.'
Apperently you must had been dealing with different cards. My brother pulls on the network cable, the network stays up. I use a alpha kernel, the network stays up. The only time the network goes down is when the cable gets pulled out, then it's easy to get it back up. I'm using IBM 16/4 cards. Why do I see 17ms wait times with Ethernet? I get between 1.8 and 2 on my token ring network, but my friend's ethernet network is about 15-17ms, 15 * 1000, you get 15 seconds wait!

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14

For rendering, the OS barely matters by Animats · 2001-12-02 15:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Rendering farms have no user interface at all; they're like hosting farms. All you need is enough of an OS to run the rendering app and talk to the net.

The main reason not to run a Microsoft OS for a farm of anything is that it's getting harder and harder to turn the resource-wasting crap off.

I just found my own NT application loading Internet Exploder whenever I bring up a file open dialog. As soon as you call for a common dialog, an incredible amount of crap gets loaded and three more threads start up within your app, doing who knows what. It looks like the file browser in the open box uses IE.

Re:For rendering, the OS barely matters by jred · 2001-12-02 18:12 · Score: 1

It looks like the file browser in the open box uses IE.

I found that when I upgraded to IE6 on the 2 win boxes I use (win2k & 98se), file open dialogs became unbearably slow. Not "go get a cup of coffee" slow, but "take a couple of bites of donut" slow. Uninstalling ie6 & going back to 5.5sp? fixed it. So, yah. As a non-programmer, I'd agree w/ you there :)

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...

Re:Rendering HOWTO. 25 mins setup. by glwtta · 2001-12-02 15:50 · Score: 1

I love the GIMP! I am amazed and impressed by it. The "core features" are pretty much the same as photoshop, but I like the UI much better (that's a personal preference of course) and Photoshop can't touch the scripting abilities.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

WTF? That's stupid. by ljaguar · 2001-12-02 15:55 · Score: 1

Linux isn't exactly a desktop OS. It shouldn't be. Linux wasn't meant to be a "desktop" OS, it's supposed to be a free UNIX alternative. You don't see any other "UNIX" dominating the desktop, do you? (OSX doesn't count.) It's supposed to replace what UNIX did and does. That's high end server and rendering farm and all that enterprise computing stuff. And well, looks like Linux is catching on. That's good. It's doing what it was made to do.
Do you see anybody trying to use Solaris/IRIX/HPUX as an desktop alternative, do you?? Are you complaining because there aren't too many desktop initiative in those area? C'mone, man. If you can figure out how to do all that shit on your Linux, that's cool. If you don't like the crappy quality, well it was never meant to be. Go use Win2k. I tried it. It's plenty good.

Re:Troll? by timmyd · 2001-12-02 16:13 · Score: 1

StarOffice (you did say "simple" Word documents..)

So you're agreeing that it can't open non-trivial word documents?

My guess is we'd just have one "poor imitation of Windows" as you call it. The practical weakness in your argument is deciding whose vision should be followed.

From my standpoint as a user, I would say that they both have the same vision---and that is to create a desktop environment.

Show me one instance where you have properly submitted a bug report/feature request for any of these office programs you need and I'll reconsider dismissing you as an opinionated parasite.

What does this have to do with anything? I don't know any windows users that submit bug reports.

Personally, I just use windows for playing games. But that is more than half the time.

Re:Where there's a whip... by A_Non_Moose · 2001-12-02 16:24 · Score: 1

Redundant?

How?

Third freaking post, and modded as redundant?
Who is the retard? Seriously, now, 3rd post, no other post like it, sheesh...some dipshit needs to do "oldest first", insted of newest first because he/she is getting it bassackwards.

This is what I posted, and to the moderator w/o a clue, now this is redundant...{note the sarcastic tone, please, as this is to be informative to you, and not flamebait}

I'm dead serious, bro...RTFAQ.

Where there's a whip, there's a way...

Should have Tux holding a wip on the side of each box.
Or Tux with an engraved ring as a "collar" of sorts.

From the article:This time next year, serious consideration of Weta's future will start.

The Hardware of the Rings

Can we call him "Lord of the Penguins"?

I loved this quote most of all:
As the facility's infrastructure becomes complete, being chief technical officer is more administrative and takes up less time, he says.

Certainly can't say the same about the NT boxen I'm in charge of...the Samba and web server on the other hand...

Just a thought.

---

Cheers,

Moose

--
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)

Re:"Chris Dibona" by Alan+Partridge · 2001-12-02 16:26 · Score: 1

crusty boner? WTF? you wanna get that looked at

--
That was classic intercourse!

Artists, not technology by SilentChris · 2001-12-02 16:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, a far greater tool was used than Linux-boxen in creating Lord of the Rings. Artists.

You could have all the rendering boxes in the world. If you have high-school hacks, you're going to end up doing hack-level work.

Directors at Pixar once said that they hire artists that can use computers, not computer people who claim they are artists. This movie would have been just as impressive if it was made without the technology.

And let's not forget the artistry involved in writing the book, which required millenia-old technology.

Re:Just out of curiousity.. by malducin · 2001-12-02 16:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Not at all, they are running PRMan from the looks of it. One guy from WETA digital is a frequent poster at the renderman newgroup and has even posted job openings for shader writers. besides Maya and Shake they are also running things like Houdini which has a great RenderMan connection. Weta does indeed have propietary software like Masive, but as most other places they have a mix of in house built and of the shelf stuff.

Most old timers in the CG arena have in house tools because there wasn't any off the shelf stuff to buy. Besides Rhythm and Hues, you have places like PDI, Blue Sky Studios, Pixar (though they decided to sell their renderer most of their other tools are propietary) and others. Most FX studios run on a mix off commercial and in built software. Most places run mostly SGI but many are switching or at least experimenting with Linux. Rhythm and hues is even helping develop the Film version of the Gimp (for 16 bit work, tha's 16 bit per component).

Amusing anecdote by rodgerd · 2001-12-02 16:53 · Score: 2

The Massive software they wrote for dealing with crowd scenes has a certain amount of AI built in so that you can get realistic looking crowd scenes without animators getting nickle-and-dimed to death on animationg thousands of figures seperatly.

According to one of the Weta guys speaking at a function, this had some downsides, not least of which was semi-autonomous soldiers running away from battles. Not quite the look they were after.

Re:Troll? by mandolin · 2001-12-02 16:58 · Score: 1

So you're agreeing that it can't open non-trivial word documents?

No; I could prove that false if I could get StarOffice to "open" a single non-trivial word doc. However to answer what I think is your point: yes, if you need 100% MS Office compatibility linux is not and likely will never be for you (unless you run vmware)

From my standpoint as a user, I would say that they both have the same vision---and that is to create a desktop environment.

I was using "vision" in the context of who calls the shots, rather than the general end goal, but I can't disagree w/what you say.

What does this have to do with anything? I don't know any windows users that submit bug reports.

Oops.. at that point I was merely belittling the parent post, flamebait style. Good point, and apologies all around for dredging that up.

Re:Troll? by the_2nd_coming · 2001-12-02 17:30 · Score: 2

yeah but for what tool kit? Windows and Mac I bet ;-)

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:Troll? by JabberWokky · 2001-12-02 17:43 · Score: 2

Still looking for the bill MS charged me for the MFC license--- oh wait, there ISN'T ONE!

Fine. Send me a licensed copy of Windows for free. Or, to end this thread and spell it out for you - you pay for it when you *buy* windows. You know - when you slap down your money at CompUSA, or what Dell charges you to cover what they pay Microsoft per computer shipped.

*Sigh*... Plus, as others have pointed out in this thread, MS is even moving away from this, charging seperately for developers for the .NET experience. In the past. they have always charged for documentation, Resource Kits, etc. I've been a developer for ten years, a good chunk of it on Windows, and I have paid quite a bit to Microsoft in that time. Now that MSDN is finally coming together online, they are charging for it. KDE has insanely great documentation for free, and their source is available in CVS, and all their libaraies down to the OS level (and potentially the OS itself) is available for free (and is Free).

--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien

Re:Troll? by zerocool^ · 2001-12-02 17:59 · Score: 2

What does this have to do with anything? I don't know any windows users that submit bug reports.

Not to call attention to the devil its self, windowsXP, but now when something crashes (i.e. "the playa" *.divx player) in windowsXP, it asks if you want to send an error report to microsoft.
Also, people submit bugs for mozilla, windows platform all the time, microsoft themselves have a bug submit page... i mean, it does happen, and rather often.

All i'm saying is that not all windows users are idiots. However, all idiots use windows.... or something.

~z

--
sig?

Umm...wake up, token ring can do high speeds. by Kenneth+Stephen · 2001-12-02 18:04 · Score: 1

Technically speaking, token-ring has had the ability to do 100Mb speeds for some time now. There is even a spec in existence for Gb token ring, though I dont know if anyone makes equipment implementing that spec. The technical shortcomings that you cite dont exist. The marketing shortcomings, on the other hand are very real. With no-one wanting to invest in token-ring because it is percieved (and rightly so) as losing share to ethernet, the manufacturers are less and less willing to invest in new research in that area.

--

There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

Re:Troll? by Afrosheen · 2001-12-02 18:12 · Score: 1

The difference here is, the windows bug reports go to /dev/null.

Re:Rendering HOWTO. 25 mins setup. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2001-12-02 18:19 · Score: 1

Hrm, I still have my orginal FP97 CD -- it makes a nice coaster and serves as a reminder of what was a fairly costly mistake ($US169.95) for me at the time. It's festively adorned with the words:

FrontPage 97

Exactly like that.

So there. :-P~~~~~~~~

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Where have you been? by MegaFur · 2001-12-02 18:37 · Score: 1

We've already had this argument (i.e. design vs. a messy blob)--well, maybe we haven't had the argument but other people have. Remember this article from earlier today? The people over at kerneltrap.org have already fought this war. Linus says it's just evolution. If you want a better (or just different) desktop (or word processor, etc), go make one.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Re:Where have you been? by MegaFur · 2001-12-02 18:40 · Score: 1

Minor correction--Ok so it's just slightly yesterday now instead of today.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

NOOOOOOO!!!!! by krmt · 2001-12-02 18:41 · Score: 2

Why oh why does this have to be from my school!?! There goes my Bruin pride...

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:GNOME is just as good as KDE by spencerogden · 2001-12-02 19:05 · Score: 1

I too am glad GNOME is there to spur KDE on. But if C is more efficient, why is Evolution slower? For me it is too slow to use.

--

Spencer Ogden

Re:Troll? by mandolin · 2001-12-02 19:06 · Score: 1

The difference here is, the windows bug reports go to /dev/null.

Technically that would be "NUL" :)

("type nul" is the windows equiv of "cat /dev/null". The interesting bit about windows' special file names is that they're case insensitive and you can add arbitrary extensions, which bit me once when I wanted to save off a console log and wondered why saving to con.log just hung..)

Unwanted loading of IE, all MS apps are bloatware by Animats · 2001-12-02 19:26 · Score: 2

Doing everything I can to avoid bringing in MS bloat, it's striking how much junk gets brought in under Win2K. In a non-MFC OpenGL application, initial load brings in

Loaded 'C:\WINNT\System32\ntdll.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\USER32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\KERNEL32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\GDI32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\COMDLG32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\shlwapi.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ADVAPI32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\rpcrt4.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\COMCTL32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\SHELL32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\msvcrt.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\OPENGL32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\glu32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ddraw.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\dciman32.dll'
Loaded 'D:\local\bin\glut32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\winmm.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\serwvdrv.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\umdmxfrm.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\Sxgb.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\psapi.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\Sxgbsys.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\mmdrv.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\nvoglnt.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\mcd32.dll'

Invoking an open dialog then brings in:

Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\OLE32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\clbcatq.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\OLEAUT32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\cscui.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\cscdll.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ntshrui.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\atl.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\NETAPI32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\secur32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\netrap.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\samlib.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ws2_32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ws2help.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\WLDAP32.DLL'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\dnsapi.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\wsock32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\browseui.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\shdocvw.dll'

and starts up three additional threads within my application which continue to run after the dialog has been dismissed. (If anybody knows what they're doing, let me know.)

And if you actually click on a networked file, you get, in addition

Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\browseui.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\shdocvw.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\msieftp.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\urlmon.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\version.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\lz32.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\wininet.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\mpr.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\ntlanman.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\netui0.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\netui1.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\WINSPOOL.DRV'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\mstask.dll'
Loaded 'C:\WINNT\system32\USERENV.DLL'

Understand, this is a skeletal app I'm writing. It isn't even doing anything useful yet. And it's not using Microsoft GUI tools; it's built on OpenGL.

I can see why if you're building a dedicated crunch system, you might want to move away from Microsoft, just to get the irrelevant dreck out of your software.

Re:I don't understand linux zealots by TinWeasle · 2001-12-02 19:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am completely in agreement. I do a ton of 3D models and animating, for money, even, and I have to tell you that a tool is a tool is a tool. I would go a step or two farther, and say that the application matters more than the OS (by leaps and bounds), and this is precisely why most professional studios write their own.

The competitive edge has got to be who can render the best fur, flesh, crowds, etc. Flock of Seagulls was written to do crowd scenes by one group, and Massive is simply the code written to do the crowds in LOTR. As with FoS, Massive will live on after the 3 films, be refined a bunch, overhauled, and tweaked. But in part, Massive will be why this company is chosen for a project over CompetitorX.

See, in the real world, it doesn't matter what car you drive, as long as it gets you to work. Even in school, the brand of notebook paper has damned little to do with your GPA. The only consideration for what OS to use for a major company is, "will it run the software I want on the hardware I want, quickly and well?"

The idea that the "cost" of Linux having anything to do with the decisions of the directors to use it is really funny. Does anyone really think that a cost of even $500 per box would make or break this deal? That's why you budget, kids. Some elementary business knowlege will quickly show that in the budget for the effects for three films, the cost of any OS on rendering stations is absurdly inconsequential.

FWIW, I use a few different systems in my 3D work. Some use an OS from Redmond. Some don't. It doesn't matter to me in the least. As long as I can maintain a good throughput of work at a decent billable rate, I make money.

--
The TinWeasle: "Worming Out of Culpability since 1978" - Opinions expressed are mine alone, yadda, yadda, yadda

Form over function by SgtChaireBourne · 2001-12-02 19:47 · Score: 1

I've only seen the posters and the first thing I noticed was that those elvish warriors are going to die quickly because they can't see out of their helmets.

That said, I eagerly await the release here.

Computers are just another tool that skilled artists can choose to add to their kit. Take Photoshop or Gimp. You can create stills and put them on film. Or, you can use them to choose your effects and processing methods and cut your time in the dark room to a small fraction. Either way, it's up to the artist to create something that grabs you.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Re:GNOME is just as good as KDE by rhavyn · 2001-12-02 20:14 · Score: 2

Why is evolution slower than what? Right now AFIAK, KDE doesn't have an app comparable to Evolution (although I believe the Kompany is doing something in that direction).

Re:Not to be Captain Obvious, but... by 3th3rn3t · 2001-12-02 21:58 · Score: 1

ARGH ! well, i really cant wait to see the actuall movie ( and why not, the pr0n too! ). I really hope its good. I mean, they have been working on it for god-knows-how-much. If it isnt, well, i would just shoot myself in the head if i were them.

we shall see :)

Another Good Article by simc · 2001-12-02 22:10 · Score: 1

Here is another article from the New Zealand Herald about using Linux on Sgi 1200 machines for Lord of the Rings. Interestingly, the motivation for using Linux was cost and reliability. They rejected the latest high end stuff because they favoured uptime over having bleeding edge technology.

Re:I don't understand linux zealots by sigwinch · 2001-12-02 22:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I do a ton of 3D models and animating, for money, even, and I have to tell you that a tool is a tool is a tool.

Well, there are tools, and then there are *TOOLS*. Especially when it comes to industrial-scale work, not all tools are equal. You hardly ever know exactly what you want to do when you start out, and in fact what you think you want often changes several times, so adaptibility and flexibility are highly valuable.

The only consideration for what OS to use for a major company is, "will it run the software I want on the hardware I want, quickly and well?"

Until you discover that you fucked up big time estimating hardware needs and all your boxes really need double the processor speed and RAM, as well as gigabit Ethernet instead of 100megabit Ethernet. And unless you have a crystal ball, such fuck ups *will* occur. (If you could predict future software needs, you wouldn't be lecturing us on animation, you'd be picking your teeth with the bones of IBM.) When requirements change, the only relevant question is "Can we just substitute new boxes?" If your OS can handle all popular hardware, the answer is probably "yes". If you picked a poorly-supported OS that is picky about hardware support, you're doomed, you have to stop and convert everything to a new OS. (And it's possible to pick a bad OS several times in a row.)

In my experience, and based on what I've read on the mailing lists and newsgroups, Linux has by far the widest hardware support. I've personally installed it on a huge range of machines, only finding one machine I could never get it to install on (and that was a BIOS problem). Conversely, the few times I've tried BSDs have been unmitigated disasters.

See, in the real world, it doesn't matter what car you drive, as long as it gets you to work.

On the other hand, a Ford Escort can't haul half a ton of widgets across town to a client's emergency, and even an SUV would have trouble with an emergency sheet of plywood. Fortunately when it comes to operating systems you can, in fact, "drive a cargo truck to work".

The idea that the "cost" of Linux having anything to do with the decisions of the directors to use it is really funny. Does anyone really think that a cost of even $500 per box would make or break this deal?

Sticker price is not the only cost. Adaptation and maintenance dominate, and Linux has significant benefits over many other operating systems. Need Beowulf-style clustering to do your rendering? Linux has excellent tools. Have software written for a 32-processor machine? Use the Mosix patches for Linux to tie together 32 ordinary PCs. Want to be able to rapidly upgrade and reinstall all 1000 machines in a cluster? Network boot Linux using the well-documented tools, and watch the entire cluster reboot in less than 10 minutes. (Try that with Windows sometime.)

FWIW, I use a few different systems in my 3D work. Some use an OS from Redmond. Some don't. It doesn't matter to me in the least.

Big jobs are different in kind from small jobs, not just different in size. A 10% mistake in a small job means you stay late that day. A 10% mistake in a one month, 1000 CPU job means you threw away the company. IMHO, the key to keeping large projects running smoothly is having flexible, adaptible tools, and the Unices come standard with awesome tools of all kinds. Windows, on the other hand, is worthless out of the box and remains inflexible even when you shell out the $$$ for the official tools.

--

--
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

$8000 to avoid falling by arsenick · 2001-12-03 00:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, it sure changes the world.

Weta by wiredog · 2001-12-03 00:37 · Score: 2

I just love the work they do, so I send them money every year.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Just out of curiousity.. by WhyteRabbyt · 2001-12-03 01:07 · Score: 2

Aside : There's no such product as 'Maya character studio'.

But these days a -lot- of companies use Maya in the production chain somewhere -because- its completely extensible; it's written in its own scripting language (MELscript) and it has a very open API.

So if you need to write AI code that controls blending of motion-capture data to provide an autonomous Orc then you can; if you want to have seemless interdependence with your established top-quality rendering system, then you can (ie RenderMan).

--
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com

Re:Unwanted loading of IE, all MS apps are bloatwa by ce25254 · 2001-12-03 02:21 · Score: 1

I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but it is possible that some of those DLL's are already loaded by the OS. Just because you see them being loaded by your app in the debugger doesn't necessarily mean that an entirely new image is being brought into memory.

No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by dublin · 2001-12-03 03:33 · Score: 1

THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "BOXEN"!

Why people on /. think trying to change the plural of box to boxen is "3L337", I don't know. I do know that using the word "boxen" simply makes the writer look like an imbecile. One "box". Two or more "boxes". There, that's not too hard for someone that can figure out how to get a dozen buggy Linux apps sort of working together, right?

(And yes, I've been around long enough to remember when this started - when those trying to be cool used "VAXen" as the plural of VAX, but it made the speaker (no one would have used it in print!) look idiotic then, and I don't know any of those people that use "boxen" as the plural of "box" today.

Seriously, folks, this is not an off-topic rant, since it's a response to Michael's headline posting. Insisting on using such cheesy language as "boxen" and warez-speak only reinforces the streotypical image of the technically competent as antisocial and out-of-touch.

I suppose this is just another sign that /. has been taken over by pimply script kiddies and can no longer claim to be a place where any serious and thoughtful discussion takes place. (Of course, I suppose that was a foregone conclusion once the /. editors made a regular feature of the perpetually sophomoric Jon Katz and his whining victimization rants...)

--
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post

Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by zeno_2 · 2001-12-03 04:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Im sorry to ruin your day..
Dictionary.com:
boxen /bok'sn/ pl.n. [very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to describe commodity {Unix} hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.
Check for yourself:
Dictionary.com
Note: I find the word annoying dont get me wrong, but it looks like it has slid its way into the english language..
Zeno
Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by demo9orgon · 2001-12-03 05:33 · Score: 1

I have seldom had to fend off the urge to post (in bold) the word "boxen" two-dozen times in some juvinile effort to push the buttons of another poster.

You cannot, either by force of will, or anything short of a global meat-space altering act, change what people accept as slang. English, as we use it here, is a vibrant living language--new technologies and buzzwords are the flora and fauna of our mental environment, and they live against a backdrop of metaphors; our tools for dealing with the abstract and the complexities of this new environment. And you cannot argue people out of an idea.

As a sysadmin (that's not a word either) with a small herd of boxen (I use the term because they pull their weight, and they make me money, they're a massive ROI multiplier) I think of them as the work animals in my computer stable...where stability means everything.

I wonder what other admin's call their servers that work 24/7, pulling in the orders and dealing with attacks by virii, worms, and other pests? Every one of my BOXEN has a name. Heck I love my BOXEN. I look after them, and I don't mind anthropomorphing them into the great beasts of burden they are. Hey, is that a context? There ya go dublin, there is a real context for the word which grieves you.

But why stop there. There should be lucid missives about the use of "lite" instead of "Light" (calorie-speak), or "nite" instead of "night"? We can only admire your restraint, for you really must've held back by just venting your spleen on a single word--I'm sure you could have written at least a limrick including several. Next time you should invoke Nasi-Schinerman's studies about language and thought, or Chomsky's arguments for the justification of things, and somehow argued the moral, intellectual, and possibly even the spiritual harm and dammage to our shared mental environment...the outrage of Oxford, of Webster, or maybe even GAWD at the use of the word BOXEN.

In closing I can only wish you the best in this holiday season, and urge you to simply accept that MEMES, like sexually-transmitted diseases, are oblivious to even the most poignant of arguments. Check up on that brilliant chap Richard Dawkins, who has a real talent for explaining memes and such.

--
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by ZeissIcon · 2001-12-03 09:05 · Score: 1

The actual etymology of "boxen" as I recall it is in reference to women: a derogatory term for women being "box" as in "the box a dick comes in." Thus spawning turns of phrase such as "I'm gonna go out and get me some box tonight." And other redneckisms.

The extention of this is that a good looking woman is a "fox," and since pluralizing as "foxes boxes" makes absolutely no sense, the term "foxen boxen," naturally, was born. It was then a short migration to reusing the term in reference to computers since most /. posters have never seen a woman, nor would they have any idea what to do with one if they did. :)
Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by PCM2 · 2001-12-03 09:48 · Score: 2

I wonder what other admin's call their servers that work 24/7, pulling in the orders and dealing with attacks by virii, worms, and other pests?
Say there, mister... speaking as someone who helped to popularize the term in my own w@r3z d00d days, I can say with reasonable conviction that there is no such word as virii. The plural for virus is viruses.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by msm1th · 2001-12-03 12:45 · Score: 1

I see that Dictionary.com notes that this definition comes from the Jargon File, which, although useful, is not really an authoritative reference.

Sorry.
Re:No, not "boxen" not now, not ever! by dublin · 2001-12-04 11:07 · Score: 2

"Memes" don't really exist, now do they? And I've yet to see Dawkins (or Chomsky for that matter) be right about much of anything of any importance. Dawkins is a classic case of, "When all you've got is a hammer, everything *better* be a nail!"

My larger point was simply that using words like "boxen" makes all technical folks look like the jerks that many are...

--
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post

LOTR Effects in Live Action.. by denisb · 2001-12-03 06:05 · Score: 1

Just saw the movie today at a press screening.
Amazing effects combined with well played characters made it a joy to watch.
The effects behind "shrinking" the hobbits were maybe the most amazing, as they are in virtually every scene..
Not only that, the hobbits appear to be short people, also in the way they move and behave.. Extremely well done.
The orcs were properly horrible, the elves pretty, the balrog & troll very well executed and Gandalfs fireworks amazing :)
All in all I'll give the effects 5/5, and the movie 4.5/5 ..
Not much could have been better, though it's impossible to make it "perfect" because the perfect version is in my imagination !
Still, go see it, and expect a very enjoyable 3 hours of movie !

denis

--
life+universe+everything=42

You are absolutely right. by sulli · 2001-12-03 06:37 · Score: 1

And it is ridiculous that you are flamed so mercilessly for speaking the truth. (Well, really, so what else is new in slashdot-land?) The failings you describe are precisely what holds linux back from being the serious competitor to windows that it so desperately wants to be, and yet so few advocates see this as a problem!

Whatever. Customers will vote with their dollars. Someday Linux developers will figure this out.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Topic by Syberghost · 2001-12-03 06:52 · Score: 1

I just find it interesting that when I mentioned they were using Linux in the last LotR story, I got modded down as off-topic and got a "who cares?" response, but then we have a whole story devoted to it...

Re:I don't understand linux zealots by spitzak · 2001-12-03 08:17 · Score: 2

Believe me, a savings of $500 per box would be the number one decision maker at an effects house. You obviously don't have any experience with the management of one or you would know better.

Linux is winning the renderfarms because the software used has little or no reliance on underlying system or hardware support and is thus not locked into Windows. Most rendering has to read and write files and do a lot of number crunching, so reliance on Windows-proprieterary libraries and interfaces is eliminated (reliance on Unix is also eliminated, the "Linux is Unix and thus easy to port to" argument is greatly exaggerated here).

In such a playing field Linux wins easily. Linux offers a few unimportant technical advantages (much better networking support, and a lot smaller memory usage when no GUI is running), so I think about 50% of the reason for Linux's popularity is due to cost, and about 50% due to the preferences (biases, if you want) of the IT staff.

Re:Fat Pipe ? by nzkoz · 2001-12-03 09:13 · Score: 1

"Weta is based in Wellington which has a fibre infrastructure. They could I think get fibre where they are. "

Unfortunatly they can't at present. Weta is based in suburbia and Citylink (the fibre infrastructure we have in wellington) only covers the inner city.

They are currently in negotiations with TelstraSaturn to extend their nearest fibre to their doorstep. Though it will be expensive.

Unfortunately the cost of labour is not significantly lower than the US as most of the staff are Yankee imports ! :) However the cost of living in wellington is *significantly* lower than the US so they do gain some slight savings.

The Weta's are pretty frightening things, though they are completely (not just mostly) harmless :)

--
Cheers Koz

151 of 270 comments (clear)