Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Switches To Linux For Animation

Posted by timothy on from the intuhlectual-property dept.

EEEthan writes: "It looks like Linux is really the next big thing for movie graphics houses. The New York Times is reporting that Disney has switched over to Linux-based HP workstations for animation. Although Disney has historically been known for their hand-drawn animation, this is a big move to Linux for what might be the world's most famous producer of animated films."

18 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. Wait by KingKire64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But Disney is still Evil Right?

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
  2. Their Software by jmu1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is great. I saw it in action when I went to Disney World for my honeymoon in May. I asked several questions about the software and about GNU/Linux and they seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it in general. It makes sense really. They write all of their own software, so why not have an OS that they can completely manipulate, without paying extra for the code!

    1. Re:Their Software by jmu1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's one of their tours at MGM/Disney Studios. They have a Q&A session towards the end and you get to see lots of the stuff in action behind great big glass walls. I was(of course) plastered to them most of the time trying to get a glimpse(they were using SGI machines for the most part).

    2. Re:Their Software by MisterBlister · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're missing the point.

      Disney isn't going with Linux because they agree with the GNU or Linux worldview. They are going with Linux because they can use it for free, as in beer. When you consider the cost over hundreds or thousands of workstations, it adds up. Especially when Microsoft's starting to get all crazy with their forced subscription model. Something like that could cost Disney millions of dollars per year in their animation department alone, not including IT & Legal costs associated with making sure everything is "in compliance".

      Disney doesn't give a fuck about OSS ideals, they just want free-beer.

  3. Its time for a tux show. by minkwe · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Tux is such a cute friendly creature/character, I would really like to see a Disney cartoon series based on that. Maybe something based on the theme "First they ignored us, then they laughed at us, then they fought us, then we won"

    --
    "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
  4. So what? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the operating system *mattered* for animation, this would be a big deal... but it doesn't. They're using Linux because it's cheaper, and because any (half-decent) operating system would function just as well for this sort of task.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
  5. DVDs by SanLouBlues · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, they won't be able to watch their own movies on their computers now. Unless they use DeCSS . . .

  6. Re:um... by delphin42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    uh, i think they're switching to linux to render the animation, not actually produce it. big difference

    Wrong. Read the article next time.

    In animation, Linux made its first inroads a few years ago on the clusters of server computers used in "rendering farms," which require huge amounts of processing to render a finished image of a creature or character as it appears on movie screens.

    More recently, Linux has also been used on the workstations used by animators for drawing and modeling their creations, as the leading producers of animation software have tailored their applications to run on Linux. Alias-Wavefront tweaked its Maya program to run on Linux in March 2001

    So the renderfarms were converted to Linux years ago for the most part. The real news is that the content creation is actually being done on Linux workstations now.

    --
    -- Adam
  7. Not really.... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try to find any self respecting production studio that uses a Windows box for anything more than basic editing.

    If they ARE using a desktop machine (instead of a dedicated box or something like an SGI workstation), then it's probably a Mac - simply because the Mac has MUCH better tools than windows.

    I haven't heard much about Linux desktops being used in animation/post production before, but it's nice to see it happening. I'm wondering how the tools they're using stack up against Mac and Windows equivalents (both with and without price in the equation).

    --
    Dark Nexus
    "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    1. Re:Not really.... by stubear · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're using Avid Symphony, Avid|DS, Avid|DS HD, or Avid|DS HD Editor, you are most certainly uisng a Windows box as you can't run any of this on any other system. If you are running 3D StudioMAX, once again, you are running Windows because this is all it runs on. Should I go on?

  8. Steve Jobs tried before by mr100percent · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Steve Jobs once flew to LA to meet Disney's head of feature films, Jeffrey Katzenberg. He tried to sell them some top-of the line NeXT workstations, running Pixar's software for 3D movies.

    Jeffrey cut Steve off when the animation was being demoed. "This is art. I own animation, and nobody's going to get it. It's as if someone comes to date my daughter. I have a shotgun. If someone tries to take this away, I'll blow his balls off." -The Second Coming of Steve Jobs

    Apparently Disney felt seriously threatened that Pixar could make full-length animated movies, which could smash Disney's monopoly. They didn't buy the software, and threatened to crush Pixar, until they hired them for a movie, Toy Story. Funny how it seems so different now.

  9. Disney's split personality by webmaven · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As Cory Doctorow Pointed out:
    "The great irony, of course, is that Disney is also using the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group to make it illegal to develop open source digital video applications."
    --
    The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Irony by Target+Drone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it rather ironic that a company that tries to squeeze every last cent out of people for the IP it creates is using an OS created by people who have freely donated their IP.

    1. Re:Irony by zentec · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Oh you mean a company that takes public domain material (or at least claims it's public domain), uses it to make movies and then works like hell to make sure its own work never appears in the public domain?

      That would be Disney.

  12. Interesting Timing by T3kno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just this morning I was reading about how Disney is starting to loose money on their animated films. The story is on the front page of todays WSJ and it lays out what the price/performace ratios of the last few movies were.

    From the article:

    The Lion King 1994
    Production Budget: $50 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $312 million

    Hercules 1997
    Production Budget: $100 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $99 million

    Tarzan 1999
    Production Budget: $150 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $171 million

    The Emperor's New Groove 2001
    Production Budget: $100 million
    U.S. Box Office Take: $89.2 million

    Lilo & Stitch
    Production Budget: $80+ million
    U.S. Box Office Take: Unknown
    Of course it could be because of the declining quality of these movies, the only one I've seen is Lion King, which was a pretty good flick IMHO. I wonder if the lower TCO argument of Linux is starting to kick in a little bit. This will be interesting to see.

    --
    (B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
  13. Add DMCA waiver clause to open source licences by bwt · · Score: 5, Interesting


    What if we added a clause to the GPL and all other OSI licences that said "by accepting possession of this software, you agree to grant technological protection measure access rights that otherwise would be reserved under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to any software developer who releases the resulting software under this licence (or any other OSI approved licence) in a way that does not otherwise infringe the copyright"?

    Such a clause would immunize open source software developers from DMCA claims by corporations that use *any* open source software. That sounds like a fair trade to me: we work for free to build software for them in return for the right to not be sued under the DMCA.

  14. Re:I *used* to like Disney movies by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Informative

    You may feel differently, but I cannot conceive of a plausible justification. Except that liberty isn't important to you.

    Maybe I don't have quite so fucked-up of an idea of "liberty"? Maybe I've not been spending quite so much time smoking weed and reading the GNU Manifesto?

    Tell me, do you ever use Shell Oil? Unocal? Chevron? They've done far worse than Disney could ever dream of. Just because free software is important to you, doesn't make your issues with Disney more important than all the problems of millions around the world who face real loss of liberty due to corporate evil.