Film Gimp

gosand writes "DesktopLinux.com is running this story about Film Gimp. It is a movie editor based on The Gimp that movie studios have been developing for their own use for a while now. The article is an interview with Robin Rowe about Film Gimp's use, and includes some interesting info about the film industry's use of GNU/Linux desktops. One quote worth noting: 'Studios have become the leading desktop users of Linux. Three hundred Linux desktops at Dreamworks. That's amazing! While the MPAA is campaigning for new restrictions on content, the artists at the studios are using and helping create open source. Having Linux and open source as a crucial part of studio operations may help executives rethink their corporate position on open source and Linux issues.'"

Comments

Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?

[TibbonZero]

the artists at the studios are using and helping create open source
It seems to be implying that the studios are doing it out of love, but methinks that they are finding that it's cheaper, and more flexable (their programmers can get their hands on all the code)...
Not that this is a bad thing, just that it's not because they hate MSFT...

Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?

[maxwells_deamon]

If they get hooked on open source and start to require it, then we have a 5th column inside to fight any banning of open source by Palladium. Digital editing machines should be the fastest available. They will always want to run on the fastest hardware.

Also it gives a platform inside the media companies which needs to run non-trusted. This means they will have the same headaches as the rest of us when it comes to moving data in and out of the trusted areas.

Finally, if someone needs to leak a Halloween type of document they have a much better chance of being able to do so.

Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?

[TibbonZero]

Perhaps that's the whole idea of them using opensource... to get Slashdot support. :)

Nah, in all seriousness, we hate the MPAA here... the people who make the films and neato 3d effects (esp for those great geek movies) are for the most part cool in our books here...

Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?

[cjpez]

By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?

Heaven forbid some of us have more complicated opinions than "x sucks" or "y is awesome." And heaven forbid different people who read Slashdot have differing opinions.

Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?

[purduephotog]

It's $$$ Savings all the way. Remember, they are the ones that will make the rules and the rules won't apply to them. So if they want to edit their files on Linux and follow the GPL, great- they will. The rest of us will have to deal with the restrictions.

They will have their cake and eat it, too- just because they use Linux doesn't mean they (the executives) are suddenly going to rethink all of their plans- in fact, I'd say they are finding out how EASY it is to do this and thus scaring themselves more.

Its not going away, unfortunately, unless everyone unites and refuses to buy- that'll stop it.

Cognitive Dissonance?

[thinkninja]

I wonder what the studio workers position is on MPAA/Palladium/TCPA et al.

Well, that's all good 'n' all

[Dr Thrustgood]

But other than having Linux on the "inside" where does this get us?
I remember, about eighteen months ago, really trying very hard to enjoy my hobby - music. I can't believe that sequencing really is that much of a minority activity and yet it was damn near impossible to do anything. Will there be a day when music/film studios release their programs?

Alas, I doubt it.

Re:Well, that's all good 'n' all

[cjpez]

What do you mean, "where does this get us?" Which "us?" You make it sound as if we're all employees at BigLinuxCompany and we're debating business plans or something. It doesn't get me anywhere in particular, it might not get you anywhere in particular, but evidentally the people who are using it found it useful enough to continue development. Plus it's just cool that a Gimp derivative is getting a bit of attention.

Change their minds?

[mla_anderson]

Having Linux and open source as a crucial part of studio operations may help executives rethink their corporate position on open source and Linux issues

Not likely. They're in the movie business to make money, anything their customers use for free is a threat, anything they use for free is more money.

Re:Change their minds?

[Planesdragon]

Unfortunetly as history has shown, profits (or should I say more profits) will win out over anything else.

Every for-profit corporation is designed to only care about profits. Nothing else matters--unless you can phrase it in profitability terms.

Ideas like "Long Term Investment" and "Goodwill" are how one expressed the value of OSS to accountants.

Re:Change their minds?

[Ichijo]

A-ko: Having Linux and open source as a crucial part of studio operations may help executives rethink their corporate position on open source and Linux issues

B-ko: Not likely. They're in the movie business to make money, anything their customers use for free is a threat, anything they use for free is more money.

This "they" you refer to are made up of two groups of people: those making movies, and those collecting money for it. (Well, there's a certain amount of overlap.)

The people using Linux are the same who are making movies (you know, the geeks) and usually they get paid a fixed amount. In other words, they don't get a percentage of the profits. They make movies for the sake of making movies. (Oh, and also to pay the bills.) Linux is great for them, they don't see a threat from it.

The people making the real money off of movies, in particular those who get a cut of the profits - they could see Linux as a threat because of what it can do to them financially.

Not a film person, but...

[Lemmy Caution]

Is it strictly correct to call this a movie editor, or should it be called a frame editor or something, since it's not for true editing or compositing (like Avid), but for frame-by-frame clean-up?

Give Me a Break

[superdan2k]

Content Restrictions Issue != Linux/Open Source Issues.

This article has nothing to do with the MPAA campaigning for content restrictions. It's all well and good that the movie studios have discovered Linux and have built FilmGimp, but again, what does this have to do with Open Source? Not a damn thing.

Why? Because the various Open Source licenses don't cover content created with their software, unlike the stuff the Evil Empire could pull if it wanted to.

Re:Give Me a Break

[J. J. Ramsey]

"This article has nothing to do with the MPAA campaigning for content restrictions. It's all well and good that the movie studios have discovered Linux and have built FilmGimp, but again, what does this have to do with Open Source?"

If Hollywood is using Open Source, that means that the MPAA can't push for content restrictions that affect Open Source without compromising the tools (and money flow) of the Hollywood folks that the MPAA is supposed to represent. That constrains what the MPAA can lobby for.

Re:CMYK, and GIMP UI vs. drop-down menus

[netsharc]

Seeing as Film Gimp would produce output for optical devices, I can't see why they would worry about CMYK, which is more for paper media..

The trouble is...

[pmbuko]

There's a difference between movie production studios and other companies/corporations. Studios are extremely "tool-driven" in that the timeliness and quality of their production is extremely dependent upon the quality and flexibility of their tools.

The average corporation, on the other hand, is not as dependent on an extremely flexible desktop computer. All you need is a compter that runs an office suite, and they've already got that in Microsoft.

So the thought that studios might be setting an example for other corporations is a longshot indeed.

Am I missing something?

[Kieckerjan]

While the MPAA is campaigning for new restrictions on content, the artists at the studios are using and helping create open source.

This is highly suggestive. AFAIK Open Source does not equate to being against anti-piracy measures. I am not trying to defend the MPAA here. I am only saying that these are two different things, and mixing them up is bad polics.

Baby Steps

[Mr_Blank]

Having Linux on the desktop of three hundred users at a film studio is a nice little step in the right direction. But, it is still a long shot from having Linux on the desktop of large corportions. Large corporations make industries move. If GE says to Micorsoft "we need a feature" then Microsoft delivers. When Boeing says to Dell give this or give me that, Dell delivers. When GE's tens of thousands of desktops, -or CocaCola's, or Procter & Gamble's or any other Dow thirty bell weather company - uses Linux, then there will be parades in the street proclaiming Linux has arrived on the desktop.

Re:Maybe it's just me...

[gosand]

Dreamworks wants to make a profit. The larger the profit they can make, the happier everyone is. One way to increase your profits is to reduce your costs. Simple math right? So how do you reduce the cost of your software? You switch to open source of course.

I HIGHLY doubt they switched to Linux desktops to save money. That may have been a benefit, but it couldn't have been the only reason. They switched because it worked better for their needs (and SGI was out). The article states that they do a lot of work to improve the software, and to customize it to do what they want. I have a feeling that is the real driving force - it is the solution they need.

Just because it's a large company and they chose to use open source software isn't anything special in my book. It's the logical choice for those in the know. But then again I guess it's nice to hear about Linux's ever-increasing acceptance.

I think that it is important becuase it is big movie studios. Companies? Big deal. Big companies who can get to the point where they rely on it for their business, and those same companies are fighting for DRM? Hmm, a little more interesting. Not that having Linux in house will prevent them from supporting DRM, but if they do it, they will feel the effects. The more people that use it, the better.

My using it doesn't give it credibility, but Dreamworks using it sure as hell does.

Other noble thoughts...

[spazoid12]

"Having Linux and open source as a crucial part of studio operations may help executives rethink their corporate position on open source and Linux issues."

If my grocery store has a super friendly cashier then maybe the marketing executives will rethink their privacy-invading club-card discount crap?

If I have a Mac at home then maybe I will become a good artist?

If 18,000 peace activists sit in a stadium thinking about world peace then maybe we'll have it?

P2P != Open Source

[xenocyst]

It seems to me that lots of people are saying that movie studios are inherently against open source because they are big and corporate and, most importantly, against P2P. Everyone needs to stop for a second and realize that P2P and Open Source are two completely different issues that are linked, in this case, by the fact that /.ers have strong opinions on both, which are anti-msft and anti-movie studios respectively. So please think before you equate the two. Are movie studios really publicly against Open Source or are they just fighting P2P, show me....

Disclaimer: No I don't like msft, studios, corporations, government or anything else you'd like to take a shot at, just broadening perspective here

Re:P2P != Open Source

[Zigg]

Of course, this is true, but it's also important to remember that anti-piracy legislation (which is really what the {RI,MP}AA is shooting for) has and probably will continue to have negative effects for free software and open source, and not just a link by way of Slashdot.

For example, the DMCA has created a crime out of creating a "circumvention device" (i.e. CSS). So, to play DVDs on my Linux laptop, an entirely legitimate use, I must download a CSS decryptor from a country that doesn't have the DMCA (yet).

Attempts to legislate a DRM requirement will also have a very chilling effect on free software, as it would really be impossible for free software to meet any DRM requirements, as its source is open.

IT's not about the GPL

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's about the tool. Whatever tool will get them the biggest bang for the buck. If a $5k/seat tool would do it better than a free one (and return a better product/movie at the end), then they'd use that instead.

How many studios are using Blender instead of Maya/3DSMax/Lightwave for real production work? Very, very few, if any. Even though Blender has the potential to save serious $$, it's just not good enough.

It appears FreeGimp is good enough, so that's why they use it.