Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
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.
Sig is on vacation
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?
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.
blog |
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.
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.
Being well balanced is overrated. -- John Carmack
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.
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.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
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.