Slashdot Mirror


A Tour of Pixar

Jellybob writes "A little something for those of you who aren't happy with where you work: just go and work at Pixar." This is apparently part of the Finding Nemo hype machine; here's a BBC story talking about deploying metal detectors and night-vision goggles to stop people from camcording the movie.

359 comments

  1. Depressed... by Shant3030 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read the first part of the article but stopped after "But first comes the sound: a blast of blues-rock from the four-person band playing in a funky bar-lounge area called "The Animation Pit." "

    Now I am thoroughly depressed because the closest thing we have to a blues-rock band is the annoying lady here who plays adult contemporary from her one speaker radio.

    --
    100% Insightful
    1. Re:Depressed... by agentZ · · Score: 1, Funny

      But they said I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume...

    2. Re:Depressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      testing.... testing one two three. cmdrtaco askd me to test post. testing one two three. anybody out there?

    3. Re:Depressed... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Now I am thoroughly depressed . . .

      You're telling me. I have no chance to work at Pixar. My finest art work was stick figures in the third grade. That was my peak.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Depressed... by rhythmblind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a former Pixar employee, let me state unequivically that all those stories about how great it is to work at Pixar are bullshit. It is a horribly caste ridden company with those in higher castes barely acknowledging the existance of those in lower castes. It doesn't matter that they put all the bathrooms in one place.

      When I was there I often had occasion to visit Steve Jobs office. What did I find on his desk? He had on his desk an 8x10 photo of... himself. I shit you not. I took photos of the office showing this as I figured my friends would not believe me if I told them about it.

      Tippet Studio nearby in Berkeley is a much better place to work, but understand that it doesn't matter if you are making canoes or movies, work is work.

      Like most "information" in these fluff articles about Pixar their statement that

      At the end of the second gallery is a trophy case holding some of Pixar's awards -- including two Oscars and a Golden Globe. "We were really reluctant for a long time to display these -- we're still a little embarrassed by the whole thing.

      is patently false. As soon as they could they built a case for it an displayed and Oscar shortly after Toy Story. I know. I was there.

      Some of you may recall the Salary Snafu at Pixar around 1997 or 1998. Someone emailed to everyone at the company a list of employee salaries making it seems as if the mail came from Steve Jobs. To top it off the mail came the Monday morning of the week of employee reviews. Every employee went into their review knowing how much their boss was paid and how much their coworkers was paid.

      There were alot of unhappy people. That list showed that Pixar's salaries were awarded without regard to skill, exprerience, or performance. There could be upwards of 20K/yr separating office mates with the same skill/experience/title/performance.

      As you might guess, quite a few larger than expected raises were negotiated that year.

      Although a lawsuit was filed they never caught the guilty party. No doubt some disgruntled ex-employee...

    5. Re:Depressed... by dubiousmike · · Score: 4, Funny

      The "bathroom effect" yields dividends.

      This must be a direct result of all of the free coffee.

    6. Re:Depressed... by mrklin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      All good but any evidence?

      I'd like to believe all that you said but what is to prevent anyone, say, me from saying, I too am a Pixar employee and everything you said were incorrect?

    7. Re:Depressed... by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Flip Phillip? Is that you? Did I even spell your name properly?

      --

      no .sig
    8. Re:Depressed... by phorm · · Score: 1

      What did I find on his desk? He had on his desk an 8x10 photo of... himself.

      Actually, quite a few execs might have this. Usually, it has another person, however sometimes they are solitary photos. Many are of an "event" that one wants to be reminded of,those for some that t could simply be "that great time... back when I had hair."

      Perhaps he looks at that picture ever now and then to compare and see if he has any new bald-spots, receding hairline, or whatever. Managers are uncommonly strange about such things.

    9. Re:Depressed... by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That list showed that Pixar's salaries were awarded without regard to skill, exprerience, or performance. There could be upwards of 20K/yr separating office mates with the same skill/experience/title/performance.

      Yeah, but that's not just a Pixar problem. That's an "everywhere you go" problem.

      I've met a lot of people who were scared to assert their worth, and would settle for $15k or $20k less than their market value.

      On the one hand, it leaves the higher paying jobs for those who are aggressive enough to look for them and negotiate for it (i.e., me), but on the other hand, it depresses the market as a whole if too many people are willing to settle for less.

    10. Re:Depressed... by rhythmblind · · Score: 2

      Evidence of what? The Pixar Salary mess was written up in many magazines and newspapers, was a subject of Talk Radio shows in the SF Bay Area, and was discussed on CNN. Ask around at Pixar, anyone who worked at the company during that period can verify all the details.

      A google search should find some of the info. I found

      http://www.owenink.com/ac/26.pdf

      I sure there is much more documentation around.

      If you ask nicely one of your coworkers might give you a copy of the list. Although the CFO sent email to everyone asking them to delete the email, I know that many saved the info.

      The lawsuit Pixar filed in Contra Costa County against the unnamed perp(s) the day it happened (or perhaps the next day) are a matter of public record.

      As to the other claims, again just ask the older employees. The Oscar(s) techical and otherwise were diplayed in the lobby of Pixar when they were on Pt Richmond within months of recieving them.

      Picture of Steve Jobs on Steve's desk? I have photos and would be happy to email you a copy if you would like.

      My third claim, and the only somewhat subjective one was that PIxar is caste ridden. The only people who cannot see it are those at the top. What department are you in? You would not question this if you weren't on the production side. Ask those in accounting, systems, facilities, maybe even those in tools. See what they think.

    11. Re:Depressed... by Puu · · Score: 2, Funny

      This post encouraged me to buy a Tippet canoe instead of a Pixar one!

    12. Re:Depressed... by rhythmblind · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. I'm a different disgruntled ex-employee.

    13. Re:Depressed... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      As a former Pixar employee, let me state unequivically that all those stories about how great it is to work at Pixar are bullshit. It is a horribly caste ridden company with those in higher castes barely acknowledging the existance of those in lower castes.

      As a former Disney Feature Animation employee, let me state that it was the same situation there. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, though. It's just the way it was in the 90s and I do miss it (the early part of the 90s, anyway). I figure that the only perfect work environment would be for me to work on my own (Google is probably an exception ;-).

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    14. Re:Depressed... by rangergordon · · Score: 1
      Perhaps he looks at that picture ever now and then to compare and see if he has any new bald-spots, receding hairline, or whatever. Managers are uncommonly strange about such things.

      Oh, sure--it's perfectly normal to have a picture of yourself on your desk. Lots of managers do that, and it doesn't mean a thing. Certainly not that you're one of the most narcissistic men on the West Coast or anything like that. Noooo.

    15. Re:Depressed... by rangergordon · · Score: 1

      ...and Tyler, too?

    16. Re:Depressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asskisser

    17. Re:Depressed... by bludstone · · Score: 1

      hmm,

      Seems to be quite a few of you floating around these days.

      Someone else I know just skipped out of bluesky to work at pixar (he did some of the snow effects on iceage, pretty good work, actually)

      I havnt heard from him in ages tho. Wierd to see he went to pixar, after what Flip told us. :)

      --

      no .sig
    18. Re:Depressed... by crayz · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in seeing a photo. Could you email:

      crayz at hotpop dot com

      I don't think I can get attachments through there, but I can give you a place to upload the photo

      Thanks

    19. Re:Depressed... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      All I want to know is:

      Is it true that Steve Jobs has a Dell PC on his desk?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    20. Re:Depressed... by n8_f · · Score: 1

      I'd love a photo and if you're e-mailing them out, count me in. You can e-mail me at n8_f at myrealbox.com. I think it would make a nice background on my Mac. : ) Thanks, Nathan

    21. Re:Depressed... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Even worse, one executive here had an 8 by 10 of herself as her DESKTOP BACKGROUND. A close up of her face, no less.

    22. Re:Depressed... by alcharn · · Score: 1

      Wow, is Pixar really a type of company that works within a caste system?? I cannot believe it! Was there nothing positive about the job?

    23. Re:Depressed... by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      Likewise, e-mailing the pictures to s _ r i d e n o u r (AT) k e w l p c (DOT) o r g would be greatly appreciated.

    24. Re:Depressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your English is terrible and probably noone would believe you.

    25. Re:Depressed... by kubrick · · Score: 1

      As soon as they could they built a case for it an displayed and Oscar shortly after Toy Story.

      But not for Tin Toy?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    26. Re:Depressed... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Would you think that a similar system exists at Apple?

    27. Re:Depressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see...you had occasion to visit Steve's office often but fell below the radar of the higher castes in the company?

      Oh I know, you were the janitor!

    28. Re:Depressed... by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Now I am thoroughly depressed because the closest thing we have to a blues-rock band is the annoying lady here who plays adult contemporary from her one speaker radio.

      An... and she always has - has her headphones turned up so the whole office can hear them, and I don't understand - why I can't play my radio... at a reasonable level.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    29. Re:Depressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a current Pixar employee, and having worked at a number of other places as well, I think Pixar actually is a very good place to work.

      There is no perfect place to work, because work takes place in the real world where perfection is not available. However, Pixar is tied for my personal "best place I've worked" title (with a company I helped build), of the approx. 18 other places (in various industries) I've worked or contracted with.

  2. Bah by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time they release something we're treated with another "behind the scenes" story about pixar.

    I remember when "behind the scenes" features were cool. The giant life sized dinosaurs used in the first "Jurassic Park". The enormous sets for "Honey I Shrunk the kids". The model mine cart and track for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". The thousands of horses and riders used in Braveheart. Actors spending 6 hours in make up to shoot a 5 minute scene.

    Even if the movies sucked, it was really cool to see how it was made.

    Now we watch some nerd sitting in front of his console. And so its not boring, they all force themselves to act zany and wild throughout the special. Of course it's so obvious they're under orders to ham it up for the camera.

    Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Bah by Musashi+Miyamoto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worse yet, the CG in most movies is not believeable. The quality is so low and the animation so obvious that it removes the credibility so that only children could possibly enjoy it.

      In the 80's, most sci-fi and fantasy movies needed to use puppets and camera trics. The puppets were significantly more believable and enjoyable to watch than most current CG characters. I would take an old starwars puppet over a CG Jabba anyday.

      One of the only movies to do it right was Jurrassic Park. It was also one of the first. It is a shame that production values have dropped so dramatically.

      Think of all the great fantasy and scifi movies in the past that used puppets instead of graphics:

      The neverending story
      Star wars trilogy (before profiteering by Lucas)
      Labrynth
      The Dark crystal
      Legend

      All of the characters were more believable than the current crop... Even Gollum from the recent LOTR movies, which had some of the best acting by a CG character in a while, was difficult to believe because half the time he was on the screen, it we obvious that he was a CG character.

    2. Re:Bah by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      From what I remember of something I read before, a large part of this is because they render the CG characters at a higher res to the actual live video... making the characters seem "too" real.

      And hey... they can also cut down on their 8 hour/frame render time ;)

    3. Re:Bah by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      Just face it. With CG, Hollywood just isnt cool anymore.

      Not cool? Take a look at this... is it getting hot in here, or is it just them? *puts on sunglasses - makes dual "gun gesture" with both hands - winks*

      Cool, indeed...

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    4. Re:Bah by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worse yet, the CG in most movies is not believeable. The quality is so low and the animation so obvious that it removes the credibility so that only children could possibly enjoy it.

      That may be true for implementations like Jar-Jar in SW Episode 1, but don't group Pixar in there with the hollywood CG abusers. Pixar produces high quality cartoons, not real-life simulations. They're not trying to fool your eye into thinking that the bugs in A Bug's Life are actually real bugs moving around.

      Even Gollum from the recent LOTR movies, which had some of the best acting by a CG character in a while, was difficult to believe because half the time he was on the screen, it we obvious that he was a CG character.

      So your glass is half-empty. I thought it was amazing how the other half the time, I was watching the movie forgetting that Gollum was CG.

    5. Re:Bah by nycroft · · Score: 1

      Jeeezus H. Christ! That's the best CG I've ever seen! I knew they weren't real!

      By the way, Britney Spears and Ricky Martin are cyborgs.

      --
      Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
    6. Re:Bah by taradfong · · Score: 1

      I think for you, the key word was 'imagine'.

      --
      Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
    7. Re:Bah by neuro.slug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know what you are talking about. I argue that it is not that the CG character appear unrealistic; it is that our brains process the material in a somewhat different manner.

      Think of it this way: You watch Dark Crystal. The muppets appear fake. However, you interpret them as characters and thus see realistic action in a fake character. I believe we overlook the imperfections in such a case.

      Enter LOTR: The Two Towers. They attempt perfection. We look and marvel, yet our brains cry "That can't be real!" and search for whatever imperfections possible. Because movies are attempting to make fantasy-based characters look as physically real as possible, it's seemingly harder to accept the CG bits as "characters", especially when compared to a guy like Chewie.

      Hope this made sense (I only got like 4 hours of sleep)

      -- n

    8. Re:Bah by gpinzone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the 80's, most sci-fi and fantasy movies needed to use puppets and camera trics. The puppets were significantly more believable and enjoyable to watch than most current CG characters. I would take an old starwars puppet over a CG Jabba anyday.

      Let's not get carried away! I think a better example is Ghostbusters. Listen to the commentary track on the DVD and you'll find out how ingenious tricks were used to do the effects. For example, the "frying egg on the countertop scene" was done using no computer animation; just some basic stuff a magician would do. Nowadays, they'd animate the whole thing with a cgi egg on a blue screen that would look completely fake just because no one would bother to figure out how to do it any other way. Probably the best example of old school effects has to be in the Wizard of Speed and Time. In fact, I'd say it's the definitive movie on the subject.

    9. Re:Bah by wass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even Gollum from the recent LOTR movies, which had some of the best acting by a CG character in a while, was difficult to believe because half the time he was on the screen, it we obvious that he was a CG character.

      So then you by default don't like cartoons or anime because the characters aren't puppets?

      I don't really get your premise, why is a puppet any more "real" than CG? In either case alot of work must go into making the thing look real and lifelike. Some movies have the manpower, budget, and motivation to do this (either with CG or puppetry) and others don't.

      Another thing to think about is that puppetry in movies has been around for many decades BEFORE that list of movies you listed. ( Interestingly all of the movies you listed came out in the 70's and 80's (actually, I don't know Legend). How old are you? My guess is that you're in your 20's, and those movies are from your childhood where you'd be amazed at anything.) What this means is that means the technology had a chance to mature. Ever look at an old 50's sci-fi flick? the puppetry and costumes are abysmal compared to Star-Wars. And do you really think Gollum is that much worse than Jabba or his little Henson rat? IMHO, neither of those were really that believable either.

      And I still don't get why CG cannot be good but puppetry is? Did you like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? There was no (i think) puppetery used there, most special effects were the animations (I know the scene where Roger spits out water had a water pipe 'hidden' by his animated drawing). IMHO, that movie rocked. Animation, puppetry, and CG each offer their own unique feel to add fantastic features to movies/tv. One is not necessarily better than another. They have their own features/flaws, but if done right they can be really good, or really cheesy if not done right.

      --

      make world, not war

    10. Re:Bah by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1, Insightful
      One of the only movies to do it right was Jurrassic Park. It was also one of the first. It is a shame that production values have dropped so dramatically.

      CG here is to stay and it allows movies to do things that live action cannot or should not do. Even in traditional animation like Chicken Run, they used CG to paint in things like the rain.

      I think the problem with Hollywood is that they don't realize that just because they can use CG doesn't mean that they should use it. Another problem is that they don't know that CG is not a replacement for plot, creativity, and imagination. Many horrible movies these days seem to blow their entire budget on CG and not at all on the story.

      Jurassic Park is only one example of how to use CG. Forrest Gump is a better one. The CG effects in Forrest Gump were almost invisible. The Scorpion King is a counter-example.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Bah by Java+Pimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would take an old starwars puppet over a CG Jabba anyday.

      I agree. Although you got to admit that the CG Yoda in AOTC was pretty impressive. There was only one point in the movie (and only after I had watched it a few times) were you able to "tell" he was CG.

      I think the reason CG Yoda was more believeable over Jabba or Jar Jar, etc... was the fact that they tried to make him look and act like the Puppet Yoda and not a real live creature/character.

      They are trying to overkill the CG characters giving them cartoon like motion for acting and speaking. (over exaggerate lip movements for syllables, etc...) My lips don't move that much when I speak, and neither do puppets.

      Perhaps if they concentrate on making the CG characters look like puppets they may be more believable.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    12. Re:Bah by Musashi+Miyamoto · · Score: 1

      Yea, I think you understood where I was coming from.

      Not only do they attempt perfection, the miss badly.

      Poor physics
      The characters don't always "contact" their environment.
      Incorrect lighting

      It makes us realize that the actors in the scene with the CG characters are actually talking to nothing. Its difficult to suspend disbelief when it is obvious that the character that you are looking at is not actually there and just superimposed onto the scene. The puppets are actually there on the set when they are filming. The actors can touch them and they react as expected.

    13. Re:Bah by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't really get your premise, why is a puppet any more "real" than CG?

      Because, when another character reaches out and touches the puppet or model, you believe he/she is actually touching something... With CG, it is usually so obvious that the CG character isn't really there. The other actor (who is in reality is looking at a blue screen) stares intently at where the eyes are supposed to be, but you can just tell he isn't seeing the creature standing there. You can tell because the character does not react to the subtle nuance of the CG character. When the CG creature wags a huge, spiked tail, or shifts its weight suddenly, the other actor does not react to these movements. I dont know how else to explain it - it is obvious the creature is simply not there. Chewie from Star Wars was much more believable than even Gollum... The difference is in the minute, subtle nuance found in their interactions.

      CG has its place and can definitely add to the realism of a picture (films like Jurassic park used CG very effectively), but in most cases it detracts IMHO.

      Animations like Roger Rabbit are just in a different category altogether. The creators of Roger Rabbit were not trying to convice me that Roger is a character that I would believe in real life. He was, obviously, a cartoon, and it works fine.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    14. Re:Bah by gfxguy · · Score: 1
      I agree. Although you got to admit that the CG Yoda in AOTC was pretty impressive. There was only one point in the movie (and only after I had watched it a few times) were you able to "tell" he was CG.


      What's really impressive is that someone sat through AOTC more than once.
      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:Bah by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      I think a large part of the unreality of CG is due to the fact that they are showing things that you know to be absolutely impossible (like Jabba the Hutt). Your brain just can't get over that fact, so it will never look as real as something you can tell yourself is a real, physical object. However, when I saw the first footage from Final Flight of the Osiris, I didn't yet know that it was CG, and it took some convincing for a friend to get me to realize it wasn't live-action.

    16. Re:Bah by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      I would take an old starwars puppet over a CG Jabba anyday.

      Yeah, but could you imagine Frank Oz and his Yoda puppet jumping all over Christopher Lee in AOTC? The dude is almost 60... they would have had to have a paramedic and an oxygen tent nearby...

    17. Re:Bah by IMWakko · · Score: 1
      With CG, it is usually so obvious that the CG character isn't really there. The other actor (who is in reality is looking at a blue screen) stares intently at where the eyes are supposed to be, but you can just tell he isn't seeing the creature standing there. You can tell because the character does not react to the subtle nuance of the CG character. When the CG creature wags a huge, spiked tail, or shifts its weight suddenly, the other actor does not react to these movements.

      That's more a problem of bad acting and directing. If these "actors" need some sort of feedback to do their job correctly that's not the CGs fault.
    18. Re:Bah by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      I think a large part of the unreality of CG is due to the fact that they are showing things that you know to be absolutely impossible (like Jabba the Hutt). Your brain just can't get over that fact, so it will never look as real as something you can tell yourself is a real, physical object. However, when I saw the first footage from Final Flight of the Osiris, I didn't yet know that it was CG, and it took some convincing for a friend to get me to realize it wasn't live-action.

      I disagree, because I can buy into Jabba the Hut just fine in Return of the Jedi. Its not that I take one look at a CG Jabba and say to myself "BS - thats impossible!" -- I just look at him and get a sense that there is nothing sitting there. When Leia falls into Jabba in RotJ, I can see how he moves and get a feel for his body texture, etc. Its not that I demand realistic, found-in-a-zoo animals or human CG characters -- I just find certain effects believable and others not. More often than not I feel CG effects are truly unbelievable.

      I think my problem with CG is slightly different than what you are talking about. First off, I could tell right away that FFotO was CG. That being said, the CG in FFotO does not bother me in the slightest. The reason why I can "buy into" the CG of FFotO is that the entire FFotO world is rendered in the same way. I am, therefore, able to buy into that world - just as I can easily (and gladly) buy into a world like Toy Story or Spirited Away. Those films are not trying to trick me into thinking anything is "real" - they are simply taking me to new worlds altogether, and giving me new definitions of what is "real." Im not sure if that came out right - it is somewhat difficult for me to explain my viewpoint.

      The real problem with the believability of CG is not technological - it is that it is weilded with no talent and discretion by modern, crappy filmmakers. Lucas is the pinnacle, shining example of how not to use CG.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    19. Re:Bah by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I think the reason CG Yoda was more believeable over Jabba or Jar Jar, etc... was the fact that they tried to make him look and act like the Puppet Yoda and not a real live creature/character.

      Apparently a lot of effort went into this; early designs were too expressive and too life-like, so they had to back off and tone things down so he's look more like the puppet. When they were studying the way Yoda's mouth moves in Episodes I and V, they could tell the way Frank Oz's hand was moving, and they tried to make CG Yoda's mouth move as if Frank Oz's hand were inside.

      The spinning pinball scene ruined it. ;-)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    20. Re:Bah by ChadN · · Score: 1

      How did they do that? I just assumed they essentially dressed up a stove to look like a countertop and really fried the eggs.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    21. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They are trying to overkill the CG characters giving them cartoon like motion for acting and speaking. (over exaggerate lip movements for syllables, etc...) My lips don't move that much when I speak, and neither do puppets.


      YES YES! Animation is the WORST when it calls attention to itself! All of the Disney animation starting from "The Little Mermaid" (early 1990's?) onward suffers from the type of exaggeration you are talking about -- TOO MUCH "squash and stretch". In "Attack of the Clones", there is a scene in a 1950's style diner (an homage to Lucas' own "Amercian Graffitti) in which the Obi Wan character meats up with an alien creature. That alien creature WAY overacts and weakens the scene.

      The artful use of limited animation makes "The Simpson's" a joy to watch. There's nothing funnier than having Homer's head perfectly still while his pupils dart around his giant eyeballs. (It doesn't hurt that "The Simpson's" has some of the funniest and best writing on television too!)
    22. Re:Bah by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      I think my problem with CG is slightly different than what you are talking about. First off, I could tell right away that FFotO was CG. That being said, the CG in FFotO does not bother me in the slightest. The reason why I can "buy into" the CG of FFotO is that the entire FFotO world is rendered in the same way. I am, therefore, able to buy into that world - just as I can easily (and gladly) buy into a world like Toy Story or Spirited Away. Those films are not trying to trick me into thinking anything is "real" - they are simply taking me to new worlds altogether, and giving me new definitions of what is "real." Im not sure if that came out right - it is somewhat difficult for me to explain my viewpoint.

      I think what you're saying is that your problem isn't with CG, it's the mixing and matching of two different styles in one scene (since very little CG is lit effectively).

      I agree with this.. I felt the special effects in the first Matrix film were far more convincing than in Reloaded, for example. When Neo leaps into the air at an Agent Smith clone, and it's so OBVIOUS that they're both just CG copies (and not that authentic looking), it just sucked out the enjoyment of a scene which went on too long anyway.

    23. Re:Bah by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's usually just poor integration into the scene. If anything, they aren't rendered and composited at a high enough resolution.

      Compositing, getting the lighting to match, and using "natural" camera moves/framing/etc. (don't use a static shot, frame it like you normally would instead of leaving a little bit of leeway for the CG guys, etc.) can often make or break a combination CG/live action shot.

    24. Re:Bah by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      In all those movies you mentioned, I thought the characters looked patently fake.

      What I think is happening is the placebo effect: you know that Gollum is CG, so for no other reason he looks fake to you. Likewise, you know that the stiff, badly articulated puppets in the movies you mentioned are physical puppets, so subconsiously they look more "real" to you.

      I, on the other hand, thought Gollum himself looked fantastic. The only real problems I noticed were compositing mistakes and situations where the lighting doesn't match up. Half the time I forgot he was a CG character and just paid attention to the story.

    25. Re:Bah by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      Jabba the Hut in RotJ: horribly fake. Fake skin, inarticulate facial movement, and stupid little sidekick/friend/minion/whatever. Henson puppets almost always look fake to me.

      Jabba the Hut in the new edition of Star Wars: horribly fake, but for different reasons. Like the typical Lucas "effects shot" composition: static head-on two shot, with actor off to one side (Han, on the right, in this case), and too much room for the effect (Jabba in this case) on the other side of the frame. Throw in unmatching lighting and you've got a bad effects shot.

      I do agree with you, though, that too many untalented people wield it with little discretion. George Lucas is one of them. Ever notice how the CG in Steven Spielberg films looks an order of magnitude better than in a George Lucas film, despite the same company and many of the same people working on the two films (though not at the same time)?

    26. Re:Bah by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      All of The Mummy films looked bad as a whole. Yes, they had some fantastic looking shots, but most of the shots just looked awful. Even worse, the effects in The Mummy Returns actually looked worse than in the original.

      The Scorpion King was no exception. The only good thing about that film was the Asian woman ;)

    27. Re:Bah by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 1

      You don't need CGI to implement lousy physics, just Bruce Willis. One word: Armageddon.

    28. Re:Bah by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      "One of the only movies to do it right was Jurrassic Park. It was also one of the first. It is a shame that production values have dropped so dramatically." Really? I thought JP looked good when I saw it, but that was in comparison to all of the non-realistic CG of before. I saw it a month ago, and you could clearly tell what was CG. Also, you can't compare computer animation of dinosaurs (which you have never seen in reality) to the animation of humanoid characters. We see humans every day and have ingrained into our minds every subtle nuance of the most simple movements, things that are very difficult to replicate in CG (despite all of the muscle simulation and consultation from medical professionals). With dinosaurs CG artists have the luxury of the public's ignorance of actual dinosaur movement. /Please, being different doesn't make you better. And plus, you're not actually different. You're just another anti-CG snob.

    29. Re:Bah by johny_qst · · Score: 1

      I would argue that it is less about the quality of an individual model, animation path, texture quality, whatever aspect of the animation that makes it seem fake.
      I think it's more the complexities of compositing and lighting of the animation into it's surroundings that is throwing the show. Whether the subject of the compositing is another real-life actor or some silly CG prat falling comedic device.
      It's pretty simple to have a nicely textured object take up space in the frame of the shot, but making it look like it's supposed to be there requires an artistry that is too easily overlooked.

      --
      Fnord.sig
  3. It was looking good until by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    That wasn't enough for Pixar's CEO, Steve Jobs. "He thought it was really important that there only be one bathroom in the building, for all 700 people who work here," Greenberg says.

    There is no way my bladder could survive the trauma of working there given the amount of coffee I drink

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:It was looking good until by Alranor · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's such a shame you gave up reading at that point, for if you'd just read a couple of lines more you'd have seen
      Mercifully for the bladders of Pixar's caffeine-addicted staffers, the central atrium has eight restrooms on two floors -- four men's and four women's
      :)
    2. Re:It was looking good until by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Funny

      and then imagine working on "Finding Nemo", with all the water scenes to "top if off", if you'll pardon the pun. :-) Owwww !
      What possible "benefit" could be derived from scaling back on necessary facilities ?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:It was looking good until by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is this thing you call a restroom? i just crap in my pants and worry about it all later. i like the squishy feeling the shit makes in my undypants. can this restroom run linux?

    4. Re:It was looking good until by Tha_Big_Guy23 · · Score: 1

      Wonder how many workers there have considered investing in This.

      --
      If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
    5. Re:It was looking good until by nycroft · · Score: 1

      *FLUSH* I like a clean bowl.

      --
      Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
    6. Re:It was looking good until by phorm · · Score: 1

      Sounds better than the ol'-fashioned corporate outhouses. You know, the one where the management outhouse was directly above the employee outhouse...

    7. Re:It was looking good until by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "That wasn't enough for Pixar's CEO, Steve Jobs. "He thought it was really important that there only be one bathroom in the building, for all 700 people who work here," Greenberg says."

      Sadly, this decision has caused ripples in the future. I'll never forget the story about the crewman who got a huge hickey on his butt because he tried to go out of a window on the Enterprise.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:It was looking good until by mog · · Score: 1

      ok john cage ;) .. god i miss that show.

  4. yep by Vej · · Score: 1

    Sounds like some other companies geared towards a lifestyle, such as Adidas.

    I played some basketball on their fullsize court in the middle of the office complex, indoors :)

    1. Re:yep by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like some other companies geared towards a lifestyle, such as Adidas.

      For the coporate types, maybe. The overseas workers producing the shoes for a couple of dollars a day might have a different take on things.

    2. Re:yep by Vej · · Score: 1

      You'd be wrong on both accounts.

      Adidas pays fair wages and provides a whole community setting for their workers. Very covetted job. But, indeed that does happen, exploitation. However, it is a problem that they deal with. If the company, because it is just a company they fund/provide support for workers, fails to provide the work environment they demand, they they move on. Actually, good pay is a good incentive for fair business.

    3. Re:yep by Vej · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.adidas-salomon.com/en/sustainability/_d ownloads/adidas_Salomon_SER_2002.pdf

      You can believe them or not, but their reports are there, mid 30's for numbers I think.

      Only reason I bring this up is my new brother in-law works at the US headquarters in portland(germany based hq exists also) and this issue was presented to him. He responded with the answer that their conditions do concern them. This report summarizes their answer as I heard it personally and in paper.

      Anyway, my point was that living conditions and lifestyles being the focus of a company produce different results. It doesn't matter who they exploit, if they exploit them to get their posh courts/etc.

    4. Re:yep by Life2Short · · Score: 1

      I don't find any income figures for workers in the report you cite. In fact in the index it says "EC5 Total payroll and benefits - Not Reported." If I'm missing them, could you please point them out to me? You mention mid 30's, but mid 30 whats (e.g., euros, pesos, dollars)? Is this an arithmetic mean that you're referring to with your mid 30's claim? If so, keep in mind that they tend to be sensitive to extreme values in the distribution. The only interesting thing I found in the report was that workers were not supposed to work more than 60 hours per week and must get at least one 24 hour period free every 7 days. To their credit they mention that they have relied upon outside parties (e.g., UNICEF) to verify compliance with child-labor standards.

    5. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, at a few dollars a day they are living the middle wage earning class, some may even be living above the that class.

      To earn $30,000.00US in Taiwan is equivalent to earning $150,000.00 in the US. Similarly, I can make $30,000.00 in California and live in rags, but own a home and live rather comfortably in Kentucky.

      My point, what you earn is relative to where you live and we can't compare wage earning by amounts alone.

    6. Re:yep by Vej · · Score: 1

      I meant page number for audit reports.

      It was just one .pdf file I mentioned.

      Anyway, the earlier user went off topic, but I was just talking about the attitude of companies towards lifestyles mixed with work environment. I wasn't talking about pay nor was I trying to balance the argument with it.

    7. Re:yep by Vej · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's true.

      I know of a chinese family here that runs and owns a restaurant. They have plenty of money now, and send a lot home to the other half that is there. That family is now living very comfortably in china.

      However, they've just now moved out of a 2 bedroom apartment where 2 of them even had to sleep in the living room hallway on matresses.

      Yet, they supposedly had money. However, the living style was worse here with money than in china without money because of what they accepted as a level of living for what they wanted to provide for the others.

      So, I couldn't judge them based off their old living conditions purely. It's up to them if they want to live well or not.

      The problem that arises with working conditions in such places as China isn't so much that the pay isn't there, but that the environment isn't there. The manufacturer isn't going to provide a better environment on their own even with good pay from foreign companies. It is up to them to provide what they would provide in any other country, even if that means building a village and supporting the area just for the factory. The, you will get the quality shoe you desire.

      The employees are happy in a lot of these factory villages, but it's the manufacturer who tries to cut corners anyway. This produces bad results for the product, and companies are forced to move on to other places...which would, i assume, then seriously drop the living conditions of the former employees. It really has to be up to some sort of local/national enforcement beyond the scope of foreign companies. Money isn't always the answer, they will always want more.

    8. Re:yep by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      If the workers are underpaid for their effort, then why don't they return to their previous jobs or work the land like their ancestors? Apparently, their cost/benefit analysis has decided that working for Adidas or Nike is a better investment of their time.

  5. Soccer? by dfn5 · · Score: 3, Funny
    complete with outdoor amphitheater and half a soccer field

    Cool, half a soccer field. So they can ... play with themselves?

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmh Soccer moms

  6. Get copy from Hong Kong by zakezuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What what I understand, it's not a problem going to a movie with a video camera in hong kong. Piracy is common place, can buy films on the street or see them in the theater.

    While you can sorta impose these rules in america, you can't always impose these rules in other parts of the world. Besides, I have never thought it was a serious threat with a cam corder as they look crapy anyway. A cam edition of a film atleast here in america has NO comercial value what so ever.

    Now a DVD screener on the other hand, will why bother buying the DVD if you download the screener, that's something they should actually be concerned about. Fortunatly for Hollywood the equipment required to copy films onto the small screen is pretty costly and not something typical home users own.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Doomrat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hong Kong?! Phooey.

    2. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Jellybob · · Score: 0

      Why do I never have mod points when something like this comes up? (+1 Retro cartoon reference)

    3. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by sweeney37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why bother buying the DVD if you download the screener

      because many people enjoy having extras. the commentary tracks many times give you insights into the film that no "behind the scenes" featurette will. not only are these commentary track often humorous, they are also educational for many up and coming film makers.

      Mike

    4. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by tucolino · · Score: 0

      ...number one super guy. hong kong phooey... quicker than the human eye...

    5. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by TechBCEternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cam releases are depreciated since Telesyncs (cam from projection booth with the sound connected to the projector) come out at the same time. So when it's an internal job how can it be stopped ? Projectionists often run movies after their shifts so that they can watch it on their own. Any nonsense about checking for cameras or confiscating camera phones is a irrelevant since there's always going to be Telesync releases and Screeners released. If they were smart they'd release screeners in cheap dvd players with the door glued shut like they do with some CD reviewers. People are still buying DVDs even with DVD-rips around because they look better and the packaging often adds value. It's the same with the RIAA they would blame their recession losses on piracy before they would examine their antiquated distribution chain.

    6. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Chaswell · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to explain to my father how the quality of movies released in warez channels on IRC are much better quality than camcorder recordings. What exactly does it mean "DVD screener?" What is the process and why does every warez group have a copy of the movie the day before it is released to the public?

    7. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the joke, retard boy.

    8. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by toonrmeusa · · Score: 1

      The rules are already imposed in Hong Kong and China. By signing on to the WTO and WIPO, in order to gain all the benefits China needs to transform its economy from a collection of moribund state-owned monopolies to something approaching a market economy, China agreed to respect and enforce copyright.

      However, China does not effectively enforce the copyright rules they agreed to follow. You might argue that, when operating under a general lack of rule of law, intellectual property is not as important as, say, freedom from human rights abuses. But, every time a U.S. studio exec sees somebody openly selling pirated movies in markets in Hong Kong, he probably wonders if the few percent of legitimate copies sold are worth it.

      You might also argue that legitimate DVDs sold in China are too expensive, that if the U.S. distributors charged less then more people would purchase nonpirated copies. First, "Finding Nemo" is not an anti-AIDS drug that has humanitarian reasons for cumpulsory licensing; nobody *needs* it. Second, pirated DVDs are still stolen, regardless of the price of the original. I can't afford an original Mercedes, but that doesn't mean that it's OK if I purchase a stolen car for significantly less because I don't have the $30,000.

      Dave

      --
      Toon toon! Black and white army!
    9. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      A "DVD screener" is a pre-release copy of a film sent to reviewers, etc on DVD. These are (of course) sometimes leaked - I've seen a copy of a DVD screener for the film "Ghost Ship".

      It was normal DVD quality, but just the film with no extras, and every so often, the picture switched to black and white, and a message appeared across the bottom of the screen telling you to call a number if you'd rented or purchased it. It wasn't too annoying, but probably worth the rental fee to avoid.

    10. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe "many" people do, but most people I know don't - they just want to watch the movie.

      As for me, I might look at some extras if I've got some extra time, but if I had a choice I'd rather pay less for just the movie.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    11. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While you can sorta impose these rules in america, you can't always impose these rules in other parts of the world.

      I think most of the people harping on this were missing the point. Once the movie is released for a wide audience, of course it'll get out. However, for nearly a month before the movie was released, it was played in the theater inside Pixar for various special events, like charity screenings, "friends and family" screenings, where it was the only theater the movie was playing. It's one thing to find the movie on BitTorrent a few days after its official release, it's another to find it there a month in advance, and that's what the bag-searches can prevent - a leak from one theater.

    13. Re:Get copy from Hong Kong by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Are you listening RIAA? Yes, people will pay for a product with value added.

  7. Bunch of nice people work there by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the people I've met from there are just big kids, although I haven't had a chance to see them work. Dylan for example, reminded me of a few of my fith grade classmates.

    Wish I was talented enough to work there.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny
      Wish I was talented enough to work there.

      You are talented enough to work there!

      It's just that you smell of onions and wet dog. And then there's that lazy eye thing. And the severe tourrets syndrome. And the whole deal about your lack of arms. And the incontinence. And the constant running into server racks with your helmet on.

      I didn't want to be the one to tell you...

    2. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not true!

      I still have one arm, and ever since I got back on the meds, I haven't hit a rack in months.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    3. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Wish I was talented enough to work there."

      Just remember that talent is something you develop, it's not something you're born with. You want to work there? Start climbing the steps.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Just remember that talent is something you develop, it's not something you're born with. You want to work there? Start climbing the steps.

      Uhm, bullshit.

      You know, that's why they call it "talent", as in, "A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment."

      I'm a decent artist. It's 50% talent, 50% work. I've found I have a cartoonist style, but I can't do still life. No matter how hard I try, I know guys who could beat me when they were in junior high school.

      Play the hand you are dealt with, accept what you can't do well and do it mediocre and enjoy it.

      You know what happens when everybody believes they have a talent and jumps on the "Fun and Money Bandwagon"? .com

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    5. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I'm a decent artist. It's 50% talent, 50% work. I've found I have a cartoonist style, but I can't do still life. No matter how hard I try, I know guys who could beat me when they were in junior high school."

      Whoopee, they figured it out before you did. That's not something that was given to them at birth it was a skill they arrived at at some point. Drawing is the ability to decompose an image down to a series of lines and plotting them out on paper. It's not easy. Spatial relationships have to be recognized etc. Those guys may have a better spatial recognition, that doesn't necessarily mean they're born with talent to draw as a result of that ability.

      In any case, the point is as long as you think you can't, you can't. I hate to sound After School Special here, but it's true. Though I agree people can have forms of learning disabilities that make their struggle much harder, I don't believe that people just can't do stuff. I should know. I've climbed from being a terrible artist to one that's not half bad. This project didn't happen until I sat down and learned the various things I needed to learn until I could arrive at that point. It was all a matter of breaking it down into a ton of little tasks.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Bunch of nice people work there by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Whoopee, they figured it out before you did. That's not something that was given to them at birth it was a skill they arrived at at some point. Drawing is the ability to decompose an image down to a series of lines and plotting them out on paper. It's not easy. Spatial relationships have to be recognized etc. Those guys may have a better spatial recognition, that doesn't necessarily mean they're born with talent to draw as a result of that ability.

      Right, and I guess that in your view point anybody could arrive at the same conclusions as Einstein, Currie, Newton, and a whole bunch of other people...

      Talent means it comes natural. A natural ability. A gift. For example, I can fly stunt kites. I picked up a stunt kite and within 30 minutes was putting to shame people who had been doing it regularly for about 5 years. That's talent. Granted, it doesn't mean much, but it's talent.

      Talent is not equal to skill.

      Talent is something you are born with, a skill that seems imprinted on your brain without any work towards it. You hone your talent, and get skillful in weilding it.

      With just practice and dedication, you can acheive good skill. With talent, you become an artist.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  8. Re:One Bathroom for 700 people? by Jellybob · · Score: 1

    No... that would be one toilet for 700 people in a convent ;)

    This is just a load of shit.

    [OT: Yay! My first accepted submission :P]

  9. Airplane Contest by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a great easter egg on the Monsters, Inc. DVD.

    Second disc, Humans Only, Pixar studio tour, highlight the logo at the bottom, press left (a black circle should appear around the airplane). I think then you click on the airplane.

    It's a short film of a paper-airplane contest they held in the atrium, with lots of crazy contraptions either flying the distance, curling into the sides, or plummeting straight down. All set to an appropriate classical soundtrack.

    Why is it that all the really cool places to work are on the left coast? (Pixar, Google, etc.) All we've got out here are the CIA and the Pentagon, and those sort of lose their luster after a bit....

    1. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'd love to, except that I'm boycotting DVDs due to restrictions on their use. Please post a DivX version. Use BitTorrent to lessen the load on your web server, if necessary.

      Thank you. Please do my bidding now.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    2. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anybody else care if you are too cheap to buy a DVD?

    3. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha...

      You boycott DVD's because of their restrictions (which yes, admittedly are rather limiting but aimed at cutting piracy) and you then suggest posting a DivX copy of a part of that DVD.

      Its people like you that the DVD usage restrictions & anti-piracy measures were created for!

    4. Re:Airplane Contest by tidge · · Score: 1

      that's because,

      there ain't no party like a west coast party, cause a west coast party don't sto..... nevermind.

      Actually, I have in-laws and friends working in the midwest and I know stories like this just blow them away. At places where they work, not only is it unheard of, but it's downright unacceptable! Then again, also take into consideration this article is about Pixar and I can't imagine anyone there would do ANYTHING that might be considered stifling creativity.

    5. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to post a DivX copy of a part of a DVD. That's called "Fair Use." If I feel that the material is good, and if I feel that DVDs are worth the price (hint: they're not) and if I feel like giving my money to Disney (hint: I don't) then I'll buy the disc.

      In the meantime, I'll continue to use legitimate file-sharing services like KaZaA Gold and BitTorrent.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    6. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      Read my web site and ask that question again.

      Honestly. Some people wouldn't know a famous cybersecurity activist if they bumped into one on the street.

      Please donate to my cause, but don't use PayPal. Instead, I would prefer that you anonymously deposit coins into my souvenir plastic cup.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    7. Re:Airplane Contest by Carbonite · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to post a DivX copy of a part of a DVD. That's called "Fair Use."

      Where exactly can I find the law or statute that states that posting portions of copyrighted works is "perfectly legal"?

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    8. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Seth Finklestein-

      You are not a famous cybersecurity activist. You are a pear shaped looser who lives in your mom's basement. You have no hope of ever getting laid, unless you plan on shelling out some money. Please take this into consideration before you start bragging about how famous you are.

      Thanks-

      The World

    9. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, some animation studios in the East Coast (mostly those in NYC) share similarities with Pixar (toys everywhere, collaboration between departments, etc.), but they don't play this up as much... probably because the job market for animation (particularly CG) is much smaller here, not to mention the whole "serious" East Coast rep we gots to keep up ;)

    10. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      Please check my web site, www.sethf.com. I have posted untold thousands of words on the subject of Fair Use, and I am proud to say that I have untold gigabytes of movies that I have fairly and legally downloaded.

      According to the law, which is cited on my web site, it is legal to download something if it causes no monetary harm to a company. For example, I'm boycotting DVDs, so I can't buy DVDs and I don't own a DVD player. Therefore, by downloading DVDs from KaZaA Gold, I am depriving the studios of no money whatsoever.

      Honestly, I don't know why Michael Sims tolerates uneducated ignorami like yourself.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    11. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      Dear Seth Finklestein-

      Please boldface my name when you write it. Only I may refer to myself in non-bold text.

      You are not a famous cybersecurity activist.

      Yes, I am.

      You are a pear shaped looser who lives in your mom's basement.

      "Pear-shaped" is hyphenated. "Loser" is spelled with one 'o'. And it's not a basement, but rather a poolhouse.

      You have no hope of ever getting laid, unless you plan on shelling out some money.

      Not true.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    12. Re:Airplane Contest by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
      Why is it that all the really cool places to work are on the left coast? (Pixar, Google, etc.) All we've got out here are the CIA and the Pentagon, and those sort of lose their luster after a bit....

      Because you're a couple hundred miles too far south, that's why. Come to Boston- the 495/128 corridor are chock full of technology companies, thanks to a fresh supply of smart college students- MIT, Harvard, BC, BU, Umass...MA has more colleges than any other state in the US. They pop out of college, have a bright idea, and make a company around it.

      I look at all the things New England has to offer(besides work-related stuff- ie, things to do outside of work), and I shake my head when I see techies move out to CA; it's an expensive, overcrowded, overdeveloped, dangerous, polluted place to live. Sure there's San Fran with the bridge and the trollies...but I don't think SF has anything to offer that Boston and surrounding areas can't provide.

      Why are they moving? Because MA is experiencing a massive job slump- unemployment is much higher than the national average. Right now, actually, your region(MD) is the place to be, especially if you have security clearance already. Lots and lots and lots and LOTS of defense crap going on- it's like the internet wave all over, to the letter.

    13. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear. This is more serious that we first thought. Seth Finkelstein is dillusional.

      Some clarifications- stealing pr0n and pirating software does not make you a "famous cybersecurity activist", and correcting spelling does not mean you are smart. You can call your mom's basement whatever you want to, but you are still a loser.

      Oh, and making out with a cheap blow-up doll does not count as getting "laid".

    14. Re:Airplane Contest by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      The thing is that's ONE day, maybe even only ONE hour out of their schedules. Most places I know of have this sort of thing.

      My company (in the southeast) has client sponsored parties, we have pool tables, foosball tables (including pool and foosball tournaments complete with nice prizes like Sony discmans), and every so often we even have a "sabatical", a shared company day off where we drink beer, eat food, and play.

      Before you think that we're an exception to the rule, some of the places we have these "sabaticals" run as a business - and they have enough business to keep them in business.

      So think about it, a lot of east coast companies have brief periods of play... maybe you just happened to see the five minutes the people at Pixar got.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    15. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the law, which is cited on my web site, it is legal to download something if it causes no monetary harm to a company. For example, I'm boycotting DVDs, so I can't buy DVDs and I don't own a DVD player. Therefore, by downloading DVDs from KaZaA Gold [kazaagold.com], I am depriving the studios of no money whatsoever.

      Oh my god.. that is the most hilarious & fucked up logic I have ever heard.

      IANAL but I know that argument would get laughed out of any courtroom. If you feel that you must boycott DVD's, then why the hell are you not buying the movies on video cassette? Its like saying you want to boycott Cadburys chocolate, but then proceeding to shoplift a few bars of it from the nearest store.

      I don't try to deny that I haven't downloaded a DivX or two in my time.. but then I do own over 60 legitimately purchased DVD's, and I do know that I was breaking the law when I downloaded those DivX files. But to attempt to excuse yourself from paying for movies simply because you feel that a single method for distributing them goes against your quite clearly fucked up morals is laughable.

    16. Re:Airplane Contest by seekohler · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I don't have enough spare time to read through all your material. I just want to say the following.

      Before movies were invented, entertainment was a service provided by live performers. You paid to see the play and got a performance. Now-a-days, entertainment is packaged and sold as a product (in the form of DVDs) but it's still derived from a service hundreds of people performed.

      While it's true what you're doing may be legal that doesn't make it right. Your logic seems based entirely around the fact that simply because you're not paying the actors, directors, caterers and stunt men directly you have no obligation to pay for services rendered.

      Would you use the same logic to download and use commercial software distributed only on CD-ROM simply because you boycott the CD-ROM format and own no CD-Rom drive? You're benefiting from someone else's time and effort. Someone put a lot of time into writing that software and yet you'd use that product without rendering any compensation for service rendered.

      What you're doing may be legal but is it moral?

    17. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I know that argument would get laughed out of any courtroom.

      I'm anal too, but I know my way around a courtroom. As a famous cybersecurity expert, I have had to defend myself many thousands of times.

      If you feel that you must boycott DVD's, then why the hell are you not buying the movies on video cassette?

      Video cassettes are an obsolete technology. I can't play them on my laptop, and I sure as heck am not going to invest in obsolete magnetic media.

      Furthermore, videocassettes are often protected with evil Macrovision "copy protection" which causes seizures in children.

      Its like saying you want to boycott Cadburys chocolate, but then proceeding to shoplift a few bars of it from the nearest store.

      No, it's not. If you steal chocolate from a store, then the store has been deprived of chocolate and loses money. When I liberate movies from KaZaA Gold, I am making perfect, bit-for-bit digital copies but the original source stays intact. This means that suckers like you can still spend upwards of $15 to buy poorly copy-protected DVDs if you so desire, and the companies lose no money. Who's dumb now? Not me. You're dumb.

      I don't try to deny that I haven't downloaded a DivX or two in my time.. but then I do own over 60 legitimately purchased DVD's, and I do know that I was breaking the law when I downloaded those DivX files.

      No, you're a thief. By boycotting DVDs, I am standing up against authority. Every DivX movie that I download from KaZaA Gold is a dagger into the heart of oppression. Every movie you download is something that you don't feel like paying for. There's a big difference. I'm a hero; you're just lazy.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    18. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd argue black is white wouldn't you.

      Hero my ass.. you are just nuts. Michael Sims is right.

    19. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      Your logic seems based entirely around the fact that simply because you're not paying the actors, directors, caterers and stunt men directly you have no obligation to pay for services rendered.

      None of that money comes from DVDs. The evil Motion Picture Association of America ensures that actors make less than three cents per DVD sold. Do you care if Keanu Reeves gets three fewer cents?

      Caterers get far less than one cent per DVD sold. Are you sad because they're getting less money? I'm not.

      Would you use the same logic to download and use commercial software distributed only on CD-ROM simply because you boycott the CD-ROM format and own no CD-Rom drive?

      Who the hell buys software any more? As a paid subscriber of KaZaA Gold, I have unlimited access to more than 50,000 software titles. Thanks to KaZaA Gold, I have gotten rid of my archaic CD-ROM drive and replaced it with a delicious 320GB hard drive filled with all the movies I want.

      You're benefiting from someone else's time and effort. Someone put a lot of time into writing that software and yet you'd use that product without rendering any compensation for service rendered.

      If I like a piece of software, I might send a donation to the person who wrote it. However, I as the consumer get to determine how much software is worth.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    20. Re:Airplane Contest by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      You'd argue black is white wouldn't you.

      Absolutely not.

      Hero my ass.. you are just nuts. Michael Sims is right.

      I want you to retract that statement immediately. Michael Sims has never, ever been right, and he never will be!

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    21. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize you are just feeding a troll here, right? It isn't even the real Seth Finkelstein.

    22. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want doesn't get..

      For a hero you have lousy manners ;)

    23. Re:Airplane Contest by Holi · · Score: 1

      bullshit

      Ok yes you can at times under the fair use staute use an exerpt of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, such as reviews or for educational purposes. But you can't pull an entire movie (even if it is not the feature) off of a dvd and share it with the world and claim fair use. No court in the world would back you on that.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    24. Re:Airplane Contest by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      Using bold like that is as naff as using UPPERCASE for emphasis.

    25. Re:Airplane Contest by Holi · · Score: 1

      If you are boycotting a film guess what, YOU DON'T GET TO SEE IT (or in your case DVD's then you get to miss out on the better quality over vhs and all those extras). Sorry but a boycott is a sacrifice. If you then download the movie to view it your boycott means nothing. I believe in fair use and all but it was never meant to give you the right to view and distribute copyrighted material for free.

      You're not morally superior, your just cheap.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    26. Re:Airplane Contest by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Endless sunshine.

      Clouds make for moribund lackluster people.

      Look at Boston and all the Assholes we got up here.
      Look at Seattle and the whole Grunge scene for further proof.

    27. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correcting spelling does not mean you are smart

      You're right; it just means you're rude, or a schoolteacher. OTOH, numerous spelling errors indicate either stupidity or laziness. Using correct spelling and punctuation does mean you are smart.

      Oh, and making out with a cheap blow-up doll does not count as getting "laid".

      What about an expensive blow-up doll?

    28. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shall call you "Seth Small-Winkelstein". I'll bet you've not heard *that* one before...

    29. Re:Airplane Contest by shrikel · · Score: 1

      Why is it that all the really cool places to work are on the left coast? (Pixar, Google, Microsoft , etc.)

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    30. Re:Airplane Contest by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

      Today: ESR proclaims that Seth Finklestein, as a famous cybersecurity expert, "gets it".

      --
      this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    31. Re:Airplane Contest by linuxlover · · Score: 1

      // and I shake my head when I see techies move out to CA. Why are they moving?

      how about great weather all year around?

      I enjoy biking. It is so nice to be able to go outside any day of the year (except when it is raining)

      -- ./LinuxLover

    32. Re:Airplane Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm sure he's heard it...from any female that's ever gotten close enough.

    33. Re:Airplane Contest by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Whoa, a classical soundtrack to a scene of chaos for humorous effect? Never seen or heard that before.

    34. Re:Airplane Contest by XarsonX · · Score: 1

      AMEN!!

  10. These people are idiots. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All it takes is ONE person to share it. ONE. Then the day is over, time to go home, you've lost the battle.

    A projectionist, a kid who works at the theater with a camera behind a wall, somebody with a camera in their glasses, all it takes is ONE.

    All this is a waste of time, because you can't be everywhere at once. If broadband was available to areas with pirate flea-markets, I'm sure it would kill more of that market than anything else.

    THis article talks about a high quality rip of Matrix Reloaded. That sure as hell didn't come from a theater-goer with a sony..

    Clean your own house before you tell me how dirty mine is.

    1. Re:These people are idiots. by gosand · · Score: 4, Insightful
      THis article talks about a high quality rip of Matrix Reloaded. That sure as hell didn't come from a theater-goer with a sony..

      Nor did it have any impact on the box office take of the movie. It was the highest opening for an R rated movie ever. So if it wasn't on the net, does that mean that they would have made 100 million more? The other pirated movies on the net that make the articles are LOTR and Spider-man. Both couldn't have done much better at the box office. I don't understand why these movies make the news. If it hitting the net was such a revenue hit, wouldn't these things do poorly at the box-office? Or is it just that they would have made so much MORE money? Boo frickin hoo.

      I understand why Pixar would take measures to prevent people from taking it before the release. EVERYONE steals stuff from work, it would be no different at Pixar. They have every right to keep people from pilfering it. (Hey, I would too). After it hits the public though, all bets are pretty much off.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    2. Re:These people are idiots. by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
      somebody with a camera in their glasses

      Oh yes, got to love staring at a 320x240 divx for 2 or 3 hours with a friend. "This blob of pixels is Neo! ... I think..."

    3. Re:These people are idiots. by override11 · · Score: 1, Troll

      And I hope they realize, that if they didnt have that long, drawn out, STUPID love scene that made no sense and seemed slapped into the ccenter of the movie for no reason at all, maybe they could have pulled a PG 13. :P

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    4. Re:These people are idiots. by JJahn · · Score: 1

      You're right, the love scene was pretty stupid considering it was probably the only thing giving it the R. Although this is not a problem where I live, the local theater (which is pretty nice actually) doesn't ever ID people, and as long as you don't look like a 10 year old, you get in.

    5. Re:These people are idiots. by droopus · · Score: 1

      THis article talks about a high quality rip of Matrix Reloaded. That sure as hell didn't come from a theater-goer with a sony..

      Actually, it did. The group Centropy has been releasing incredibly high quality Telesync SVCD copies of films for a few months (Centropy has been around for years, but only started the beautiful TS copies recently.)

      They have obviously mounted a camera way up in the rafters (the angle is close to perfect) and have some talented post production people making TS copies look like Screeners.

      I never would watch any cammed movie till these guys started putting out these awesome SVCDs. Now, in my DVD player connected to a big projection screen, it is not unlike the DVD experience.

      --
      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    6. Re:These people are idiots. by Hast · · Score: 1
      They have obviously mounted a camera way up in the rafters (the angle is close to perfect)

      Yes, it's a telesynch, it's not cam.

      Trying to stop cam versions isn't going to do anything while there is a lot of money to be made for projectinists for setting up telesync or distributing screeners.
    7. Re:These people are idiots. by takotech · · Score: 1
      Nor did it have any impact on the box office take of the movie.

      Not sure about that. Look at the 2nd week gross. It got beat out by Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston.

    8. Re:These people are idiots. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So if it wasn't on the net, does that mean that they would have made 100 million more?"

      I think what they're worried about is not getting those numbers overseas where the movie wasn't released yet. The movie wasn't that good. It's hard to imagine somebody watching the internet version and then wanting to go see it in the theater.

      Of course, there are two things that can be done to thwart this.

      1.) Global releases. Don't get the hype going and then make people wait.

      2.) Stop charging $3 for a candybar. I had absolutely no interest in downloading a movie before seeing it in the theater until I went to see Reloaded. I spent nearly $25 for me and my gf to go. I could have bought the DVD for that! Now, halve the price, and the time it takes to download the movie's not so worthwhile.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:These people are idiots. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I don't think movies get a rating accidentally. Rather, they will insert or remove material as necessary to get the rating they want.

    10. Re:These people are idiots. by gosand · · Score: 1
      Not sure about that. Look at the 2nd week gross. It got beat out by Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston.

      1. R vs. PG-13
      2. It still had a 2nd week gross that most movies would kill for
      3. It got so-so reviews

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    11. Re:These people are idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If broadband was available to areas with pirate flea-markets, I'm sure it would kill more of that market than anything else.

      Broadband is available, it's what I do in China.

      If the studios realeased the movies at the same time here as they do in the USA people wouldn't buy low quality dvd's.

  11. 8 hours/frame by alyosha1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When Pixar started in 1985, Greenberg says, it took 8 hours to render one frame (or 1/24th of a second) of computer animation. Now, it still takes 8 hours, because the artwork in each frame is far more complex.
    So, that would be, what, 158 years to render a two hour movie? I guess the company started up a lot longer ago than I thought....

    Here endeth the nitpick.
    1. Re:8 hours/frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Render farms... hundreds of computers... hundreds of frames in 8 hours

    2. Re:8 hours/frame by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      No one said they were doing 1 frame at a time, they could have 2 computers each doing one frame, that would take it down to 79 years (assuming its parallelizable like that)

    3. Re:8 hours/frame by Restil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clusters.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    4. Re:8 hours/frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That got modded as interesting? A failed attempt at funny possibly ... but INTERESTING?

    5. Re:8 hours/frame by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      That is why Pixar set up the massively parallel "render farm".

    6. Re:8 hours/frame by malducin · · Score: 1

      If you want to nitpick start wiht the date. Pixar wasn't officially sold to Jobs until 1986.

  12. Wait wait wait wait wait... by HaloZero · · Score: 5, Informative

    When Pixar started in 1985, Greenberg says, it took 8 hours to render one frame (or 1/24th of a second) of computer animation. Now, it still takes 8 hours, because the artwork in each frame is far more complex.

    105 minute movie (approximation)
    105 * 60 = 6300 seconds in the movie
    105 * 60 * 24 = 151200 frames in the movie

    151200 * 8 = 1209600 hours to compile complete movie (?!?!)
    1209600 / 24 = 50400 days
    50400 / 365.25 = 137.9 years


    I suppose however assume that..

    ...the RenderFarm. Behind a large window is a wall of blinking lights, a collection of some 300 machines, each with eight processors. Together, Greenberg says, they perform 400 billion computations per second.

    105 minute movie (approximation)
    105 * 60 = 6300 seconds in the movie
    105 * 60 * 24 = 151200 frames in the movie

    151200 / 300 = 504 (one frame per machine) 504 * 8 = 4032 hours to compile movie with one machine per frame 4032 / 24 = 168 days to compile movie with one machine per frame (46% of a year)

    Ok, so I suppose it could work...

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the problem? AFAIK rendering Final Fantasy took over a year.

    2. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by shird · · Score: 1

      It also depends on how they arrive at the '8 hours' to render one frame. IF it is 8 hours on a single CPU machine, then you should also take into account each machine having 8 processors - which would take 1/8 the time overall.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    3. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by macrom · · Score: 1

      But here's some other math that doesn't add up :

      400 billion computations per second / 300 machines / 8 processors = 166.66 million instructions per processor per second.

      Huh? They render movies with 166 MHz procs? Somehow I don't believe that.

      4 trillion computations per second would sound about right, but then I may just be bad at math.

    4. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by Islington_66_81 · · Score: 1

      8 cpu's in a computer never garauntes 800% speed compared to a single cpu. Theres actualy quite alot of overhead in mult-processer computing and it can increase exponetialy with the number of processors, depending on the architecture of the system. Not to mention that all software interaction with such a system has to be specialy tailored to work with that number of processors and that particular architecure. Of course we can assume the last since im sure all the techies in pixar have accounted for that. However, my point is that just throwing more processors at a problem creates niether an elegant solution nor usualy a solution at all.

    5. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by orpheus2000 · · Score: 1

      This is an often made faulty assumption of SMP. If the computer has 8 processors in an SMP configuration, then the shared memory and disk becomes a factor. I'll use an analogy that my old systems professor made:

      Imagine you have a puzzle. With one person working on it, it takes 4 hours to finish. Put two people on the job and divide the pieces and it will take about 2 hours for each person, but you've got a new problem. What if a piece that one needs is in the other's pile? He has to get up and walk over to find it. And at the end, they've got to put the finished puzzle together.

      This overhead increases dramatically as you add more people. You eventually run into a practical limit on how many people you can add before you're actually *losing* time due to overhead.

      Naturally, this is an overly simplistic example and real computers are much better at handling the overhead, but one cannot assume that 8 processors == 1/8 time. It's more like 1/6 in real world experiments

      You notice these things when you manage a linux cluster for a few years :-)

    6. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by rworne · · Score: 1

      I'm also sure the "8 hours per frame" is also a rough guess. Maybe it takes 7.5 hours, maybe 8.49 hours. Is it an average? Who knows. Some frames can take 30 seconds, some can take 4 days.

      The point is since we are spouting off "rough" numbers, then stating a speed increase with 100% efficiency due to 8 CPUs is just as valid since all we are doing are silly wild-assed guesses.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    7. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by rworne · · Score: 1

      I do. It's Pixar. They probably use Macs.

      Anyhow, they actually had Sun servers, now they have an 8-blade rack system with 1,024 2.8GHz Intel Xeon processors.

      Anyhow, there was an article here recently that stated Pixar bought a ton of new Intel boxes so there you go.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    8. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by ipxodi · · Score: 1

      74.6 percent of people know that 93.1 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.

      (Apologies to the person whose sig I just stole and mangled....)

      --
      load "windows7" ,8,1
    9. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      You'd be right if each instruction took exactly one CPU cycle to complete. However, that's almost never the case. For example, simple addition takes something like 5 cycles while division may take more than 10. The efficiency depends on the architecture.

      If we say that each instruction takes 5 cycles on average, the rough CPU speed would be about 800 MHz... entirely feasible.

    10. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by takotech · · Score: 1

      166.66 million instructions per processor per second != 166MHz processor. I'm willing to bet each intruction takes several clock cycles to execute.

    11. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "However, my point is that just throwing more processors at a problem creates niether an elegant solution nor usualy a solution at all."

      You'd be surprised. If all the processors share the same memory, then you're not limited to that 100-megabit bottleneck into the machine. Remember, we're not necessarily talking about multi-threaded rendering here, rather paralellized rendering. You can have 8 computers or 8 processors rendering the same scene. With the 8 computers, you have to send all the textures and geometry down (we're not talking small-beans here) to each machine. On the 8 processor machine, that only has to be sent down once. Then, the octo machine can render frames 1-8 with each processor chewing on one frame.

      That's just an example of how it could work. I'm not sure how it's done in practice. Just wanted to point out that having a bunch of single processor machines wouldn't be much more elegant, they have a seperate set of problems.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    12. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by glwtta · · Score: 1
      400 billion computations per second

      eh? 400 GHz / (300 * 8) = 0.167 GHz, or in other words 166MHz processors? Seems a little odd, I didn't even know they had machines that can do 8 way SMP and have processors that slow.

      Seems that whatever those boxen are a dually commodity box would be comparable and much cheaper...

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    13. Re:Wait wait wait wait wait... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      In film work, if you're clever, that can actually work for you.

      An average Pixar frame might contain 2Gb of geometry data and 10Gb of texture data. Even on a gigabit network, that takes a nontrivial time to actually send to a farm machine. This can become a bottleneck in rendering.

      Trying to make sure that frames that need the same data get computed on different CPUs on the same machine actually increases the amount of useful work that you can do. This suggests that the amount of time taken might even be less than 1/8th on some data sets.

      My intuition suggests that the effects would even out, but my intuition also tells me never to trust my intuition.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  13. Losing between $3-4B a year??? by molarmass192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "It's estimated we lose between $3bn (£1.8bn) and $4bn (£2.4bn) a year to this problem despite strong anti-piracy actions by the movie industry," said Rich Taylor, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

    I love these estimates. Where do they pull these numbers out of? Realistically, 95% of this figure is revenue they'd never have earned anyhow. People who are willing to pay to see a movie will not settle for a low res DivX viewing on their PC. I think the $3-4B figure is based on pirated DVDs, not camcorder captures available on the net. Even then, these figures would be based on selling a DVD at $20 a pop for each pirated one in countries where $20 is half a month's wages. You have to admit that $3 billion loss is far more impressive a figure than a more factual $150M loss since that's about what they swallow on a big budget movie flop. I'm not saying piracy does not exist but the scale of the problem is being way overstated.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    1. Re:Losing between $3-4B a year??? by swb · · Score: 1

      The first thing you do is presume that every pirated copy of anything is a lost sale. That's the golden rule of "piracy loss calculation" and without it piracy is a non-cost to IP sellers (erm, licensors, sorry..) since no one is stealing something of physical value. It's similar to the police catching a coke or heroin wholesaler and listing the value of the narcotics at the end-user cost instead of the wholesale cost -- they show 8 kilos of coke and call it $10M in coke, when the wholesale price is $15k per kilo!

      Now if they were hijacking trucks full of DVDs and selling those on some black market, there's a real loss of a material good (although it may not be a lost sale since the DVD in question may end up being like a torn-cover book or a cutout LP).

      I wish someone would do a reputable economic study of piracy that actually interviewed people who pirated some piece of IP and determined how many would have bought it at retail prices if they couldn't have pirated it. If they wouldn't have bought at retail, at what price would they have bought it at?

      This would both undermine the FUD that all pirated copies are lost sales, as well as provide evidence that lower prices == more people willing to actually buy them through legit channels. Instead they jack up the prices to "offset piracy costs" and then use the elevated prices to increase the piracy losses, which enables them to jack up the prices to offset....lather, rinse, repeat.

    2. Re:Losing between $3-4B a year??? by Ed+Drone · · Score: 1

      I recently read a study of RIAA's claims as to losses due to music piracy, and the losses equate to just about what the rest of the economy, in particular businesses that depend on "extra cash," were experiencing. In other words, with the economy in the dumps, you would expect sales to be down within 1-2% of what's being reported, so losses to piracy are only a small portion of the losses due to bad economics.

      I can't remember the URL for that study, but it might have even been here that I read it.

      Ed

    3. Re:Losing between $3-4B a year??? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "You have to admit that $3 billion loss is far more impressive a figure than a more factual $150M loss since that's about what they swallow on a big budget movie flop."

      What bothers me is that the movie industry doesn't seem to recognize that it is a service industry. It doesn't just make products like sprockets or something, they provide entertainment. For this reason, they have a rich set of tools to prevent piracy from destroying their business. They don't need to place security guards in theaters. Instead, that money could go towards making theaters more interesting to go to. For example, lower the cost of food. Provide a headphone jack for each seat. Provide a 15 minute warm-up comedy act. Heck I don't care. Limiting piracy is not increasing profits.

      You know, it's kind of amusing really. Jackass Valenti tried to defend the DMCA by saying "Nobody would criticize oil companies for putting stronger locks on their gas tanks if people started making their own keys." (Note: that's an interpreted quote, it's not literal or verbatim.) I don't think he realizes that people steal gas all the time. Driveoffs are a regular occurance. Do gas stations respond by placing guards around each pump? Nope. Who'd go to a gas station with security procedures and guards at every corner? Gas stations don't do this (nor do oil companies require it) because they are a service industry. Make the customer glad to shop there.

      Anyway, I've ranted enough. I'm just sick of inflated piracy numbers. Don't punish your good customers over something a bad customer does.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Losing between $3-4B a year??? by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Driveoffs are a regular occurance. Do gas stations respond by placing guards around each pump? Nope. Who'd go to a gas station with security procedures and guards at every corner? Gas stations don't do this (nor do oil companies require it) because they are a service industry. Make the customer glad to shop there.

      A growing number of petrol stations here are requiring payment first, then they allow the pump to dispense only that much...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  14. by the time the see the quality, pir8s have the $$ by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    I know a guy who was selling Camcordered copies of Matrix Reloaded from the boot of his car at £15 a pop, even after it was released.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  15. Will not help by LightningTH · · Score: 2, Informative

    Deploying metal detectors and night vision goggles will not help. Given a few days, movies are ripped with high quality sound and video without any audience being heard. This means that there are people that run the projectors, or even possibly the owner themselves ripping the movie after the theatre has shut down.

    Think an employee is going to turn themselves in when they can bypass the checks and go directly to the film reel or digital stream themselves?

    1. Re:Will not help by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Metal detectors are a complete non-starter. Are they going to have people put their wallet and wristwatch into a little bin that goes around the detector like at the airport? I might go through that once if it were unexpected, just to save the evening. But I'd never return to the theater again.

  16. Would that be a CLUSTER* by TREETOP · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to say it..... I have standards.

    1. Re:Would that be a CLUSTER* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a cluster of computers

      known more commonly as a beowulf cluster

      hard to imagine....

  17. I just don't get it... by nherc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:
    Studios are very keen to prevent copies of their films hitting the black market, denting box office takings.

    In April, a 33-year-old California man was arrested and charged with illegally videotaping films - if convicted, he faces up to 26 years in federal prison

    Kill, rape or beat someone to within an inch of their lives and you'll probably receive less than half of the sentence this guy faces. I realize he most likely won't get 26 years, but what's wrong with a society where you get more hardcore jail time for swiping a copy of the latest Disney flick than for say running down the Director.
    --
    'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's federal vs state laws.

      Depending on the state, violent crimes will be treated differently. Murder is practically legal in California, but Texas is another story.

      Now, kill, rape or beat someone while wearing a policemans uniform, you've just violated their civil rights, and the feds will execute you. Kill, rape or beat a federal employee - same thing. This is why the DC snipers are facing the death penalty. They cant get it based on MD law (where most of their killings took place), but they took out a fed, so they'll fry.

      Laws are crazy and varied all over. Get caught with a half a joint in some states, you probably wont even be charged. Get caught in Nevada, its 5 years manditory for any amount of marijuana. Even an unsmokable hemp stem.

    2. Re:I just don't get it... by mst76 · · Score: 1

      Kill, rape or beat someone to within an inch of their lives and you'll probably receive less than half of the sentence this guy faces. I realize he most likely won't get 26 years, but what's wrong with a society where you get more hardcore jail time for swiping a copy of the latest Disney flick than for say running down the Director. The economic damage of a single act of violence is small, compared to copying the latest Disney flick. It seems that many laws can be most easily understoon in money terms.

    3. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What really pisses me off is that in canada a LIFE sentance is 25 years. I could kill someone in cold blood, get thrown in prison, and still get out one year before the guy who recorded 'Rugrats meets the Thornberries'. ( Not to mention the fact that in canada, if a man rapes a woman, he gets less time in jail then if he steals another mans sheep. Go figure. )

      Anyway, IANAL but this kind of backwards ass systems makes me angry

    4. Re:I just don't get it... by msblack · · Score: 1
      Kill, rape or beat someone to within an inch of their lives and you'll probably receive less than half of the sentence this guy faces.



      Or if you are the police department, the Supreme Court will give their blessing that you are not violating an individual's rights.

      --
      signature pending slashdot approval
    5. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In my country we have a term for these kinds of "odities"...

      "Only in America..."

      Sad but true...

    6. Re:I just don't get it... by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but just think of the sentence if you steal and then rape the sheep!

    7. Re:I just don't get it... by fobbman · · Score: 1

      In America, it usually matters more the disparity between the net worth of the "victim" and the "criminal" than the crime itself.

    8. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing you're not a lawyer, because I sure as hell wouldn't want you representing me in court. In Canada, someone who commits murder (I'll assume you're talking first degree here) does not become eligible for parole for 25 years. This does not mean in 25 years you walk out of jail. A "life sentence" is a LIFE sentence, you just become eligible for parole after 25 years, which you may, or may not receive.

      Second, your rape/sheep claim is wrong. For rape, you are also given a LIFE SENTENCE (adherent to the same things as above). For stealing a sheep, your sentence would vary depending on surrounding factors (did you invade someone's home, did you commit aggravated robbery, etc.)

      Quit generalizing and learn some facts instead of repeating things you hear on the playground.

    9. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see someone killed within an inch of their life.

      : D

    10. Re:I just don't get it... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Also consider that two people who were sentenced two years apart, Michael Milken (1990), and Mike Tyson (1992), both were sentenced to 10 years and served 3.

      Michael Milken for securities fraud (understating the risk of junk bonds, basically), Mike Tyson for rape.

      Our justice system has seriously out of whack penalties.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    11. Re:I just don't get it... by Njerd · · Score: 1

      That's because running down the Director would be considered a boon to the human race. Consider: Pluto Nash, Starship Troopers, Battlefield Earth, etc...

    12. Re:I just don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said Canada not Scotland!

  18. wtf by adamruck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is it just me or are these people taking it a little to far, metal detectors and night-vision goggles? They have more security at the movie theatre then at school, what type of statement does that make?

    In April, a 33-year-old California man was arrested and charged with illegally videotaping films - if convicted, he faces up to 26 years in federal prison.

    if I pay to go to the movies and contribute to the million and million of dollars of profit, if I wanna take a peice of crap video recorder and have a grainy, shitty sounding, bad quality copy of the movie, WHO FUCKING CARES?

    Now if I go and sell it to my friends, or share it on kazaa, then great, ORDER ME TO STOP, AND GIVE ME A FINE. 26 years in a federal prison is fucking insane, drunk drivers dont get that much time.

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    1. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if I go and sell it to my friends, or share it on kazaa, then great, ORDER ME TO STOP, AND GIVE ME A FINE. 26 years in a federal prison is fucking insane, drunk drivers dont get that much time.

      Because the laws are crafted by those with money, not by actual moral egregiousness.

    2. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...WHO FUCKING CARES..."

      "...26 years in a federal prison is fucking insane..."

      "Karma: Who the fuck cares"

      You keep using this word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. Re:wtf by takotech · · Score: 1
    4. Re:wtf by unicron · · Score: 1

      Well you have to realize that the 26 years number is the absolute satanic-judge maximum sentence possible that no one would ever get. It's like a furniture dealer actually spending 6 months in prison for removing a tag, it's just not gonna happen.

      As for this "camcorders in theatres" bullshit, it's exactly that, bullshit. I've pulled maybe half a dozen screeners in the last years and none of them were worth watching. In fact, some of them interested me enough to desire to see them in good quality, and I bought a ticket even though I hadn't planned on it. I do, however, believe the day is coming when we'll start seeing perfect quality digital rips of whatever digital media(most likely DVD, obviously) they use to show movies at theatres. Then, coupled with faster broadband speeds(I'm 3mb down currently) I believe that when the MPAA complaigns of finance loss through this type of piracy, they'll actually be speaking some truth.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  19. I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by salon.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Places that work on top-secret military-related projects often times have "vaults" in which workers must complete projects without any real connection to the outside world (anything outside of the room). So, this means no Web, email, IRC, FTP, Instant Messaging, etc.

    Perhaps if Pixar adopted something like this, and built a large room in which workers could work without contact with the outside world, their problems would be eliminated.

    Of course, you would also need a security team set-up to monitor what employees are bringing home with them at night, as well as during their lunch breaks. It's very simple to fit something as small as a CD-R inside a coat pocket or similar clothing item. All you'd need is one mistake, and suddenly the newest Pixar film is released to the wild.

    I feel, however, that these early releases don't really hurt the companies as much as they think they do. If anything, perhaps it generates more excitement about the film. Many people may not ever go see a film, but if they catch an early release of it, their minds may be changed.

    Just some thoughts from a fellow industry insider (not Pixar, though).

    1. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't Pixar staff taking home pre-releases, it's people sitting in the cinema with a camcorder.

    2. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps if Pixar adopted something like this, and built a large room in which workers could work without contact with the outside world, their problems would be eliminated.

      Yeah that would promote creativity and company loyalty.

    3. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 4, Funny

      That reminds me of an incident many years ago... I worked part time at a computer store in Alexandria, VA. One of my co-workers was a U.S. Navy Master Chief who worked at the Navy Research Labs. One of his lab coworkers asked him to buy a copy of a computer game with his employee discount and bring it to him at work. Pretty harmless, right?

      The name of the game (IIRC) was The Haley's Project, or something else spacey - you flew from planet to planet within the solar system and at each stop you would receive a trivia clue to guide you to the next planet. Anyways, the manual was made up to look like a NASA guide and all the pages were printed with fake 'TOP SECRET' stamps all over everything.

      Last I heard, the guy was still smuggling the manual out one page at a time - stuffed in his underwear - since the security checkpoint wouldn't let him take home anything marked TOP SECRET... :-)

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    4. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by override11 · · Score: 1

      No its not, dont ever download a cam, get a screener. Or just get a copy that was played on a digital projector and was hooked into a PC's line in. :)

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    5. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by JJahn · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, I'm sure a lot of experienced CG and animator people would love to work in an environment with no contact to the outside world.

    6. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by Ed+Drone · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the rules for national security classifications, you are not allowed to stamp anything "Top Secret," "Secret," or even "Confidential" if it's not really one of those classes. People do it, for versimilitude in gaming, in movies, etc., but they shouldn't be surprised when the powers that be react as if it were real.

      Ed

    7. Re:I'm American, and I'm a Proud one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pixar has not yet traced any major leak back to within Pixar itself.

      They do it the old fashioned way: by not treating people like crap.

      3rd party partners (merchandising partners, film and DVD duplication houses, etc.) may are frequently the source of leaks within the industry.

      People shooting video from within theaters is an external problem and is dealt with by distributors and exhibitors, sometimes with the involvement of the studios, and other times not.

  20. Security Measures by Ryosen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Night-Vision Goggles? You know, it's bad enough that the movie industry is going bankrupt, but now, thanks to rampant piracy, I won't be able to sneak in a bag of gummi bears! Oh, the humanity!

    --

    Ryosen
    One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
  21. No camcorders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, and I thought I show my children how their daddy uses to make captures from stupid movies. Now I'll have to download that crap like everybody else.

  22. Bathroom effect?? Worst idea ever. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    Here's the "bathroom effect" theory, as Greenberg explains it: "If you have bathrooms that are scattered throughout the building, you use the bathroom nearest to where you're sitting. If there was one bathroom, all kinds of people would come together and talk with one another all the time -- you'd meet different people if you were waiting in line. It would enhance communication, and you'd be talking about things outside of work."

    I don't know about you, but when I'm sliding into first, and my pants are about to burst, the last thing on my mind is discussing with coworkers what I was doing at the Chinese massage parlor last night.

    Get real. Let's not form lines in front of the bathroom and watch the girl from accounting do the funny walk, as we hold ourselves to keep from peeing.

    Whatever happened to watercoolers?

    1. Re:Bathroom effect?? Worst idea ever. by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's more annoying than the guy standing at the urinal next to you striking up a conversation? The first thing that invariably pops into your head is "is this guy hitting on me? What the hell is he talking to me for when I've got my dick in my hands?"

      I mean I'm there to take a piss, not for an ice cream social.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Bathroom effect?? Worst idea ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suggest you start tickling that girl from accouting.

      MAybe if she pees her pants, everyone else will start lauching so hard, and a chain reaction of urine will form.

    3. Re:Bathroom effect?? Worst idea ever. by switcha · · Score: 1
      Whatever happened to watercoolers?

      It's California, man. Every drinks their own bottled water!

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  23. 8 hours is an estimate, folks! by Guano_Jim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Pixar started in 1985, Greenberg says, it took 8 hours to render one frame (or 1/24th of a second) of computer animation. Now, it still takes 8 hours, because the artwork in each frame is far more complex.

    Keep in mind that they don't render everything all at once! Any given frame is bound to be a composite of many different layers.

    They'll break up a single element (say, one fish) into multiple passes for diffuse, specular, shadow, and who knows what else.

    Then there's backgrounds, z-depth images, shadow maps, and about a bazillion other things that need to get rendered, too.

    Then they have to render the composite image, which also takes an obscene amount of time if the composite is complex.

    Not to mention all the test renders and placeholder renders before the final.

    So this "eight hour" figure has got to be just a ballpark estimate for the public at large. It would be pretty difficult to figure out exactly how many hours of rendering time actually went into one completed frame.

    1. Re:8 hours is an estimate, folks! by Taos · · Score: 1

      Talk to some pixar guys actually. (I work in the industry as well, just not for pixar). They keep most of the shot in camera. Rarely ever do they split up the frame. At most, you're looking at a foreground/background split, but they usually just throw the whole frame at the renderfarm. In special effects, there's a reason to render out in multiple passes, it gives the compositor more flexability to make the effects fit in right. But in a CG animation, you only have to get the CG to fit in with other cg.

      I do however, think that 300 machine renderfarm was a bit off. Wasn't there a story not long ago about pixar buying a new renderfarm of ibm blade servers?

  24. gah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    boring.. next!

  25. in case of /. fx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Night goggles to beat film piracy
    A security firm is using metal detectors and night-screen goggles to search cinema-goers seeing Disney's latest animated movie release, Finding Nemo.

    Disney wants to stop people from illegally taping its underwater adventure, made by Pixar Films, famed for Toy Story and Monsters, Inc.

    Blockbuster hit The Matrix Reloaded has already been pirated, with copies available to download online less than two weeks after the film went on release around the world.

    A high-quality copy of the film was being downloaded by hundreds of people each day via a website until it was taken down on Tuesday.

    "Most people think the extra security is just for terrorism reasons," said security guard Robert Kendrick at a recent screening for the film in Oregon, US.

    The use of metal detectors and night goggles is still a fairly new practice, having been most recently used in early screenings of X-Men 2 in May and more recently at Down With Love, starring Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor.

    Security guards use the metal detectors to try to find digital cameras, and then monitor the audience with the night-goggles for 25-minute shifts, to see if there are any strong lights coming from a video recorder.

    "These goggles magnify the light and make the image glow," Kendrick said.

    Studios are very keen to prevent copies of their films hitting the black market, denting box office takings.

    In April, a 33-year-old California man was arrested and charged with illegally videotaping films - if convicted, he faces up to 26 years in federal prison.

    Warning on tickets

    "It's estimated we lose between $3bn (?1.8bn) and $4bn (?2.4bn) a year to this problem despite strong anti-piracy actions by the movie industry," said Rich Taylor, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

    The MPAA represents Hollywood's major studios including Disney and Fox.

    Preview tickets for Finding Nemo have a warning about illegal recording printed on them.

    Cinema-goers are told that if video equipment is found on them they will be denied admission, and if it is used it will be confiscated.

    To make Finding Nemo, Pixar's animators worked with new technology to create a believable underwater kingdom.

    It focuses on a fish called Marlin who is looking for his lost son, Nemo, off the coast of Australia.

    Pixar and Disney topped the weekend cock sucking charts in North America for the debut of each of their four co-productions, including Toy Story and Monsters, Inc.

  26. CellPhones by Tighe_L · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Are they going to start taking Video Cell phones too? I know I am tired of people making phone calls in the theatre!

  27. Too Little.. Too Late. by tezzery · · Score: 5, Informative

    Taken from vcdquality.com Finding Nemo - TELESYNC - FTF FTF Presents: Finding Nemo RlS.DaTE....: 29th May 2003 FoRMat......: Telesync VCD

  28. If you want to keep it secret.... by CPIMatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    why show the movie to 3000 people? Limit the number of pre-release screenings and just release the movie when you schedule it to be released. Bruce Springsteen did not have a problem of his new album getting pirated. Why? He didn't sent it to anyone.

    -Matt

    1. Re:If you want to keep it secret.... by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 0
      Nobody pirated the new Vanilla Ice album either.

    2. Re:If you want to keep it secret.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Springsteen's album didn't get pirated because he had Sylvio Dante playing in his band. No one's gonna fuck around with that guy!

    3. Re:If you want to keep it secret.... by westyvw · · Score: 1

      no. no one cared. he just sucks.

  29. Movie Already On the Internet by emo+boy · · Score: 0

    Finding Nemo is already available via the internet through a crappy cam recording released by WAREZ group FTF.

  30. Gwa?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of metal detectors and night goggles is still a fairly new practice, having been most recently used in early screenings of X-Men 2 in May and more recently at Down With Love, starring Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor

    Down With Love?

    Would anyone actually go the trouble to pirate something like that?

    1. Re:Gwa?! by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 1

      I "liberated" Down With Love off of KaZaA Gold yesterday, and I thought it was excellent. I'll let you download it if you sign up for KaZaA Gold using me (sethf@sethf.com) as a referrer.

      --
      I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
  31. Only 3 weeks by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative

    some 300 machines, each with eight processors.

    That "8 hours per frame" would be for a single CPU.

    168 days / 8 CPUs = 21 days.

    However, they don't just render the final version of the movie once & then release it. There are countless test renders, animation tweaks, re-renders, texture adjustments, further re-rendering, alternate lighting setups, re-rendering, slightly different camera angles, yet more re-renders, the script for that scene is rewritten from scratch and the whole process repeats until finally the scene is cut for pacing reasons.

    It all takes a god-awful amount of CPU time, and it's all completely necessary :-)

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Only 3 weeks by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      However, a lot of test renders are done at lower resolutions, or with a lot of shiny but time-consuming stuff like anti-aliasing turned off. This speeds things up for non-final rendering runs.

  32. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if everybody pirates movies, places like PIXAR will not be able to lavish money on half a football field, nor afford employees timewasting 'creative' breaks. So until I work in an enviroment like PIXAR, I'll be doing all the pirating I can... Bastards!

    1. Re:Nice by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... but they could have prevented having the other half of their football field reposessed.

    2. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Equitable Treatment Gulag already awaits you in the Worker's Paradise, Comrade. All you need to do is join the Revolution.

  33. Metal Detectors, Night Vision... by ianjk · · Score: 1

    talking about deploying metal detectors and night-vision goggles to stop people from camcording the movie.

    As long as the theater tests the film before showing it to the masses, there are going to be cams of it. Having an aquantance who is a projectionist has allowed me to get personal screenings of most recent major films, usually at least two days before the release. I could have easily brought in a cam, probably even tapped into the soundboard. (I can even throw some beer in my jacket as long as I trash them outside the theater when I am done).

  34. Hard to stop an HD digital Recorder at a matinee by g8orade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know this is about filming at pre-screenings, but in week one after that, given one of these High Definition Digital recorders mounted on a mini tripod under a sweater, and a matinee that no one else goes to, getting a decent copy could be pretty unstoppable. None of the high schoolers staffing my local theaters for the summer would be up to it.

  35. Progress... by mledford · · Score: 2, Funny
    When Pixar started in 1985, Greenberg says, it took 8 hours to render one frame (or 1/24th of a second) of computer animation. Now, it still takes 8 hours....

    Now there's progress!

    Just more proof that sound bytes can say whatever you want them too.

    "From the company that brought you Win98 and WinXP comes Windows Unbreakable!

  36. think inside the box damnit! by machinecraig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've never liked these behind the scenes looks at crazy hip work environments. I mean - the cool office with lots of toys didn't do any good for Ion Storm did it?

    I wonder if Pixar will want talk about their offices if their latest movie tanks and stockholders are wonder what the hell their money is being spent on.

    Also, in the article Pixar comes off sounding like Saturn or Lotus or something. Those places always kind of give me the creeps. I would half expect to show up for work and see everyone wearing blue reeboks, or drinking magic cool-aid or something.

    1. Re:think inside the box damnit! by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

      Ion Storm's problems had nothing to do with an office with toys but egos. Not to mention Romero renting office space with HUGE windows that look really cool, but also acted as a nice greenhouse. Creating a very hot environment and a glare off monitors that had to be compensated with blankets over cubicles.

      Pixar did more than just rent cool office space and toys, but also made sure it didn't hamper the experience.

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    2. Re:think inside the box damnit! by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      The problem with Ion Storm wasn't the "cool working environment". It was the incomptitent management, specifically Tod Porter and John Romero. Tod was a complete jerk who abused every employee in the company, no matter what team they were with, and John Romero would never stand up to him to leave the DaiKatana team alone.

      You don't have an entire developement team quit on the same day unless management is horribly broken. That doesn't happen with a healthy company. Ever.

      The toys and cool offices weren't there for the employee's benefits, either. They were there for the amusement and fantasy fulfilment of the management. They were rock stars and wanted everyone to know it.

      Only Ion Storm Austin seemed to have retained a bit of sanity.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  37. Gimme a break by Paddyish · · Score: 1
    "Most people think the extra security is just for terrorism reasons,"

    What? Tighter security not being used for our safety, but everyone's just allowed to think that it is? *gasp* Sounds sort of like the TIA initiative.

    And the movie industry loses 3 billion $ to piracy? Right. Next thing you know they'll shut down all the second-run theaters in the country.

    Look at the economy, mr. *AA, and I think you'll see that no one has been having a great go at the money lately, y'know with it being in the crapper and all.

  38. Losing Nemo by yerricde · · Score: 4, Informative

    what is this boycott?

    Losing Nemo describes three boycotts against The Walt Disney Company: one by the church for gay-friendly policies, one by labor groups for producing merchandise in sweat^H^H^H^H^H substandard labor conditions, and one by concerned geeks for extending both the scope and duration of copyright.

    Losing Nemo. Losing the greed.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Losing Nemo by palo0019 · · Score: 1

      Can I see Finding Nemo if I promise to skip Disney's next inhouse 2D animation? Pleeeease?

    2. Re:Losing Nemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This site is a joke! I can't believe that they are advocating Shrek as an alternative to Disney movies. Hello...Lord Farquaad...Does he not see that you should not subject your kids to that type of adult humor. I thought the movie was excellent, but there is no way in hell I would let my kids see it. Also, what is so ridiculous about wanting to copyright something that you have done, it keeps dolts like this from exploiting material that they are not intelligent enough to create themselves. And one last thing, as long as I am on a soapbox at the almighty slashdot I'll get even further off topic. If the US didn't have such a high minimum wage then comanies would not be as quick to move manufacturing overseas, therefore more jobs would be available to Americans. But Americans as a whole have gotten to the point where they feel like they are automatically owed something at birth and that certain jobs are beneath them. Apathy and liberal democrats are going to kill this great country and I am ashamed of it.

      Stupid people like this wear me out.

    3. Re:Losing Nemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when companies should be boycotted for having pro-gay-policies?

  39. Movie Technology by syle · · Score: 3, Funny
    The use of metal detectors and night goggles is still a fairly new practice, having been most recently used in early screenings of X-Men 2 in May and more recently at Down With Love, starring Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor.

    Sources went on to say that unlike in X-Men 2, the night vision goggles in Down With Love were used to identify and apprehend those elusive moviegoes who attempted to escape early.

    --

    /syle

    1. Re:Movie Technology by Maserati · · Score: 1

      "You're free to leave at any time. But would you mind telling us why ?"

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  40. Yet, somehow it's ok... by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    ... for those night-vision wearing voyeuristic pigs to watch me playing tonsil hockey with my girlfriend during a movie? Last I heard they charged people for that kind of thing...

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  41. Pixar Job Posting by flagweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pixar has one position that should be of interest to the /. crowd: (asks for a unix geek who can program PERL etc.)
    MacOS X Systems Administrator

    Here is their comlpete listing of current jobs:

    Mac/PC Systems Administrator, Systems
    MacOS X Systems Administrator, Systems
    Security and Safety Officer, Facilities
    Software Engineer, RenderMan Products (Seattle)
    Quality Assurance Engineer/API Tester, Studio Tools
    Project Coordinator, Studio Tools
    Film-On-Line Tools Engineer, Studio Tools
    QA/Automated Test Engineer, Studio Tools

    Good Luck!

    --
    Ernie Dambach
    "It is no small thing to celebrate a simple life -Tolkien
    1. Re:Pixar Job Posting by bobrk · · Score: 1

      Even more amusing are the bonus requirements for the Mac/PC Systems Administrator position:

      Experience navigating and controlling real-time 3D environments such as Quake and Unreal.

    2. Re:Pixar Job Posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful, though. If you work for Pixar, your ideas may end up as software patents used to fire lawsuits at ex-employees who have the audacity to work in the same industry. Just ask the folks at Exluna.

  42. 90's "team training" by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

    This is just another one of those "team training" ideas that was popular in the 90's.

    I can't count how many of these dumbass ideas I've had to live through and how many team building sessons, getaways, and classes I've endured. It's a total waste of money and employees time.

    It doesn't work, it didn't do a damn thing to change anything. Good companies with good people were always successful even with no special team crap. Bad companies with pathetic management and/or moronic employees always failed, no matter what "team building" exercises they put us through.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
  43. Let's talk about Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy (I actually worked at pixar and apple for a time being) is the biggest asshole on the planet. Not only has he had 3 broken noses from employees kicking this shit out of him, but he still thinks he is a "creative" guy at pixar. I feel sorry for the mac zealots that idolize him. the guy couldn't program a for-loop out of a paper bag.

  44. USA Justice by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    In April, a 33-year-old California man was arrested and charged with illegally videotaping films - if convicted, he faces up to 26 years in federal prison.

    I guess the concept of punishments fitting the crime has gone out of style in the USA?

    1. Re:USA Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have killed someone, oh well, better luck next time.

  45. Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by Cthefuture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pixar is the Microsoft of the computer graphics world. They have created some good stuff, yes, but they have not given much of anything back and often hurt the field.

    They do things like produce a suposedly open standard like Renderman, then sue anyone who uses it into oblivion. Most small projects get by without them batting an eye, but if competition rises up they are quick to lay the smack down.

    They have all these secrets, and keep everything to themselves. Just read some of their licensing agreements (read the agreement for the "open" Renderman spec.. haha). And they provide no public inovation in the field. Rather than help the community at large, they stifle it.

    Have you ever seen Pixar release anything like Massive (Weta)? I didn't think so.

    Again, they usually produce good stuff, but they also are incredibly self-serving. I just have a bad feeling about the company. They're scary in a Microsoft and Disney (duh) way.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by sahala · · Score: 4, Interesting
      they usually produce good stuff, but they also are incredibly self-serving. I just have a bad feeling about the company.

      How are they so horrible because they're self serving? You claim that Pixar's a suck-ass company, but I don't see any valid reason behind this, other than the fact that they don't give away all their (Rendarman) technology. If Pixar is so bad because they keep industry secrets to themselves, then almost every other company in the world must be "suck-ass" as well.

      I'm sorry that Pixar's not an open source software company -- I kinda thought that they made movies or something.

    2. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by twootwoot · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess you can backup your claim by giving us sources like this?

    3. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Er, yes most companies are self-serving. However, when a company uses their money to start legal battles that the little guys can't afford for the sole purpose of ruining said little guys, then that's wrong (*cough* Microsoft *cough*). Even if the inovative company has a good case, they can't afford to fight the fight (monopoly type situation).

      It's not purely because they're self-serving. It's that they go out of their way to hold back inovation if it serves their purposes. Rather than create better products, they stay on top with money.

      It just gets on my nerves. Much of the computer graphics industry is being held back by stupid stuff. Nobody is helping each other and everyone is reinventing and keeping everything to themselves. We could have so much better technology (software and otherwise) if there was more cooperation. Companies like Weta seem to realize this.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    4. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by sahala · · Score: 1
      Ok...I'm gonna assume you work in the graphics industry, or that you're in the know anyway. I'm definitely not in that world (although I can relate). I did some quick googling and yeah, Pixar (as well as other companies, I might add) does seem to be a bit of a bully.

      Rather than create better products, they stay on top with money.
      ...
      We could have so much better technology (software and otherwise) if there was more cooperation.

      I definitely couldn't agree more. Over-competitive business practices have a history of interfering with the simple act of getting good stuff to the consumer. It seems to me that Pixar is all about advancing the state of the art for delivering good movies, but they want to be the sole contender, or at least the big guy on top. It sucks, but I don't expect any different.

      The ironic thing is that the primary reason I've enjoyed Pixar's creations is their stories. In general they've had a good run of fun, original (at least for the genre) and witty stories. I would expect that Pixar would realize this and capitalize on this as their greatest strength, not their fancy technology.

      That aside, IF there were more cooperation on the technology front, building 3D animations would be more accessible to the creative public. This in turn would allow a greater diversity of storytelling in the 3D animation medium. I'll have to admit that, while Pixar stories are good, they're rather homogenous and targeted at a lucrative market. Movie offerings would be rather interesting if there were more instances of putting a bunch of creative/technical types in a room and seeing what happens.

    5. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by sahala · · Score: 1
      Geez...how is my comment modded +1 Informative. I didn't add shit for information to this thread.

    6. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by donglekey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some of this I feel should be clarified.

      Pixar is the Microsoft of the computer graphics world. They have created some good stuff, yes, but they have not given much of anything back and often hurt the field.

      They have certainly NOT hurt the field of computer graphics. They have contributed quite a bit of research. They did pioneer the Renderman standard. It was one of the things that helped CG get off the ground back when it was starting to be put in movies, yet even SGI workstations only had 64 Megs of RAM. There are alot of Renderman renderers out there. The Exluna/Entropy thing is more complex because the Larry Gritz worked at Pixar. I feel their Lawsuit against the company was baseless, (entopy was a different kind of renderer) and their suit against him personally was pretty evil, but it had a small twist too it so it wasn't completely cut and dry.

      Have you ever seen Pixar release anything like Massive (Weta)? I didn't think so.

      Massive is being sold at $70,000. It is not owned by Weta as part of a deal with the creators. It's not really a good comparison. I think that Weta probably will release some of their smaller tools as open source projects once the dust settles and their pipeline solitifies as they even out and become a permanent and major visual effects studio. For now though, other studios have done more, like Rythm and Hues with Film Gimp.

      Pixar has been a major catalyst in 3D animation, I think it would be unfair to say so just because they aren't releasing open source tools. And I think that also some top executive is a complete bastard for suing Exluna out of buisness, but that doesn't mean that the company is bad in general.

    7. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt, sorry but most of those papers are just public published papers from SIGGRAPH and have nothing whatsoever to do with Pixar other than they're hosting the papers.

      There are a couple written by people at Pixar, but their funding was from government grants and other sources not from Pixar.

      The deep shadow mask paper was the only one I saw that actually came from Pixar (well, Pixar funding university grants?). I'm sure they have some patents waiting to zap any successful products using that (hehe, I'm just bashing, but still it wouldn't surprise me).

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    8. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Not to mention John Lasseter putting his introductions at the beginnings of Miyazaki's works. He couldn't put them in the Extras section; he just had to make his face the first thing you see after pressing play. Ugh.

    9. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Massive at $70,000? I heard that a single user license was only $30,000.

    10. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by LuckyLeprechaun31 · · Score: 1

      Thats the business world, they are no different than anyone else. It's all about the profits.

    11. Re:Pixar: Good movies, suck-ass company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Pixar lawyers clearly saw a legitimate reason for the "baseless" lawsuit. You can find out some more by actually reading the publically filed legal documents if you really care.

      If Pixar crushes competition through frivolous lawsuits, why have they not sued anyone over the renderer technology in Brazil, MentalRay, Maya, SoftimageXSI, 3DSMax, Blender, etc.?

  46. This will really worry them then by grundie · · Score: 1

    In the UK Stelios Haji-Ioannou, he who founded easyjet and a dozen other budet businessew called easySomething has opened a new business called easyCinema. A budget cinema offering with minimal staff, not even a box office. You have to print a barcode ticket from their booking website and scan it at automated turnstiles to get it.

    With the staff numbers cut to the bone, it ain't going to be too hard for people to smuggle in camcorders, which will no doubt worry the studios.

  47. anti-theft by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

    Its funny how people who try to prevent theft always act like its the poor man doing the stealing. They want to give Night vision goggles and metal detectors to the people to find the criminals, when its these same people that ARE the criminals.

    When a movie is camcorded, its NOT by someone in the audience, its my someone that works at the theater, duh!

    Same in the auto industry. A car's security devices must protect that car even from the creators of the security device. Security through obscurity is not security because the facts are not obscure to those who know them...

  48. Good Stories by CowboyRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lasseter gave a talk at my school, Cornell, ten years ago, back when Luxo and 3D animation was fairly new. It was at Cornell where Don Greenberg's team developed the first ray-tracing methods in the 70s. What most impressed me about Lasseter was his 5-step plan to making a computer-animated movie. The first step was developing the story, and the others involved determiing market and budget, and then actually making the thing. This differs from what I understand of how other studios operate, where the box office comes first and the story is just cobbled together at the end, often being written as the film is being shot. I saw Toy Story again recently and was impressed by the quality of the writing and the story. Those aspects are what make the Pixar movies of such high-quality.

    --
    every stain tells a story
  49. Whoa, boy. by paRcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ok, I'll heartily admit that the 5 titles you mentioned were all great movies. In fact, seeing the name "The Dark Crystal" brought back memories of wonderful times sitting in front of the screen, getting engrossed in the story. Of course, nowadays, if I find out about someone who hasn't seen one of those, I instantly go into this "It's awesome!" explanation with plenty of "the effects rock", etc.

    Here's the thing though... those movies were released when I was the target demographic. When I watch one of those movies now (aside from maybe SW), I'm amazed at how many blanks my brain filled in. The Dark Crystal was one of my favorite movies, and now I can only wonder why I wasn't distracted by the muppettesque job done on all of the characters. Granted, my brain was forced to work, and who knows... that may be why I have an imagination today. :)

    But now back to the topic at hand... to say that puppets are superior visual effects to cg seems a little short-sighted to me. Given that both are separate art forms, it seems like the applesoranges argument.

    I personally believe the best mix is when full-size sets, miniature sets, and cg are combined. I loved seeing that Shrek's house was actually a miniature sculpture with Bonsai trees and moss. I loved that some LoTR frames used hundreds of layers to create the environments. And most of all, I love that technology is now being used to bring fantasy stories to life for adults rather than being relegated to 'stories for children'.

    If someone on /. decides that the images aren't believable, it doesn't really matter to me. And while many films don't spend a lot on cg and get it horribly wrong (cough*2*fast*cough*2*furious*cough), many others bring the state of the technology farther. And that just means good things in the future.

  50. Stealing????? by Islington_66_81 · · Score: 1

    Its only stealing if you get caught!

  51. All the security, wasted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick search online for those in the 'know' turns up at least 20 download options for 'Finding Nemo'. Oh wait! Its not out yet.

    Yea, exactly... All the security in the world to protect things that are stolen before they ever leave the building.

    Posted Anon, I don't need Steve Jobs running down my ass.

  52. Except for Dangerous Offenders by StandardCell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you're declared a dangerous offender, your sentence is "indefinite" which means that it's effectively life without parole. Paul Bernardo, who tortured and killed two young teenage girls in Ontario, received a dangerous offender sentence. He likely will never get out.

    Then again, I don't trust the monkeys who run Canada either. If he's ever declared not dangerous, he can be released outright too.

  53. bahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a plastic camera hidden in my cock. let's see if they find that!

  54. which is why by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

    we need DeCss!

    mod hints:
    -1 troll
    -or-
    -1 offtopic

  55. OMG! I'm blind! I'm blind! by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 1

    must rinse out eyes...aaaaarrrrrgggghhh!!!

  56. Re:Hard to stop an HD digital Recorder at a matine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd need a decent camera, the JVC HD is definately not one. The colors are very poor, there is noticable bleeding and some major white balance problems. You'd be better off using a XL1 with 3 seperate CCDs. Sony I believe also has a camera out that records at 24fps, eliminating those pesky flicker frames from traditional cameras when recording in a theater.

    But hey, in a week we'll see a professionally telecined bootleg that was captured directly from the reels of film from our nice friends in Hong Kong.

  57. Take Action Against the FCC (OT) by syrupMatt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This Monday, FCC Chair Michael Powell will hold his vote on media
    consolidation. There's nothing special about that date -- it's totally
    arbitrary. The vote will conclude a process which has shown deliberate
    disregard for the views and opinions of the American
    people. Powell has refused to even release the actual language of
    the rule change -- it won't be known until after the vote. And he's
    only held a single meeting to hear the views of the public. Even when a
    bipartisan group of Senators requested that he give Congress some time
    to discuss the impact of this change, Powell brushed them off.

    Chairman Powell still has the power to delay the rule change and allow
    time to have a democratic debate about its consequences. Please call
    him today and ask him to allow a real public debate on an issue of such
    massive importance.

    You can reach Powell's office at:
    (202) 418-1000

    Once you've made your call, please let us know at:
    http://moveon.org/fcccall.html

    --
    "Moving through the masses like a fish through water." syrup
  58. Complicated math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It would be pretty difficult to figure out exactly how many hours of rendering time actually went into one completed frame

    TotalRenderingTime / NumberOfFrames

  59. Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long are we going to allow Hollywood executives to continue to erode our liberty.
    Movie theater employees have been directed to confiscate real property?!!
    Copyright and copyright infringement have become both surreal and absurd. We need to call for copyright reform and change the law on the books. We need a reasonable process for returning works back to the public domain and expanding the concept of fair use.

  60. IR lights to stop camcorders? by bmfs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since most CCDs are sensitive to IR as well as visible light, why not just have a a couple of powerful IR lamps positioned around the cinema screen to overexpose the CCD, thus washing out the recorded image...?

    1. Re:IR lights to stop camcorders? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Probably because you don't want to bake your audience. Cinema screens are huge... can you imaging how much IR would have to be produced to wash out even 50% of the screen?

    2. Re:IR lights to stop camcorders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the lights were pointed at the audience and thus into the objective lenses of any camcorders there, you wouldn't need anything so powerful.

    3. Re:IR lights to stop camcorders? by bmfs · · Score: 1

      Hmm, since cinemascreens are a fine mesh with speakers positioned behind, you could put a large IR lamp behind the screen pointing out into the audience - then any camcorder would see a nasty washed out spot in the middle of the screen.

  61. Re:Is movie piracy killing the film industry? by Bastian · · Score: 1

    Yes. Thanks to movie piracy, the film industry is only making billions of dollars instead of billions and billions of dollars.

    (All due respect to Matt Groening.)

  62. i dunno about the bathroom deal by calethix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If you have bathrooms that are scattered throughout the building, you use the bathroom nearest to where you're sitting. If there was one bathroom, all kinds of people would come together and talk with one another all the time -- you'd meet different people if you were waiting in line. It would enhance communication, and you'd be talking about things outside of work."

    Maybe it's the introvert side of me but I'd rather not have someone talking to me while I'm trying to take a whiz and talking 'while we wait in line' doesn't sound much better. I generally don't want to wait to go to the restroom. It's a nice idea but I think it should be left to other things like maybe a single spot for vending machines or something.

    1. Re:i dunno about the bathroom deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea thoughts like...

      "the guy that just shook my hand just wiped his ass and shook his pecker."

  63. [off-topic] cam-ming a movie by Meniconi,Nando · · Score: 1

    The release on the net of recent movies has more to do with executives, critics and other showbiz figures having to feed their nose-needs, more than with teenagers armed with a Hi8. "For your consideration".

  64. Movie security by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    here's a BBC story talking about deploying metal detectors and night-vision goggles to stop people from camcording the movie.

    Now if they can just figure a way to stop little punk-ass kids with laser pointers, I'd be happy...

    1. Re:Movie security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laser guided missiles can fly up a beam as well as down... I vote we use this to stop the little bastards! Just remember to reduce the yeild! Don't want to kill your ture audiance ;-)

  65. What's at the link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, you've piqued my curiosity, but I'm at work -- what is it?

    1. Re:What's at the link? by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      It's a movie starring the winner of the Americal Idol contest on Fox last year, co-starring the runner up. What's the plot? I don't know, I was just assuming there wasn't one.

  66. Different than any other production staff? by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2, Informative
    The salary stuff doesn't really surprise me -- this could happen at just about every large company in the world. That's why you don't discuss salaries with your office mates; demand to be paid what you deserve, and negotiate something acceptable to you and management. It is still a business, and if management thinks you're happy making what you're making, why should they offer anything more than the normal wage increases? If your salary expectation on hire was 20k lower than what they were willing to pay, and 20k lower than your office mate's, why should they pay you more?

    As for the caste system at Pixar, the disparate culture doesn't surprise me, either. From your less-than-thrilled-with-Pixar-attitude, I'm assuming that you weren't in production. I work at a software company, production apps, not consulting, and the culture, albeit not as extreme as you describe, is similar. I wear jeans to work and can work my own hours so long as my projects are done on time. Certainly there's more of a creative atmosphere fostered on this side of the pond. The accounting and HR people have to wear business casual (at least), and work strict 8 to 6 hours. Legal and sales are even more formal. It's just the nature of the beast. Although, I think it was 'Fire in the Valley' that describes Job's carefully orchestrated tension between the Mac and Apple groups. It wouldn't surprise me if he did the same thing at Pixar.

    1. Re:Different than any other production staff? by rhythmblind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not talking about whether or not I can wear shorts to the office, or come and go when I please, I'm taking about the fundamental way people are treated by their coworkers.

      Pixar has systematically tried to present itself as a "fun" place to work, not like other companies. My point is that it is not a playground. It is at least as bad as other companies, in my experience much worse. I've worked many places, including other studios, and Pixar has been far and away the worse place I've worked.

    2. Re:Different than any other production staff? by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...doesn't sound like much fun at all -- 'hope you're more happy where you are now.

  67. metal detectors and night-vision goggles?! by Rufus211 · · Score: 1

    Hrm, a lot of good that did considering Finding Nemo was available YESTERDAY, a day before the opening. True the ending is cut off, but it's still out there. They don't seem to get that a number of these pre-releases and the really good ones are made by people who work at the movie theater, not people that sneek in. The holy grail for these is a Telesync which uses audio from the RCA jack on the projector instead of a microphone.

  68. catching recorders in movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i really don't think night vision goggles and other gadgets are going to stop piracy much. considering finding nemo is already on the internet a week before release. i'd say there biggest problem is letting the dvd's for the movie be produced in china. you know the country that has absolutely no regard for intellectual property?

  69. Don't you think 95 years is excessive? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that they are advocating Shrek as an alternative to Disney movies.

    What alternatives would you suggest? I know the webmaster of losingnemo.com, and perhaps I could give him some better alternatives.

    Hello...Lord Farquaad...

    I think Shrek portrayed Eisner quite accurately.

    Also, what is so ridiculous about wanting to copyright something that you have done

    I agree that copyright is the lesser of n evils, but don't you think 95 years is excessive? Do you not see the value of the public domain?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Don't you think 95 years is excessive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree about the portrayal of Eisner, it's just that there are quite a number of adult references in the movie that make it unsuitable for children, it is an adult cartoon...Disney movies are for kids. Farquaad =F***Wad, momma bear becoming a rug, etc.

      Also, I am too poor to see the value of having something I have copyrighted becoming public domain...a little too greedy I guess.

  70. Don't they know.. by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

    It's usually someone who works at the theater who camcords the movie and puts it on the net. There's more space in the booth, you can do it easier without people noticing, plus you get the direct sound feed from the projector. You need a tripod to get a decent cam of a movie anyway, someone in a crowded theater is gonna knock it over. This won't change anything, the groups who dump these movies onto the net are smart, they'll figure something else out.

  71. Not everybody is a liberal by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Since when companies should be boycotted for having pro-gay-policies?

    Not all of Disney's potential customers are liberals like the typical Slashdot reader. Some are religious conservatives. Others are concerned with labor rights. The web site gives reasons for people of many political alignments not to buy Disney products.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Not everybody is a liberal by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      If Disney is pissing off the conservative Christian right, that's a great reason for me to patronize them more!

  72. Wait for the DVD by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Can I see Finding Nemo

    If you want to see Finding Nemo, I'd say wait for the DVD release, rent it at Blockbuster Video, and give the same amount you paid to rent it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    if I promise to skip Disney's next inhouse 2D animation?

    "Inhouse"? Try "outhouse". Walt Disney Pictures has not produced good cel animation since at least the Bono Act.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Wait for the DVD by LuckyLeprechaun31 · · Score: 1

      AND, by then, those 48 hour self-destructing DVDs will be out so you won't even have to return it!! I agree, wait for the DVD.

  73. Bambi? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Disney movies are for kids

    The Walt Disney Company owns Touchstone, Miramax, Caravan, and Dimension studios. Do you claim that Dimension's Scream series is for kids?

    Farquaad =F***Wad

    Is the nude scene in Disney's The Rescuers any better? What about the (accidental) penis-shaped tower on the cover of the first run of Disney's The Little Mermaid VHS and LaserDisc?

    momma bear becoming a rug

    Is Walt Disney's Bambi any better?

    I am too poor to see the value of having something I have copyrighted becoming public domain

    Would you want to have to pay a royalty to the descendants of the caveman who invented the wheel? What if Beowulf were unavailable to the public because we could not locate the author?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Bambi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First: Disney movies are for kids, Miramax movies are for adults...your analogy is irrelevant.

      Second: The text in both of your links explain the behind the scenes there, although you got me on the penis-tower, it's is funny though.

      Third: Yes Bambi is better, for so many reasons that if you can't see you should not have even mentioned it.

      Lastly: Slippery slope much.

  74. Steve Jobs' computer by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Is it true that Steve Jobs has a Dell PC on his desk?

    This has been discussed several times before. Up until just recently, Steve Jobs had a Dell PC on his desks at both Pixar and Apple. These machines were not running Windows, but rather OpenStep, the OS made by NeXT, his former company. He was also known to have Toshiba and IBM laptops running NeXTstep and OpenStep as well. In fact, Jobs' presentations were originally done off his OpenStep laptop running what later became Keynote for Mac OS X.

    He now uses a G4 minitower, apparently Mac OS X is now up to his standards.

    It's no longer online, but OmniGroup (makers of OmniWeb for NeXTstep, OpenStep, and now, Mac OS X) once had a quote from a Pixar sysadmin on their Raves & Reviews page. Something like this: "I need to renew our OmniWeb license for Steve Jobs. He loves your application, but the current license is set to expire about a day before he returns, please send me the updated license so I don't have to fear for my life". =)

  75. Old New York Institute of Technology Lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone know that Pixar came about as a result of the New York Institute of Technology (New York Tech) Lab Graphics Lab? It is increadible how few people know this!

  76. Mod parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had mod points, that would be +1, Insightful.

  77. Cube decorations and zero pay by heroine · · Score: 1

    So they got cube decorations, mariachi bands, and scooters. Do they also have billions of stock options and zero pay?

    In other news, Steve Jobless says a single bathroom forces employees to communicate with each other but in actuality there are two bathrooms. Only people of the same sex communicate with each other.

  78. Re: Prison Sentences by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 1

    26 years in a federal prison is fucking insane, drunk drivers dont get that much time.

    Drunk drivers don't threaten campaign contributors.

  79. I�m so sick of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to bash Pixar, they make a great product. But so many companies see this and think it's the way to get people to do good work, and its bullshit.

    For example the company I work full has tons of games all over the place, pool, foosball, ect. Lots of lounges, casual environment, Come in whenever, leave whenever. But the company is not making money, and the product is a piece of junk. Code is just slapped together, hard coded all the way. It takes forever to make a simple change. The people I work with are the most undisciplined developers I've ever met, and think that 10 - 6 with 1 hour lunch and 1 hour of games (Plus tons of web surfing and instant messaging) is a full day. Any suggestion of refactoring the code (Lets change the call to tempCall to something more meaningful.) or haven forbid having standard indentation, is shouted down. "We have no time!"

    Management wonders why the product crashes, and can't handle any load. But they keep on touting our hip work environment while the VC cash dries up.

    My point. If you have a cool casual environment like this you have to make sure your getting results. If someone just starts goofing off you need to let him or her go.

  80. Also... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Firstly, 8 hours is the peak amount of work (e.g. the "room with all the doors" from Monsters Inc). Most frames don't take quite that long.

    Secondly, each frame is generally rendered more than once during the lighting process.

    Thirdly, most animated films are only 85 or so minutes long. Shrek was even shorter.

    I believe that it takes Pixar about a month to fully re-render a movie from start to finish in one burst. Even quicker for the DVD version.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  81. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>Even Gollum from the recent LOTR movies, which had some of the best acting by a CG character in a while, was difficult to believe because half the time he was on the screen, it we obvious that he was a CG character.

    This is actually wrong. There was an actual actor who played the part of gollum. The CG was placed on top of the actor.

  82. A slippery slope? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Disney movies are for kids, Miramax movies are for adults

    Disney owns at least a controlling interest in Miramax Films. Therefore, all Miramax movies are published by The Walt Disney Company.

    Yes Bambi is better, for so many reasons that if you can't see you should not have even mentioned it.

    Name three. Both movies involve a character being slaughtered. I haven't seen Bambi, but I'm going on news reports that the Bambi sequence has disturbed many, many children.

    Lastly: Slippery slope much.

    And how is a copyright term extension from 56 years to 75 years, with a further extension to 95 years, and with a Supreme Court ruling that Congress has unlimited power to extend it further in the future, not a slippery slope?

    You will die someday. Why do you care what happens to works you have created after you no longer breathe? Why don't you think that it would be a good thing for the public to be able to appreciate those works fully?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  83. But do you also approve of... by yerricde · · Score: 1

    If you buy from The Walt Disney Company, even though you express approval of gay-friendly policies, you express approval of the Bono Act, the DMCA, and sweatshop labor. You cannot separate them. You cannot specify that this many dollars of the ticket price go to Gay Days and this many don't go to lobbying for further copyright term extension.

    Vote with your dollars against greed.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  84. I liked the mix in Dinotopia by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    There were a few plot disappointments (I was looking out for the previous-generation mechanical dinosaurs from the book series, for example), but the integrated CG, acting and puppets worked out all right.

    If I had a critcism of the mechanics of the film it would be that the beasties' centre of gravity was often unrealistic, especially for the two-legged species. There were certain allowances for the mix (e.g. people walking down one side of an alley, dinos down the other, I guess because that was easier than integrating the two) but you had to be watching for them, they didn't intrude into the movie. The Americanisms and sometimes-dodgy acting did more of that. (-:

    The other criticism I had was that the characters didn't abide by their own principles. They had armed guards when one of their rules was (effectively) "no weapons". They were supposed to be calm and thoughtful but stood outside in droves while the flapping nasties arrived and attacked them (indoors? we don't need no steenking indoors). One of the club-tailed beasties first defended him/herself (effectively) against a flapping nasty with his tail, then didn't the second time around when it would have been the obvious move) and so on. They also had a "prayer for hope" but no divinity to pray to. Que? That's as silly as an Atheist blaspheming ("Random fucking Fluctuations!" "Oh, my Coincidence!" - yadda yadda, you get the idea).

    But again, the CG and integration went well.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  85. I wonder how long... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...before the RIAA start requiring watermarked cinema screens and/or cinema footage so that they can process the telesync'ed versions to discover which cinema and/or "reel" were used in its making, and so zero in on the individual pirates?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:I wonder how long... by chrestomanci · · Score: 1
      ...before the RIAA start requiring watermarked cinema screens and/or cinema footage so that they can process the telesync'ed versions to discover which cinema and/or "reel" were used in its making, and so zero in on the individual pirates?

      I dare say such watermarks can be detected and removed by the pirates

      In any case, if the practice became widespread, pirates could rob the reels of film directly from the cinema or delevery truck.

      I doubt it would be very difficult. One local cinema I vist often has the boxes of film sitting in the lobby on wednesday afternoons. I would not take very much for someone to just grab them.

      Having stolen he films, the pirates would not need a cinema projector, as they could simply put the film through a standard 35mm film scanner.

  86. Come to sunny Perth, Western Australia by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    how about great weather all year around?

    Move here. Swap Dubya and telephone chaos for Howard and Telstra. Admittedly not a great improvement, I know, but nevertheless an improvement.

    If you're prepared to hedge on the weather a bit, move to Albany or Denmark, both in the South West of WA, and get scenery, peace and fresh air (straight off the southern ocean) instead. We have smaller, prettier places down there too but don't expect much by way of connectivity.

    If you want something more tropical and don't mind the odd cyclone (I think y'all call them hurricanes), Broome's your pigeon. The beaches have to be seen to be believed.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  87. Re:Is movie piracy killing the film industry? by LuckyLeprechaun31 · · Score: 1

    I agree, the film industry isn't exactly "dying". Maybe those new self destructing DVDs that are coming out will result in less downloading and more renting.

  88. pixar's involvement by youknowit · · Score: 0

    do you know if they have had a hand in making the technology for these new disposable dvds i keep hearing about.