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.
Here endeth the nitpick.
"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
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
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).
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.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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!
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...?
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?
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.