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.

66 of 359 comments (clear)

  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 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...

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

      The "bathroom effect" yields dividends.

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

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

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

  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 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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!
    7. 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?
  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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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

    3. 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. 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!
  7. 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....

  8. 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.

  9. 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 Restil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clusters.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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 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
  16. 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".
  17. 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!!!!
  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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"?
  22. 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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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!

  26. 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.

  27. 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?
  28. 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

  29. 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
  30. 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 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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

  36. 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...?

  37. 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.

  38. 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.