Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux In Hollywood: Status Report

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wet-flipper-print dept.

segment writes "TechNewsWorld is running an article about Linux in Hollywood. The article describes speed advantages, cost advantages, movies in which Linux played a role (including Shrek, Star Wars, and Titanic). Mentions of the embrace for Linux with history on Apple, Microsoft, and other vendors, and how they've adapted to the use.`As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code. The risk is too great. It's not that the studios want to putter around modifying commercial programs, rather it's insurance -- insurance that they can do so if they must to meet a production deadline.` Very informative article." Robin Rowe (the author) is the project manager for Cinepaint (formerly "FilmGimp"), but writes about 3D applications, barriers to software entry in Hollywood, and more.

176 comments

  1. what exactly could they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to change the source code in order to meet a rendering deadline? are they going to suddenly come up with a miracle optimization because they need to meet a deadline?

    1. Re:what exactly could they do? by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      i dont understand either, i'm not sure how changing the source would help meet a deadline like that, but it does mean that if someflaw like a segfault shows up because of the way they did something, they can fix it to meet a deadline rather than redesign the entire scene to do it differently

    2. Re:what exactly could they do? by l810c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they are referring to bugs. If you have a bug that is holding you up, you are much better off if you can fix it yourself rather than relying on a closed source software vendor to fix it for you.

    3. Re:what exactly could they do? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      there could be rather simply fixed bugs, or simply added features that would save much much much time.

      now, in the model of closed software, those features could be added or bugs might be fixed within a year, where in the open source model they could be fixed/added withing mere weeks or days(by employing coders for that purpose), which can mean a lot of $$$ saved.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:what exactly could they do? by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "are they going to suddenly come up with a miracle optimization because they need to meet a deadline?"

      Why not? Movie studios tend to push the limits of the tools they have available. This means that they run into problems that the software wasn't originally designed for. All they'd have to do is massage the code to their particular situation.

      I can give you a hypothetical scenario. Lightwave's a kick ass 3d package. It can be used in a wide variety of things. But if you were using it to animate 1,000 monsters coming down a hill, you'd find yourself wishing you had terabytes of memory. Lightwave doesn't have an instancing feature. Thankfully, though, Lightwave has a neat little SDK. So somebody could write a plugin that says "first render this model in this pose here, then move the model over to where the second guy is supposed to be and render it over there, rinse and repeat...". I think it's called instancing. Instead of having 1,000 monsters in RAM, you just have one.

      See what I mean? Granted, nobody has the source code to Lightwave but the company who made it, but imagine if they did. A few nights of coding would save a few weeks of render time.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:what exactly could they do? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      I think what they mean is that if they come up to any problems which requires a software work-around, they'll lose time waiting for the vendor to address the issue. Chances are, they run into this problem during post which is expected. So, they eat into their padding time. Now - if the job will take only five days to do in house, double that for out of house work. So, with the source code, they gain back their five days which they could put to other uses. Like snorting cocaine off a prostitute's breasts.

    6. Re:what exactly could they do? by foandd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. In fact, DD did exactly this when they ran into a problem while rendering the water for Titanic.

      Remember, just because you're not clever enough to imagine a situation where having the source code is useful doesn't mean such situations don't exist.

    7. Re:what exactly could they do? by code_echelon · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Thankfully, though, Lightwave has a neat little SDK. So somebody could write a plugin that says "first render this model in this pose here, then move the model over to where the second guy is supposed to be and render it over there, rinse and repeat...". I think it's called instancing. Instead of having 1,000 monsters in RAM, you just have one."

      Yes the feature you are talking about is called instancing I believe. Seems to be a really useful took to have availalble to you. Here is a link that I found interesting on the subject.
    8. Re:what exactly could they do? by black+mariah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind that Duff's Device came around as a way to speed up an animation playback program at Lucasarts. Small optimizations make huge differences.

      http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/duffs-device.html

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    9. Re:what exactly could they do? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI: they hadn't figured out nor written the software to do the hair on the main character in Monsters Inc until the project was more than 50% completed and they were ready to start rendering to film.

      Yes, hollywood doesnt use the junk that users use... they actually get their hands dirty and dive into the process...

      Dont even think that a low end app like lightwave or maya could even touch what they do at pixar.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:what exactly could they do? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is exactly what we do. There have been several kernel patches contributed by special effects compainies. Also read about the patches to Gimp, or about the EXR file format.

    11. Re:what exactly could they do? by wbattestilli · · Score: 1

      Pixar and all of the major Hollywood studios use Maya extensively in their pipeline.

      That being said, they all develop extensive plugins when the standard abilities that Maya provides do not meet their needs.

    12. Re:what exactly could they do? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of problems with your example.

      First of all, the SDK only supplies hooks into the black box of the proprietary code. This is still not as good as having access to all of the code; if the SDK sucks, then you're still screwed.

      And now to digress: instancing can only go so far. In an example of 1,000 monsters running down a hill, you only have one source model, but that model still has to be loaded into memory once for every instance. Every polygon still has to be rendered; heaven forbid the shot calls for raytracing! The only benefit of instancing in this case is that you can tweak the model once and have it propogate the changes 1,000 times.

      It wouldn't do a damn thing for saving memory unless you also re-write the rendering software to load the object for each particular instance, render, unload, reload to next position, etc.

      This is why animators render in layers. Greater control, less headaches, and no custom software necessary. Just intelligent thinking.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    13. Re:what exactly could they do? by donglekey · · Score: 1

      Maya is probably quite a bit more elegant for most things than Pixar's software I would imagine. I think that statement is quite uniformed. Pixar has used maya for modeling for quite a while. ILM, Imageworks, Tippet, The Mill, Framestore, Digital Domain, and Weta use maya extensivly. Although none of these companies are actually in Hollywood.

      --

      This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
    14. Re:what exactly could they do? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      I think these responses all miss the obvious reason, protecting themselves from the software company. Studios make enormous investments in sytems and product. They need alternative avenues for support and development should the original supplier no longer be there for them for any reason: bankruptcy, cost, end-of-product life, whatever. Source code in hand means they can always keep going.

    15. Re:what exactly could they do? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "First of all, the SDK only supplies hooks into the black box of the proprietary code. This is still not as good as having access to all of the code; if the SDK sucks, then you're still screwed."

      Your point is very true, guess I didn't clarify enough when I said the bit about nobody haveing the source code to Lightwave.

      "And now to digress: instancing can only go so far. In an example of 1,000 monsters running down a hill, you only have one source model, but that model still has to be loaded into memory once for every instance. Every polygon still has to be rendered; heaven forbid the shot calls for raytracing! The only benefit of instancing in this case is that you can tweak the model once and have it propogate the changes 1,000 times."

      This is also true. You cannot get around the render time. However, I guess I didn't clarify this enough either. Lightwave (just like any other app out there) loads all its objects into memory, and then does the render. So if you have 1,000 objects, you have 1,000 objects loaded at a time. That's where the 'wishing you had terabytes of ram' bit comes in. Lightwave would be swapping like mad. With instancing, you don't need to load 1,000 instances into RAM, instead it works on the first one, then does the transform and renders it again. It's very similar to just loading the mesh , rendering it once, and then compositing it.

      I could see the problem yoiu mention here when it comes to reflections, though. You wouldn't need to keep reloading the mesh into RAM, but you would need for it to perform the appropriate transforms on each cast of the ray. Hmm.. I'd have to think about that. But, then again, it's only a problem if it's a problem.

      "It wouldn't do a damn thing for saving memory unless you also re-write the rendering software to load the object for each particular instance, render, unload, reload to next position, etc."

      Again, you wouldn't need to make the renderer do that. The worst case scenario is you script LW to render the object to a buffer, transform and light it, then render it again on top of the buffer of the previous image. Build it up. Actually, that's more or less what LW's renderer does on a per-polygon basis. Incidently, there's a plugin for LW right now that does the instancing trick. Somebody in this thread brought it up already.

      "This is why animators render in layers. Greater control, less headaches, and no custom software necessary. Just intelligent thinking. "

      Yep. I myself use this technique. Curious about it? Here's an example a friend of mine cooked up. In this case, he merged elements from two different apps together.

      Sorry to babble, don't feel all that well.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    16. Re:what exactly could they do? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1
      Again, you wouldn't need to make the renderer do that. The worst case scenario is you script LW to render the object to a buffer, transform and light it, then render it again on top of the buffer of the previous image. Build it up. Actually, that's more or less what LW's renderer does on a per-polygon basis. Incidently, there's a plugin for LW right now that does the instancing trick. Somebody in this thread brought it up already.


      I'll have to look into that plugin. Would be nice to have. :) Too bad decent crowd-control software costs an arm and a leg, though.
      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    17. Re:what exactly could they do? by hughk · · Score: 1
      I have seen the same code implemented in PDP-11 assembler (near enough C, but without the structure blocks) by a certain Dave Cutler in the source of the RSX-11M executive for block moves, about eight years before Duff.

      The thing is that AT&T's compiler supported the extensions provided by the VAX instruction set, the block move would have been done with just a

      _MOVC3 cnt,src,dst
      which existed on Digital's compiler, but not AT&Ts. This emitted a single character move instruction on all VAX systems.
      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    18. Re:what exactly could they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maya is used for very basic stuff like vis of models and other low quality rendering.

      it certianly is NOT used for final render.

    19. Re:what exactly could they do? by donglekey · · Score: 1

      This is true, I thinking more in the way of animation and modeling. Pixar uses their own renderer, Photorealistic Renderman. http://www.pixar.com/renderman/

      --

      This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
  2. Hipocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wasn't it the MPAA that said (and I paraphrase) "All Linux users are pirates".

    What hipocrits.

    1. Re:Hipocrits by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about that quote, but they did support the SSSCA bill which would have outlawed all computers and software that didn't have DRM and copy protection built in. That bill would have outlawed Linux and all other open source software (computers do nothing but move bits around, if you have the source, you can bypass the DRM). So in that sense, it is hypocritical for them to be so eager to use the very software that they tried to kill.

    2. Re:Hipocrits by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      So in that sense, it is hypocritical for them to be so eager to use the very software that they tried to kill.

      You may have noticed that there is a big difference between "us" and "them". It's okay for "them" to save a big bundle on production and distribution, and have their business model officially supported by the government, but we won't be seeing any competitive pricing in the near future. I'm no fan of the current trend of widespread copyright infringement, but the consumers need more choices than pay full retail price, or illegally copy it.

      Anyway, aside from that, I say, "go Linux!" =D

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    3. Re:Hipocrits by malducin · · Score: 4, Informative

      You neglect the fact that "Hollywood" is a big heterogenous machinery. Movie studios (Disney, Universal, Fox, etc.) are the members of the MPAA. VFX studios (ILM, Imageworks, Digital Domain, Weta, Tippett, Rhythm and Hues, Cinesite, Framestore/CFC, etc.) work for Hollywood by providing a service. They are not more than contractors, not much unlike the catering company, or even say you plumber. VFX studios are not members of the MPAA and have no say on projects or policies.

    4. Re:Hipocrits by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So what hapens if the contractor relize they have they don't need the movie studios to make movies?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Hipocrits by malducin · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the studios, which function like an oligarchy, control basicly all forms of theatrical distribution. Sure they can make movies but how would they get them to theatres?

      That's why Pixar has a deal with Disney, PDI is part of Dreamworks, Blue Sky is owned by Fox and of course Imageworks is part os a movie studio. If Pixar cut off with Disney (there's a real possibility) they would still need to make a distribution deal with Disney. Look also what happened to ILM. They were going to do a CG animated Frankenstein which Universalpuilled the plug. They were then slated to do Where the Wild Things Are but that was then pulled out and made 2D.

      You need to break the grip on the movie studios first and that ain't gonna happen (at least not short term).

      By the way, Millimeter had an article how movie studios (Universal) assigns VFX work:

      Casting Visual Effects: How Universal Chooses FX Teams

    6. Re:Hipocrits by donglekey · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and for the remaining studios relationships are key. Also Esc + Warner Bros. in that list.

      --

      This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
    7. Re:Hipocrits by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      What hipocrits

      That's the suits up in the Ivory Towers heating up the air. OBVIOUSLY not the artists down in the trenches.

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  3. Linux - The Choice of Evil SuperGeniuses! by bluethundr · · Score: 2, Funny

    OF COURSE they use Linux in Hollywood! It's the natural choice of evil supergeniuses everywhere! What's that? Still not convinced? Allow me to present exhibit 'A'!

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
    1. Re:Linux - The Choice of Evil SuperGeniuses! by merdark · · Score: 1

      Ah, so that explains why they always lose by being cocky.

  4. Just to keep a balance: by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 5, Funny



    Windows In Holywood: Status Report

    1. Re:Just to keep a balance: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holywood is in Ireland RETARD.

  5. I wish acting were better by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Too much "starpower" is overwhelming Hollywood these days and not enough craft is being exercised. Rather than relying on special effects and big name actors to bring in audiences, it would be nice to see better acting and better directing and better writing.

  6. Oops my bad by segment · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Wow can't believe I didn't include something about Revolution OS

    The documentary Revolution OS explores the human side of the open source and free software movements, illuminating the behind-the-scenes story of the hackers and programmers rebelling against the corporate machine.

    This 90-minute film begins with Richard Stallman's quest to create a free operating system. It then follows the movement through its two-decades-long evolution in interviews with Stallman, Linus Torvalds (creator of the open-source operating system Linux), Eric Raymond (author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar), Bruce Perens (author of the Open Source Definition), Brian Behlendorf (leader of the Apache Web server project), Michael Tiemann (founder of the first open source company) and Larry Augustin (founder of VA Linux Systems). Revolution OS also depicts the culture of the open source movement by documenting the Installfest parties where people can bring their computers to get free, expert Linux tech support; and the Refund Day protest marches, where Linux users demand reimbursement of the extra fees that get tacked onto the purchase price of new computers for pre-installed Microsoft applications.

    Didn't even stop to think about the new Sinbad movie from Dreamworks either. Or IBM's General Parallel File System (GPFS) Sorry FYI

    Linux Storms Hollywood

    Linux in Hollywood a Star is Born

    --
    MoFscker
    1. Re:Oops my bad by breman · · Score: 1

      Stolen from the article:

      "For production of Sinbad every workstation and the entire renderfarm was Linux," notes DreamWorks head of animation technology Ed Leonard.

  7. sinbad movie was discussed on slashdot ofcourse by stroustrup · · Score: 1

    "For production of Sinbad every workstation and the entire renderfarm was Linux," notes DreamWorks head of animation technology Ed Leonard.
    story

    --


    If you lost your job today, don't despair. You may die tomorrow anyway.
  8. Alas, poor SGI by fm6 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Anybody working at SGI (Silicon Graphics before the big rebranding) will find this story extremely discouraging. It isn't just that it talks about Linux/commodity systems taking over a market that used to be dominated by Irix/SGI systems. It's the attitude expressed in the article, which has to have been picked up from the people the reporter interviewed: SGI products are legacy technology. They don't compete with Linux based systems -- they're just something people have to hold onto unti l the corresponding Linux technology matures enough for to replace it.

    The one SGI product mentioned that is moving forward is the Linux version of Maya -- and the reporter seems unaware that Maya is an SGI product! A sad outcome for a company that once dominated computer animation.

    1. Re:Alas, poor SGI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maya is really coming out for linux? Can you please cite this? Inquiring minds want to know.

    2. Re:Alas, poor SGI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      SGI bet on NT and lost. Also, both SGI and E&S had a difficult time transitioning their graphics experience into the PC market. They couldn't bring themselves to stripping their cards down to an affordable price, they lacked PC interface experience, and that market is simply more brutal than the workstation market. 3DLabs and then NVidia ate them up at the low end.

    3. Re:Alas, poor SGI by gmack · · Score: 4, Informative

      SGI has been wanting to dump Irix for years with good reason.. I recall SGI making noise about going NT on Intel before finally unleashing a small army of developers on the Linux kernel to bring performance up to par for their needs.

      I still have archinved posts of Linus flaming one of their enginneers for trying to mod the linux OS to improve the performance of Maya when an app change would have been more efficiant.

      Make no mistake, SGI was one of the earliest backers of Linux in movie production and actively sells Linux/Intel hardware to the studios.

    4. Re:Alas, poor SGI by WatertonMan · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. One wonders what would have been had SGI done like IBM and embraced Linux...

    5. Re:Alas, poor SGI by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think your psychic powers are failing. I was working at SGI when they began the Linux drive. Which was never about replacing Irix with Linux. If it were, they'd be selling Linux for their MIPS-based system. But nobody would buy such a system: their existing MIPS users are all used to IRIX -- and MIPS systems continues to be their bread and butter.

      What their Linux drive is about is selling systems based on Itanium processors. They simply decided it would be cheaper to join the Linux movement than to port Irix to the Itanium. They still sell both Irix/MIPS and Linux/Itanium systems. Neither of which Hollywood seems to have any interest in.

      What your Linus story has to do with anything escapes me.

    6. Re:Alas, poor SGI by mah! · · Score: 1
      Maya is really coming out for linux? Can you please cite this? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Actually, Maya has been running on Linux for quite some time. Since release 4.5 actually all 4 distributions are on "version parity", at least for the Complete version. I use it on an O2, on a PBG4 and on a dual-G4, and I've installed it on Linux and MS-Windows machines. People using it on O2s switched to Mac OS X machines just fine (3-mouse button quite necessary :-)), etc. Quite a few things are now written in Java, AFAIK: the IRIX version for example installs Java if you don't alread have it.

      The free PLE version however only runs on Mac OS X and MS-Windows.

    7. Re:Alas, poor SGI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      SGI has done what IBM did, they just didn't market it openly. SGI is the second biggest corporate code-donator to free/open software, only second to IBM, and we're talking about pure lines of code, not lines of code per head. (since SGI is a bit smaller then IBM).
      Also SGI didn't quite bet on NT. They wanted to make a intel based workstation, but their CEO was quite the MS fanboy, and made it so (The CEO has been kicked now, and iirc is momentarily hiding under a redmond rock). The intel based machines flopped, but in the deaththroes SGI actually managed to bring out a small series of intel based GNU/Linux only workstations, which have become very rare. Now the complete intel workstation line is dead.

      The question that remains is not "One wonders what would have been had SGI done like IBM and embraced Linux" to me , but, "One wonders what would have happened if SGI had kicked out the CEO that ran them into the ground earlier (He did some pretty bad stuff there), and would have chosen GNU/Linux straight away".

      At least SGI now selling a nifty cluster computer running GNU/Linux, it hasn't quite got the cool blue/purple reflecting giger-look, but SGI is the only company that can make cool looking yellow machines. I hope they'll survive in the end. For a huge corporation, they've acted really great towards free software, and they make kickass hardware.

      Go SGI!

      (I don't have any connection to SGI, except that I like and use their hardware. If only there would be a free OS for MIPS I'd be a happy camper )

    8. Re:Alas, poor SGI by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      SGI bet on NT and lost.

      Yep, and the guy responsible for SGI betting on NT, Rick Belluzzo, went on to head up Microsoft's internet operations. A reward for a job well done, even as SGI was tanking?

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:Alas, poor SGI by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      (3-mouse button quite necessary :-))

      I was unaware that Mac OS X machines were coming with a button that had 3 mouses hooked up to it. So I only need one finger to push the button, but three hands to manipulate the mouse? Typical Apple UI design, I say.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    10. Re:Alas, poor SGI by Gefd · · Score: 1

      Since release 3.x actually

    11. Re:Alas, poor SGI by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I still have archinved posts of Linus flaming one of their enginneers for trying to mod the linux OS to improve the performance of Maya when an app change would have been more efficiant.

      I remember reading stories about the Linux and Apache projects rejecting many SGI patches. Can you post (some of?) your Linus flames here? I would be VERY interested in reading them! :-)

      --
      cpeterso
    12. Re:Alas, poor SGI by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, we can start with a complaint by Linus about optimising for benchmarks Then we can move onto Linus' rant on how a feature SGI wanted breaks the beauty and design of Linux Followed by An appology from one of the devalopers for submitting the patch in question

    13. Re:Alas, poor SGI by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1
      If only there would be a free OS for MIPS I'd be a happy camper
      Um, does it have to be an exclusive? That sounds weird. I'm pretty sure there are free OSs that build on MIPS, such as Linux and at least a couple of the BSDs... Right?
      --
      main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
  9. We are all in the same situation... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful


    From the Slashdot story: "... it's insurance -- insurance that they can do so if they must to meet a production deadline."

    In actuality, we are all in the same situation, not just movie studios. We all need insurance that the software we use won't become useless to us because of decisions by companies over which we have no control. Open source is necessary insurance, not optional.

    1. Re:We are all in the same situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hollywood never cares about source, nor gets source code. The article is a fantasy.

    2. Re:We are all in the same situation... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, the monolithic shibboleth of HOLLYWOOD. Marching in lockstep. Try not to pee yourself in bed tonight.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  10. SGI by rf0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well least they make a passing mention of the once great SGI hardware. T2 seemed to be the peaks and its been a bit downhill from there on it. However nice to see linux make inroads into the render farms. I have to wondered if however faster inter-connects would be needed between the nodes?

    Is gigabit network really fast enough or would something even higher be needed?

    Rus

    --
    Cheap UK and US VPS
    1. Re:SGI by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, the requirements for that would be pretty small, actually. You don't need realtime data transmission; you just need something fast enough to transfer the chunk to each node, I assume. Just because its animation, its no different than any other large data-processing being done by clustering. The data is easily predictable enough that it can be broken up for a bunch of nodes; so much, in fact, that BORG allows you to break up a rendering job into batches for independent computers to do, without clustering (sorta like SETI@Home).

    2. Re:SGI by malducin · · Score: 1

      Well here is an article about ILM's network which requires a few 10G interconnects at the core and will soon upgrade:

      10G muscle

  11. if only state government... by tokengeekgrrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...could see that if Hollywood, which invests millions of dollars into movies and technology, uses Linux for performance-intensive digital animation rendering and authoring, then it is most likely robust and stable enough to handle government database applications (which are not all that complex).

    I thought IBM embracing Linux would be enough to convince them that it should be considered but it wasn't. Maybe this will open their minds to the possibility a bit, especially given the huge cost-savings moving to Linux brings. With all the budget cuts, you'd think they'd be demanding we atleast look into Linux and run some pilot programs. Then again, 3 years ago it took them a while tp "be okay" with using Apache web server instead of Netscape Enterprise. Whatever.

    - tokengeekgrrl

    1. Re:if only state government... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Rendering a film is a vastly different problem than running the DMV database. Linux may be appropriate for both tasks, but one does not follow from the other.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:if only state government... by keester · · Score: 1

      The fact that Oracle is using Linux as it's platform of choice will definitely mean that linux is going to be more prevelant in government systems. Now if we could just eliminate Oracle from the equation ...

      --
      Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
  12. Linux on artist desktops too? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Linux has won not only renderfarm servers, but the artist desktops of the top studios."

    Well, that startled me to a degree. A good chunk of the artists out there doing 3D stuff need Photoshop. What are they using in its place? (or do they have a Mac room running Photoshop elsewhere?)

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. They use Cinepaint and Photoshop in Wine.

    2. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by malducin · · Score: 1

      Depends on the place. On small shops probably most of the work is done on PCs and Macs anyway. For big places the work is more distributed. The guy doing 3D, say particles or character animation, shouldn't need Photoshop, as that would be the responsability of the texture artists. Since the responsabilities are separate the texture artists might as well be using a PC or Mac.

      At ILM the rebel unit just switched to PCs with windows for that sort of work. On the other hand 3D artists, TDs, compositors, etc. are on combination of Linux PCs and SGI gear (O2s).

    3. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      why do they need photoshop?

      CMYK seperation? no.. they are not going to print it.

      photoshop only has a tight grip on specalized tools that are pretty much useless for the movie-making aspect.

      (rotoscoping in photoshop is a major PAIN IN THE ARSE! film-gimp it's damned easy.... I am never using photoshop for anything but making simple graphics for after-effects.

      now THAT is an app that has no equal in the entire world... (Ok Commotion for the avid is better)

      we can make linux take over video and movie production by simply coming up with decent replacement for aftereffects and a video editing app that isnt very early alpha,unuseable, unstable... (cinderella, mainactor)

      I'd pay $500.00 for a video editing app the caliber of premiere 4.0 but can handle DV2...that run's natively on linux (No java, no wine tricks..)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "why do they need photoshop?"

      Texture painting and Matte paintings. There's also some touch up of video. I recenty used Photoshop to digitally remove some cars from a video. (It was just an experiment, though...)

      "(rotoscoping in photoshop is a major PAIN IN THE ARSE! film-gimp it's damned easy.... I am never using photoshop for anything but making simple graphics for after-effects."

      What does Film Gimp do to make that easier? I haven't done rotoscoping yet so I'm curious. :)

      "we can make linux take over video and movie production by simply coming up with decent replacement for aftereffects and a video editing app that isnt very early alpha,unuseable, unstable... (cinderella, mainactor)"

      Agreed.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      It was Disney that commissioned getting Photoshop running in Linux under Crossover Office. So at least in the case of Disney, they are using Photoshop on Linux.

    6. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by spitzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Suprisingly little is done in photoshop. We usually use Macs for it.

    7. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Use Macs for Photoshop you mean?

      BTW, remember me? ;)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Linux on artist desktops too? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 3, Informative
      A good chunk of the artists out there doing 3D stuff need Photoshop. What are they using in its place? (or do they have a Mac room running Photoshop elsewhere?)
      Well, I found the following information in an article online. You might have stumbled across it before, although it wasn't widely announced.
      Disney funded Linux developer CodeWeavers to make the CrossOver emulator run Windows Adobe Photoshop 7 on Linux -- without Windows.
      and
      Deep paint, with more than 8 bits per channel of color depth, is necessary to support the higher dynamic range of film. Could the Hollywood market support a commercial deep paint tool tailored to motion picture production? Considering the small market niche, studio technologists didn't think so.

      Hollywood came up with a novel solution. What if the popular Linux open-source GIMP program was enhanced for motion picture work? Although the industry couldn't justify developing a deep paint program from scratch, it could support a few open-source programmers to make a deep GIMP.

      ...

      Film Gimp was subsequently used by Rhythm & Hues for Scooby-Doo, Dr. Dolittle 2, and Planet of the Apes. Sony Pictures Imageworks picked up Film Gimp for use in Stuart Little 2. Hammerhead Productions used it in Showtime, Blue Crush, and 2 Fast 2 Furious.

      HTH. HAND.

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
  13. Rendering Software by c_oflynn · · Score: 1

    BTW an example of rendering software that runs on Linux (and windows as well), just FYI.

    SoftImage XSI is one example. Has lots of movie examples on its site, and you can download a free demo version. The demo version has no time limits, just it has its logo in the output and disables a few features. Pretty cool!

    1. Re:Rendering Software by c_oflynn · · Score: 1

      correction: the XSI is 3D animation software, not just the rendering engine.. wasn't thinking when I posted.

    2. Re:Rendering Software by malducin · · Score: 1

      Well there are iother examples too. PRman, mental ray, Air, Angel, RenderDotC, the Maya batch renderer, Aqsis, Pixie, and maybe I'm missing a few.

    3. Re:Rendering Software by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1
      SoftImage is also a big part of why Half Life 2 looks so damn good, I recommend some of the E3 demonstrations such as Half-Life 2 Technical Movie Walls or Alyx (BitTorrent). It's really quite amazing, in Walls they compress approx 22K polygons down into one which has a "baked in lightmap" which allows it to still look and act like a high poly object.
      "Midway through the production of Half-Life 2," says Gabe Newell, Managing Director at Valve Software, "we realized that our tools were hamstringing our artists. We decided that we needed to go find the right set of tools to build the game. We evaluated all of the tools we could have used for Half-Life 2, and, when we looked at the combination of the products and the companies that were standing behind them, XSI and Softimage were head and shoulders above any of the other options."

      Anyone who was lucky enough to see the previews of the work that Valve did with SOFTIMAGE|XSI on Half-Life 2 at E3 knows that the team made the right choice. original link w/more info
      Of course those torrents above are the previews Gabe's reffering to. Also on GameTab Torrent are a complete listing of Half Life 2 Movies.

      Hollywood and Video Games have been moving closer and closer together, but where we're going to see the first total unification of the two industries is definately software and it's underlying technologies.

      Jonah Hex
      --
      Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
    4. Re:Rendering Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The XSI Linux/Irix port is a fucking joke. Have you seen the shared libraries it uses? For fucks sake, they ported MFC to Unix. I call it sacrilege and recommend other products like SideFX's Houdini and Maya.

      Joseph, once a Softimage|3D lover.

  14. if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k boxes by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 4, Funny

    "More than 350 Linux boxes were deployed during Episode II," says ILM production engineering manager Ken Beyer. Six hundred Linux desktops will be used for Star Wars: Episode III to be released summer 2005.

    So if ILM were to increase the number of Linux boxes devoted to Episode III from 600 to 800 or 1,000 boxes, would their rendering power be enough to improve Natalie Portman's (so-far) cardboard performance(s)?

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  15. Access to the Source? by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code. The risk is too great.

    Did the source code to Maya suddenly become available?

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    1. Re:Access to the Source? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Did the source code to Maya suddenly become available?

      For the right price, no doubt it is available.

      There are other arrangements that can be made. The source can be deposited with an escrow agent with an escrow agreement that the independant agent turns the source over to the studio under certian pre-specified conditions such as (1) the product is withdrawn from the market, or (2) no longer supported, or (3) company folds.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Access to the Source? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Escrow is completely different than being available during production.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    3. Re:Access to the Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code. The risk is too great.

      Nah.

      The way this actually works is that the major animation tool vendors have operations in LA which provide handholding, quick fixes, and custom add-ons to the film industry. Softimage has Softimage Special Projects in Santa Monica (near the freeway, not the beach), Alias/Wavefront has a field office in LA, and the other major players presumably have similar arrangements.

      Most effects work is outsourced, anyway. It's not like movie studios have big full-time programming teams. Pixar and ILM, yes, but not studios which do mainly live-action work. Most heavy coding is done by some small effects house that gets a line late in the credits.

      Working on software for Hollywood is interesting, but something of a pain. Either a project is in development hell, where there's no money, or it's in production, where there's no time.

    4. Re:Access to the Source? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, for the right price, and the right NDA you can probably get the source to anything.

      You could probably even make an arrangement to pay a fee for rights to buy NDA access to the source if you need it to meet your deadline. Pay now to get a guarantee. You are guaranteed to be able to get the source for another fixed fee if you must have it, but only for your own use under a very tight NDA.

      You might be surprised for how little such an arrangement could be worked out. The cost might not be a deal killer for a big movie with big SFX budget.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  16. what savings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "especially given the huge cost-savings moving to Linux brings."

    Munich is paying about as much for Suse than it was for MS, even before MS offered huge discounts. For large companies/govts., all the money is in support, so there's no cost savings when comparing Linux/Windows.

  17. Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code.
    This is so completely false it's unbelievable. Studios use software such as Renderman, Maya, Filmbox, Mental Ray, RealFlow, Photomodeler, 3D Equalizer, Softimage, Photoshop and Shake all without access to the source. And they rely on these packages. They also rely on OSes such as Irix (still!) and Windows for which they have no source. This statement isn't even a 'stretch' of the word 'rule'. It's just plain false.
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Funny use of the word rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you,

      I was just waiting to see when someone chimed in with that comment.

      What I find amazing is that it took so long to appear.

      Of course studios use closed source apps. If someone comes up with an open source app that can rival the closed source version of something then by all means use it if you wish, but the movie industry does still use and depend on closed source software.

    2. Re:Funny use of the word rule by be-fan · · Score: 0

      -1: Not good enough at BS to hide the fact that he didn't read the article.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:Funny use of the word rule by wbattestilli · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer I work for Alias and I do custom development for major film studios but I do not speak for them.

      Just to clarify the above post. Alias does not give any customer access to the Maya source code. Many major studios do, however, pay us to develop certain features that they require.

      This service is available to any customer. For those interested, feel free to contact me directly.

      --
      Whitney Battestilli
      Software Engineer
      Alias
      wbattestilli at aw.sgi.com

    4. Re:Funny use of the word rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? So you're saying the author is lying about source code agreements between software vendors and film studios? Why should I believe you?

    5. Re:Funny use of the word rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ host aw.sgi.com
      aw.sgi.com A record currently not present

    6. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Informative
      Because the department I run would be using that software if we had access to it. Even in our closest vendor/client relationship we do not have access to the source code (though in some cases we may have escrow arrangements to deal with a vendor's bankruptcy) and we are a major effects house backed by one of the largest studios.

      Take one example, Alias|Wavefront. We have a dedicated developer from them who has helped with writing plugins in house as well as making some small tweaks to our custom version of Maya. But we do not get to look at the source code at all under any circumstances.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    7. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Try looking up MX records. (You may need to study up on internet protocols to interpret the result.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I did. But more to the point, did you?

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    9. Re:Funny use of the word rule by rendermaniac · · Score: 1

      Yes but most of these are extremely adaptable. Maya is the defacto standard because of the power of MEL (pretty awful language, but powerful) and it's C++ API which is very well written and gives you a lot of access. RenderMan is the ultimate in adaptable most of the time. Writing your own shaders is extremely useful, or C DSO's if you need to. Shake has the ability to write macros and also has a fairly decent API I have heard. Plus all the above can use text based file formats which opens them up to serious abuse with Perl/Python/standard unix tools. I would hardly call that being locked in!! (Discreet and Adobe being the notable exceptions). Usually you don't need absolute source level code. You wouldn't know how to maintain it and most compaines release bug fixes often. ILM is the only place that has source access to RenderMan outside Pixar and I don't think they use it that often. Several places have prioritory renderers/animation tools but then you get the problem that you are screwed if your programmers leave/retire/get hit by a bus. Fewer companies are doing this. Linux is only taking off because it is very similar to IRIX and it's easy to port onto new hardware. OSX is gaining some ground now too - especially as it is a lot newer and supports PhotoShop etc. Simon

    10. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Yup. Almost all of the main tools in use today are programmable. Usually at two levels: at a high level script/shader level and with a low level API (that may or may not be the same API the original develops use). In some cases the end user gets many of the headers used to develop the app allowing them to derive classes from the built in classes and at the other end of the spectrum a full API is written for third party developers that hides some of the internals.

      But full source access is rare.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    11. Re:Funny use of the word rule by be-fan · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code... That insurance can be expensive, and the relationship with vendors is sometimes strained."

      I think its made quite clear that the studios pay (often dearly) for access to the source code of these proprietory programs.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      But they don't pay. Apple (who produce Shake) and A|W (whose baby is Maya) would charge more than any visual effects house could afford for access to the source.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    13. Re:Funny use of the word rule by wbattestilli · · Score: 1

      Actually, the correct email should be @alias.com. The @aw.sg.com is just force of habit since we changed the name so recently. @aw.sg.com will still work for some time though.

    14. Re:Funny use of the word rule by donglekey · · Score: 1

      If this were twenty questions I would say you lived in Culver

      --

      This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
    15. Re:Funny use of the word rule by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Wrong. But I ain't takin' any more questions!

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  18. Maya platforms by chmilar · · Score: 1

    Look here:

    Alias.

    --
    Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
  19. access the source??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with respect, the studios i've worked in neither know nor care about this stuff. all they care about is getting their rushes off some crappy old nt raid server via mac onto vhs asap.

    i'm sure that /some/ studios take an interest in source for high end stuff, but believe me, most do not. nor will they. ever.

  20. GNU/Linux : It's not just for Hollywood anymore by CPgrower · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    SCO is taking the show on the road.

  21. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by fpp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Congratulations, your post just fulfilled Skinner's Law:

    "As a geek usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a poster complaining about how much the Star Wars sequels suck approaches one.

  22. RTFA, Bunky by foandd · · Score: 5, Informative

    He plainly states in the article that the studios make special deals to have access to the source code for the commercial software they use, often at very high expense.

    1. Re:RTFA, Bunky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author should have included the word "occasionally," which would have been far more accurate.

    2. Re:RTFA, Bunky by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Occasionally they do. But most visual effects houses do not have access to the source for major applications and no effects house has access to all of the tools on which they depend.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:RTFA, Bunky by malducin · · Score: 1

      Although some have a lower threshold. Some studios, mainly the animation ones were almost exclusively propietary (Blue Sky, Rhythm and Hues, PDI, Pixar, Hammerhead and pre 1989 ILM). Then again most of this places have adopted some off the shelf software, mainly Maya and Photoshop, for some of the work. Then again those are particular cases and you are absoulutely right.

  23. Wine by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Wine (not sure if straight wine, or one of the comercial versions) runs photoshop.

    They might get some use for the GIMP too. It isn't as good as Photoshop, but it is free and does some useful things. Rumor is they are modifying a spcial animation version specific your movie studio use, but I couldn't find any links to confirm that so I'll leave it as a rumor.

  24. Discreet launched first Linux online editor by StandardCell · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note: I submitted this as a news story, and I believe it was major Linux-related news but it was rejected. Fortunately it's still relatively fresh and this a good topic to repeat it in. It clearly demonstrates that Linux is an excellent platform for editors in the broadcast field.

    From this link:

    Discreet Launches First High-End Online Editing System for the Linux Operating System Press Release -- Discreet

    Debuts smoke 6 Standard Definition Online Editing and Finishing System Page 1 of 1

    MONTREAL (Sep. 04, 2003) -- Discreet announced the high-end non-linear editing and finishing system for the Linux operating system, smoke 6. The addition of Linux workstation support in the version 6 release, combined with new pricing, will significantly extend Discreet's market for smoke; ensuring its accessibility to broadcasters and a new segment of mid-range post-production facilities. Discreet will debut both Linux and Irix versions of smoke 6 at the International Broadcasting Convention in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (booth 7.421) from September 12-16, 2003.

    With more than seven years of leadership in online editing, smoke will be one of the most sophisticated digital media applications ever released on the Linux operating system. The performance of today's PC workstations combined with newly enhanced capabilities of the Linux operating system enables robust support for the rigorous editing and finishing performance demands of smoke. smoke 6 on Linux is a standard definition (SD) editing system designed to work with Red Hat Linux 8 and will ship as a turnkey solution on IBM's high-performance IntelliStation Z Pro 6221 workstation.

  25. DON'T CLICK - Goatse Troll by FosterKanig · · Score: 1

    I don't have to say what it is, but you know.

  26. or... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or the source code of Softimage, Lightwave, 3ds max, Photoshop, After Effects, Flame, Inferno, Houdini, Avid etc.?

    Nope, none of them are open source, and each is used by at least one major studio. And if by "access to the source code" assumes monetary compensation in exchange, then by that definition pretty much every piece of software has accessible source code.

  27. NO! Do not click that GOATSE.CX link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    !!!GOATSE.CX Troll!!! DO NOT click the link!

  28. Mostly because... by Azureflare · · Score: 1
    It would take too long, and cost too much (Since time is money), to transfer government workers over to a new system. It's just not feasible, and it looks like it will never happen, unless the government really has an unsolvable problem with Microsoft products (extremely unlikely). Looks like the government is going to be using MS for a while.

    Even if, by some extreme (and unlikely) change of the computing environment, linux becomes the major workstation OS, and apps are targeted to it, I would highly doubt the government would move to it, as they really dislike change. They won't change unless they are forced to.

  29. a re-hash of 'linux rules the world BS article' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How many years will it be before we stop seeing these 'linux is free and going to rule the world' BS articles?

    I mean, it's been done to death about as bad as 'last minute income tax filings on April 15' each and every year.

    The NYT can make a fortune of keyword search and replace for template articles from its archives...

    1. Re:a re-hash of 'linux rules the world BS article' by Eccles · · Score: 1

      How many years will it be before we stop seeing these 'linux is free and going to rule the world' BS articles?

      As soon as Linux rules the world, of course.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:a re-hash of 'linux rules the world BS article' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the same time we stop seeing trolls. Don't hold your breath.

  30. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by rgmoore · · Score: 1, Funny
    would their rendering power be enough to improve Natalie Portman's (so-far) cardboard performance(s)?

    No. It might be able to make her performance naked and petrified, though, or pour a bowl of hot grits down her pants.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  31. shake and mac prices? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    "(and recently Apple dropped the price of the Apple version of Shake so much that the Apple computer to run it seemed free)"

    Shake for Mac OS X: $4,950
    Cheapest 1.6GHz G5: $1,999

    I'm not sure how anything could make that $1,999 seem to be $0.

    1. Re:shake and mac prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOOL you did not read macs press releases... the NON-OSX version has a 7 thousand dollar penalty price on it (about).

      Therefore it IS INDEED FREE on mac platform! (vs the deprecated non-osx version)

      read a little

      Macs dominate hollywood special effects houses and editing houses, regardless of the dominance of Shake. That is why the majority of the highest end stuff is on macs (Maya, Electric Image, Shake, Combustion, C4D, FianlCutPro, etc)

    2. Re:shake and mac prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shake for linux is priced at $9,900. You could buy a pretty nice Mac for the difference ($4,950).

    3. Re:shake and mac prices? by olafura · · Score: 1

      "Shake 3 is also available for Linux for a suggested retail price of $9,900 (US) with an annual maintenance of $1485 (US)." This is from the Shake homepage. So $5,949 is cheaper than $9,900 you could even buy two of the cheapest G5 and a licence for the price of one Linux version one. But I still think the Total cost of ownership is still better for Linux.

    4. Re:shake and mac prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is the TCO of Linux cheaper than Mac OS X at this level? We are not talking about saving money on hardware here, the PCs they would buy are surely going to be Xeon systems that are pretty comparible in price and performance to a G5. That leaves use and support of the OS. Since OS cost is a non factor (it comes with the Mac), can you tell me Linux is easier and cheaper to support than OS X? They are both Unix based, yet OS X is much easier to configure and OS X Server puts some pretty nice apple uis on open source based desktop management tools that you would have to pay someone to figure out at the command line and script to get the same functionality of those tools on Linux.

    5. Re:shake and mac prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the product your creating is worth something like 1,343,123 dollars to you and your software program your using costs 4,995 dollars the computer's 1,999 is closer to 0 then you think

    6. Re:shake and mac prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple dropped the cost of shake render licenses. So the 'nearly free' licences for shake you can get have no UI.

  32. Speed improvements by mnemonic_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Back at ILM, sequence supervisor Robert Weaver noticed a tremendous performance boost upgrading from RISC workstations to Linux PCs during Star Wars: Episode II. 'The old system was so slow that the clones firing lasers appear to be throwing javelins,' says Weaver. 'We've seen about a 5x speed improvement in Linux. I'd say Linux is one of the most successful efforts we've had. I can't say enough good things about it. It is intuitive, incredibly stable, and we can get stuff fixed at a moment's notice.'"

    In other words, they were using now incredibly slow SGI boxes with RISC MIPS processors before and then switched to much faster PC's with x86 processors. The speed difference was caused not only by software but also hardware changes.

    1. Re:Speed improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Renderman is 4 times faster on a G5 using altivec than per processor using any known intel chip of ANY kind.

      Pixar is going to start relying on Apples G5 boxes again for massive cost savings.

      A dual g5 2ghz mac with dvd burner is only 2999 bucks and runs circles around intel/amd in all activities involving non-vectorizable floats, and vectorizable computations.

      RISC is therefore CEHAPER and FASTER than intel AGAIN in 2003 and your comment is aged and not currently correct.

  33. I have supplied special effects APPS for hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have supplied special effects APPS for hollywood and they not only do not get the code, they do not have total control of the technology in any form once agreed upon as "acceptable".

    Furthermore... if the effect is not what they like... TOO BAD, they cut the scene, and i do not get paid, either credit, nor fee, but they have no choice.

    I have also done a code for a few rock concerts on theor giant video walls. Same thing, except that in that case I have a performers contract. I OWN MY PERFORMANCE... in this case the code and all it expresses.

    This article is a total lie. Hollywood would not know how to hire programmer if you held a gun to its head.

    Its a sick technically inept world, full of idiots and throttled by unions and buck-passing.

    And the tools used by the CONTRACTORS and employees alike include no source to the popular tools : Apple Shake 3 (a 10,000 dollar app), Alias Wavefront's Maya 5, AVID Xpress, Photo Realistic Renderman 10, Electric Image Universe, FormZ, Filmbox, Cinema4D, LightWave, Mental Ray, 3D Equalizer, Softimage XSI, Photoshop and practically every pro tool in existence that is popularly relied upon.

    NONE COME WITH SOURCE.

    Thats becasue hollywood does not want to pay the extra costs for source. They want to save all possible dollars on each film s a separate budget with no long term financial viewpoint.

    I mysefl have paid for source to many things, for other companies, typically over 100,000 dollars for major tools. Othertimes it is merely in provable escrow and wholly recompilable by 3rd party experts.

    BUT HOLLYWOOD NEVER GETS SOURCE nor cares about it. This entire article is a total lie.

  34. Poor SGI my ass... by SaXisT4LiF · · Score: 1

    I think the general trend of the article was that Studios save money using Open Source solutions, and have the freedom to customize that software. This is why the studios are slowly moving away from SGI systems for graphics rendering.

    A copy of Maya runs from $2000 to $6000 (alias.com) and is _closed_ source. On the other hand, several applications like Blender (blender3d.org) are free and _open_ source. The richness of features present in Maya secures SGI's position in the 3D animation market, but the pricetag is a little high for an indie studio trying to break into the film industry. Eventually, the Open Source animation programs out there will approach Maya in quality and SGI will have to keep adding features to stay on top.

    If your problem is really with the author giving too much press attention to CinePaint, then lighten up! It's based on the GIMP, what more could you want?

    --
    Fight or flight its all the same
    Live to die another day
    --Ryan
    1. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      3 problems with that argument.

      1. Maya is an Alias Wavefront product, not SGI.

      2. Maya runs on Linux.

      3. SGI sells Linux/IA-64(Itanium 2) machines.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    2. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by SaXisT4LiF · · Score: 1

      3 Counter Points

      1. SGI owns Alias Wavefront (read the fine print)
      2. Maya for Linux is still closed source and expensive.
      3. SGI's machines are more expensive that a home built PC of similar specs.

      --
      Fight or flight its all the same
      Live to die another day
      --Ryan
    3. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative
      First of all, you're reading too much into what I said when you assume that I'm defending SGI's mistakes. Perhaps you don't know the literary reference behind "Alas"?

      Second, your notions of how the movie biz works are pretty naive. Is your idea of an "Indie studio" a bunch of film geeks scraping together a few thou to make a bad horror movie? Real film making is expensive. Nowadays a "low budget" movie costs a minimum of $3 million to make. And the studios mentioned in the article spend more than that on catering!

      Yeah, they can save some money buying open source applications instead of Maya. Probably not that much. I suspect that they probably buy whatever makes their animators most productive. The salaries they pay those guys dwarfs any sum they might spend on animation software.

      Of course, open-source apps may have an edge if they need a feature they can't find in any closed-source app: they can just hire somebody to write the feature in. Of course, that makes the open-source app much more expensive! I don't know how often this happens, but I'm inclined to believe that most studios use a mixture of open and closed source applications.

      Anyway, this isn't about applications, this is about the platform: Linux, running on commodity computers. This trend is happening not because Linux is a little cheaper than Irix. It's happening because commdity computers are a lot cheaper, crunch for crunch, then RISC computers. Commodity computers are less powerful, but with current clustering technology, you can just throw more processors at a problem and still spend less money.

    4. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Low budget ranges from around 7 million on down. The various unions and guilds have different tiers for low budget contracts. Just pulling a figure out of my ass, if your budget is under a mil, you probably need not worry about union trouble. I agree with you that the cost of Maya is miniscule in the overall equation, unless you are just Some Guy (TM) working nights and weekends on your magnum opus. I also agree with you that commodity hardware is part of the attractiveness of the proposition. Others reading this shouldn't make the mistake of thinking these are $300 boxes they can put together themselves, though. They're being sold to the studios by major vendors, like IBM and HP. Anyway, good comment. Just wanted to ad my 2

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      1. I stand corrected. I kew they were close, but didn't recall the ownership.
      2. So what? Blender doesn't come close. And Maya's the same price on Linux and Irix. Not like the pricing for Shake.
      3. How much can you build a 32-way Itanium 2 for? Or can you? SGI doesn't build boxes of specs close to x86 clones.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    6. Re:Poor SGI my ass... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      1. SGI owns Alias Wavefront (read the fine print)

      OK, I hadn't realized that. Good thing I read this post before opening my trap to the other people saying SGI doesn't own it.

      ~~~

      2. Maya for Linux is still closed source and expensive.

      Oh, please. This is the kind of thing that gets me a bit hot under the collar. OK, it's not cheap by any means, nor is it "Open Source". So? Why is something instantly "bad" just because it's not Open Source? I personally don't care. If the app/package/whatever is a great tool for the job, my ass is inline buying it. As for cost, well... Free is the right number, but that doesn't mean I won't pay for software. Hell, I gave Mr. Lucas a good few bucks over this past weekend buying a couple games... (P.S. Save your money on Jedi Academy. It's a great and fun game, but it's so buggy it's just not worth the money...).

      ~~~

      3. SGI's machines are more expensive that a home built PC of similar specs.

      Well, yea, but they look really cool! :-)

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  35. Yep: Optimize to a specific type of scene by danlyke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As an ex member of Pixar's Graphics R&D group: Yep, exactly that happens. Often times a scene will have some sort of issue that you otherwise wouldn't see, texture memory access patterns, whatever.

    There's nothing like having a real world test case to get those optimization neurons working.

    New features happen in the slack time, making them work fast happens when the production deadline is fast approaching.

    1. Re:Yep: Optimize to a specific type of scene by AJWM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Often times a scene will have some sort of issue that you otherwise wouldn't see,

      Remember the "Genesis planet" sequence from Star Trek - The Wrath of Kahn? Dates back about 20 years. Obvious CG -- it was supposed to be -- animation of a planet coalescing, mountains rising, etc as the POV swept in and across the surface. Just one problem, the damn mountain range kept rising right into the flight path. They ended up hacking the software so that a canyon opens up just as the POV gets to the mountain range and can fly through it.

      That much I can confirm from watching the video. What I can't confirm, that the ILM programmer who told this story to me said, is that carved onto the canyon walls is (are?) the name(s) of the programmer(s) who did that hack. (Too blurred in the video).

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Yep: Optimize to a specific type of scene by jarnot · · Score: 1

      Jim Blinn gave a nice talk on this subject back at the 1989 SIGGRAPH conference here in Boston. Not only did they create a last second canyon for the fly-thru, but also put in a solar flare in the corner of the screen to distract you from the hack. :-)

      --
      -------------------------

      slashdot@com.jarnot (swap the domain)

  36. linux on my desktop: status report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uptime 32 days. (survived a hurricane)

  37. What about the G5 by benwaggoner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Based on the article, it seems like Apple's new G5 systems would almost be a better fix for Linux for a lot of this stuff. SGI was too slow, and Windows too different an API to port. Mac OS X lets you run all the Adobe stuff natively, a real UNIX underneath for porting, and with the G5, a processor fast enough to get in the ballpark of x86 for price/performance. As the article mentioned, Shake on Mac is so much cheaper, you basically get the Mac for free!

    The new Photoshop CS announced yesterday definitely has the deep paint (and non square pixel support!) required to make it a great film/video app for a lot of stuff.

    The one big barrier I see is a complete port of Maya (Maya Complete not being complete, of course).

    *NIX to OS X porting will get a lot easier with 10.3 (out within 30 days?), which has X11 built-in, and a lot more Linux-like API stuff.

    --

    My video compression blog
    1. Re:What about the G5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one big barrier I see is a complete port of Maya

      Maya already runs on MacOS

    2. Re:What about the G5 by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      (Maya Complete not being complete, of course).

      Read the post.

    3. Re:What about the G5 by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the word "complete"? Let me point it out to you. Ben wrote "complete port of Maya". Try to read each word in a sentence. Some words modify and change the meanings of other words.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:What about the G5 by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X lets you run all the Adobe stuff natively, a real UNIX underneath for porting, and with the G5, a processor fast enough to get in the ballpark of x86 for price/performance

      Well, they don't need anything other than Photoshop from Adobe, which runs just fine on Wine nowadays (and other than the colour of the controls it is basically "native"), and Linux/x86 is far more attractive pricewise than a Mac...

    5. Re:What about the G5 by digital_franciscan · · Score: 1

      It was reported several months ago (sorry I can't find the exact article) that Apple is already working to promote X Serves for render farm use, and that Pixar is already testing X Serves for some of their imaging, but not using them in the render farm until a) they have amortized their recent investment in a Lintel render farm, and b) convince themselves that it offers some technical advantage (or at least parity). This could all have been a trial balloon, of course. But it seems even more of a possibility now that the G5 chip seems to be such a success, exactly as you are suggsting.

    6. Re:What about the G5 by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, does WINE give you ColorSync or equivalent? I worry about color management.

      As for "far more attractive" I don't see that in the numbers. A G5 is quite reasonably priced for a dual processor workstation. Sure, you can buy cheap x86 boxes, and Apple doesn't make anything that low end, but animators aren't using eMachines boxes!

      --

      My video compression blog
  38. Opera in The Recruit by H8X55 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Did anyone notice the default broweser in The Recruit?

    it was opera.

  39. pro-linux but anti-reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As a rule, no major studio will rely on a tool without access to the source code."

    That simply is not true, some special effects house which hires programmers to develop in-house pluggins, or sometimes stand-alone softwares, might be interested of getting the source code from the software they base their effect on but that's it. For example, if you use audio physical modeling for an effect applied to an imaginary thing you might base your pluggin on a physic model of the human lips combined with a physic model of a guitar string and use a selection and/or combination of some of their properties in which case you need to have access to the source code of the original physic model which was probably developed by some student in some university.

    But since audio is my trade and I've worked in post-production and with some effects houses I can deffinitely tell you no studio cares about source code for their main softwares; audio editors, movie editors, color correction software, synth pluggins, audio programming environement aren't bought with source code in mind at all. No commercial software devellopper is going to give you the source code of their software, Avid, Wavefront, Steinberg, Digidesign, Waves, DUY and the like all keep this info for themselves.

    Actually no user but a devellopper, a linux enthusiast or a student in computing cares about source code. Just give me a product that works, I'm the user you are the devellopper, I buy you devellop and if you haven't done your job well the word will get out pretty fast in the industry and you will be finished for the pros, thats how we review source code in the business!
    Many companies have failled this test and most of them are now into raverwares.

    1. Re:pro-linux but anti-reality by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0

      The nice thing about being a corporate open source USER is not being locked into any one developer. So it does matter. If the product isn't working when or as it should be, we can get another development team.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  40. That's because Robin Rowe is a zealot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and not a reporter. He writes the same article ebvery six months about how Hollywood is being taken over by Linux, but his exvidence never matches his hyperbole.

  41. Cinerella. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good example of a high-end movie compositing tool on Linux, that is absolutely free: Cinerella.

    Anyone care to contribute more links to free software that can be used in movie production?

  42. CinePaint at SCALE by irabinovitch · · Score: 1

    Robin Rowe, project leader of cinepaint will be speaking at SCALE this year about CinePaint and Linux in Hollywood.

  43. Hell, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lumbergh fucked her.

  44. Linux in hollywood by StrawPoll · · Score: 1

    All I can say is that FilmGimp Sucks I have been using it for 2 months straight and its just sucks. I use it as little as possible. Most of the linux stuff we use are batch renders and commerical software. So the apps are all closed source and we have never had to fix bugs in the os.

  45. Old tradition about equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though Hollywood has long rented its equipment for each production, it's still used to the idea of being able to do serious alterations and troubleshooting with duct tape. 'Let the rental house put that camera back together' is not an untypical attitude.

  46. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by renimar · · Score: 1

    No amount of linux boxes can save Natalie Portman from the hamfisted "direction" by Lucas. He writes, produces and directed the prequels, whereas he had help with Ep 4-6. He apparently believes he can write a movie better without pesky things like suggestions and critiques of his work. Is it any surprise the movies have a very different feel?

    --
    In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
  47. Re:Content Nazis run /. by ScottKin · · Score: 1

    Leave it to an Anonymous Putz to try to twist the topic of a post.

    My point, Mr. Anonymous Moron, was to point out that /. would rather post a inane fondle-fest over Hollwood's adoption of Linux over breaking news about a hacker's arrest. /. is slowly sliding into the selv-serving morass - but since it's supported by another self-serving morass (OSDN), I'm not supprised.

    ScottKin.

    --
    I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  48. Re:I have supplied special effects APPS for hollyw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya well, maybe after dealing with people like you it made them think maybe Open Source wasn't so bad after all.

  49. Flippers or feet? by Bazman · · Score: 1

    What will Tux use to make his imprint in the cement outside the Chinese Theatre?

  50. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by cens0r · · Score: 1

    He did write, direct, and produce episode 4 by himself; and it's the most successful of all the movies. If you watch the behind the scenes documentaries and commentaries you'll see that he does get plenty of suggestions and critiques.

    --
    Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  51. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by toriver · · Score: 1

    He did write, direct, and produce episode 4 by himself

    Produced by
    Gary Kurtz .... producer
    George Lucas .... executive producer
    Rick McCallum .... producer (special edition)

    So: Not exactly.

  52. Re:if ILM increased the renderfarm to 800 or 1k bo by cens0r · · Score: 1

    I was defining produce as being the executive producer (in charge of financing). In reality Lucas has not been the producer on any of the star wars films. It's always been Kurtz McCallum, or Kazanjian. Poor Kazanjian only got to do one... maybe that's the reason ROTJ is my least favorite.

    --
    Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  53. Re:I have supplied special effects APPS for hollyw by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    Its a sick technically inept world, full of idiots and throttled by unions and buck-passing.
    There is some ineptness but there are also some very smart people working in effects. Studios certainly do hire programmers and know how to hire them. That stuff about unions is, to quote you, "a total lie". Unions have absolutely zero impact on the work of serious programming work in visual effects companies.

    They want to save all possible dollars on each film s a separate budget with no long term financial viewpoint
    Often true but not true of everywhere at all times.
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.