Slashdot Mirror


Third Largest Supercomputer... at Weta Digital

Designadrug writes "This story at the BBC details how the worlds third largest supercomputer (conditions apply) lives at Weta Digital - the company that provided CGI effects for The Lord of the Rings movies. The article also goes on to discuss the 500 TeraBytes of data generated for the films and how the epic Battle of Pelennor Fields almost defeated the film itself."

245 comments

  1. What platform? by nbvb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All the thing says is that IBM did the manufacturing ... were they xSeries, pSeries or zSeries? :-)

    (I doubt the zSeries.... nobody buys 3300 processors' worth of mainframe :)

    1. Re:What platform? by OS24Ever · · Score: 5, Informative
      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    2. Re:What platform? by Chewie · · Score: 1

      So, as a follow-up question, do you know/can you point us to info on whether they were the HS20 (2-way IA32), HS40 (4-way IA32), or JS20 (2-way POWER) blades?

      For the record, IBM BladeCenter = dead sexy.

      --
      49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
    3. Re:What platform? by Chewie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Damn, if I had just gone to Top500, I would have seen that it's running on IA32. Not sure whether they're 2-ways or 4-ways, but they're definitely Xeons.

      --
      49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
    4. Re:What platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original batch used for LOTR were HS20. If they have acquired more since then this may no longer be 100% true.

    5. Re:What platform? by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      HS20, depending on when they bought from 2.6GHz/400MHz, 2.6Ghz/533Mhz to 2.8GHz/533Mhz I think. best price/perf model at the time they needed hardware

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    6. Re:What platform? by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      HS40 announced February 2004. plus for high perf computing (in this instance) 4-way price/perf not economical. All 2-ways.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    7. Re:What platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm impressed that they got a new data center w/ 1000cpus (500 smp?) machines up in production so quickly. Nice work.

    8. Re:What platform? by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      59 65 73 2C 20 79 6F 75 20 64 6F 2E

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
  2. conditions apply by pbjones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and for a limited time only... things change tooooo quickly these, todays supercomputer is tomorrows laptop

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:conditions apply by Bookcrosser · · Score: 2, Interesting
      things change tooooo quickly these, todays supercomputer is tomorrows laptop

      In ten years time kids will be wearing that much power on their wrist and if they don't have a terabyte or two they'll feel left behind.

      I was astonished to buy a handheld computer three years ago and realise that it had more computing and better graphics than the early Crays.

      But the scary part is that in twenty years, they won't need computers to create orcs and oliphaunts.

    2. Re:conditions apply by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Too right ... but progress is good. My supervisor recently bought a laptop - the embedded video card does hardware bump-mapping as well as multi-texturing. Ten years ago you would have been lucky to afford a workstation with that capability.

      Today's roomful of rack-mounted systems is tomorrow's server unit.
      Today's server unit is tomorrow's workstation.
      Today's workstation is tomorrow's desktop.
      Todays's desktop to tomorrow's laptop.
      Today's laptop is tomorrow's PDA.
      Today's PDA is tomorrow's wristwatch.

    3. Re:conditions apply by Chalybeous · · Score: 1

      Heck, they don't need computers to create orcs and oliphaunts now - just a really good dose of LSD ;-)

      But I know what you mean about computing power. My old Psion has more power than the first computer I ever bought... and that WAS scary. I think the Psion also cost less!

      --

      "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." -- Zork

    4. Re:conditions apply by ozbon · · Score: 1

      What's even scarier is the amount of memory we now need. I started off in '81 with a ZX81 (they had a different name in the US, but I can't remember what it was now)which had 1Kb of onboard memory, or a 16Kb add-on pack.

      My digital camera now has a 256Mb Xd card, which holds quarter of a million ZX81s on something that's about the size of my thumbnail.

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    5. Re:conditions apply by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Today's roomful of rack-mounted systems is tomorrow's server unit.
      Today's server unit is tomorrow's workstation.
      Today's workstation is tomorrow's desktop.
      Todays's desktop to tomorrow's laptop.
      Today's laptop is tomorrow's PDA.
      Today's PDA is tomorrow's wristwatch.


      So how long long until my wristwatch can render the entire Lord of the Rings in the time it would take to watch? Second question, what could I use that much processing power on my wrist for?

    6. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could use that processing power to render the entire Lord of the Rings in the time it would take to watch, Maybe

    7. Re:conditions apply by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 4, Funny


      1) Tomorrow + Tomorrow + Tomorrow + Tomorrow + Tomorrow + Tomorrow = 6 days.

      2) Longhorn + DNF!

      (Score: +1, Obvious)

    8. Re:conditions apply by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Second question, what could I use that much processing power on my wrist for?

      Reliable and personalized weather prediction? Speech generation and recognition? Carry personal and global archives with you -- with quick searches. Detailed mapping of the surrounding area. Laser/hologram generated games, shows, and other entertaintment pointed at your eyes with quality sound aimed into your ears (so as not to disturb others)? Audio and video communication with anyone on the planet (and beyond)?

      And last, but not least, the spare cycles can still be donated to SETI@Home, protein folding, and other worthy projects of choice -- those will always be able to use more...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:conditions apply by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Yes! Roomful of computer-power on my wrist by next Monday.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    10. Re:conditions apply by Chalybeous · · Score: 1

      Who was it that said computers would never need more than 256k? ;-)

      I bet if nobody had built PCs with more memory, bloatware would never have been invented.

      --

      "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." -- Zork

    11. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hardware bump-mapping and multi-texturing? hot damn, my voodoo2 could do multitexturing! and a geforce 1 can do hardware DOT3 bump mapping

    12. Re:conditions apply by LinuxHam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speech generation and recognition?

      Close to one of my ideas.. instant translation between any two spoken languages. I sure could have used it in Paris. God help me if I have to go to the Tokyo office!

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    13. Re:conditions apply by parksie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Second question, what could I use that much processing power on my wrist for?

      A handwarmer?

    14. Re:conditions apply by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      cool... we had a ZX81 too, and I'm in the US. Later we had a Timex Sinclair 2068... similar to the ZX Spectrum. My dad did payroll for his small company (2 or 3 employees) on the ZX81. I grew up programming the ZX81 and later the TS2068, then a Commodore 128 and finally a PC. I must say, the PC was a big disappointment at the time. Anyway, it's cool to run across somebody else who used a ZX81. And, yeah, when we got the 16Kb ram pack, we were in memory heaven! :)

    15. Re:conditions apply by AikenDrumGotWired · · Score: 1

      Wristwatch computing yes, but what would you do for heat dissapation?

    16. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, early Crays didn't have any graphics, and I doubt your handheld has better computing. Sure your handheld can play games and surf the intarweb, but just try computing more numbers than you can count fingers on your hand and you'll quickly realize why your handheld sells so cheap.

    17. Re:conditions apply by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A heat-problem is not a "given". Modern PDAs are quite powerful, but don't run too hot, for example.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would insert it in my anus.

    19. Re:conditions apply by smurf975 · · Score: 1

      I don't really buy this as hardware is getting so small today that it's almost at atomic level and also the speeds at which these work have a lot of negative side effects.

      The only way would be smarter devices and not faster e.g. IBM G5 vs PIV but this also isn't getting anywhere soon. As will only increase processing time by single digit %. And will hit a barrier.

      Only thing left is huge caches and FSB speeds.

      --
      -- I don't buy it, I grow it.
    20. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next week is going to be awesome!

    21. Re:conditions apply by Agent+Green · · Score: 1
      Today's roomful of rack-mounted systems is tomorrow's server unit.
      Today's server unit is tomorrow's workstation.
      Today's workstation is tomorrow's desktop.
      Todays's desktop to tomorrow's laptop.
      Today's laptop is tomorrow's PDA.
      Today's PDA is tomorrow's wristwatch.
      I knew I should have waited until next week to buy that new server...
      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    22. Re:conditions apply by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the waste heat generated would burn your hand off at the wrist, leaving only a charred stump.

    23. Re:conditions apply by sampowers · · Score: 1
      So how long long until my wristwatch can render the entire Lord of the Rings in the time it would take to watch?


      Oh, about a week or so according to original post.
    24. Re:conditions apply by dorlthed · · Score: 1

      No, the GeForce2 can do hardware DOT3 bump mapping, but the GeForce1 can only do it in software. The GF1 has support for DOT3 in its drivers, but no hardware support. The GF2 was the first to have hardware support.

    25. Re:conditions apply by Basehart · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I started off in '81 with a ZX81 (they had a different name in the US, but I can't remember what it was now)which had 1Kb of onboard memory, or a 16Kb add-on pack."

      You were lucky.

      When I were a lad we'd have to carry over three thousand tons of coal around in our back pockets, heated to the required temperature by a two hundred ton blast furnace we had to grip between our legs, just to get the welcome screen to come on!

    26. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's all well and good, but can it tell me the time?

    27. Re:conditions apply by cei · · Score: 1

      Welcome screen? Luxury. My family would wake up at 4 AM to collect the old tin cans that we'd melt down to cover used dental floss that we wired our breadboard with. Then our father would beat us, kicking out our teeth, which we'd then have to use to program the assembly code in binary, hence the name "boot code".

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    28. Re:conditions apply by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      With enough bandwidth, who cares. Just use the thing as a terminal for something larger.

      Mmmmm. ssh terminal on my wrist. mmmmm..

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    29. Re:conditions apply by pilkul · · Score: 1
      It's not quite as advanced as what you propose, but handheld electronic dictionaries are already very widespread in Japan. Having used one, let me say they beat the pants off any paper dictionary --- 7-8 massive dictionaries in one tiny package, and instant word/ideogram lookup and cross-reference. I'm not ever going back to dead tree dictionaries.

      Of course, though, it's still not that useful to someone who can't speak the language at all. It will be interesting to see if portable babelfishes like you suggest ever become good enough to be widely marketed.

    30. Re:conditions apply by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      One of my coworkers started out as a computer "operator"

      He was telling me that it was an exciting day when they upgraded their IBM to 128k of memory. The memory cabinet was a 4'x4'x8' box and just sucked up tons of power.

      He said the exciting thing was that they could run 4 jobs as once on the thing.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    31. Re:conditions apply by Jackazz · · Score: 1

      Well, I mean, obviously it is to calculate the jump to hyperspace.

    32. Re:conditions apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day, sleep hadn't been invented yet, so we just walked around tired all the time. We didn't have those fancy tin cans neither- we had lead cans. We had to be careful with the molten lead, so it was a good thing we had those asbestos gloves and masks. And back then, breadboards were made from actual bread- you could either work or eat. All of the really talented hackers starved to death. And code in binary? Back in my day, we still were programming in unary- try getting your newfangled fancy-pants binary code to work when all you have are zeroes!

    33. Re:conditions apply by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

      Second question, what could I use that much processing power on my wrist for?

      Two words:
      Windows Longhorn

    34. Re:conditions apply by mikis · · Score: 1

      and for a limited time only... things change tooooo quickly these, todays supercomputer is tomorrows laptop

      It is fascinating how low the treshold for Top 500 is. All you need is a hundred or so Xeon (or Opteron) CPUs, and with couple of hundreds you can be in Top 300.

      BTW they rank Weta at #45 with 1080 CPUs (Xeon 2.8GHz). *If* now they 3300 of them (and all work as single cluster), that should definitely put them to Top 10 (#4 is NCSA with 2500 Xeon 3.06, and #7 is 2304 Xeons 2.4 GHz).

      But their Rmax score with 1080 CPU cluster is 1755 Gflops, if we multiply it by 2.8 (3300/1080, and assuming that all CPUs are 2.8GHz in average), it gives 4914 Gflops, only enough for #12.

    35. Re:conditions apply by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      They're nearly there. You can get a television wristwatch. All they need to do is add a wireless transmitter.

    36. Re:conditions apply by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Not when it comes to Broadcasting and Video Productions. Even in the class I take right now, we use some older hardware, but yet we can make videos like the rest of the more expensive hardware users around the town. If you know what you're doing, old hardware can last for a very long time.

      We still use Mac G4s in our Studio, but with the primary use of Final Cut Pro 4 and iMovie 3, we don't really need a reason to upgrade.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    37. Re:conditions apply by pbjones · · Score: 1

      Asbestos Gloves? You were lucky! Back in my day they made us inhale the asbestos to stop our lungs from failing in the heat. We wrapt the lead cans with the bodies of our dead mates and carried the molten lead to the chip factories. Unary? the only people that knew about numbering systems were the paymasters and Unary was the only method approved for working out wages......seems like very little has changed...

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
  3. What processors? by BorisZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those numbers are nice and all, but what kind of processors are they? I doubt that they are x86...

    --
    --- I hate my sig.
    1. Re:What processors? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      I think they're four way Xeons, actually.

    2. Re:What processors? by JayBat · · Score: 1

      but what kind of processors are they? I doubt that they are x86

      Hrnk? Of course they're x86. Speed and cost-efficiency, m'lad.

    3. Re:What processors? by protohiro1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      IBM dual xeon blades and dell dual xeon racks. Very off the shelf.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  4. File system ? by kbsingh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Be interesting to know what kind of a file system they use one something like this, and while they say loads and loads of data was generated - how and in what format was it actually stored.

    MySQL is prolly not the best fit in this situation :)

    1. Re:File system ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


      They probably won't tell you, as that would give their competitors information.

    2. Re:File system ? by noelmarkham · · Score: 4, Funny

      e interesting to know what kind of a file system they use one something like this...

      My vote goes for FAT16.

    3. Re:File system ? by F13 · · Score: 1

      yes but does it run linux?

    4. Re:File system ? by mj_1903 · · Score: 1

      Well they have 500 terabytes of files spread across 220million files. This gives an average file size of 2.2gb's. I know this rules out a lot of filesystems out there these days.

      My assumption is that their figures are wrong and they have 250million odd 2gb files or they don't have 500 terabytes used right now, as I doubt they are running a 64bit implementation. On the other hand, there might be some hack that someone can inform me of that allows file sizes greater than 2gb on 32bit file systems.

    5. Re:File system ? by paitre · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm, I've had DB files -much- larger than 2 GB on 32bit linux systems...3 years ago.
      I don't find it at all implausible that they've got that much data lying around, at all.
      I know of at -least- one research center with more data on disk than that. :)

    6. Re:File system ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or can they make a modern Stonehenge out of it?

    7. Re:File system ? by BiggestPOS · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can have 9 gig files on NTFS in Windows XP routinely. All the linuxs and BSD are easily capable of this as well.

      --
      What, me worry?
    8. Re:File system ? by mj_1903 · · Score: 1

      I figured that was the case. :) I just have the HFS+ restrictions stuck in my head and the explanations for it, and a quick google return 2gb limitations with LFS, but I didn't check the timestamp.

    9. Re:File system ? by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      My math puts it at about 227 megs per file.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    10. Re:File system ? by waitigetit · · Score: 0

      Your math is wrong

      500E12 / 220E6 = 2.272727...E6 = 2.27MB

      --
      I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
    11. Re:File system ? by m00nun1t · · Score: 1

      640 Terabytes ought to be enough for anyone. ;)

      (yeah, I know Bill never said the original quote)

    12. Re:File system ? by JDevers · · Score: 1

      That would actually need about 500 PETAbytes of data storage. 500 terabytes of data divided by 220 million files yields about 2.2 MEGABYTES per file.

    13. Re:File system ? by neuroklinik · · Score: 5, Informative

      HFS+ has no theoretical limit on file size. It is limited only by the size of the volume (Max 16TB in Panther).

      See Apple Knowledgebase article 25557 for more.

    14. Re:File system ? by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      You are 100% correct. My brain just is not working yet this morning. 500,000,000,000/220,000,000=2,272.727272727272=2.2 MB

      --
      I hate sigs.
    15. Re:File system ? by volve · · Score: 1

      Oh, what, FAT12 not good enough for you now?!

      /me envisions gangs arguing over such matters in future... *shakes fist at Willy Gates*

      -VolVE

    16. Re:File system ? by steeviant · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't make fun of my country. There is a whole lot more happening in New Zealand than just Stonehenge v2.0a and Weta Digital. We have... uh... lots and lots of other interesting things going on... like The Second International Symposium on Transportation Network Reliability for example.

    17. Re:File system ? by silvaran · · Score: 1

      My vote goes for FAT16.

      OMG, assuming it was all on one disk and was possible to access linearly, each cluster (all 65536 of them maybe), and thus each 0-byte file, would be about 7.8 gigs!

      I could be off on the math... 500TB/65536?

    18. Re:File system ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MySQL would probably do just fine for storing information about scenes and file locations and what not. A single SQL server could handle that. Of course, it would be silly to store the files in MySQL databases. Very inefficient--even for simple things like images. Better to store a lookup table for locations and go from there.

    19. Re:File system ? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      In a hilarious twist, I learned the hard way that most external drives are formatted in Fat 32. My backup tarballs were all truncated at 4GB.

      Fortunately the data I needed out of them was in the first 4 gig. Needless to say the puppy is now formatted with XFS. (Gee, why would I want to store really big files on a 250GB external drive?)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    20. Re:File system ? by malducin · · Score: 1

      Well I don't think it would be too difficult to guess. When they started on the first film of LOTR they used a lot of SGI machines, so conceivably they could have been using SGI fileservers which would mean XFS. There aren't that many options to guess from. ILM uses SUN fileservers for NFS.

    21. Re:File system ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But programs have to be modified to support it.

      A program that simply reads the file sequentially doesn't need any modification, actually. The problem comes in when you want to do random access. If you try to do a seek, but your offset doesn't fit in 32 bits (+/- 2 GB at most), say, you want to move 5 GB forward, then you need to use a different syscall with 64 bit integers.

      It gets worse if you want to do file mapping (mapping the file to memory, like if you had read the whole thing into a buffer but the OS will page it in for you as you need it). This would allow you to use pointers and normal data structures to access the data, but then you'd need pointers bigger than 32 bits.

      Database programs have all of this changes, but don't count on simpler utilities to have all this.

    22. Re:File system ? by Nutria · · Score: 0

      And sheep! Lots and lots of sheep!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    they don't have to go to 'Los Alamos National Lab' or 'Earth simulator' to shoot scene with cool super computer and hundreds of geeks (saves them on extras :-)

    1. Re:Well.. by wheany · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Houston, we have a problem!"

      I'm sure he hasn't heard that one before.

  6. At least... by Hangin10 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least assembly isn't required...

  7. This is just the beginning... by thesaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Future films will use even more digital effects and will require even more data storage. If you consider Bill Gate's famous 640K quote, it won't be long until you'll have a 500 Exabyte keychain...

    1. Re:This is just the beginning... by dioscaido · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, famous made up quote.

      http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,1484,00.htm l

      Still, your point about storage stands.

      --

      QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"

      ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."

      Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.

      "Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

      Silly quotations do have a way of floating like rumors.

      Well, the truth starts here.

      He never said it. No free software.

      --

    2. Re:This is just the beginning... by pqdave · · Score: 1

      Since we all know nobody at Microsoft would ever lie about something, that certainly proves the quote is entirely false. Glad that's clear.

    3. Re:This is just the beginning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand you have Mr. Microsoft in person denying this quote, and on the hand you have a vague quote told differently million times by retarded teenagers with no actual recordings to prove it. Guess who's lying?

    4. Re:This is just the beginning... by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot to account for the kneejerk reaction to anything Microsoft related.

      Bill Gates himself denies he ever said it, and there are no documented occurences. As far as any rational, non conspiracy-theorist, person is concerned -- it never happend.

      I will gladly eat crow if you can find me the quote.

    5. Re:This is just the beginning... by pilkul · · Score: 1
      I've also heard that the 640k quote was taken out of context from an interview Gates gave about DOS 4.0, and that in context it meant something rather specific about the capabilities of that operating system, and wasn't a statement about the amount of memory anyone would ever need. I know that in the article you quoted, Gates has denied ever saying it, but he may simply have forgotten. Nobody remembers every single sentence they've ever uttered.

      I've spent a few hours searching the web on this, but the truth is not clear to me. Gates may well have uttered that sentence at some point in the past. At any rate, the important point is that whether the quote was invented or taken out of context, Gates knew demand for memory and CPU would keep on increasing, and never stupidly believed there would be a cap. This is obvious simply because he wouldn't have become the richest man in the world if he completely misunderstood the workings of the industry.

    6. Re:This is just the beginning... by Nutria · · Score: 0
      "We" know 2 things:
      1. billg is known to have told public lies.
      2. There is no proof that he said that about 640KB.
      Thus, we can not say than it did happen, and we can't say that it didn't happen. I wouldn't be surprised if either was "truth".
      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:This is just the beginning... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter that he denies it or there's no evidence that he said it.

      He still called the internet a passing fad in the 1996 edition of his book, and that one's in print!

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  8. Post-project emotional crash by NSash · · Score: 4, Funny

    He is confident... "King Kong is covered in hair," he said, "we could be animating that."

    Is it just me, or does that sound more desperate than confident?

    1. Re:Post-project emotional crash by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed he does.

      He sounds like he's shitting himself at the prospect.

      Sure, they CAN do hair - Monsters Inc was the proving ground for that, but when it comes down to it, the rendering difference between geometric wig units, and actual dynamic flowing furr is immense.
      It is similar to the steps from real time game graphics to full on ray-tracing.

      (Unless of course they have done some pretty damned nifty optimisations in the last few years)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Post-project emotional crash by rishistar · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they'll get to do King Kong with dandruff too!

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    3. Re:Post-project emotional crash by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Sure, they CAN do hair - Monsters Inc was the proving ground for that

      Several years before Monsters Inc. there was a not-too-successful Disney project called Mighty Joe Young. Most of the shots of the gorilla were animatronic, but there were also many CGI shots.

      Go back and watch it. You'll be surprised. Yes, it was all CGI fur, and no, nobody really noticed. It looked that good.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:Post-project emotional crash by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Final Fantasy (the movie) also did nifty stuff with hair

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    5. Re:Post-project emotional crash by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Bah, they just need to insert a scene where K. K. falls into a pit filled with Nair, and becomes a horribly disfigured hairless ape, to be known as Darth Kong...

    6. Re:Post-project emotional crash by malducin · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't really an independent animatronic, but a costumed performer. The practical gorilla was made by Rick Baker, though the face was animatronic (radio controlled). Lots of those shots were done either with perspective tricks or just composited in.

      Both Dream Quest Images and ILM did CG version of Joe with digital hair. ILM did several shots when Joe is running evading capture, when he crosses the freeway at night with the heli on top and the final shot of Joe running, among others. DQI's Cg Joes was featured in the ferris wheel sequence at the end, when it's in Hollywood (the fun mirror and sitting on the car) and several others.

      There are even previous examples than that. One of the first movie CG hair examples is from Jumanji for which they won a Sci-Tech Academy Award later. Other early examples were some commercials by PDI (I believe at least a few months earlier than Jumanji), and Island of Dr. Moreau by Digital Domain.

  9. 3rd Largest? by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're just counting the number of cpu's available to do a particular task, don't you then have to include things like Googles setup (10000+)?

    1. Re:3rd Largest? by EricWright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt Google has any one "host" with that many CPUs. As I understand it, they have thousands of machines that work (mostly) independently of each other. Google's goal is to perform a very large number of short tasks very quickly. Weta's goal is to perform one very large task as quickly as possible.

    2. Re:3rd Largest? by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Weta's goal is to perform one very large task as quickly as possible.

      Maybe not, if you render frame by frame you end up with lots of independ tasks.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:3rd Largest? by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, rendering each frame is a separate task. This more comparable to Google than to traditional supercomputing applications.

    4. Re:3rd Largest? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      True, but the article says that each of the 120,000+ characters in the battle had its own AI. Computing that data in order to calculate where all the polygons should be when it comes down to rendering sounds like a traditional 'really big computer' kind of task.

      Having a set of machines that need to be switched from distributed massive AI calculations to render farm work (or setting them to work out the movements based on AI and then render the frame, rinse and repeat) doesn't sound like the kind of job that many other clusters are made for.

    5. Re:3rd Largest? by Junta · · Score: 1

      They *are* talking about a cluster too, not a single system, so the comparison is relevant.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:3rd Largest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confident the 120,000 character AI could be run on a PC or a few PCs in a few hours. Rendering is the real issue here.

    7. Re:3rd Largest? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      The calculations for the AI were quite separate from the rendering. The animated movements were not tracking every polygon all of the time, instead there was a (large) bunch of pre-set moves, and the AI simply chose which is the best move for each character at each timestep. I doubt this was particularly CPU-intensive.

      I don't know whether filling in the individual polygons was a separate step from the frame rendering, but if so then that itself is 'embarrasingly parallel'.

      The implication from the article is that the cluster wouldn't make the top 500. that suggests they have a poor interconnect (in this context, gigabit ethernet would count as poor), so I doubt they were doing many distributed calculations on it.

    8. Re:3rd Largest? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Informative
      Correction, they currently come in 44th. This presumably doesn't include the extra 1000 processors mentioned in the article, doubling the performance would place it as 16 - although in practice for a distributed calculation you wouldn't get anything like double the performance by doubling the number of boxes.

      Look at the difference in R_max (maximum achieved performance in a real LINPACK benchmark) and R_peak (theoretical maximum) - you can see that it is not a machine built for distributed calculations.

    9. Re:3rd Largest? by mmusson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The rendering isn't as interesting to me as the generation of the content. Another article I read said that the system simulates every single person/thing/it on the battle field as discrete entities with their own limited form a intelligence in order to create a more realistic battlefield.

      The funny thing was that their first attempts were spectacular failures because they attempted to model things as realistically as possible and the good guys fled the field.

      So in the end they reduced the effective intelligence of the good guys until they wouldn't run and then they got what we see now.

      --
      SYS 49152
    10. Re:3rd Largest? by Finuvir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact the Orcs at the back of the fighting could hear the fighting, so they became "afraid" but they weren't close enough to become "frenzied". The net effect was a large-scale fleeing, starting at the back. Apparently it looked just like a real routing.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    11. Re:3rd Largest? by galen · · Score: 5, Informative

      The system is called Massive. During one of the early runs they noticed the guys in the back (on both sides) were wandering off. The problem was that they couldn't 'see' the action so they wandered around randomly looking for opponents. The effect was that it looked like they were running away. The problem was solved by giving the agents something similar to the ability to hear. Thus they could sense the action over greater distances and act accordingly.

      I've seen this misrepresented so many times it's begun to bug me. I believe all the information I just dropped is available on the Extended Edition DVDs special features (probably FotR). If not, then I'm sure a Google search will turn it up.

    12. Re:3rd Largest? by jabbo · · Score: 1

      Google: 20,000 processors ( " + a LOT " )

      I have seen ASCI red, white, and blue, and none of them come anywhere close to the distributed power of Google's machines. These jokers just have no idea.

      (nb. a friend of mine worked for Weta on the Twin Towers. Weta is a great bunch, but they fucked up in this interview.)

      --
      Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
    13. Re:3rd Largest? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      So in the end they reduced the effective intelligence of the good guys until they wouldn't run and then they got what we see now.

      That was the joke but not really the case. The warriors would fight with opponents directly in front of them, They started out in two masses that ran towards each other in hopes that they would run into an opponent and fight it. But their field of "sight" was too narrow and they ended up running past each other and out the other side of the battle. They made the AI a little smarter so that it would run into the battle, pick the nearest opponent and attack.

    14. Re:3rd Largest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains the failure of charging giant elephaunts head on... (imho, the most moronic tactical move in the whole battle)

    15. Re:3rd Largest? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      RUN AWAY! Run away!... Maybe if they'd given the orcs at helms deep a giant wooden badger...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    16. Re:3rd Largest? by tolldog · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct.

      Having done this for a living a while now (as well as previously working on a dot com compute farm) they are really, really similar.

      Render tasks break down even more granular than frames for many studios. I have seen over a dozen layers or passes for an individual fram that was composited later. Each item is tracked seperately, stored seperately, manipulated seperately.

      Rendering is one of the best examples of compute and i/o bound tasks that scales well. If you have the network backbone, the fast storage servers and some clever way of handling just the raw amount of data that gets read to generate the small (in comparison) files, then all you need is a smart load balancer and something to track what is doing what. I have seen several different pipelines and implementations of just how to do this but in the end, even with different approaches, one could keep the CPU's at 100% for hours and hours on end, which is a good sign of an efficient cluster.

      -Tim

      --
      -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
  10. only number is processor number by musikit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the whole article only mentions the processor number to quantify it being a super computer. no tera-flops/seconds. nothing else. they may have the 3rd largest number of processors actively running at one time but a super computer that does not make.

    1. Re:only number is processor number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought being able to leap tall buildings is what made you a super computer...

    2. Re:only number is processor number by garcia · · Score: 1

      I was more impressed by the fact that they needed 1000 more processors and a new data center so they asked IBM to open a new production line just for them.

    3. Re:only number is processor number by JAPrufrock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding. Especially since it sounds more like a renderfarm than a single "supercomputer". Then there's the data storage. That's nothing (though I say it myself). Go to high-energy physics for serious storage/processing centers. Little ol' me uses ~15 TB from 4 months of work, and I'm nothing compared to some people's requirements. I use up about 0.4% of our mass storage here (rough guess). WETA's cool - but not in supercomputer/HPC land.

    4. Re:only number is processor number by oZZoZZ · · Score: 1

      Good point... if they just consider CPU count, then google would probably blow away the top 3 combined.

    5. Re:only number is processor number by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they were using Pentium Pro processors.... -A

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    6. Re:only number is processor number by CdnShaggy · · Score: 1

      I can understand why WETA wouldn't release any of that, being a for-profit bussiness. We dont see IBM or INTEL posting specifics on how the wafers are made, or the success ratio of the production line. The article also gives decent reason as to why it costs so much to make a movie. It mostly coes down to timeframes. Most game companies understand this. How many people got upset about Duke Nukom forever ? Imagine the wrath he would face if he had to push the movie back 3 weeks ? He'd have one helluva mailbomb.

    7. Re:only number is processor number by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

      WETA's cool - but not in supercomputer/HPC land.
      Actually they are. The Top500 supercomputer site lists them as number 44.
      Which is kind of odd especially considering the fact that the article clearly says they're not on that list. /shrug

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
  11. Well.. by manavendra · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...third largest supercomputer on the planet if you count the number of processors: 3300.
    ..
    The ones that beat Weta are the Japanese Earth Simulator (5120 processors) and Los Alamos National Laboratory's supercomputer (8192 processors).
    Doesn't mention the actual processing power. Neither does it mention the individual processing power of each processor. Or what technologies were used to create the digital characters. Or how this "third-largest supercomputer" works...

    Oh and it was fun to read Houston's comment: "We needed another 1,000 processors and we had nowhere to put them" - Someone must have surely commented "Houston, we have a problem!" :-)
    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  12. Looking forward ... by arhar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm really looking forward to Weta doing more amazing special effects work in future projects.. without them, LOTR movies would be, of course, still good, but probably wouldn't have the amazing success among the mainstream, non-geek audience.

    Actually, I'm drooling right now thinking what could they do with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" - depending on how much their stuff would be used in the movie.

    1. Re:Looking forward ... by johnhennessy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This brings up an interesting topic.

      In my opinion what makes special effects add to a film like LOTRs is not how spectacular they look in isolation, but how the director integrates them into their film.

      From what I gather, Mr. Jackson was heavily involved (and very knowledgeable) on what effects were being used where, and he was also very specific as to what he wanted.

      A hallmark of a good effects film is where you can't tell where the effects begin and where the effects end. Regardless of how good your effects are, if the audience can identify them directly your not going to captivate them as completely.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    2. Re:Looking forward ... by ScottGant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, the good effect is where it comes off as believable and not even noticed. It doesn't matter HOW they did the effect, the bottom line is if it works in the movie.

      There are certainly scenes though in movies where it's an obvious effect and doesn't look real. But the ultimate moments in modern effects is where the ONLY way you could tell it's an effect is knowing in your head that such things don't exist.

      To this day, one of the most convincing scene is still the original "Jurrasic ParK" where Jeff Goldblum strikes his flair and waves it at the T-Rex...the scene where the T-Rex is chasing him looks like they captured a real T-Rex and put it in the movie. I mean, my jaw just dropped.

      There are certainly parts in the LOTR movies that are like this also, that you only know they are effects because they couldn't have done them in real life. Sure, there are parts of these movies where the effects fall short...with the amount of shots in this movie and the amount of time and limit of money (yes, 350 million for 3 huge movies isn't really that much these days), there will be some scenes that could have used more attention. For instance the warg scene in "The Two Towers" could have used more work (PJ even comments on this in the commentary for the DVD). But still, the scene works.

      --

      "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    3. Re:Looking forward ... by dave420 · · Score: 1
      But that's easy - you've never seen a T-Rex walking around, so if they make it look like a T-Rex, they've succeeded. WETA's real strong-point wasn't their visual accuracy, but the movements of each CGI character. It's easy enough to plonk a 3D model in there, but to get it to move like its real-life counterpart is something completely, absolutely different.

      Motion capturing is cool, but you have to pick the right subject to capture, otherwise you end up with a geek's movements in a monkey's body, or whatever.

    4. Re:Looking forward ... by ScottGant · · Score: 1

      Yes, but some effects look like CGI in some movies. I mean, the T-Rex looked real in that it fit perfectly into it's environment and looked like it was "there" with Jeff Goldblume.

      Other movies you can just see that it's not real.

      But I agree with you about the motion of WETA's creatures. For instance, Gollum was a true actor. When ever I see a character that is animated by an animator, for instance Gobby the House Elf in Harry Potter, they tend to OVER animate. This is the curse of Disney on modern animators.

      What looks good and works well for a Disney movie that is 2D and hand drawn...the over animation...the overplayed gestures for instance...doesn't always work in a movie that combines live action with CGI animation. Notice when you have an actor on the screen, they don't wildly over gesture with their arms and head movements (unless it's part of a scene of course). While Harry was standing there talking, Gobby couldn't stand still. It was kind of "wrong". But I guess I'm the only one that noticed this.

      While Gollum was truly acted. Whole scenes where he wasn't moving around in the frame for the sake of moving around.

      I guess my ham-fisted way of trying to explain this isn't coming through, but I hope people understand.

      --

      "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    5. Re:Looking forward ... by Rallion · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of the credit for Gollum has to go not to WETA, but to Andy Serkis, the man who did the "true acting" of which you speak. Gollum isn't a purely CGI character, he's a real character who was...repainted, let's say.

    6. Re:Looking forward ... by malducin · · Score: 1

      Actually most of the work for "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was awarded to Rhythm and Hues. They have donde several things since then like building miniatures for Master and Commander and Peter Pan.

      More recently Weta Digital seems to have done some work for Van Helsing (where ILM is the main provider) and some for I, Robot (where Digital Domain is the main provider).

  13. So anyone can build the largest? by BondGamer · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I collected 5121 computers (486s) and connected them all together I would have the largest supercomputer in the world?

    1. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by Bookcrosser · · Score: 1
      If I collected 5121 computers (486s) and connected them all together I would have the largest supercomputer in the world?

      You'd be slashdotted but then again you could probably handle the load.

    2. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      Nah, you'd need 8193 (to beat Los Alamos). Any thoughts on how you'd do the connection? If it's just the number of processors that matters, you might use Krazy Glue...

    3. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by osewa77 · · Score: 1

      LARGEST, perhaps, but not necessarily the FASTEST!

    4. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      If I collected 5121 computers (486s) and connected them all together I would have the largest supercomputer in the world?

      Not if, as has been proposed, Google has more than 70k processors...

    5. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Naw, his 1200 baud connection would go down hard.

    6. Re:So anyone can build the largest? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      No, you'd need 2.4 MegaVolkswagons, each with an iPod and a clown(roughly equal to 63 Libraries of Congress), to become the world's largest supercomputer.

  14. That must be nice. . . by noewun · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Yeah, IBM? Yeah. . . Apple told me there was a four week wait for my G5. Could ya crank out a couple for me? Thanks. Hugs to all. . ."

    --
    I am a believer of momentum and curves.
  15. Why King Kong by R.Caley · · Score: 3, Funny

    When he could do beowolf and bring down /. under a rush of nerds posting the same joke?

    --
    _O_
    .|<
    The named which can be named is not the true named
    1. Re:Why King Kong by jejones · · Score: 1

      I bet they could animate a kick-posterior Grendel.

    2. Re:Why King Kong by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      I bet they could animate a kick-posterior Grendel.

      Then install an extra data centre to do mother?

      I have wondered for ages why no one has done a movie of Beowolf. Three huge monster battles and a death scene which would have all the Hollywood action heroes scratching each other's eyes out for the chance to show they are serious actors, really. honest. It's short enough that you wouldn't have to cut it to shreds or make 3 bladder busters. And you could give Seamus Heaney a writing credit and score masses of culture-points.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    3. Re:Why King Kong by Crizp · · Score: 1
      I have wondered for ages why no one has done a movie of Beowolf
      There is a movie of Beowulf (albeit a very bad one) starring Christopher Lambert and Rhona Mitra (the first 'real' Lara Croft). IMDB link: Beowulf

      I haven't had the patience to read the original poem, but this movie sucks.

      Also, I spotted this. Can't be good... Scott Speedman? WTF?
    4. Re:Why King Kong by OiBoy · · Score: 1

      Having been involved with the production of Beowulf (I used to work at Threshold Entertainment) I can tell you that it does suck mightily. However, our CG of Grendel and the witch mother ROCKED. The initial script was good, Chris Lambert was good, the animators were great, the director and producer had their heads up their asses. The final script and the release were horrible. When we (the animators and tech staff) went to see the final before release we were disgusted. There's a reason it went direct to video.

      --
      `fortune -o`
    5. Re:Why King Kong by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      There is a movie of Beowulf (albeit a very bad one)[...]

      `A sci-fi update...' no wonder I have never heard of it, presumably my brain blocked out any information about such an abomination to save my sanity. And they didn't even do the dragon.

      I presume that will have poisoned the idea for a decade. Sigh.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    6. Re:Why King Kong by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Three huge monster battles and a death scene which would have all the Hollywood action heroes scratching each other's eyes out for the chance to show they are serious actors, really.

      Yeah, but you know the casting office would end up doing something as stupid as... oh, I don't know... Brad Pitt as fucking Achilles.
      homer.ingrave(rotating) == true

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Why King Kong by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      homer.ingrave(rotating) == true

      Mmmmmm. Gyro kebab.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
  16. The Largest Super Computer Was Here... by tobechar · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...In the 80's.

    I am a T-1000 Model.

    I have a neural-net processah in a metal alloy exo-skeleton, covered in living tissue.

    Honestly now, these video rendering super-computer can't touch a T-1000!

    --
    -
    1. Re:The Largest Super Computer Was Here... by smiths2 · · Score: 1

      And I run commented 6502 listings when chasing after my target.

    2. Re:The Largest Super Computer Was Here... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      That would be because they aren't equipped with ARMS you insensitive CLOD!

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  17. Not just graphics by surgeonsmate · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Weta also did the model work. I was over in Wellington some months ago and the model for Barad-dur was on display in the foyer of the national museum. About twenty feet high and superbly detailed. Awesome.

    They also built the models for the ships used in Master and Commander, but the computer graphics were handled elsewhere.

    After seeing these films, I'm going to be very keen indeed to see what these Kiwis can come up with next!

    1. Re:Not just graphics by Peteresch · · Score: 1

      The CG for Master and Commander was done at ILM. Just another small special effects company :-)

    2. Re:Not just graphics by cca93014 · · Score: 1

      After seeing these films, I'm going to be very keen indeed to see what these Kiwis can come up with next!

      The will probably go back to crying about being shit at Rugby ;)

    3. Re:Not just graphics by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      WETA was originally a non-CG effects shop, just like ILM. Both were created before the dawn of CG and specialized in miniatures, painting, puppetry etc. work.

    4. Re:Not just graphics by bunyip · · Score: 1

      After seeing these films, I'm going to be very keen indeed to see what these Kiwis can come up with next!

      A VR sheep?

    5. Re:Not just graphics by Blic · · Score: 1

      Well, sorta. Weta is actually two companies in one that seem to operate somewhat independently of each other. Weta Digital does the computer stuff, Weta Workshop builds models and minatures, costumes, weapons, props, etc.

    6. Re:Not just graphics by dave420 · · Score: 1
      They also enlisted the help of a sole Kiwi inventor, who'd made a handheld laser modeling gun. Held in the hand, with no external supports or machinery (like a barcode scanner at the shops), it can quickly scan a model into the computer with great detail. You "paint" it with the laser, and it draws it on screen. Fascinating stuff.

      It's complete focus like that which makes WETA one of the world-leaders in bleeding-edge model making.

    7. Re:Not just graphics by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also enlisted the help of a sole Kiwi inventor, who'd made a handheld laser modeling gun. Held in the hand, with no external supports or machinery (like a barcode scanner at the shops), it can quickly scan a model into the computer with great detail. You "paint" it with the laser, and it draws it on screen.

      It's a small company in New Zealand. They do a lot of interestign work, including some interesting non-mesh based methods for 3D models. Their website is here: http://www.aranz.co.nz

      Jedidiah.

    8. Re:Not just graphics by malducin · · Score: 1

      The work was more or less evenly split between Asylum and ILM. Most of the work was actually compositing, there wasn't that much CG used. ILM did generate digital oceans I I think built a few models as well, but Asylum stuck to compositing and rotoing.

    9. Re:Not just graphics by imroy · · Score: 1

      That looks like a nifty little gadget. From the photo, it appears to be a laser source in the middle with two cameras above and below to view the "slice" generated by the laser.

      Interesting to see on their products page:

      Distributed by Polhemus as the Polhemus FastSCAN.

      So it looks like perhaps the kiwis are having similar problems with inventions going overseas as we do here in Australia. We have lots of inventors making nifty inventions. But when it comes to making them into products and turning a profit, local companies turn a blind eye and then act surprised when a US/Asian/European company turns it into a product that sells.

    10. Re:Not just graphics by donnz · · Score: 1

      After seeing these films, I'm going to be very keen indeed to see what these Kiwis can come up with next!

      Shrek?

      --
      -- Free software on every PC on every desk
  18. Top500 by FU_Fish · · Score: 5, Informative

    *cough* Top500 List *cough*

    1. Re:Top500 by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      since the parent posted a password protected version of the page, go here for the regular one

  19. Figure it out by thpdg · · Score: 1
    It's too early to write a joke, so here's the pieces, you put it togeter:
    • A bunch of super dorks that work on computers
    • Hundreds of free CPUs on a supercomputer
    • The movie S1m0ne

    And, as always, please show your work
    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  20. Japanese Earth Simulator by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 0

    I actually don't care too much for special FX (but the one's rendered in RealTime on my machine ;) or LOTR actually..

    (I hope this wont modded 'not geeky' but I saw the first movie and it sortof pissed me off to have to wait for the next movies, which weren't yet released so I decided to not "go there again", and waste money on incomplete movies.. but that's another topic)


    It seems kindof a waste to have the 3th 'biggest' computer working for media.
    It's actually scary to have the 3th biggest computer 'be in control' of what most of the ppl will see.

    (what if that machine becomes aware.. and using images to brainwash or manipulate the .. oh network-tv already did that..)


    But can someone give some insight on the "Japanese Earth Simulator" they mention?
    I think they have a webpage here but it's very first thing I hear about the project...

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    1. Re:Japanese Earth Simulator by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 0

      Someone didn't get sex and got moderation points..

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:Japanese Earth Simulator by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Umm, they're finished now. Why not go see them?

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    3. Re:Japanese Earth Simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3th?!?

      3th?!?

    4. Re:Japanese Earth Simulator by Niahak · · Score: 1

      Their English pamphlet states that it's a simulator of the environment on the Earth, and that it's used to predict the effects of some events on the global environment.

  21. More digital effects = less realism? by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The Return of the King, which had more than 1500 special effects shots in it. By contrast the first movie had only 400 and the second 900."

    The funny thing is that personally I lovedthe first movie, really liked the second, and... well... the third movie was pretty good too but seemed a little long.

    Many factors could have contributed to this, but after hearing all of Jackson's encomia to model work and miniatures in the DVD "documentaries," I have to wonder whether the increased use of digital effects contributed in some subtle way to some loss of mood or atmosphere or reality in the third movie.

    1. Re:More digital effects = less realism? by Obasan · · Score: 1

      I completely agree - the first was far and away the best of the three. But I tend to think it was because there was time for... dialog, and character development. There just seemed to be too much running around and head bashing in the following two to allow for either of these things. Plus Legolas's lines got infinitely more cheesy throughout the series. :P

    2. Re:More digital effects = less realism? by iabervon · · Score: 1

      More digital effects does generally mean more scenes involving anonymous hordes. The problem I had with the third movie, and more with the second movie as originally editted, was that it had a substantial portion devoted to battles, which don't really have interesting character interaction.

      I think Peter Jackson's mistake was in not cutting any of the battles for the theatrical releases. I found the second one tedious in the theater once Helm's Deep started, but it didn't feel as long, ironically, in the extended version. I think the fact that he kept effects and cut live action worsened the movies, but that, if he had kept them in balance, the effects would have been as important as he claims.

      On the other hand, Smeagol was great, despite being a digital effect, and must have contributed significantly to the effect count in the last two movies. So not all digital effects are lacking in depth.

    3. Re:More digital effects = less realism? by g0_p · · Score: 1

      I think the scenes in the end, where they were all bidding each other goodbye lasted for 15-20 minutes (maybe longer!)..

      That could all have been replaced with 2 minutes of footage where all the hobbits, dwarves, elves etc. wave goodbye to the audience as soon as they had won the war. :-D

    4. Re:More digital effects = less realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be cool if Weta teamed up with ILM to do Smeagol VS Jar Jar Binks in a digital fight to the bloody end :)

  22. I thought WETA was 44th worldwide by corporate_ai · · Score: 1

    Granted, this list http://www.top500.org/list/2003/11/ is a couple of months old but it shows WETA much lower in the rankings.

    --
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:I thought WETA was 44th worldwide by SlayerofGods · · Score: 0

      You knows what's really odd about it being on that list. Is the guy from the article specifically stated they're not on that list, and yet they are on there twice, go figure.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
  23. And not only... by GeekDork · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... would the hair be animated, the hairs would be fighting each other!

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

  24. Based solely on processor count by jsin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure that there are landfills that beat this setup...

  25. Wetta@home by WillRobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe something along the lines of paying for processing time, on millions of computers would get the work done like seti@home.

    1. Re:Wetta@home by EnsilZah · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That made me think, how about donating your processor time to render a movie and then getting a discount on the ticket for it?

    2. Re:Wetta@home by jkantola · · Score: 1


      There are issues with things like global illumination models that are difficult, inefficient or even impossible to do with distributed computing.

  26. DVD set by erroneous · · Score: 5, Funny

    Personally, I'm looking forward to the 2005 release of the 100000-DVD-set with all 500TB of extra footage and of making of documentaries.

    --
    erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
  27. I *had* to say it.... by sombragris · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! :D

    --
    -- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
  28. Look out! Here comes new zealand! by nfabl · · Score: 5, Funny

    2 posts ago they were building stonehenge, now they have the 3rd largest supercomputer in the world.

    I for one...

    1. Re:Look out! Here comes new zealand! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      It's like Philadelphia on Fark. Either we just are a festering kettle of really weird news, or we just market it well.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  29. Not to be a pedant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got the terms swapped...

    It's an ENDO -skeleton.

    "Exo" means "outside".
    "Endo" means "inside".

    If he had an exo-skeleton, he'd look like Kryten.

  30. Uh... by LooseChanj · · Score: 1
    "King Kong is covered in hair," he said, "we could be animating that."

    That's going over the edge and swimming across the ocean right there.
    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  31. Third "largest"? Big deal! by neuroklinik · · Score: 1

    Isn't it the point of supercomputing to get work done more quickly? Big deal if the gear that does it is big. Isn't it a loftier goal to get the most work done in the least amount of space? Or, in the case of this article, with the fewest number of processors?

  32. No, you'd have a land-fill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    (general lamness to defeat the lame filter)

  33. Evangelion by robotmurder · · Score: 1

    I can't wait until WETA does Evangelion. It literally cant be any lesser than 3 times the movie King Kong will be, because it's based around 3 giant mecha... When I find out that it's rated PG-13 however, I will commit suicide.

  34. Insightful??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful? IT'S PASSWORD PROTECTED.

    (Damn checks. Yelling was the effect I was going for.)

    1. Re:Insightful??? by FU_Fish · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry about that. I don't know why the site is password protected without the "www" at the beginning.

  35. Not quite true. by anzha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Saying the WETA render farm is the third largest machine in the world based on the number of processors is wrong. Just check the latest top 500 list and a quick skim points out that Lawrence Livermore National Lab's ASCI White (8192) and ASCI Blue Pacific (5808), Lawrence Berkeley National Lab/NERSC's seaborg (6656), Sandia National Lab's ASCI Red (9632), and Los Alamos National Lab's ASCI Blue Mountain (6144) all have more processors as well as the two already listed.

    Also interesting that WETA Digital is listed as #44 on the list too, huh? They only listed a Xeon cluster though with 1080 processors. (prolly not be the same machine, but...).

    I love technical articles from the popular press about technical subjects. They do soooo much in depth research. I hope that they don't hurt themselves.

    *Disgusted look*

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:Not quite true. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      Also interesting that WETA Digital is listed as #44 on the list too, huh? They only listed a Xeon cluster though with 1080 processors. (prolly not be the same machine, but...).

      If you'd bother to read the article you would have seen at the end, they had to add a FIFTH data center with another 1000 processors at the end of the film. No, not the same machine. MUCH MUCH larger. Your top500.org site uses old data. big whoop.

      I love bashing posts from clueless readers who can't be bothered to read the article. They do sooo much in depth research before posting. I hope they hurt themselves.

      *Even more discusted look*

    2. Re:Not quite true. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      yes, yes. I typo'd.

    3. Re:Not quite true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please note the article says "third largest" not "third fastest"

    4. Re:Not quite true. by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Also interesting that WETA Digital is listed as #44 on the list too, huh? They only listed a Xeon cluster though with 1080 processors. (prolly not be the same machine, but...).
      Did you notice that they are also listed at #48? Adding another 1000 processors to those two clusters might well result in top 10 performance.
    5. Re:Not quite true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. And the parent post listed 5 more machines that were 'larger' i.e. had more nodes just from the top500 list. I think that was the point. 8th largest doesn't sound as cool as third largest though...

  36. FUCKING ROOKIE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. Not Third Largest by turm · · Score: 3, Informative
    "...third largest supercomputer on the planet if you count the number of processors, 3300, it can call on..."

    From the Top500 List for November 2003:

    Earth Simulator - 5120

    LANL / ASCI Q - 8192

    LLNL / ASCI White - 8192

    NERSC / LBNL / Seaborg - 6656

    Nice research, BBC.

    1. Re:Not Third Largest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats why the number of processors doesn't mean squat. What matters for top500 is how well Linpack runs. The Weta systems are for a render farm (loosely coupled using ethernet I'm sure). Linpack likes low-latency interconnects to perform its calculation; so Weta's system likely runs Linpack quite poorly. Weta blindly claiming to be the 3rd fastest cluster purely based on processor count is extremely ignorant.

  38. ...and it isn't T-1000 by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    The T-1000 was that liquid metal guy in Terminator 2. Arnold played a T-9something or whatever. And the other poster is right. It's an ENDOskeleton! Exo-skeletons are what crustaceans and insects have.

    Jeeze, man, get your terminator facts straight!
    Just for an added showoff of my knowledge of useless facts, the actual line mentioning the processor was: "My CPU is a neural net processah: a learning computer."

  39. New Profit Model by bshroyer · · Score: 1, Interesting
    And I'm serious, here. From the article:

    Much better would be to use a Grid-type approach that lets Weta call on processing power where-ever it is and when it needs it.

    I'm sure that it's obvious, but so is every other great idea I've ever had. So, here's the business plan:
    1. Build a trusted distributed computing project
    2. Convince your subscribers to allow you to execute arbitrary binary code on their machine, in return for $/CPU cycle
    3. Lease your grid to movie makers, pharmaceutical companies, mathematicians, or to clandestine weapons developers
    4. Profit!
    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
    1. Re:New Profit Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not new. It's basically the idea of utility computing. What it really requires is the ability for the applications that are used to build the movies to be "grid-enabled" so you can jsut plug them in and make use of the CPUs.. I think the next version of After Effects from Adobe will have this type of feature, but I believe the majority of the Effects for LOTR were done with Apple's Shake so Shake would need to have something similar to After Effects..

    2. Re:New Profit Model by dave420 · · Score: 1

      but then that would be like palladium, so it must be evil. and you too, for suggesting it. :-P

  40. HS20 blades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They where an older version of the HS20 blades, I think the 2.8GHz version with only a 400MHz FSB.

  41. Other possible uses? by fygment · · Score: 1

    Third largest super computer and for what? Entertainment. I don't know, it just seems like a skewed sense of priorities. Cancer research, fusion research, any number of possible alternative uses come to mind.

    The article spoke of drawing additional computing power from other sources (à la grid computing). I didn't see a mention of it offering any computer power to anyone during their business "troughs".

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Other possible uses? by Kiwiscot · · Score: 1

      As you will already have seen, the largest super computers are used for scientific research.

      The article failed to mention that Scott Houston was in London as a guest of Outsource to New Zealand (O2NZ) and was also meeting with European pharmaceutical, oil and engineering firms to talk about allowing them use of the system for data analysis and FE/CFD work. No sense in having a depreciating multimillion dollar asset just sitting there when there's customers out there who could get their product to market that much quicker.

      rgds

      KS

  42. Sign O' The Times... by silversurf · · Score: 1

    ...that one of the largest computers in the world is used for entertainment...love the movies tho, so I guess I can't complain too much :-)

    -c

  43. Yabut... by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    did each haird have it's own AI and fighting style?

    1. Re:Yabut... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Each hair has to have its own dynamic processes and react in tandem with the adjacent hairs - similar in principle to the dynamics of a few thousand warriors.

      And yes, the hair tufts must react differently just as the hair on your head acts differently to your armpit hair (crude example, but it serves its purpose).

      The principles are similar, but the algorythms are applied at different points.

      You can render warriors yourself in realtime - each with their own fighting style and AI, but you would have trouble getting the processing power in your super nvidia/ati card to render even 1 person with a full head of hair.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Yabut... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      strike that actually lol - my fx5900 could simulate it using custom shaders I think (think wavy grass - not quite accurate, but "good enough"), but not the dynamic gravity effected "real" hair I see in Poser which I use...

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  44. It's not a supercomputer by EnglishTim · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not a supercomputer, it's a render farm - there's a big difference. I'm sure there there are several VFX companies that have that number of processors in their renderfarm. The one I work for has somewhere between 2000 and 2500 processors in it, and I'm sure companies like PDI, ILM and Escape have more.

    The way the render farms tend to work is this: you have a bunch of jobs, which get sent to the farm. You'll have a bit of software which allocates each job to a computer, or set of computers. Your job might be something like:

    for frames 1 - 100
    generate .rib file from scene for frame #
    munge .rib
    send .rib to PRMan

    This would generate 300 jobs that will get allocated on the farm - obviously some of them are dependent on others being completed. However, each section of the job is a standard program on a fairly standard (normally) Linux install.

    If all the computers were being combined into a supercomputer, they wouldn't all be running their own programs, they'd be combined into a huge 'virtual' computer, presumably with each processor running a virtual thread on that computer.

    1. Re:It's not a supercomputer by eGuy · · Score: 1

      We have a 20,000 processor super computer! Each processor is housed in a cubicle and connected with a 1gig ethernet. Sorry, I win.

    2. Re:It's not a supercomputer by malducin · · Score: 2, Informative

      ILM had about 2500 processors on the renderfarm as recent as last year, could ne more now with the work for Ep. 3. Pixar also recently upgraded. At Rhythm and Hues (and many other places) they incorporte the workstations at night for the render jobs so it also depends how you count "render processors".

  45. WETA is both 44th and 48th by Noren · · Score: 1
    They're both 44th and 48th- for some reason they benchmarked the halves separately. Those have 1176 and 1080 processors each, so I guess it doesn't include the new 1000. There are more than two supercomputers with more processors, as well- in addition to the Earth Simulator(5120 processors) ASCI Q at LANL (8192) there's also ASCI White at LANL (8192), Seaborg at LBNL (6656) ASCI Red at Sandia (9632), ASCI Blue at LLNL (5808), ASCI Blue Mountain at LANL (6144).

    Not even by their own silly measure of number of processors are they third.

  46. What famous quote? by bonch · · Score: 1

    He never said it, and even if he did, it was correct--in 1982, 640K was all anyone would ever need. The statement was not false.

    1. Re:What famous quote? by thesaur · · Score: 1

      I did not say he indeed said it, I said the statement was attributed to him. I was fully aware that he denys saying it.

      And I said nothing concerning the truth factor. I simply was talking about the development that succeded that alleged statement. Consider the variation of Moore's law applied to storage.

    2. Re:What famous quote? by bonch · · Score: 1

      By saying "Bill Gates' famous quote," you're basically implying he said it, and continuing to spread the incorrect meme.

      It makes Slashdotters look ignorant when it keeps popping up.

    3. Re:What famous quote? by thesaur · · Score: 1

      I assumed that it is well known that this is an urban legend. Especially here on slashdot, where it has been discussed numerous times :-)

  47. its only by CPU count fellas... by Muad · · Score: 1

    The article says it is third by #of CPUs, not by Teraflops or by any computational measure.

    Someone could come up with 10.000 dreamcasts linked up together for a few bucks these days, and while it would have quite some rendering power, that does not make it the first supercomputer in the world just because it has more chips in it!

    (Score +1, Obvious)

    --
    --- "I didn't think anyone would understand it" -Prof. Bob Muller
  48. Renderfarm how to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any one knows how to build a renderfarm?

  49. Do people think we can rely on this list? by denisonbigred · · Score: 1

    I don't want to sound like some tin-foil hat wearing loony, but im sure that those comments will inevitably follow, but, do people really think this list is accurate? With our governments tendency to be very secretive about national security these days, it isn't unreasonable to assume that our most powerful computing resources are public knowledge. The government certainly doesn't want other nations to know even the theoretical limits of our weapons testing programs, etc.

    --

    "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
    1. Re:Do people think we can rely on this list? by FU_Fish · · Score: 1

      Notice that many systems on the list are listed as classified. In general, one way govt. agencies pat themselves on the back is by showing off on this list. I believe you can rest fairly assured that even the most powerful defense systems are listed here, although their locations and uses are probably listed as classified.

      Now whether the information on the list is useful is a whole other hornets nest of opinions, bruised-feelings, and religious zealots.

  50. Is this the same company? by g-san · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    "The result was that within two weeks the new data centre was finished and helping prepare the battle for the big screen."

    "Finding and moving the data for that sequence out of storage so it could be reworked for the second film took about three days."

    They can coordinate with IBM to install 1,000 new PCs in a new datacenter with 10Gb from the telco in 2 weeks, but it takes them three days to find a few files?

    1. Re:Is this the same company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few TB of files most likely off-site on tape we're not talking about a 'Windows search' on your 20GB desktop, get a clue

  51. How do they figure this out? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "Only" 3300 processors? Isn't it said Google has more than 1000000?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  52. Wow, what a terrific ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waste of computing resources. Those movies were awful. I'll leave this flame bait message with a quote from Mr. Tolkein himself, "My fans are deplorable..."

  53. Two Towers Extended Edition by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

    It is the Two Towers Extended Edition, actually. Very nice feature on Massive in it.

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  54. Rumor has it... by Ingolfke · · Score: 3, Funny

    That the system is collectively known as "the precious".

  55. Cthulhu Saves! by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    But Nyarlethotep Invests - ask him how...

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  56. Neon Genesis Evangelion by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 1

    It's supposedly in the works by WETA, Let's hope it get's the full attention it needs from weta's box of toys. http://eva.trivialbeing.net/

  57. And on the Seventh Day... by orichter · · Score: 1

    ...He rested.

  58. Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to temper a few geeks, yes the visual aspect of LOTR was quite a feet. The main things that pulled it off were : Actor chemestry, and having a predone source that had notoriety. Might i start hollywar three and note the lukewarm nature of Matrix 2b?

  59. "640K ought to be enough for anyone." --Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did say it, you stupid idiot. It's the MS shills like you who go around trying to spread this false meme that he never said it--in spite of all the easily obtainable evidence to the contrary (much like the neo-nazis who try to say that the holocaust never happened).

    It makes you look ignorant when you keep saying "HE NEVER SAID IT!!!!!" when, in fact, he did. Of course he denies it now, b-b-b-but he'd never lie about that would he? B-b-b-b-but he's never lied in the past, has he?

    No, rest easy, he has never lied--and in his book "The Road Ahead" where he never went back and added in the Internet after the fact in order to keep himself from looking like a clueless idiot.
    </sarcasm>