Slashdot Mirror
Rodriguez uses Linux to Edge out ILM
An anonymous reader writes "A Linux device helped legendary independent filmmaker Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi, Desperado, Spy Kids, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and others) win the race with ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) to create the first movie ever to use a digital format supporting full-bandwidth RGB. Rodriguez's Sin City, which opens April 1, was shot in Dual Link, or "4:4:4" format, and transferred between tapes and hard drives using SpectSoft's Linux-based RaveHD DDR (digital disk recorder)."
yes, because ILM was much more than just a render farm. Teams of talented artists, model makers and engineers have kept them relevent.
Whatever. Maya + RaveHD does not make you a visual effects facility capable of turning out 300 shots in a post production schedule of 7 months.
Just like having a copy of the GIMP doesn't make you into one of the leading creative ad agencies in the world. It takes a mix of talent, skill, experience and tools to be the top of your field.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
Congratulations, you have mastered copy and paste! You win!
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
With all due respect to the writer of the article, in practical terms, I'm not sure what this means to the viewer of the film . . . Does this mean that the colors/details look better, or that there are less losses in color/detail during the application of digital effects, or is this fairly immaterial to the end viewer and will the end product look pretty much the same as 4:2:2 work?
And to extend the question beyond the big screen, will this make a difference in the DVD transfer of this film, or will any benefit be negated by losses during DVD transfer?
ILM has an advantage in designing *new* machines, building on their own past achievements, as well as the newcomers', like anyone else. But the most important geniuses at ILM were those designing and using their machines. Organizational culture, rooted in its executives' vision, distinguishes winners from losers. Jumps in tech are opportunities to be exploited, not guarantees of success, for the big innovators as well as the later exploiters.
A more relevant factor in ILM's relevance is budget. ILM has big budgets, to attract talent and explore more opportunities, more of which they can afford to lose before hitting a winner. But their budget is so high that they can only be hired by big budget projects. Which are run by people who fear any risk, and which tend to make effects budgets "show their value" by featuring the effects, rather than using effects solely to support the rest of the picture (characters, story, etc). So we get ILM working big, bombastic, boring projects. Meanwhile, cheaper (Linux, etc) effects houses can spring up, try stuff, experiment with both effects and other risky, unproven parts of the picture. Again, the bottleneck is brains: if ILM supports the vision of a visionary film, it has an advantage. If ILM's execs apply it to the deadend of mere "special effects extravaganzas", it will be as relevant as fireworks exhibitions.
--
make install -not war
Though it must be said that Rodriguez resigned from the Directors Guild because he felt that Frank Miller should be given co-director credit.
Rodriguez is a fanatic of Frank Millers work and he would certainly be the first to jump up and correct someone if they said "Rodriguez's Sin City".
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
"It's unlikely you would be able to see any difference between a 4:2:2 video, and a 4:4:4 video."
And there is a difference, at least when you're picking out stills and doing CMYK separations on them. Look how blocky and crapulent the yellow channel looks when you separate out an MPEG still or a JPEG image, and how sharp the black channel looks.
The real question is "Is size a consideration?". If it is not, do an uncompressed 4:4:4 AVI. I believe it will take around 100GB/hr in SDTV, and something like 600GB/hr in full HDTV. Don't quote me on those, but something like that. You can do lossless compression, but it will still be *huge* videos.
Now, if we assume that it is, the real question is, are the bits better put to use compressing the vid, or improving the color depth? Personally, I'd rather take two separate 4:2:2 pixels than two 4:4:4 pixels mixed up to save space (a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea).
Depending on what we want, it might be more effective to increase resolution, decrease compression or increase the frame rate than it is to improve the color clarity.
Resolution: SDTV is enough if you are more than 10x the screen size away. HDTV is enoug hif you are more than 3x the screen size away. In front of my PC, or if I could get a video wall, I'd be maybe 1x away. You'd need a super-HDTV that is to HDTV that which HDTV is to SDTV.
Compression: Difficult to say. Trained eyes can spot artifacts (blocking, shearing etc.) in almost any vid. Lossless vids would mean much bigger vids.
Framerate: We can easily move to 60p. That should put us near the "flicker rate" of the eye at 72Hz, perhaps even 90p for perfection.
So yes... the colors aren't perfect. But nothing else is either.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings