Slashdot Mirror
Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar Go Linux
robinsrowe writes "Most of the major studios use Linux -- such as DreamWorks with more than 1,500 Linux desktops and 3,500 Linux servers. The MovieEditor Conference is an all-day event on computer-based filmmaking in downtown Los Angeles on August 3rd. Studio technology chiefs and other experts discuss ongoing work using Linux in feature animation and visual effects. Presented in collaboration with LinuxMovies.org."
They were using SGI before right? I thought that someone has already been using clusters of linux servers for this though...
http://www.dreamsyssoft.com
So Steve Jobs runs Linux now?
I believe I heard that Pixar released much of their software. Even though these are at steep prices, maybe this will give more companies in the same field a chance to switch to linux.
How much does the selection come down to cost vs customization?
On one hand, renderfarms of ~5k machines get pretty expensive already, and adding another $500k for windows liscences is no small change.
On the other, how much of the software is custom/gets customized, and Linux is a better platform for doing custom software and customization?
Test your net with Netalyzr
When you need to do some hard core processing, Linux gives you a good bang for its buck. Plus it can be so easly configured that you can just make it process.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Okay, I didn't RTFA, but does anyone know what apps these studios use for rendering? I'm pretty sure Pixar uses proprietary stuff, is anyone using FOSS?
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Sweet.
For an overview of which distros various studios are using (or are migrating to), along with various hardware solutions: http://www.studio-linux.org
Lameness filter. :)
What apps does the Linux desktops/clusters run for rendering?
This is just an agenda for a conference. Are they trying to inform us or sell us seats? Is Slashdot getting a percentage? Do editors edit, or chose stories with a randomized function? Inquiring minds want to know!
Actually, we already know the answer. Never mind.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Well, duh! That's one of the things I like about working in computer animation. In my company there's maybe a dozen windows boxes and most of them are used by HR/accounting/reception. All the production work is done on Linux and Mac.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Studios use a lot of clusters, which are much better (in several ways) on Linux than on Windows.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Pixar should invest in a Blue Gene. Secondly for some time now Pixar had there software running on linux x86 clusters. Before that they had some solution from Sun. Anyway but it looks like Linux is being pushed into the work horse area of the movie world. The only two movies that I know that are based on Linux are Toy Stories and Madagascar. They all have penguins and are big budget cartoons.
Probably due more to custimization. It is just a lot easier to strip down Linux and make it processes data then it is to do for windows. Being that it is free doesn't hurt. Because they have aready used a good portion on their 5k systems. I find I use linux most at work when I need to make a custom appliance. Get a system powerful enough to do the job I need to be done. Set up linux and usally a small custom app and it just runs. Unlike windows where it just get in the way.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From TFA: "Get behind-the-scenes Linux and Macintosh insights into feature animation and visual effects production in the motion picture industry." You'll notice that one of the apps they highlight is Apple's Shake, and they mention Mac OS X as a desktop environment with Linux servers.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
It isn't because of ease of use or even configuratoin that they are using it. It is because they have access to the source code and can modify any/all of it in-house.
That's it.
Windows fundamentally does not understand how to do batch computing.
Try it. Try launching and controlling thousands of jobs distributed across a windows network. Have fun and good luck with that!
Some bonehead VP at Intel tried to get us to use NT for that shit. It was a disaster. We've stuck with Linux and the VP was "re-assigned".
On one hand, renderfarms of ~5k machines get pretty expensive already, and adding another $500k for windows liscences is no small change.
The choice wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was Linux vs IRIX. This is why SGI's stock is in the toilet.
It would be be nice to see credit given to even some of the OSS that is used in the movies; CineaPaint, Linux (how about a tux), etc. After all, the movie companies want credit when they help on OSS (look at CineaPaint).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I just touched her hand, and her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I just scored!
It's similar for the high-finance move to Linux. One transaction can be worth over a billion dollars. Paying an extra $500k for a system that prevented the loss of a hundred transactions would be a no-brainer. These people use Linux because it works not because it's cheap.
The saved $500K just means a quick downpayment for that new yacht.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
I happen to be an amateur filmmaker... No, really... I really am
I have 3 different Linux machines, of the 5 in my house. But, none of the 3 of them are nearly as practical for all the FX work that I do as my Windows machines.
And that really sux! I would really prefer to switch to Linux completely... But, the software simply doesn't exist. Unless, of course, you are ILM and have $countless millions$ to afford the top of the line software.
It's no surprise that these FX houses use Linux. It's been that way for years, in fact. What I would like to see is some of that ingenuity coming down to the home user. It just isn't there yet. And, as a result, I'm still trapped in Windows if I want to get any work done.
My site
My films
i understand that things like Maya are available for linux, but are there programs out there that are equivalent to say, Final Cut or Adobe Premier... things that an average home movie maker might want?? if Linux is making such big inroads into this area, I'd like to know what apps fill this sector.
How do I adverstise my upcoming conference on Slashdot?
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/10/ 1937258&tid=152&tid=181&tid=3
I wonder how good linux is for brickfilming... I use it but don't know any frame-by-frame apps.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
I guess they can create their movies on Linux, they just can't check their work.
That explains their quality.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
I noticed that a while a go when I saw the Madagascar trailer.
As an independent filmmaker and videographer, and as a Mac AND Linux user, I'm curious to see if they use Linux for rendering or editing? There's a huge difference.
They can do all these fancy graphics on Linux boxes but this same industry still doesn't support Linux users to view the end product. And when someone takes it upon themselves to do so.. they are taken to court and treated like thieves.
Screw Hollywood.. they use OSS software but do they give back.. nope. Not really.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
So can we expect movies like "Tux Story" and "A GNU's Life" and "Finding Linus" in the near future??
or are you just spewing some random bullshit you read on slashdot?
Movies are made with Linux, feature Apple product placement, and are download on Windows machines? Oh, the beauty of 3!
Thanks for bringing that up. I thought Pixar did switch to OS X, but I was too lazy to search through the archive.
There doesn't seem to be a wp-config.php file. I need this before we can get started. Need more help? We got it. You can create a wp-config.php file through a web interface, but this doesn't work for all server setups. The safest way is to manually create the file.
Give me Microsoft GIF animator, Paint, and 300 years turnaround time...I'll get your next blockbuster done!
It'll be a laugh riot wont it?
Once SCO's charges are proven, and Linux is declared a "Copyright circumvention device" by His Majesty George W. Bush, the movie distributors will end up suing Disney and Pixar for using Linux!
The distributors will be busy suing the movie makers, and the falling sales figures will continue to be blamed on Linux and the piracy it's Communist ideals encourage. All the while, Disney will come out with "Herbie goes Bananas about Being Fully Reloaded for the Next Generation" and sue a 12 year old for making the movie available for download off Kazaa thus causing it to tank at the box office!
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
It would be nice if the movie industry embrassed Linux enough that I could legally play back my DVD's with it. I don't plan on buying HD-DVD or BluRay disks anytime soon because I don't want to buy anything that prohibits me from playing back on my computer.
Does anyone else find great irony in this?
I mean, in order for most Linux users to watch these films they have to break some draconian laws when playing DVD's.
Yet, the very thing they use to create these films on is Linux.
Well, if not irony.. some kind of word ending with ony.
Taking a look at the System Requirments for the more well known 3D Animation apps we see Alias's Maya and Softimage's XSI run natively under Linux. Which when you are dealing with animations that can take literally days to render for production it's no wonder they'd want to use a Linux machine instead of a Windows machine, I'm sure it cuts the time by at least 30% (totally grabbed that number out of my ass)
y stem_requirements.shtml/
So is it news that the big animation companies also use OS X instead of XP too? I think the only big name 3d animation company that is Windows only is Discreet with their 3ds Max software, which I think is really only used for games, can't think of a movie that it was used for.
Sys Requirements:
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/requirements.php
http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/s
http://www4.discreet.com/3dsmax/3dsmax.php?id=966
http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v42/SysReqs
Ave Molech Setting
Not just that, but you can really fix it when it breaks.
Currently, if a movie house is using a closed-source toolset, and there is a feature missing or a non-trivial bug causing issues with their workflow, they have to spend a *ton* of money to get the Vendor to 'fix' it for them. With an open-source solution, they can hire someone and fix it/extend it themselves for a whole lot less money.
Production is *everything* to these kinds of businesses. *Anything* that minimizes disruptions to the production is going to be seriously considered...
Because Windows does for computing what AoL does for the Internet -- make it prettier and slower with a whole lot less options. For a company like Pixar, who is *not* concerned about off-the-shelf software, Linux makes all kinds of sense.
you are ILM and have $countless millions$ to afford the top of the line software.
They also develop their own customized and home-developed Apps. Pixar developed Renderman/PRMan (a huge expense, with many developers involved, if I remember right), ILM has heavily customized versions of their own software, etc. Each place has an army of support staff to support these customized apps, etc.
They use Linux because they can strip away the crap and customize the heck out of it-- they effectively have custom Linux Distro that is highly specialized to render images in a huge network farm.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
The funniest part is that all these movie companies using Linux to make movies wouldn't be able to legally play those DVD movies on their Linux machines.
Why are they switching to Linux instead of, say, Windows or Mac OSX?
I'm a Linux user so I'm definitely happy about this move. Really I'm just looking for some good arguments for the next "My OS is da best" flamefest at work.
Nobox: Only simple products.
Sit down, relax, drink a big glass of milk, then go fishing for the rest of the day. Consider doing this tomorrow too.
Cause, well .. I couldn't cause there isn't one!
wtf
I read somewhere that there are a ridiculous number of Nvidia developers working on Linux driver support - hundreds comes to mind - and it is largely due to the fact that Nvidia nailed contracts with the feature film industry.
The proprietary Linux ATI drivers (if you want pixel and vertex shader support, this is a must) now perform incredibly well, though are still an annoyance to install for many. Given that ATI seem to be the card of choice for mobile machines, I look forward to the day ATI competes in the feature film market.
Hollywood uses Linux Clusters to Generate CGI's
Article Posted: 11/6/2003
(FORBES.COM) These days the big star at Sony Pictures' special-effects shop, Imageworks, isn't Spider-Man or Stuart Little--it's a piece of software called Linux.
Instead of buying pricey specialized computers from the likes of Silicon Graphics, the techies at Imageworks simply load Linux onto hundreds of cheap Intel-based PCs to crank out dazzling effects for movies like Lord of the Rings, Seabiscuit and Spider-Man. Better yet, these low-cost systems are way more powerful than what they replaced.
"Almost everything we do now we could not have done before," says George Joblove, a senior vice president at Imageworks. "To have Spider-Man swinging through New York City, to have the entire city--the sky, the buildings, everything in that frame--digitally created, that could not have been done five years ago."
Most of Hollywood's big special-effects and animation companies now use Linux. DreamWorks, maker of Shrek and Sinbad, boasts on its Web site of its "groundbreaking adoption of Linux." Digital Domain, which worked on Titanic and Apollo 13, runs Linux on about 1,000 processors. Lucas Digital runs Linux on nearly 1,500 boxes to create effects for the Star Wars epics and Harry Potter.
Most of these companies use Linux in "render farms," where hundreds of low-cost Intel-based servers are yoked together to do the number-crunching needed to churn out visual effects and animated images. Imageworks and others also use Linux to power some desktop machines that artists use.
Until two years ago most effects shops used expensive workstations from SiliconGraphics. The SGI machines used specialized chips and SGI's own souped-up version of Unix. But these days ordinary Intel machines can outgun SGI machines for a fraction of the price, and free Linux sharpens that edge. Hammerhead Productions, a 30-person effects house in Studio City, Calif. that created effects for Blue Crush and 2 Fast 2 Furious, uses Linux machines that cost one-tenth the price of its old SGIgear--$1,200 versus $12,000--and yet are ten times faster, says Thaddeus Beier, director of technology.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
From what I've heard, Linux and other open-source software is also preferred because of its ability to respond to deadlines. If you're two months from release and an obscure bug in your OS interferes with your rendering, you can't rely on the OS provider to get you a fix in a timely manner, especially if it's a bug nobody else encounters. If it's an open-source system, though, you can fix it yourself.
This isn't exacly news. The big studios started migrating to Linux years ago.
All these studios used to be SGI and IRIX based, they are just dumping SGI and IRIX because SGI raw performance is so poor and price/performance is even worse. SGI's only two offerings are MIPS and Itanic, both of which suck for animation and rendering especially compared to dirt cheap, very fast Intel IA32 and AMD CPU's. Maybe SGI has an IA32 Linux box, but why would anyone bother to buy one there.
Windows was never a viable options for these places. They've built vast infrastructure based on Unix, both scripting and applications. You have to look to smaller, newer studios to find heavy Windows usage.
Not sure that its entirely true that Pixar is going to Linux, I imagine maybe they are for rendering but I'm pretty sure they going Mac's and OSX for artists desktops. OSX is a dream OS for this business, really strong multimedia capabilites and Unix infrastructure in the OS underneath.
Linux multimedia support by contrast, sucks, and these people need good audio and video. Linux really needs to work out a scheme to port over the BeOS multimedia API or at least the spirit of it. Its producer and consumer audio and video node concept rocks, its API's are really easy to use and consistently designed, best of all there is only one API, instead of 10 like Linux. Best of all in BeOS every audio source creates its own volume control clearly labeled so adjusting audio levels when you are running multiple audio streams is a breeze. Linux is a complete nightmare by comparison.
@de_machina
For desktops and servers, the OS choice makes a huge difference in terms of usability and availability of software. For these high-end shops, they're mostly running their own in-house applications and toolchains. Why should it matter whether the underlying OS is Linux, Irix, BSD or even Beos.. they're not shopping for window managers!
Linux would be the logical choice because if you're not going to use something much, might as well get it cheap/free. They probably use Linux merely as a filesystem and multitasking kernel, with some simple network communication between nodes. They don't care about KDE vs Gnome, Konq vs Firefox.. it's just a dumb host for the custom software.
So why do they need a conference about this non-topic ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The entertainment industry is full of people that have very light workloads, and get paid the same no matter "how productive" they are. Therefor system license savings drop right to the bottom line.
But the writers and the execs are using macs or pcs, I guarantee you that, locked into place by the likes of Final Draft.
No, sorry. No one in his right mind would buy SGIs for a renderfarm, not now and not ten years ago - the price/performance ratio in terms of raw CPU power has been quite bad for SGIs since ages. However, if you want a box for modelers, texture painters, animators etc, then SGIs may have been a good choice. SGI's stock is worthless because powerful 3d graphic cards are a dime a dozen for PCs today, and linux, macOS and windows are all taking over traditional irix applications.
I can't remember any studio using SGIs in a renderfarm. Pixar used headless SUNs in their earlier movies (Toy Story etc), the 3d stuff for Titanic was done on Alphas, and nowadays it's just PCs.
Note that renderfarms are probably the place where it's easiest of all to switch platforms, since they are not interactive and the renderers are usually very portable.
Sony Imageworks gives their old SGI[ machines to employees for free.
Whatever happened to the big push that Apple was going to make with its "Pixlet" codec that it built into Jaguar. I thought it was interesting that there was no mention of it anymore with Quicktime and the big push was behing H.264 HD. I know Jobs wanted to move Pixar from linux or OS X but I guess that just didn't go anywhere...
Weta studios had an absurd number of IBM IntelliStations (Maya, Renderman, Alfred).
Seems a venerable KDE was their desktop of choice. More here.
As some other posters indicated, this is not about linux being faster but more so since when it comes to cluster systems, linux has a couple advantages: low/no cost for licensing, open development environment thus easy & low-cost to work with to create further tools, stability, and customizability.
These are the main factors, but this does not apply to anything but the rendering clusters. The actual artist-driven work is still for the most part performed on Windows systems due to the cost of hardware, availability of highend video cards & drivers, and a wider install base. Maya running on Win32 is the largest segment of the 3D users, and this is not set to change unless Apple starts getting serious and gets highend video card makers to support OSX. For small scenes, the cards that come with G5 workstations are not bad, but once you start doing more complex scenes, it becomes a slideshow.
In the end, this is not really news as this conversion has been going on for the last several years, especially since Maya was ported to linux. But, regardless, it's good news all around as it means a user does not need access to an expensive SGI system to get familiar with cluster rendering systems and lowers the overall entrance barriers to people learning.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
"and Linux is declared a "Copyright circumvention device" by His Majesty George W. Bush"
Kinda hard for that to happen, especially if the White House website is hosted on Linux.
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
Seems that when people really need to buy computers based on strict price/performance criteria, Mac loses, even in Steve Jobs' own company!
Best Buy can have you arrested
ILM was still using SGIs for it's renderfarm until just a short while ago.
"The choice wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was Linux vs IRIX. This is why SGI's stock is in the toilet."
Incorrect.
The choice was between IRIX--> Linux and IRIX --> Windows with hundreds of MS key account managers in LA throwing lavish parties and handing out gifts for those in the decision making process.
Considering that, the choice made should not be underestimated in its impact, since it was a *technical* decision, not a "business" decision. Of course, a sound technical decision process will always lead to a sound business development.
From about 1997 to 2002 Industrial Light and Magic had been using huge farms of SGI Origin2000 servers. Price to performance ratio would have been better with PCs, but the benefit of the SGI kit was the number of CPUs per single machine. Some of their render servers had 64 or 128 CPUs (the max # of CPUs for an Origin2K without having to use the special XXL kernel). This helped minimize maintainence.
Today things like LinuxBIOS and other clustering advancements have made clusters even more reliable and even easier to admin than big iron SGI/Sun/IBM/HP.
There is a difference between using Linux and switching to Linux...
And I wouldn't expect a conference entitled Linux Movies Conference 2005 talking about something else than Linux, and it does, they talk about osX. Plus what software do they use to edit on Linux? none, no professionnal software as of now exist on Linux for moviemaking, they use Linux as an OS to drive render farms, which we all know it could do, hardly a statement about the omnipresence of Linux in moviemaking, it doesn't mean people are switching to Linux it just means the conference organisers managed to find people using it in the movie industry.
This events look more like a pep talk for Linux devellopers than anything else, the conclusion they draw only in the program are at most ridiculous:
Many have suggested that BSD-based Mac OS X will play a larger role in studios because of its compatibility with Linux
common! MacoSX is already in every studio and is widely used, Linux is absent except in files distribution, content servers and render farms, Linux will be used because it's compatible with osX not the other way around. BTW I work in studio and I did postproduction...
No one in the movie industry uses Linux to make movies, they use it like they use a hammer, its a tool to get some related task done... And even the conference program lay this down pretty clearly...
Let me see if I can get this straight . . .
Movies are made with Linux, feature Apple product placement, and are download on Windows machines? Oh, the beauty of 3!
Yep, that's the Hollywood OS at work! Ever paid attention to the monitors/desktops in the movie Office Space? Or Jurassic Park?
Hey, it's a Mac. No, wait, it's DOS. No, now it's IRIX. Mac again! Windows! DOS!
And now you are touching the key feature of open source software in a big buisness enviroment.
To a small company the windows licenses are cheaper than implementing and testing custom features, but to a company like Pixar og Dreamworks, the cost of a couple of hundred manhours are nothing compared to the cost of waiting for Microsoft to use that money.
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
that drives this neverending fascination with fluff non-news about where Linux is being used or is it to cover up and draw attention away from poor Windows skills, or both?
I think both.
I may use Linux but that doesn't mean I care to hear about every single place, thing, entity, etc. that uses some iteration of Linux. Nor do I need to hear endless fawning over Steve Jobs and Apple and OSX as if it was going to bring spiritual salvation.
Fer crissakes people, it's just an operating system. It's not giving you longer life, making you smarter, conferring beauty and handsomeness on you, or sleeping with you (although I'm sure there's some geeks looking to cyberneticize a real doll with Linux and report on it here). I really think we need to get a grip here at Slashdot when it comes to Linux.
I bet if my mother started using Linux at work and my company stopped using BSD it would get rave reviews and seven hundred replies in a day and a half. Meanwhile, there's actual apps being written that do amazing things running ON various OSes and we're too busy short-stroking to see the forest for the trees.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Currently, if a movie house is using a closed-source toolset, and there is a feature missing or a non-trivial bug causing issues with their workflow, they have to spend a *ton* of money to get the Vendor to 'fix' it for them.
To be fair, I don't think Pixar would have to scream very loud to get critical issues with OS X fixed exceptionally quickly. Then again, they are in an awfully priviledged position on that one. In general you are quite correct.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
This isn't exactly news. As far as I recall, Disney started to move over to Linux a while back (slowly started to convert). Also, I'm pretty sure that Disney provides funding for Wine (Disney used Wine to run Photoshop, or so I heard).
- Teja
The various screenplay templates for OpenOffice.Org are ready for primetime NOW. I use OO.o instead of Final Draft, even though I own two licenses for it fair and square, because I know that even if OO.o dies I can retrieve my work. Who knows what will happen if Final Draft dies? Yeah I can save as text or save as .PDF but that's not so great. This way my files will theoretically always be able to be edited.
And yes, I live in LA, therefore I am working on a screenplay. As are most of us Angelenos.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
take the 'red' pill ....
and you'll stay in wonderland.
$500K is no small figure especially with more and more processing power required every year as the special effects get more detailed. I think it is probably #3 on the list of reasons.
Customization is probably #2. Do you really need a fancy GUI when all you need is sheer computational power? So you can optimize the kernel and apps to run as fast as possible.
But I suspect the #1 reason is that everybody uses Linux and most applications are written for it. Because of cost and customization, animation companies started using Linux. The applications followed and thus creates a circle. Interestingly some of the animation companies write the software as well and they wrote it to work on their Linux machines. Pixar created and sells Renderman.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"It would be nice if the movie industry embrassed Linux enough that I could legally play back my DVD's with it. I don't plan on buying HD-DVD or BluRay disks anytime soon because I don't want to buy anything that prohibits me from playing back on my computer."
Apple is a member of the Blu-Ray alliance. Just buy an Intel-based Apple Mac next year with a Blu-Ray drive and you'll be covered. You'll have to upgrade to access that Blu-Ray disc anyways, so you might as well spend some cash on a decent setup with a great OS bundled with it to boot.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
MOD PARENT UP!!!!
(and not as flamebait...jesus, just relax a bit)
I toured the server farm at Pixar's HQ a few years ago. At that time the room was mostly Sun boxes. That was the time they were still rendering Monsters, Inc, if I recall the tour guide's commentary at the time.
Also, he said they actually leased their hardware, since it wasn't cost effective to purchase because generally they had to replace rendering hardware very frequently to stay on the cutting edge, and to keep rendering of frames fast enough to be done by the time the artists come back to work in the morning.
I wonder...with historically not very OSS-friendly organizations like Disney switching to Linux...if we can expect to see a more OSS friendly face from them in the near future?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"No one in his right mind would buy SGIs for a renderfarm, not now and not ten years ago"
CPU power isn't the only thing we ask from our computers... SGIs ten years ago had some of the best high-throughput I/O capability available.
You ask "are there programs out there that are equivalent to say, Final Cut or Adobe Premier" I think Cinelerra is as close as it gets. Not as pretty but just as powerfull. Try a google in "cinelerra"
Cinelerra is a usable video editor/compostor. It is not lacking in feature in fact it's only real y problem is it's steep learning curve. It does so many things that it would take months to learn it all.
Another Linux / OSS conference coming up in LA is SCALE 4x, the 2006 Southern California Linux Expo.
A lot of effects houses built their pipelines on SGI machines running IRIX, back in the days when SGI was the only credible platform for doing the work. (Sony Imageworks, ILM, Cinesite, CFX, Rhythm and Hues.)
Eventually, SGI was not offering a decent price/performance ratio compared to commodity PC hardware and video cards from NVidia or ATi. The writing was on the wall: SGI is going to die, and it is time to figure out what platform to move to.
If you've got a production pipeline on IRIX, it is much easier to move it onto another Unix-like platform than to Windows. This involves porting some large in-house applications and thousands of scripts. A lot of the code assumes Unix-style filesystems and utilities.
During the main transition time (2001-2003), OS X was really new, and the machines were expensive compared to Intel commodity machines. BSD wasn't very attractive for the desktop. Linux was the strongest candidate.
In the end, Linux was chosen primarily for "legacy" reasons. It was cheaper to port the tools and pipelines to Linux than to any other alternative.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
You almost had me there. Unfortunately, technically sound decisions do not always make for sound business development. VHS and Betamax proved that point. Social factors matter and can sink anything you do - irrespective of its technical merits.
actually you can never play blu-ray on linux.
patented video codecs are the least of the problems.
it's mostly about DRM and control. in order to play back it requires a hardware crippling mechanism, something along the line of Insidious computing with a TPM (trusted platform module, aka hw handcuffs). then on top of that, they license the AACS crippling code to protect their "content" from you. and free linux distros (libre) will not license it and thus will never be able to play AACS-encumbered content legally. the non-free distros may not be able to play it either... seems unlikely.
apple on the other hand, can afford the license fees and control the hardware so they can include the necessary handcuffs to enable playback of next gen formats. that goes double for MS.
it's ironic they are calling VISTA the win95 of OS's. win95 got everyone on 16bit windows to upgrade, even os/2 users but VISTA may do just the opposite. it'll be a cold day in hell before i accept that kind of intrusive bullshit that we have to pay for (hardware and software will be subsidized by screwing us over yet again).
nah, i won't pay to have you handcuff me. i'll find an alternative, or maybe i'll finally get a good tan.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Of course, a sound technical decision process will always lead to a sound business development.
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. I can't count the number of companies that I know of, or at least worked for, that made good technical decisions that actually ended up having major business problems because of it. Technically, I'd be better off with my brick & mortar store going with a different point of sale application, but the business fallout from the switch, the downtime, etc. would destroy the business. Smart decision makers take BOTH into consideration. Geeks often say what you do... the technical side of a decision is always the most important (ie: "Why doesn't "everybody" use Linux"?) That's what makes geeks bad managers/business owners.
MS deserves whatever illwill you choose to put int its way.
While VHS's market superiority can largely be attributed to social factors, it wasn't a cut and dried "the worse technology won."
- AlanH
Actually, according to this web page, they're just using Fedora Core 2:
http://www.studio-linux.org/studios/pixar.html
Care to elaborate?
Because it's a pain in the ass to run headless Windows boxes compared to headless Linux boxes.
Because Microsoft's idea of clustering is a couple of failover webservers, not a large, highly-parallel computer? (Granted, this makes sense for Microsoft -- "clusters" was a sexy word a couple years ago, before "grid computing" got to be sexy in business rags, and their customers generally have no need for massive parallel computation, but do run web servers and do read magazines that tell them that they need clustering technology deployed yesterday).
Because a minimalistic Windows setup is fatter and eats more disk space and memory than a minimalistic Linux setup, and buying more resources for a couple hundred nodes so that you can run some background crap produced in Redmond is pretty plainly a bad idea.
Because clusters are done by the sorts of smart people that do automation and systems development, and a large chunk of those sort of people can personally benefit greatly from Linux, so they're more familiar with Linux than Windows.
Because there's no reason to bump up your cluster's cost by a significant amount for software licenses when it doesn't help you at all.
Because Linux generally outperforms Windows (especially when you're looking at kernel-level performance), and the sorts of people that get large, expensive systems like this have a lot of interest in getting their code running as fast as possible -- doubling the compute speed means that they require half or less nodes in their cluster. If your kernel can shove more data onto the network more cheaply or context switch a few more times, you're more valuable.
Because they can customize a Linux system much more easily to do whatever they want than the Windows system. I was pretty appalled when someone managed to mess around with an new ATM up at Carnegie Mellon University and left it on the Windows desktop...and the thing was a full-blown Windows box, with all the software installed and whatnot, NOTEPAD, you name it. Not only is that just not professional, it's a sign of the developers having to fight the system to achive the result they want. Linux won't fight you if you want to customize it.
Linux is open source. If you're working on the kinds of projects where a lot of serious large-scale parallel computing is involved, you may well have significant systems expertise available, and hacking your Ethernet drivers or the kernel to speed things up may be reasonable. A large chunk, perhaps a majority of Linux Ethernet drivers started life with Donald Becker, who was working on Linux clustering for NASA, if I remember correctly. The man needed some high-performance networking code, and had the ability to produce it.
And finally, last but not least...Windows isn't fun. Linux is fun. Okay, you can't really put that on a checklist somewhere, but if someone likes what they're doing, they're going to do a better job of it. I'm working on a cross-platform project for my employer at the moment. The Windows developers are kind of apathetic, spend a lot of time chatting and whatnot, but the Linux port guy is a machine. He's *into* what he's doing, he's excited about it. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more enthusiastic people hacking Linux software than hacking Win32 software. [shrug] Make of it what you will.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I'm pretty sure that the grandparent post was using sarcasm.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
From the link, in the `Moving Picture Company` portfolio they have the following specs;
Kernel: 2.4.27
Compiler: gcc 3.3.2
Threads: posix
Glibc: 2.3.3, with NPTL
You can't run a 2.4 kernel and use NPTL. A mistake by a webmonkey drone, or is the site's validity called into question? I do find it hard to believe RedHat 7.2 is still in use.
I'm pretty sure that page is out of date. Maybe they do still use FC2 in the render farm, but they converted most or all of their desktops to MacOSX 1-2 years ago.
I don't actually know details about the render farm there... I was just assuming they customized the heck out of everything, like Google.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
if people actually read the article (ad!) they would see:
Who Should Attend
Motion picture technologists
Linux and Macintosh enthusiasts (My bolding)
Enterprise IT specialists
Filmmakers
SO It is not just Linux as the original article would like to suggest.
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
And to correct my own post, Pixar does require some Linux experience for some jobs.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Note that renderfarms are probably the place where it's easiest of all to switch platforms, since they are not interactive and the renderers are usually very portable.
So animators are the best place to look to predict the future, since they are the "first switchers", and the rest of the market trails them?
Interesting. I like the idea.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Doesn't change the fact that if you were to evaluate both formats based on technical merit - you would go with Betamax. Further, everything has advantages and disadvantages. By this logic, you wouldn't be able to have a technical process to evaluate anything. For example, your CRT monitor might make a better door jam but a technical evaluation would not look at that because that is not what a monitor was designed to do. Technical evaluation is based on how well something does what it is supposed to do. It is not an evaluation of what might sell or be more attactive to people buying the product - which was my point.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157194&t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=126&mode=thread&cid= 13179020
Well, I think that while the benefits of Open Source are important and a factor here, the big issue is that they don't feel they can trust their production schedules to a Microsoft. Put it this way, suppose you had a closed-source vendor with the reputation of, say, a Google, Inc. that was producing operating systems and rendering software. You might not be as concerned in that case, because your comfort level would be much higher and you would know that the vendor would take care of you. When dealing with Microsoft products on that kind of scale, you're pretty much assured that, at some point, you will get screwed.
You're so wrong. It's not about money, it's about control. The bigger studios - I've been working for them - are more interested in control. They wanna change the code as they want. There're just a hand full of CGI companies out there and they're trying to compete not with the standard tools but with there own development of tools.
If you think that they care about any licences, you're dead wrong, because the major part of the software is developed in-house. What dit you say? "Windows-lisences"? Wake up. It's not about writing some documents...
It's the typical mistake, done by most of the windows-fanboys: It's just a very little market and especially in the crative area (designers, cutters,
Who cares. Mod me down, but parent post suggest that it's all about the windows license, which is a little short sighted in this context.
"and Linux is declared a "Copyright circumvention device" by His Majesty George W. Bush"
You should put a link into your assertion/citation. If it's true what you say, it's pretty harsh and almost unbelievable.
this start the crack in the dam that will flood out and erode the BlueRay, copy protection, and DVDCSS debacles we're suffering as non-windoze users?
I mean it this way: The studios currently put up with the DVD consortium and pay fees to encode DVD and use the DVD logo. Well, what if they decide, "Hell, we're hypocrites if we encode using Linux and Open Source/FLOSS tools, yet continue marketing and selling the DVDs in Warehouse, Blockbuster, and numerous other outlets, all the while forcing people who are using to go and find hacks, break the law, and patch their crippled distros when we are MAKING the problems for them and others.
I guess that's too much an enlightened perspective for them to intellectually accept and act on.
I guess mshaft and the cohorts will be up in arms.
Also, in another thread in this topic/discussion, someone asked what reasons they may have for switching to Linux. Well, I have an idea:
Consolidation Preparation: The sooner or earlier the various studios and indies get themselves on open formats, the easier it will be for one or more houses to absorb each other and each others' work. In the future, it may pay to be able to edit the video as well as the audio, much like Lucas rehashes his SW flicks. (IANASWF= I am not a Star Wars Fan.)
So, this could be some "rational" decisionmaking, especially when they will not be able to count on mshaft to be forthright and timely about some things such as file formatting. If ms changes something, or demands royalties for ms' "upgraded, special, proprietary bits for film industry..." file formatting, they'd have the movie industry by not just the balls, but the frenulum the vas defrens, the urethra, the cossix, sphincter, that deeper valve, and even the entrails. Such a grip would MORE than hurt.
Wise move, if this is the agenda...Now they can "shaft" ms by taking back control over their own entrails...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This is a very narrow view of what technical merit is. Well, probably the correct view of what technical merit is. The fact is that people want more for less, not better quality for less. Thus the draw of Wal-Mart (fucking asshole corporation killing the US as I know it), fast food and the love of plastic shit. And the reason ogg beats flac for popularity. More.
Americans are dumb asses and this is a simple formula for success here. Yes I'm one of them. Until I can figure out how to work out the custody deal and become and ex-patriot.
I think, we had a story about that in the year 2001:
Linux In Hollywood: Status Report.
It's not about switching from Microsoft or SGI to Linux. It's just a fact, that the major studios in Hollywood are developing their own applications and I know that the development departments at ILM, Pixar and so on are doing nothing else than trying to get ahead of the contenders. Is it really astonishing that the primary platform is based on Linux?
it's a nontopic. Just meens they want something reliable and in expensive, it is what it is. like how many FX scense for matrix and Lord of the rings were rendered in unix (FreeBSD and netbsd), lots of firms do that. Create it in Macs or BeOS just to do the final rendering on a unix box
"And last night?! There was this movie?!
And all the good guys were using a macintosh?!!!!!!
I think I even saw an iPod. Isn't that cool?!"
So all this talk about linux in the film industry is totally misguided...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
It's ironic: with all this graphics firepower that these guys still use such fugly UIs. You'd think they'd have the ability to contribute something back to the community.
Yeah, and paying some Linux geek $100k to get it running is an even smaller change.
Also you can save lots of hardware versus Windows because you can run more efficiently, so you might save a cool million on hardware alone, if not more.
Also, administration is more efficient, so you save money each year.
On top of that you can do with Linux whatever you want. No fears for something requiring a CAL that didn't require a CAL before, no fears for the next version being more expensive, etc.
I hope your employment with these "bigger studios" doesn't involve communicating with the outside world in any way, because your English is fucking awful.
Incidently, Houdini 8.0 has just been opened up for a public beta. Anybody can download it for free from www.sidefx.com. Check out the "Apprentice" link at the bottom!
I have looked long and hard and have never found any. What movies contain it?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
God, I hope so.
I worked for one company where some of the head people were techies, and made some tech-based decisions (instead of real world decisions), and the company actually folded. The techies wanted to do this product "the right way". Essentially, they took what should have been a very simple web/database app (RDBMS in the back end, lots of stored procedures, COM objects and ASP), and instead made the whole thing "object oriented". Every little bit of it was another COM object because that's the "right" way to do it. Of course, the real world is vastly different. They missed their deadlines by several months because it took at least twice as long to code, they had perpetual performance issues (duh), lost their customers due to a non-existent product, and ultimately had to fire a good 35+ people when the company folded due to techies making bad, technical-based decisions.