Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Digital Oscars Awarded

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the film-geeks-with-jobs dept.

Movies 109

prostoalex writes "MSNBC covers the Academy's Scientific and Technical Awards, which generally take place before the Oscars, but recognize companies and individuals that helped the advancement of film-making with technology. This year's winners include DigiDesign, the creator of Pro Tools audio package, Bill Tondreau from Kuper Controls for robotic camera systems and Peter D. Parks, with a lifetime achievement award."

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311086)

TEENS4CHRIST RULES

Dean haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311088)

Asked for geek crowds help
Built campaign 'round rejects
Too much winter crack

Thought hippies would show
Other candidates asshats
Geeks too dumb to vote

Blew up at Iowa
Went all fucking balllistic
Sane abandoned psycho

Flowers rising up
The dirty hippies screwed him
Hopes completely crushed

Re:Dean haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311146)

Dean is teh bestest... ...for dubya

Re:Dean haiku (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311158)

Don't forget: Spent all your money Before campaign even began Now he needs more

So how do you award folk (5, Funny)

Tandoori Haggis (662404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311095)

in Hex or Binary?

Re:So how do you award folk (3, Funny)

c1ay (703047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311202)

I nominate Darl McBride [mailto] for the Tallest Tale of the year...

Re:So how do you award folk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311223)

WTF? Stop talking out of your damn ass.

Re:So how do you award folk (1)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311270)

in Hex or Binary?

I don't think it's fair that it's so hard and expensive to get a Digital Oscar and so few people have one, so since it's Digital I was able to crack one and upload it to Kazaa.

I also put a Torrent here: http://www.rpmfind.net/BitTorrent/severn-SRPMS-dis c1.iso.torrent

Re:So how do you award folk (1)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311339)

If you're gonna be cute and link to a big ass file... you could at least attempt to hide the fact that it is a friggin' ISO...

Re:So how do you award folk (0, Offtopic)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311409)

If you're gonna be cute and link to a big ass file... you could at least attempt to hide the fact that it is a friggin' ISO...

For you, I should have linked to a sense of humor. Because my post was a joke!

Re:So how do you award folk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311427)

For you, I should have linked to a sense of humor. Because my post was a joke!

A very bad one.

Re:So how do you award folk (1)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311696)

Funny how anyone who doesn't think a weak joke is funny is suddenly devoid of humor... I knew what you were trying, I'm just positing that linking to a redhat iso was blatant.

Re:So how do you award folk (3, Funny)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311490)

They don't get an Oscar ... they get an ASCII-char.

Okay, horrible pun.

Re:So how do you award folk (1)

Ivop (537475) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312294)

probably in osctal

Does software count? (5, Informative)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311098)

Too bad they make no mention of the rendering software(s), etc. used in films like LOTR and ROTK. Many times its the softwares that drive the new hardware discoveries and advancements as was the case with the movie Titanic. And with all the Linux rendering farms being used these days, I'd expect at least some mention of the softwares powering them.

Re:Does software count? (0, Offtopic)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311129)

Does the first *on topic* post count for claiming FP? :)

I need a new job. I want to spend Valentine's Day with Jennifer Garner.

North County Computers [nccomp.com]

Re:Does software count? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311157)

Massive was not only nominated, but it won. Did you read the article?

Re:Does software count? (2, Informative)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312084)

Massive is not rendering software, but crowd-simulation software. As for rendering, that was most likely done in RenderMan, which has been around for forever and a day, and therefore has already garnered all the accolades it can long ago.

details (4, Informative)

gearheadsmp (569823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311175)

Among those honored with plaques were Kinoton GmbH for its high-speed studio projector; a team from Eastman Kodak Co. for developing an anti-static layer on film that survives processing; Stephen Regelous for developing Massive, the software used to create tens of thousands of warriors for the "Lord of the Rings" battle sequences; and a group of companies for their work in digital audio editing.

Here it is, what little there is

Re:Does software count? (1)

xlyz (695304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311194)


mentions are often due to big/smart marketing staff/budget more than real merit

Linux and others OS project are weak in this respect (even if things are improving). at least weaker than most propietary software organization

Re:Does software count? (2, Informative)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311218)

My bad... as many have pointed out, Massive won for my main rant... they won for rendering in ROTK. I guess I sped read a bit too fast. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details".

Re:Does software count? (1)

ChristianBaekkelund (99069) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313571)

Again, as someone already pointed out, Massive is an AI program that is used to direct large groups of CG models...it is not a rendering program. The rendering is done in something completely different, namely Renderman.

Re:Does software count? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311361)

They don't mention it in the article but Massive [massivesoftware.com] , the software used to do the battle scenes (amongst other things), won a Scientific and Engineering award:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0102385/2004/01/29.html#a 509 [weblogs.com]
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/2003/winners.html [oscars.org]

Re:Does software count? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311646)

Technical Achievement or Scientific and Engineering awards have already been given to the authors (well, at least representatives) of most of the cg software you can think of. http://wwwdb.oscars.org/scitech_db/index.html

Re:Does software count? (1)

nebby (11637) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312436)

My professor, Dr. Steve Marschner, won one of the awards (with some colleagues) for his work on subsurface scattering. Its a shame they weren't mentioned in the article :(

Re:Does software count? (1)

malducin (114457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313593)

Actually what I found more surprising is that Marc Levoy wasn't given an award, even though he is one of the authors of the "A Practical Model for Subsurface Light Transport" [stanford.edu] paper.

Re:Does software count? (1)

parc (25467) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312452)

Um, RTFA? It's towards the bottom:
Among those honored with plaques were ... Stephen Regelous for developing Massive, the software used to create tens of thousands of warriors for the "Lord of the Rings" battle sequences ...

Re:Does software count? (1)

malducin (114457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313577)

Also the winner have been known for more than a month:

Scientific and Technical Achievements Honored with Academy Awards [oscars.org]

Besides Massive there were 2 other software related. There was the initial subsurface scatteting research done at Stanford (the Henrik Wann Jensen paper from SIGGRAPH 2001), and the first practical application of subsurface scattering by Christophe Hery of ILM and Joe Letteri and Ken McGaugh of Weta (although both were at ILM prior to joining the Two Towers, the initail reserch was done at ILM for Ep. 2). I have two writeups on those:

ILM Wins 2003 Sci-Tech Oscar for Subsurface Scattering [ilmfan.com]
Star Wars Newsletter Discusses Christophe Hery Sci-Tech Oscar Win [ilmfan.com]

Re:Does software count? (1)

marhar (66825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313954)

The rendering software for ROTK is Pixar's Renderman. [pixar.com] Ed Catmull, Rob Cook, and Lauren Carpenter received an oscar [pixar.com] for it in 2001. According to the site, "Pixar's RenderMan(R) was used in 35 of the last 39 films nominated for a Best Visual Effects Oscar(R) by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences (2004)." An interesting feature article is in the IEEE Spectrum [ieee.org]

Jennifer Garner (1)

lake2112 (748837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311100)

Jennifer Garner hosts to highlight the technological achievments that make her look better on camera. It's just a simple thanks that she has to give due to her lack of acting ability (have you seen Daredevil)

Re:Jennifer Garner (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311143)

Jennifer Garner hosts to highlight the technological achievments that make her look better on camera

Given how repulsive she looks on TV I'd say they must be using old ZX81s for the job...

Re:Jennifer Garner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311216)

My friend went to school with her.

In the yearbook she's not extremely pretty, sort of okay girl, 4 out of 5, the digital effects definitely make her look better.

Check out celebrities without makeup [ebaumsworld.com] page.

Re:Jennifer Garner (1)

buus (698205) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311532)

It's a relative measure though, she was next to Ben Affleck so you have to grade on a curve.

Re:Jennifer Garner (1)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311547)

I was there. It wasn't that great of a ceremony, as the average time to get a winner on stage was 5 minutes, since they were all refreshing their browsers like crazy to get a "Frist Psot".

Some geek machismo thing, I guess.

Re:Jennifer Garner (2, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313481)

She's OK. I don't think one should base one's opinion of an actor on a single film. There's a lot between the actor's performance and you: script, direction, editing, cinematography, music. Even great actors can be made to look really stupid, and actors with no range can look good for a single movie with the right director (Jack Nicholson, anybody?)

I've seen her in many other things. She doesn't have a vast range, but she's competent and pretty and she cries well on cue. She's got good charisma; that is, she is very interesting to watch. Not all pretty women are interesting to look at.

Most importantly, she's "game". She'll take a crack at any language, no matter how badly, and she clearly works hard to make the fights look good.

They must have been very proud of the work she did with the sai on Daredevil, since they worked it into an episode of Alias. Silly, but pretty.

Probably dumb of me to post anything like this to Slashdot, but I'm an actor and a director and I like to think I know about this stuff.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ACADEMY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311101)

FOR THIS FROSTY POST!

(cheers...applause...)

posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging

Real Winners (3, Funny)

PimpDaddie (144603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311107)

We all know that the real winners were all the geeks that got to hang with Jennifer Garner for the night. Yuh!

Was Jesus a Nigger? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311111)

Was Jesus a NIGGER?


"Many people are surprised to discover that Christ was a black man, but when one looks at Christ's lineage one discovers that He has numerous Hamatic Ancestors, with Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naomi, Bathsheba and Jezabel being the most notable."

Here are the facts:

  • In ancient times, including Jesus' time, the Arabian peninsula was considered part of what we now call Africa, not "the Near East" or "the Middle East".
  • Christianity is frequently portrayed as "the White Man's religion". The truth is that most of the people in the Bible were people of color (i.e., not "Anglo"): Semitics, blacks, and Mediterranean, e.g., Romans.
  • In the United States today the general view on whether someone is "black" is the One-Drop Rule -- if a person has any black ancestors s/he is considered "black", even with a clearly Anglo skin color, e.g., Mariah Carry, Vanessa L. Williams, LaToya Jackson.
  • Jesus' male ancestors trace a line from Shem. However, ethnically and racially, they were mixed Semitic and Hamitic from the times spent in captivity in Egypt and Babylon. Rahab and probably Tamar were Canaanites. Although Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, they were descendants of Ham through his son Canaan. Bethsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite, probably was a Hamitic (black) Hittite herself.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] (Click Here [idge.net] to download the ~280MB MPEG off of BitTorrent)

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by RKZ [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

I am protesting Slashdot's chronic abuse of its readers and subscribers. Please visit www.anti-slash.org [anti-slash.org] and help us!
G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

Where's McGiver? (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311112)

He most certainly contributed to technology in films!

Re:Where's McGiver? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311260)

McGiver? Is that the guy who runs around giving people stuff?

Or did you mean MacGyver as in the show about a guy with duct tape?

Re:Where's McGiver? (1, Offtopic)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311301)

Angus MacGyver rules, man! Then again, he's not much for technology -- he's actually rather low-tech when it comes to that stuff. Bond had gadgets while MacGyver had paperclips at its simplest, and "readily available household chemicals" at best.

The Mac had a "do what you can with what you have" mentality which is still a good philosophy (especially for those folks who run Linux because XP's system requirements are too high for the hardware they still have).

Re:Where's McGiver? (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313115)

except that it was all bollocks, of course

Re:Where's McGiver? (2, Informative)

ziggles (246540) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311519)

McGiver? Who the hell is that? If you mean MacGyver that's the worst spelling of it I've ever seen. And it doesn't make any sense. What does MacGyver have to do with technology in films? He used very basic items in clever ways to get out of a jam. And it was a television show anyway.

Although I did see this episode a couple nights ago where the Phoenix Foundation (which MacGyver worked for, in case you didn't know) was going to restore some old silent films. That's about as close as MacGyver came to film technology.

Re:Where's McGiver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311881)

Have you heard the word "dense" before?

McGiver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311590)

Is that like a Big Mac with a huge cock?

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311113)

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING

CAN you IMAGINE the thought of a bunch of BOY FETUSES EJACULATING their ironically fertile BOYCUM, the very substance that half made who they ARE only recently?!?! THINK about it, a group of TINY PRE-BABIES with their ROCK HARD yet tiny PENISES all in a CIRCLE-JERK performing a IN UTEREO BUKKAKE ceremony way up in mommy's CUM-DRENCHED WOMB, man, when the "water breaks" I'm thinking that's more STICKY BABYCUM than FETUS FLUID. Birth would be like one gigantic EJACULATION!

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING

CAN you IMAGINE the thought of a bunch of BOY FETUSES EJACULATING their ironically fertile BOYCUM, the very substance that half made who they ARE only recently?!?! THINK about it, a group of TINY PRE-BABIES with their ROCK HARD yet tiny PENISES all in a CIRCLE-JERK performing a IN UTEREO BUKKAKE ceremony way up in mommy's CUM-DRENCHED WOMB, man, when the "water breaks" I'm thinking that's more STICKY BABYCUM than FETUS FLUID. Birth would be like one gigantic EJACULATION!

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING

CAN you IMAGINE the thought of a bunch of BOY FETUSES EJACULATING their ironically fertile BOYCUM, the very substance that half made who they ARE only recently?!?! THINK about it, a group of TINY PRE-BABIES with their ROCK HARD yet tiny PENISES all in a CIRCLE-JERK performing a IN UTEREO BUKKAKE ceremony way up in mommy's CUM-DRENCHED WOMB, man, when the "water breaks" I'm thinking that's more STICKY BABYCUM than FETUS FLUID. Birth would be like one gigantic EJACULATION!

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING

CAN you IMAGINE the thought of a bunch of BOY FETUSES EJACULATING their ironically fertile BOYCUM, the very substance that half made who they ARE only recently?!?! THINK about it, a group of TINY PRE-BABIES with their ROCK HARD yet tiny PENISES all in a CIRCLE-JERK performing a IN UTEREO BUKKAKE ceremony way up in mommy's CUM-DRENCHED WOMB, man, when the "water breaks" I'm thinking that's more STICKY BABYCUM than FETUS FLUID. Birth would be like one gigantic EJACULATION!

RELATIVELY HUGE THROBBING FETUS PENIS EJACULATING

CAN you IMAGINE the thought of a bunch of BOY FETUSES EJACULATING their ironically fertile BOYCUM, the very substance that half made who they ARE only recently?!?! THINK about it, a group of TINY PRE-BABIES with their ROCK HARD yet tiny PENISES all in a CIRCLE-JERK performing a IN UTEREO BUKKAKE ceremony way up in mommy's CUM-DRENCHED WOMB, man, when the "water breaks" I'm thinking that's more STICKY BABYCUM than FETUS FLUID. Birth would be like one gigantic EJACULATION!

XBox rules!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311114)

first post!!! you lame assholes... I can post first because my XBox is a american product and my pride in my great country and my great XBox accelerate everything...

If only they would make games for that bitch... IAve played Metroid Prime and it ruled... I hope M$ will buy those japanese bastards and port Metroid to my great american console system!!!

Re:XBox rules!! (-1, Flamebait)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311193)

You need to get a life *AND* learn to read. You didn't make the first post, for one. And you need to find something better to do with your time then hitting SHIFT-REFRESH and trying to make the first post. I mean, come on, have you hit puberty yet?
I know I'll get flame-baited for this, but really... is getting the rights to claim *first post* really all that important? Perhaps "most replied to, logical, informative comment* would be a more lofty goal. As the saying goes, "Even a fool is esteemed wise when he keeps his mouth shut".

Re:XBox rules!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311280)

So shut your mouth already fool!

Re:XBox rules!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311293)

VBut I got a buttsexBox

YHBT

In Soviet Russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311118)

In Soviet Russia, digital OSCARS YOU!!!

Re:In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311297)

hahaha... that was so funny. You fuckhead

Re:In Soviet Russia (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311374)

"In Soviet Russia, digital OSCARS YOU!!!"

No, it's
In Soviet Russia, Digital Oscars awards YOU.

It is a shame (5, Insightful)

UnidentifiedCoward (606296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311133)

It is a shame really that these people do not receive more recognition for their work. Their contribution is in some cases ground breaking. But since it is not "interesting" they do not get any air time.

As anybody who uses Pro Tools will tell you, it is the end all be all when it comes to the audio spectrum. They defenitely deserved the recognition. And regardless of what you may think of LotR, you have to give props to the Massive project.

Kudos to you.

Re:It is a shame (1)

Deraj DeZine (726641) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311189)

But since it is not "interesting" they do not get any air time.

You know what? You're right. We should put more uninteresting specials on TV so we can flood everyone's lives with stuff that's respectful instead of interesting.

As a side note I would say that information on the people behind the technology and their accomplishments would actually be interesting, it just would not be flashy and it wouldn't be immediately clear that it's interesting.

Re:It is a shame (1)

UnidentifiedCoward (606296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311242)

I happen to agree. And you are right, it is not interesting to everybody, but IMHO, I think news worthy. But then again, someone else (and all his buddies) probably think otherwise.

Networks have to make their money and I am sure Pepsi and Coke are fighting over the advertising rights to air a 30 second spot during the technical achievement awards. I can see it now...

  • Otherwise, boring, uninteresting, technobabbling nerd/geek who did something cool in a movie, but was not in it or in the credits, you just won a digital award!!! What are you going to do?!?

Re:It is a shame (3, Insightful)

dilvie (713915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311306)

I have used protools. I think they deserved that recognition in the mid 90's, when they were really doing new and innovative things, but the most of their recent cool developments have happenned in the control equipment, rather than the software itself -- hell, protools on OS X was starting to look like vaporware to many of us, it took them so long to get it working.

In the mean-time, many other companies have done a lot of cool stuff in the audio industry that actually is new and innovative, especially in terms of software and equipment that costs less than $5k.

Most of the really cool innovation has come from the price drops that have made it possible to build an entire movie production studio for less than $20k -- including everything you need to record, mix, and post produce audio, quality cameras, and affordable NLE software.

Where is the mention of that? The garage studio revolution has arrived -- the key products in that revolution should be the ones recieving the awards this year... so where are they?

Re:It is a shame (5, Interesting)

wasthere (753835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311748)

The problem with the credit is it can belong to more than just the people getting named.

3 Fairlight Instruments guys got awards too. One of them, Chris Alfred carried on from the work I (and a Chris Prall) did, but we don't get a mention... and we started it..

See:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/adriansbruce/ tech/

Re:It is a shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311755)

Ignoring the fact that ProTools took almost as long as Finale to get ported to OS X (and as a CFM at that), it requires administrator access to run on both OS X and Windows XP. While this may not prevent the industry from using it, it certainly keeps me from deploying ProTools in my lab here at Iowa State. Right now I'm sitting on a dozen mBoxes because I can't safely run ProTools.

Re:It is a shame (2, Interesting)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311897)

It is too bad, but it will continue to be like this (as an afterthought or, more aptly, foreword) because movies are regarded primarily as "artistic achievements", when they are as much technical achievements.

When people watch ROTK's technically amazing battle scenes the instinctive thought is how beautiful and lifelike and well-conceived the battle is and not necessarily how it was done (something most people don't give a thought to). It's all "Those Oliphants are kick-ass" and not "I wonder how many polygons or what sort of wireframe", etc.

So people applaud Jackson and perhaps the writers for conceiving the battle scenes so beautifully rather than the tech artists and technology for rendering it (as important, but not "artistic"). It's because (and perhaps naturally so) we are a culture so obsessed with entertainment that the acting, etc. are the primary awards. I mean, pretending to be an older woman still with some sex appeal (Diane Keaton) is more of a headliner award than rendering those battle scenes? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but you (and especially the /. crowd) have to admit some technical achievements are much more impressive than the acting ones.

It's a shame because technology's purpose is really to hide itself, to absolutely convince you that it isn't there, that the movie is a whole experience, and so it often gets disregarded as people become immersed in the wonder of it. Despite what everybody says about actors' purposes being to hide themselves and disappear (and likewise hide themselves in a similar manner as technology) I'm not sure if that's actually the goal. Actors are intent on getting noticed and crying out and reacting with the magnitude of their emotion. To be seen. In fact, if you see some older movies (and to some extent modern movies) the acting ("method acting"? IANAA) is very over-wrought with glares and articulated gestures and the like, not to convince you that it's real, but to convince you of the emotion. I.e. if I am angry I would make this subtle gesture, but since I want you to know I am angry, I'll make this blatant gesture.

Controversial statement: Special effects are more about acting than acting.

"The greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing everybody that he didn't exist." Thrown in as a gratuitous Usual Suspects quote.

Re:It is a shame (2, Interesting)

Jim Starx (752545) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312517)

As anybody who uses Pro Tools will tell you, it is the end all be all when it comes to the audio spectrum.

Not quite. Anyone truly involved with the audio industry can tell you that while Pro Tools is amazing and many arguments can be made that it's the best DAW out there, it is far from being the end all be all. Pro Tools has one or two major flaws. Programs like Logic are arguably just as good or better and programs like Nuendo are catching up quickly. I love Pro Tools. I own it and I work in more then one studio that uses it, I believe it's the best, but its far from perfect.

Re:It is a shame (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313125)

props?

why would it need props, is it about to collapse?

do you ever think about the crap that you say and write or do you just repeat the things you here on TV and read on the web?

what about? (0, Redundant)

gearheadsmp (569823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311137)

Has Industrial Light & Magic produced anything to qualify for these awards? Or Pixar?

Re:what about? (3, Informative)

cindy (19345) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311225)

I'm not sure about ILM, but Pixar (Ed Catmull in particular) has won at least one of these awards for Renderman. (2001)

Re:what about? (1)

mmp (121767) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311572)

Christophe Hery of ILM won an award this year for his work on rendering realistic skin. ILM has won a number of other awards from the Academy for their technical work over the years; see the Oscars web site.

Oscars web site, 2003 sci-tech winners [oscars.org]

To Christophe Hery, Ken McGaugh and Joe Letteri for their groundbreaking implementations of practical methods for rendering skin and other translucent materials using subsurface scattering techniques.

These groundbreaking techniques were used to create realistic-looking skin on digitally created characters.


Other folks honored for related work are:

To Henrik Wann Jensen, Stephen R. Marschner and Pat Hanrahan for their pioneering research in simulating subsurface scattering of light in translucent materials as presented in their paper "A Practical Model for Subsurface Light Transport."

This mathematical model contributed substantially to the development and implementation of practical techniques for simulating subsurface scattering of light in translucent materials for computer-generated images in motion pictures.

Re:what about? (1)

td (46763) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311909)

Pixar has a double handful of these, for Renderman, for digital film printers, and several others. Two of them (for designing Pixar's animation system and for the first digital compositing system) are on the mantle at my house.

Re:what about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8313158)

In addition to Christophe Hery this year, past winners include:

2001
To John Anderson, Jim Hourihan, Cary Phillips and Sebastian Marino for the development of the ILM Creature Dynamics System.
This system makes hair, clothing, skin, flesh and muscle simulation both directable and integrated within a character animation and rigging environment.

To Dr. Steve Sullivan and Eric Schafer for the development of the ILM Motion and Structure Recovery System (MARS.)
The MARS system provides analysis of camera motion and object motion, and their dimensions. It employs a rich set of user-interface tools and sophisticated algorithms.

1998
To Cary Phillips for the design and development of the "Caricature" Animation System at Industrial Light & Magic.
By integrating existing tools into a powerful interactive system, and adding an expressive multi-target shape interpolation-based freeform animation system, the "Caricature" system provided a degree of subtlety and refinement not possible with other systems.

1996
JOHN SCHLAG, BRIAN KNEP, ZORAN KACIC-ALESIC and THOMAS WILLIAMS for the development of the ViewPaint 3D Paint System for film production work

JEFFERY YOST, CHRISTIAN ROUET, DAVID BENSON and FLORIAN KAINZ for the development of a system to create and control computer generated fur and hair in motion pictures

1995
DOUGLAS SMYTHE, LINCOLN HU, DOUGLAS S. KAY and INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC for their pioneering efforts in the creation of the ILM Digital Film Compositing System

...plus many more. Just do a search for "Industrial" at http://wwwdb.oscars.org/scitech_db/index.html [oscars.org]

Pixar has a ton too.

Re:what about? (1)

malducin (114457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313634)

ILM has won 23 Sci-Tech awards (not counting the RenderMan ones, which while the research was started when Pixar was still part of Lucasfilm , they werfe awarded after they spun off). Pixar has 3 per se, though as td pointed out some stuff they have won when they were still at Lucasfilm (particle systems, math principles of digital compositing, etc.).

I list the ILM award, plus some done by poeple later that left here:

ILM Academy Awards [ilmfan.com]

Many other companies have won. Some of the Sci-Tech awards have been shared, like the DID was between ILM and Tippett Studio, and ILM, the Computer Film Company (now part of Famestore/CFC) and other have won for film scanning and digital compositing, PDI has won for their facial animation system and fluid dynamics, etc.

Re:what about? (1)

Thagg (9904) | more than 10 years ago | (#8314467)

Only in very rare cases do we give awards to companies. We strive to identify the individuals most responsible for the innovation. That's why the technical awards are on Tom Duff's mantle and not in Pixar's boardroom.

So, while you can say that people working at ILM won 23 Sci-Tech awards -- you can't say that ILM won 23 Sci-Tech awards.

The only recent exceptions have been the Oscars (Awards of Merit) presented to Alias (for Maya) and to Avid. In these cases, it was impossible to reasonably assign credit to a very few key people, but the contribution was too large to be ignored.

Thad Beier

Digital Oscar (0, Troll)

thepyre (697537) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311148)

And the winner is.... the guy who managed to get this article on /.

Digital Oscar Hall of Fame (1)

lake2112 (748837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311149)

There are certainly some achievments of technology in movies that should be included in the Digital Oscar Hall of Fame 1. HAL 2. WOPR (WarGames) 3. the designers for Terminator 3 (Terminator boobies are now one of my top fantasies)

Black Jesus? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311161)

Was Jesus a NIGGER?


"Many people are surprised to discover that Christ was a black man, but when one looks at Christ's lineage one discovers that He has numerous Hamatic Ancestors, with Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naomi, Bathsheba and Jezabel being the most notable."

Here are the facts:

  • In ancient times, including Jesus' time, the Arabian peninsula was considered part of what we now call Africa, not "the Near East" or "the Middle East".
  • Christianity is frequently portrayed as "the White Man's religion". The truth is that most of the people in the Bible were people of color (i.e., not "Anglo"): Semitics, blacks, and Mediterranean, e.g., Romans.
  • In the United States today the general view on whether someone is "black" is the One-Drop Rule -- if a person has any black ancestors s/he is considered "black", even with a clearly Anglo skin color, e.g., Mariah Carry, Vanessa L. Williams, LaToya Jackson.
  • Jesus' male ancestors trace a line from Shem. However, ethnically and racially, they were mixed Semitic and Hamitic from the times spent in captivity in Egypt and Babylon. Rahab and probably Tamar were Canaanites. Although Canaanites spoke a Semitic language, they were descendants of Ham through his son Canaan. Bethsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite, probably was a Hamitic (black) Hittite herself.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] (Click Here [idge.net] to download the ~280MB MPEG off of BitTorrent)

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by RKZ [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

I am protesting Slashdot's chronic abuse of its readers and subscribers. Please visit www.anti-slash.org [anti-slash.org] and help us!
G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim

There is an easier explanation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311188)

Why was Jesus a black?

He called everyone "brother"

He always seemed to have troubles with the law

"Technology" does not necessarily mean "digital" (4, Insightful)

Nakito (702386) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311196)

Filmmaking is technological by nature. Many filmmaking technologies are in the realms of mechanical engineering, optics, lighting, chemistry (e.g., film emulsions), model making, etc. I don't think it's very accurate to refer to the Academy Awards for technological achievements as the "Digital Oscars."

Re:"Technology" does not necessarily mean "digital (1)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311507)

Are they any film people out there who could point out which are the better books on film technology (not in the CGI sense) and techniques? I've been curious recently as to the sound technologies and techniques used, and also the mechanical engineering used.

happy to hear about it (1)

bob_calder (673103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311204)

the guys from Digidesign deserve recognition - they are terriffic. Met them in 95 in LA at a conference. They were very helpful.

Re:happy to hear about it (0, Flamebait)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311304)

They're idiots. They're responsible for more crappy careers in the music biz. Without ProTools most of today's stars couldn't sing a note.

why protools? (5, Interesting)

dilvie (713915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311213)

Okay, digidesign has done some neat things recently, but the most notable are the cool digital control consoles that attach to software-based workstations.

Digi was once widely recognized for building hardware that made mid-90's computers capable of audio feats that would not have been otherwise possible, but these days, there are a lot of other options, and protools is no longer an obvious choice over other software such as cubase sx, which has been very popular among smaller studios.

I suppose the academy is really not very interested in the cool developments that have made it easier for the indie movie scene, such as the terrific, and very affordable Behringer Truth monitors, and small digital mixers that cost less than $2k, but sound better and buss signals easier than the $10k mixers of yester-year.

I really think the coolest technical innovations in the movie and audio community recently have all been the ones that have made it easier to run a small studio out of your garage. I think that movement should be recognized a bit more by the academy.

- Eric

Re:why protools? (2, Interesting)

geekBass (665923) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311471)

Being an avid Cubase SX user I totally agree. I guess it's more of a cultural thing where most of mainstream movie soundtrack people use protools. Though I recall Hans Zimmer saying he still uses Cubase VST 4.

it's like beta vs. vhs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8312897)

ProTools has always had equal or superior alternatives. The bottom line is that ProTools, for whatever reason, is the standard. You can go into 99 percent of the studios/post prod. sites. It's telling that if you want work as an audio engineer, at least in music production, knowledge of ProTools is the rule, Cubase and the like are the exception.

Re:it's like beta vs. vhs (1)

dilvie (713915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313233)

That was the case ten years ago. It's not the case today. Pro Tools is still standard in many high end studios, but not the only DAW system present, and often not even the primary DAW system used. In some areas, Pro Tools is still very common -- especially in holywood, but I wasn't talking about holywood, I was talking about the industry as a whole, and in the rest of the world, garage studios, indie production companies, etc.. it is Pro Tools that is the exception. - Eric

Re:why protools? (1)

Jan Morgenstern (525214) | more than 10 years ago | (#8314028)

None of the things you mention (Cubase, Behringer monitors, small digital mixers) are particularly targeted towards film editing work. While PT arguably isn't aswell, it has its roots in the post production field, and has still the most features for this task, and is hence the most widespread solution amongst film guys. Ever tried to do any non-music-related post production work (e.g. foley, SFX or similar sound editing) in Cubase or Logic? Yes, it works to a certain degree, but it certainly isn't as smooth and elegant as in PT.

So while I agree that the academy should give some recognition to technologies enabling small indie film makers to do close-to-professional editing work (which most certainly won't happen, being the MPAA and all), it'd make little sense to randomly list any generic sound devices or software for the lone reason that you could also do editing work with them.

Re:why protools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8314172)

...protools is no longer an obvious choice over other software such as cubase sx, which has been very popular among smaller studios.
Yes, because of money constraints. Anyone who hears the very same plugin as a vst in cubase and a tdm in a pro tools setup (except digi 00x bottom end system as i never heard them) can judge for himself.

Henrik Wann Jensen (5, Informative)

ankit (70020) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311224)

Henrik Wann Jensen [ucsd.edu] (one of the winners) is a professor at UCSD. He has had numerous contributions to the area of Computer Graphics, including Photon Maps, Subsurface Scatterring, etc. Some of the animations [ucsd.edu] and images [ucsd.edu] of of his work are trully amazing.

Oh! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311261)

You must be confusing us with someone who gives a shit

GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS ARE A SHAM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311266)

The Hollywood foreign press association is an organization of movie fans who claim to be reporters. They get long interviews with movie stars that real reporters would die for and ask absolutely stupid questions. One once asked Tom Cruise what character he was playing in Minority Report;a lot of research went into that question. Anyway the studios buy these Golden Globe awards by giving these "reporters" gifts and access to the stars. It's a big promotional thing and was not even aired on TV until recently. Odd that this sham usually leads to getting an Academy Award nomination!

Read all about this joke [smh.com.au]

XBox rules!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311311)

first post!!! you lame assholes... I can post first because my XBox is a american product and my pride in my great country and my great XBox accelerate everything...

If only they would make games for that bitch... IAve played Metroid Prime and it ruled... I hope M$ will buy those japanese bastards and port Metroid to my great american console system!!!

y no bill gates (1, Funny)

howdoishotweb (753822) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311319)

Why no Bill Gates? He created a revolution in computer technology.

XBox rules!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311390)

first post!!! you lame assholes... I can post first because my XBox is a american product and my pride in my great country and my g reat XBox accelerate everything...

If only they would make games for that bitch... IAve played Metroid Prime and it ruled... I hope M$ will buy those japanese bastards and port Metroid to my great american console system!!!

Corrections (4, Informative)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311425)

They ARE Oscars, just not the glitzy ones that the media covers. Sometimes software wins, sometimes hardware (e.g. innovative camera systems, mounts, sound equipment etcetera).

Re:Corrections (2, Informative)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311953)

They're not Oscars. In special circumstances an Oscar will be awarded for technical achievement but generally you get a small plaque or a certificate. Admittedly my certificate does have a picture of an Oscar on it but it most definitely isn't actually one.

Re:Corrections (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 10 years ago | (#8312663)

Yup. To get an Oscar you need to be Ray Harryhausen or have invented the telephoto lens. Things like that. The little plaques are pretty cool, though.

I nominate the Star Wars Kid... (5, Funny)

vicparedes (701354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311440)

for Best Performance in an Online Feature.

FaIl=zors (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311555)

Because there are never enough Award shows.. (3, Insightful)

Dr. Ion (169741) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311598)

Seriously, is there any other industry that does as much back-patting and self-stroking as Hollywood?

These are some seriously affirmation-hungry groups that just live for the moment to tell everyone "what a great opportunity it was to work with such a great professional" blah blah.

Soon they're going to have a hard time fitting any new "content" in between the award shows.

Re:Because there are never enough Award shows.. (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 10 years ago | (#8314040)

Read any "blogs" lately?

What about Andy?? (2, Interesting)

Lurgen (563428) | more than 10 years ago | (#8311905)

The story doesn't list everybody who was honoured, but I'm guessing Andy Serkis got missed again. Surely he contributed toward digital effects in film in numerous ways over the last few years, yet consistently gets overlooked. Sure, he isn't a techie, and he didn't invent the concepts as such, but he's the only actor who has taken a digital character to such extreme lengths?

Re:What about Andy?? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 10 years ago | (#8313819)

While I definitely think he should qualify for a regular Oscar, the Technical Oscars aren't the place for actors like him.

tubG1rl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8311933)

I Tha8k you for your time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8312880)

and sold in the NIGGER ASSOCItATION
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>