Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Rodriguez uses Linux to Edge out ILM

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the pretty-pictures dept.

Movies 192

An anonymous reader writes "A Linux device helped legendary independent filmmaker Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi, Desperado, Spy Kids, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and others) win the race with ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) to create the first movie ever to use a digital format supporting full-bandwidth RGB. Rodriguez's Sin City, which opens April 1, was shot in Dual Link, or "4:4:4" format, and transferred between tapes and hard drives using SpectSoft's Linux-based RaveHD DDR (digital disk recorder)."

cancel ×

192 comments

Wonder if... (5, Funny)

stefanmi (699755) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054293)

I would bet that a lot of the digital effects used in this film were rendered and perhaps even designed with Linux. If they were done with Windows they would have used a blue screen.

Re:Wonder if... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054429)

This was the first interesting Linux-article in like 2 years.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054294)

ziodberg says hi

Are ILM relavent today ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054309)


sure they was unstoppable geniuses in the 80's but today i can create on a home PC in hours what ILM would of taken years to accomplish

with the rise of even schools having massive renderfarms (like the g5 one) and companies like Pixar creating fun films, are ILM even worth a column in todays market ?

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (0)

natron 2.0 (615149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054350)

I agree. With software such as Maya and RaveHD on the market anyone with a creative mind and some tech savviness can creat just like ILM. For instance, just look at all the great indie films you can find freely on the web, there is amazing stuff going on without the need for an old powerhouse like ILM.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (4, Insightful)

the_weasel (323320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054397)

Whatever. Maya + RaveHD does not make you a visual effects facility capable of turning out 300 shots in a post production schedule of 7 months.

Just like having a copy of the GIMP doesn't make you into one of the leading creative ad agencies in the world. It takes a mix of talent, skill, experience and tools to be the top of your field.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054359)

yes, because ILM was much more than just a render farm. Teams of talented artists, model makers and engineers have kept them relevent.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054363)

You've managed to cram so many mistakes in your comment that I think astronomers in other galaxies will eventually see your post.


First of all, it's spelled "relevant". You should capitalize the first letter of the first word of your sentences. See that key labelled "Shift" on your keyboard? You press that AT THE SAME TIME as the letter you want to capitalize! Amazing, huh!? They even had those in the 80s!


When you use the word "they", you are referring to several people, so it's a plural. You should use "they were", not "they was"! That's basic stuff!


There's no such construction as "would of", it makes no sense, perhaps you meant "would have"? Oh, and the end of every sentence needs a little dot called a "period". I know, I know, there's just SO MANY keys on your keyboard, it's all so confusing!


Ugh, you're probably 12 years old, you still have time to learn.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054399)

Jeez, can't a person speak his mind, even if he has bad grammer and not be persecuted...

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1)

Stides (461262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054428)

No, this shit has to stop.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (0, Troll)

nunchux (869574) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054710)

Jeez, can't a person speak his mind, even if he has bad grammer and not be persecuted... It's "Jesus", or "Gee Whiz", not Jeez. Jeez isn't a word.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054450)

get out much ?
didn't think so, ever wonder why ?

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (-1, Troll)

cloak42 (620230) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054494)

I find this rather funny, especially because you had a number of mistakes in your own comment.

First off, it's "80's", not "80s".

Secondly, the first sentence in your fourth paragraph is wrong; it's a run-on sentence. You needed to write it like this: "There's no such construction as 'would of'; it makes no sense. Perhaps you meant 'would have'?"

That last sentence was incorrect, too; IT should have been "Ugh, you're probably 12 years old; you still have time to learn."

I suppose your post would've been much funnier if you weren't being so hypocritical.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1)

As Seen On TV (857673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054639)

First off, it's "80's", not "80s".

AP says otherwise.

Secondly, the first sentence in your fourth paragraph is wrong; it's a run-on sentence.

Commas can be used to join a series of independent clauses. It's not something you see very often, but it's not wrong.

I suppose your post would've been much funnier if you weren't being so hypocritical.

I wonder if you know what "hypocritical" means?

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1)

cloak42 (620230) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054802)

His post was hypocritical because he was criticizing for things that he was, himself, at fault for.

And I would argue that using commas to join independent clauses IS incorrect, as this is exactly what colons and semicolons are for.

I stand corrected on the 80's/80s thing; I had improperly remembered the AP style guide as saying that they do require apostrophes.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054741)

First off, it's "80's", not "80s".

No it's not you dumbass.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054475)

with the rise of even schools having massive renderfarms

Why do you equate computing horsepower with talent? Do I go to a film and then marvel at the amount of CPU time it took to create?

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054507)

Heh, sometimes I do. For instance in the movie Contact I was blown away by the amount of CPU it took.

Pan

Re:Are ILM [relevant] today ? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054518)

I think you're a bit misguided...

today i can create on a home PC in hours what ILM would have taken years

Technically, yes, but you need a lot of really skilled writers and animators to create the movie in the first place. Merely having the capability to render photorealistic 3D images does not by itself make a good movie -- look at the difference between Final Fantasy: The Sprits Within and any Pixar production to see that.

with the rise of even schools having massive renderfarms (like the g5 one)

Again, I think you're mistaken. I assume you're referring to the Terascale cluster at Virginia Tech, but it's not a "renderfarm", it's a supercomputer cluster designated for scientific research. Check out their web page here [vt.edu] , they have details about what kind of jobs they'll accept.

Re:Are ILM [relevant] today ? (0, Flamebait)

bman08 (239376) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054642)

"cluster", "renderfarm"; whatever it is, I'm sure they let students render film projects on it... I mean if nobody's signed up to check their hotmail account or type a book report.

Again, Dangerous Visions (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054542)

ILM has an advantage in designing *new* machines, building on their own past achievements, as well as the newcomers', like anyone else. But the most important geniuses at ILM were those designing and using their machines. Organizational culture, rooted in its executives' vision, distinguishes winners from losers. Jumps in tech are opportunities to be exploited, not guarantees of success, for the big innovators as well as the later exploiters.

A more relevant factor in ILM's relevance is budget. ILM has big budgets, to attract talent and explore more opportunities, more of which they can afford to lose before hitting a winner. But their budget is so high that they can only be hired by big budget projects. Which are run by people who fear any risk, and which tend to make effects budgets "show their value" by featuring the effects, rather than using effects solely to support the rest of the picture (characters, story, etc). So we get ILM working big, bombastic, boring projects. Meanwhile, cheaper (Linux, etc) effects houses can spring up, try stuff, experiment with both effects and other risky, unproven parts of the picture. Again, the bottleneck is brains: if ILM supports the vision of a visionary film, it has an advantage. If ILM's execs apply it to the deadend of mere "special effects extravaganzas", it will be as relevant as fireworks exhibitions.

Re:Again, Dangerous Visions (1)

Bootle (816136) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054809)

I agree and disagree with you.

I think most CG effects people get shortchanged. When they are really doing there job, you won't ever know it. I think ILM does do amazing work, the reason it's so amazing is that so much of the work is never noticed by the audience. For example, in Minority Report there was a scene of tom "the midget" cruise being chased down a rain-soaked alley by cops with jet packs. That alley was built in a studio. In the original footage you can see all the lights and electrical rigging, etc in the reflections in the puddles. ILM went in and removed all of that. That's a lot of work that they get no credit for. Plus, who knows how much time/money they spend making cruise look more than 4 feet tall.

Obviously, this argument holds for WETA and most other world-class effects houses. So I make no statement about the strengths of WETA vs. ILM.

What I hate is when they DON'T do the effects that need to be done. AvP (the abortion) features antarctica as a setting. Do you see the breath of anyone? No, because they filmed on some studio in england or something!!! It's easy to add CG vapor clouds but they didn't do it. The reason is that they suck. In that case, the LACK of cg is what ruined the setting (the movie was already ruined well before that point).

Interesting trivia: In minority report, whenever tom cruise is in the room with the fancy computer, the floor gently slopes up towards the center of the room, where he is standing, while other actors stand off to the side where the floor is lower. When the midget is on the run and others are using the computer, the floor is completely flat! Most cruise movies feature these kinds of tricks, it's probably in his contract to make him look tall. It's a fun game to find them whenever he rolls out a film.

Re:Again, Dangerous Visions (1)

malducin (114457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054830)

ILM has an advantage in designing *new* machines

If you mean new computers, no they don't design them anymore since about the 90s. They used to when there was not much in the way of graphics workstations, like the Pixar Image Computer in the 80s. They do sometimes do a little bit of designing but usually with a vendor.

But their budget is so high that they can only be hired by big budget projects.

You be surprised hoy many small projects ILM works on, and sometimes just in a handfull of shots.

Small dramatic films like the upcoming Eros and Jarhead or films like Punch Drunk Love, 11'09''01 September 11, Gangs of New York, Celebrity, Magnolia and Pollock, low budget comedies liie Are We There Yet? and Stuck on You. There are even higher budget films where they have worked on a very limited basis, like just 1 shot for the Bourne Identity (split into 2 shots on editing).

Meanwhile, cheaper (Linux, etc) effects houses can spring up,

Small houses have other constraints and many are actually PC/Windows based. Besides ILM uses Linux both in the renderfarm and as workstations.

Again, the bottleneck is brains: if ILM supports the vision of a visionary film, it has an advantage. If ILM's execs apply it to the deadend of mere "special effects extravaganzas", it will be as relevant as fireworks exhibitions.

VFX houses are like contractors, they have to do what is requested on them. ILM nor anyone else is responsible for the scripts. And since it's a very competitive business they have to work on whatever they can get. Blame the studios that approve those films, not the ILM management who have nothing to do about it.

Re:Are ILM relavent today ? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054794)

"with the rise of even schools having massive renderfarms (like the g5 one) and companies like Pixar creating fun films, are ILM even worth a column in todays market ?"

That's sort of like saying a progammer can get twice as much done if he has twice as fast of computer. Think about it.

Huh? (1, Offtopic)

gumpish (682245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054312)

was shot in Dual Link, or "4:4:4" format

Uhm... what?

From TFA (5, Informative)

jm92956n (758515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054330)

Consumer DV (digital video) cameras typically use a 4:1:1 Y'CbCr format, in which luminance is sampled for each pixel, while Cb and Cr are sampled at every fourth pixel. SD (standard definition) cameras use a 4:2:2 format. HD cameras can use 4:2:2, or a 4:2:0 format based on "spatial" samples of 2x2-pixel squares. Dual Link, however, uses a 4:4:4 technique.

"It's really the same as 1:1:1," explains Howard. "It just means 'take RGB, break it up, send part of it down one wire, and part down the other wire.'"

The compromises in traditional Y'CbCr formats were designed to minimize perceptual loss, keying on the human eye's varying sensitivity to luminescence at various color frequencies. We are most sensitive to brightness in green light, less so in reds, and least with blue. This explains why studios often shoot against a "greenscreen" -- Y'CbCr has most information about green, so it's the easiest color for a software program to identify and replace.

Re:From TFA (2, Insightful)

jpatters (883) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054405)

Congratulations, you have mastered copy and paste! You win!

Re:From TFA (2, Informative)

NightHwk1 (172799) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054527)

That is true for video, but most studios use film for greenscreening work. The resolution is going to be much higher, and the colors will not have any compression artifacts (which is why filters like this [highend2d.com] , or this [highend2d.com] are used. 4:4:4 stores more color information, minimizing those artifacts.

Also, the color of the screen really doesn't have to be green. Depending on the subject in front of the screen, it can be blue, red, or even black.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

alarch (830794) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054356)

have you read the article?

"But what about "4:4:4 Y'CbCr"?!

Y'CbCr, also known as YUV, is the color space used by film editing equipment. Y represents luminance, while Cb and Cr are color difference signals.

Consumer DV (digital video) cameras typically use a 4:1:1 Y'CbCr format, in which luminance is sampled for each pixel, while Cb and Cr are sampled at every fourth pixel. SD (standard definition) cameras use a 4:2:2 format. HD cameras can use 4:2:2, or a 4:2:0 format based on "spatial" samples of 2x2-pixel squares. Dual Link, however, uses a 4:4:4 technique."

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054752)

JPG uses the YCrCb color space as well, by default at 4:2:2, which is also the resolution you get out of a bayer pattern in a digicam.

(or was it 4:2:0 you get out of a camera?)

Wikipedia to the rescue! (4, Informative)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054680)

See: chroma subsampling [wikipedia.org] . It's even got diagrams. Though it could use a bit of cleanup.

Wikipedia to the rescue again!

--grendel drago

Windows.. (4, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054314)

Linux was vital to this project. As we all know, if it were Windows-based, the RGB mode would be 0:0:4, more commonly known to the industry as "blue screen".

Re:Windows.. (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054646)

"Linux was vital to this project. As we all know, if it were Windows-based, the RGB mode would be 0:0:4, more commonly known to the industry as "blue screen"."

Gee, a second incarnation of the same tired BSOD joke. Let's all start slappin our knees!

Green Screen (1)

sideshow (99249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054695)

Yeah yeah yeah, Windows sux0rs and all, but nowadays the screen is lime green and is common known to the industry as "green screen".

Frank Miller (5, Interesting)

AAeyers (857625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054319)

Rodriguez's Sin City,

Actually, its Frank Miller's Sin City. IMHO the writer is more important than the director.

Re:Frank Miller (3, Informative)

Wakkow (52585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054364)

Also true considering he is co-directing it as well.

Re:Frank Miller (2, Informative)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054471)

Quentin Tarantino is listed as "special guest director" whatever that means.

If the guy who wrote the comic books also wrote the screenplay AND is co-directing, then anyone whining about canon should be put to sleep.

Re:Frank Miller (2, Informative)

Wakkow (52585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054491)

Here's what IMDB says about Tarantino and Sin City:

"Robert Rodriguez scored Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) for $1. Quentin Tarantino said he would repay him by directing a segment of this movie for $1. Tarantino, a vocal proponent of film-over-digital, has said that he was curious to get hands-on experience with the HD cameras which Rodriguez lauds. When asked about his experience, Tarantino merely replied, "Mission Accomplished.""

Re:Frank Miller (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054556)

He's listed as co-director simply because Rodriguez is using many of the same shots as the original comic, and therefore thought he should get equal credit for the look of the movie.

RR was kicked out of the Director's Guild for this, since he wouldn't remove Miller's name at their request.

Re:Frank Miller (1)

ccharles (799761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054403)

True, but the story is about using Linux in the film, which is credited to Rodriguez. I think saying "Rodriguez's Sin City" in this context is perfectly fine.

Re:Frank Miller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054421)

IMHO the writer is more important than the director

Sssshhhh...Don't tell George Lucas

Oh, wait...

Re:Frank Miller (4, Funny)

mz001b (122709) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054426)

actually, I think the correct title is GNU/Sin City.

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054514)

Parent post (in context) is too funny for people to miss!

Re:Frank Miller (3, Informative)

jest3r (458429) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054472)

Although Rodriguez is technically the director, he quit the Directors Guild so that 'Sin City' creator Frank Miller could be credited as director (The Directors Guild only allows for 1 director per movie).

As a result of leaving the Guild (or being forced out) Rodriguez lost his contract with Paramount to direct the big budget John Carter of Mars (Princess of Mars). Thats got ot hurt.

Lucas had a dispute with the Guild back in the day and dropped out as well .... This months Wired has a good article on the subject.

Re:Frank Miller (1)

malducin (114457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054772)

Still that article does have a few errors. It fails to mention that Lucas rejoined the Guild so he could direct Episode 1. Also The Letterman Digital Arts Center is not being built atop a garage. They built it where a the old Presidio military hospital was and is quite big.

Re:Frank Miller (5, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054615)

Though it must be said that Rodriguez resigned from the Directors Guild because he felt that Frank Miller should be given co-director credit.

Rodriguez is a fanatic of Frank Millers work and he would certainly be the first to jump up and correct someone if they said "Rodriguez's Sin City".

Damn, I've just gone 16:9... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054323)

...and they've come out with a fucking 3D format! Things get obsolete so fast. How does it look? 4:4:4 seems a little boxy (Or should I say cubey?) for panoramas, but I guess the third dimension really makes you forget that.

RGB-B&W (4, Funny)

STrinity (723872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054324)

Wow, that explains how vibrant the reds, greens, and blues look in black and white!

Re:RGB-B&W (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054407)

If the movie was in black and white, your post would be funny. But its not: Watch the trailer. [apple.com]

Re:RGB-B&W (1)

NightHwk1 (172799) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054465)

Even if it were in black and white, a lot can be done with the color channels, especially if the film has visual effects (which this one has many of..)

Most obviously, color keying.

But also, having three color channels effectively gives you three different black and white versions of the same image.

In contrast with shitty movie makers... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054340)

I hear George Lucas uses Outlook Express. Or rather, he has his assistant use it, and read the messages to him. He doesn't even know how to check his email.

Re:In contrast with shitty movie makers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054525)

I hear Lucas has gone OTT batshit insane?

Re:In contrast with shitty movie makers... (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054583)

... and you don't know how to direct a movie.


Your point?

Re:In contrast with shitty movie makers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054671)

Neither does Lucas.

Re:In contrast with shitty movie makers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054736)

Does Lucas?

Re:In contrast with shitty movie makers... (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054657)

"I hear George Lucas uses Outlook Express. Or rather, he has his assistant use it, and read the messages to him. He doesn't even know how to check his email."

I'm not all that fond of Lucas's movie making abilities either, but what does that have to do with email? The dude is from an older generation than us. If you're going to prove he's bad at making movies, point at the last two he's made instead of turning computer use into an IQ test.

Damn right. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054742)

I remember jms mentioning that he's an awful speller and can't do math. (Some usenet post un the Lurker's Guide.) Normally, I'd read that as "my brain is useless", but I already was so impressed by the man's work that I realized---if the man can write and direct a story like that, who cares if he can multiply in his head?

I was a twit. But I think I've become less of a twit now. Thank you, jms!

--grendel drago

Nice review at sarah. word. (5, Informative)

anandpur (303114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054346)

I've had unreasonably high hopes for "Sin City" ever since I watched that fabulous trailer [apple.com] . But it's not like graphic novels-turned-movies have impeccable track records on the big screen, so imagine my concern going into this.

For lack of a more eloquent explanation, "Sin City" freaking rules.

Remember the first time you saw "Pulp Fiction"? You were unnerved and at times downright repelled, but you admitted that it was the freshest, most original thing to be put into a theater since... ever, and you couldn't wait to talk about how amazing it was with everyone you knew? "Sin City" is kind of like that.

http://sarahlane.typepad.com/sarahword/2005/03/cel luloid_lane_.html [typepad.com]

1. Is "Sin City" a family movie?
- Heavens no. It's incredibly graphic and gruesome. I know YOU'RE into that, but don't bring the kids.

6. Does the all-star cast detract from the story at all?
- Refreshingly, no. No one character is the main star, it's more like a bunch of supporting roles. Great supporting roles. These actors are stoked.

8. Are we talking CG animation or live action?
- Almost all the live action was done with green screens and props, then the magic was painted in later. It's amazing.

10. I was pleased to see lots of hot chicks in the trailer. Can I expect more of that?
- You sure can, my friend! But they'll also chop your head off. Literally.

Rotten tomatoes reviews (2, Informative)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054486)

If you are worried about this movie being good, check out the reviews collected at Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] ; all 9 have been positive so far (for a 100% rating).

Oh dear god so relieved. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054791)

Oh, thank you. I've been worrying that, despite the trailers and the awesome cast and pretty much the best team you could ask for working on it, this would be terrible on the level of "LXG". Anyone remember that? What fabulous source material. What an awful movie made from it.

Alan Moore must be kicking himself after that one, saying "Never again, you American fuckers!". No, wait, he's probably rolling in a large pile of money, and more power to him for it. If it means he's fed and clothed and able to write more comics, it doesn't matter how many movies butcher his work.

I suppose they'll fuck up "V for Vendetta" (ten to one gets you they show V's face) or "Watchmen" next. And yet, hope springs eternal from this. Perhaps they can get Johnny Depp to play Wallace in "Hell and Back" if this does well. Perhaps.

--grendel drago

Trailer direct links. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054611)

trailer 1 [apple.com] (large, 14.5MB) and trailer 2 [apple.com] (large. 20MB)

max payne? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054348)

the website remindes me of the game max payne .. how is it connected?

Re:max payne? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054378)

it's not. dumbass.

Re:max payne? (1, Interesting)

ramunas (771197) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054424)

well the first time I saw the trailer I thought hell It's Max Payne in a movie version :) I bet all the max payne fans will flood this one :)

Re:max payne? (1)

Twisted64 (837490) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054511)

Come on, all Max Payne fans should have had their appetites sated by Payback [imdb.com] with Mel Gibson.
The voiceover sound and attitude of the whole film is totally Max Payne :)

Excellent, but... (1)

IvanD (719006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054358)

Is the movie es "good" as the previous work of Rodriguez? I'm cheap... but movies are too expensive these days, and last movies are... uhm... not completely master pieces.

He's a Mexi-can (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054368)

El, you really must try this because it's full bandwidth RGB. It's creates slow-roasted effects, nothing fancy. It just happens to be my favorite, and I watch them in every dive theatre I go to in this country. And honestly, that is the best it's ever been anywhere. In fact, it's too good. It's so good that when I'm finished, I'll dump my popcorn, walk straight into the projection room and shoot the projectionist. Because that's what I do. I restore the balance to this country.

Slightly Offtopic (5, Informative)

darkitecture (627408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054376)


Incidentally, another distinction earned by Rodriguez during the making of Sin City, is that he joined George Lucas and others who have been kicked out of the Director's Guild. Rodriguez's offense, Howard says, was working with a co-director -- Sin City comic book creator Frank Miller -- who doesn't belong to the Guild.

I know it's slightly offtopic, but Robert Rodriguez wasn't kicked out of the DGA. He quit because they wouldn't allow him to credit Frank Miller as a co-director.

Kudos to him, I say.

look at me (-1, Troll)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054382)

I'm wasting space on /.!
alfdjasl;'dfjasldfjas;lfdjas;kldjfnjqwoperqwoeyuqo [vu90a-eg78uqo[eeru8q23o34riuyq3ortibn3q9w etrpnq33w0etryu8hj3qqwo[hjq34[tihjq344t[oiq33yuo'p ij2q4h[9po2uj4rt[oq32884yh4t[oq2448yth9q3o4htij[qo ij9pqww8ujo'qwehurt[0qo2ih33r98nri9[q3y8hrj[0oq398 4yrtuh[0oq34g48r913n45r9pq3ner-9123jn4[9 qe8hntr[9-q348tja[woegnqp[o344rjnq-9320[n5841q-93[ 084htjroqi[345yhq3oi4uhrnq3i4rhbq3i4onrq3[h5rq923o irjn5oq344ihjoq;3i44jto234i5jtoi23j5o;q234ih[0oi23 hjo[w34ih5923oi4hrqo354uq3askljdfalsjdfoa0weur0o[q 3wuroWIJJEROAWIJOAWIUFF09QUWER0O[QWUERO[IJOIjojoIJ OJAOIJAOIJAOIJOIjaonsfoweiafn9ae8rfguqeo[rtiu89rtq e9ropifhq9ertp8hq3;o4hrtqe;oewrtihqe[09rt8yuqaerth jaeo[rirgntaow[ernoa[[wethra9weuyrowerh90q2fnq3p9f qeefqe[erfhq3weq\werq23\erhjeowrtiuo3[04tuaeorihjo ernttoeithroenifoaeinrfo aewhroiaueboaihf;aejkfl;aewjfaoeewiuqaweiojjaojfga opifjapofijheawoprhjaowefijaofijapoeifhujqaeipuubn iopaertyqa9 we8tu9o3wuhroip23q48y47o3qhfueru vnpiouaerhbvoe8hrgoaehbrgoaebrhf eb[ofidjoiajdfoqenwirpoiqihewfo;aidhfopawiher;koqu wegrkl;qWJBERIBAIUZHXCVL;ZXKNCVOLZXCVLZHXLVKNMZCV/ ,.NZXCV,.MNZXCV.,MZNXCV.,ZNMXCV.,ZMMNCVJHV;LSHJKDF ;ISJDOAUF
AGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGCTTTTTCCTASD;FJKASDL;KJASELEKJ NASLEDFJKASLDFNKASLKDFNASOIDIFJAWWOEIFJASLDFJL;Kja ;ldfjas;lkdfkjaskdn qawoeifhqaweoruiyhpqeiohjgro[qiwehbo[aibnvo[awufow eiahefoqweihrg9o[ pqwe8uyrt0-[ 9387540[oipqejert[0o3hj4toiqewjt[oqerihutopq[3hjir qo[3weiitnqe[owrthjqep[ortyu8q[oerhjoerrirgje;aokn epqorijhgqeop[wturuq30[9turo[qeiirgjh[oeruihteoigh jrw[4890eut0o[q[eihg iopqiunef[90eqh8f-aewf8apfouiaher9-w8ugv op[sfd8uvoae8ufao;eifhjo;eqirnfq9epbn

Re:look at me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054417)

I'm wasting space on /.!
he he he, me too! But I am too lazy to type something so I am going to copy yours:

alfdjasl;'dfjasldfjas;lfdjas;kldjfnjqwoperqwoeyuqo [vu90a-eg78uqo[eeru8q23o34riuyq3ortibn3q9w etrpnq33w0etryu8hj3qqwo[hjq34[tihjq344t[oiq33yuo'p ij2q4h[9po2uj4rt[oq32884yh4t[oq2448yth9q3o4htij[qo ij9pqww8ujo'qwehurt[0qo2ih33r98nri9[q3y8hrj[0oq398 4yrtuh[0oq34g48r913n45r9pq3ner-9123jn4[9 qe8hntr[9-q348tja[woegnqp[o344rjnq-9320[n5841q-93[ 084htjroqi[345yhq3oi4uhrnq3i4rhbq3i4onrq3[h5rq923o irjn5oq344ihjoq;3i44jto234i5jtoi23j5o;q234ih[0oi23 hjo[w34ih5923oi4hrqo354uq3askljdfalsjdfoa0weur0o[q 3wuroWIJJEROAWIJOAWIUFF09QUWER0O[QWUERO[IJOIjojoIJ OJAOIJAOIJAOIJOIjaonsfoweiafn9ae8rfguqeo[rtiu89rtq e9ropifhq9ertp8hq3;o4hrtqe;oewrtihqe[09rt8yuqaerth jaeo[rirgntaow[ernoa[[wethra9weuyrowerh90q2fnq3p9f qeefqe[erfhq3weq\werq23\erhjeowrtiuo3[04tuaeorihjo ernttoeithroenifoaeinrfo aewhroiaueboaihf;aejkfl;aewjfaoeewiuqaweiojjaojfga opifjapofijheawoprhjaowefijaofijapoeifhujqaeipuubn iopaertyqa9 we8tu9o3wuhroip23q48y47o3qhfueru vnpiouaerhbvoe8hrgoaehbrgoaebrhf eb[ofidjoiajdfoqenwirpoiqihewfo;aidhfopawiher;koqu wegrkl;qWJBERIBAIUZHXCVL;ZXKNCVOLZXCVLZHXLVKNMZCV/ ,.NZXCV,.MNZXCV.,MZNXCV.,ZNMXCV.,ZMMNCVJHV;LSHJKDF ;ISJDOAUF AGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGCTTTTTCCTASD;FJKASDL;KJASELEKJ NASLEDFJKASLDFNKASLKDFNASOIDIFJAWWOEIFJASLDFJL;Kja ;ldfjas;lkdfkjaskdn qawoeifhqaweoruiyhpqeiohjgro[qiwehbo[aibnvo[awufow eiahefoqweihrg9o[ pqwe8uyrt0-[ 9387540[oipqejert[0o3hj4toiqewjt[oqerihutopq[3hjir qo[3weiitnqe[owrthjqep[ortyu8q[oerhjoerrirgje;aokn epqorijhgqeop[wturuq30[9turo[qeiirgjh[oeruihteoigh jrw[4890eut0o[q[eihg iopqiunef[90eqh8f-aewf8apfouiaher9-w8ugv op[sfd8uvoae8ufao;eifhjo;eqirnfq9epbn

Re:look at me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054781)

for great justice!

alfdjasl;'dfjasldfjas;lfdjas;kldjfnjqwoperqwoeyuqo [vu90a-eg78uqo[eeru8q23o34riuyq3ortibn3q9w etrpnq33w0etryu8hj3qqwo[hjq34[tihjq344t[oiq33yuo'p ij2q4h[9po2uj4rt[oq32884yh4t[oq2448yth9q3o4htij[qo ij9pqww8ujo'qwehurt[0qo2ih33r98nri9[q3y8hrj[0oq398 4yrtuh[0oq34g48r913n45r9pq3ner-9123jn4[9 qe8hntr[9-q348tja[woegnqp[o344rjnq-9320[n5841q-93[ 084htjroqi[345yhq3oi4uhrnq3i4rhbq3i4onrq3[h5rq923o irjn5oq344ihjoq;3i44jto234i5jtoi23j5o;q234ih[0oi23 hjo[w34ih5923oi4hrqo354uq3askljdfalsjdfoa0weur0o[q 3wuroWIJJEROAWIJOAWIUFF09QUWER0O[QWUERO[IJOIjojoIJ OJAOIJAOIJAOIJOIjaonsfoweiafn9ae8rfguqeo[rtiu89rtq e9ropifhq9ertp8hq3;o4hrtqe;oewrtihqe[09rt8yuqaerth jaeo[rirgntaow[ernoa[[wethra9weuyrowerh90q2fnq3p9f qeefqe[erfhq3weq\werq23\erhjeowrtiuo3[04tuaeorihjo ernttoeithroenifoaeinrfo aewhroiaueboaihf;aejkfl;aewjfaoeewiuqaweiojjaojfga opifjapofijheawoprhjaowefijaofijapoeifhujqaeipuubn iopaertyqa9 we8tu9o3wuhroip23q48y47o3qhfueru vnpiouaerhbvoe8hrgoaehbrgoaebrhf eb[ofidjoiajdfoqenwirpoiqihewfo;aidhfopawiher;koqu wegrkl;qWJBERIBAIUZHXCVL;ZXKNCVOLZXCVLZHXLVKNMZCV/ ,.NZXCV,.MNZXCV.,MZNXCV.,ZNMXCV.,ZMMNCVJHV;LSHJKDF ;ISJDOAUF AGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGCTTTTTCCTASD;FJKASDL;KJASELEKJ NASLEDFJKASLDFNKASLKDFNASOIDIFJAWWOEIFJASLDFJL;Kja ;ldfjas;lkdfkjaskdn qawoeifhqaweoruiyhpqeiohjgro[qiwehbo[aibnvo[awufow eiahefoqweihrg9o[ pqwe8uyrt0-[ 9387540[oipqejert[0o3hj4toiqewjt[oqerihutopq[3hjir qo[3weiitnqe[owrthjqep[ortyu8q[oerhjoerrirgje;aokn epqorijhgqeop[wturuq30[9turo[qeiirgjh[oeruihteoigh jrw[4890eut0o[q[eihg iopqiunef[90eqh8f-aewf8apfouiaher9-w8ugv op[sfd8uvoae8ufao;eifhjo;eqirnfq9epbn

Re:look at me (2, Funny)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054427)

While I love data structures and the theory of data storage on modern machines, please, NULL TERMINATION is not something that is hard. Please, Null Terminate your strings. For Great Justice.

Seem a bit odd... (2, Insightful)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054390)

That the first movie filmed using a full-bandwidth RGB system is mostly black and white (with bits of yellow and red once in a while)...

Seems they could've chosen a more impressive set to show off their technology :/

But what does this mean to the movie viewer? (2, Insightful)

StateOfTheUnion (762194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054409)

In practical terms, Howard says the greater color depth afforded by the Dual Link format gives filmmakers more freedom during "chroma-keying" -- the stage at which solid-color filmstudio backdrops are replaced with imagery. "With Sin City, the entire movie was shot on greenscreen. Robert Rodriguez did some work initially in single-link HD, and he had a heck of a time keying that footage."

With all due respect to the writer of the article, in practical terms, I'm not sure what this means to the viewer of the film . . . Does this mean that the colors/details look better, or that there are less losses in color/detail during the application of digital effects, or is this fairly immaterial to the end viewer and will the end product look pretty much the same as 4:2:2 work?

And to extend the question beyond the big screen, will this make a difference in the DVD transfer of this film, or will any benefit be negated by losses during DVD transfer?

Re:But what does this mean to the movie viewer? (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054496)

It doesn't mean you get better color, but it does mean you get a better movie. The guys who digitally drop the characters into the backgrounds have more freedom to create what they want, since they can more easily make distinctions between foreground and background based on color.

Which means that they spend less time chroma-keying (picking out the background colors) and more time making movies. As with any big project, the finished product is filled with flaws that only the actual creator can put his finger on, but the overall sense of polish makes a big difference to the feeling you get when you watch the movie.

You get the same effect writing software: all those little hacks you had to do to get it out the door aren't immediately visible to the user, but they'll piss you off every time you look at them.

The changes aren't even necessarily subtle: they may have to substantially alter a shot if they can't get the background to drop out properly. You wouldn't notice without being in the editing booth, but you'll probably like the movie that much more for getting more of the director's vision onto the screen.

I'm a director [for the stage] myself, and though it's very different from film, we're constantly asking "how much can I get away with?" rather than "what can I create?" You tell yourself that the audience won't notice that you couldn't find the right prop, or that you didn't have time to get rid of the dim spot in the lights, but it pisses you the hell off and looks unprofessional even if the audience couldn't elucidate the difference.

It would be interesting to have a director go into detail on a commentary track to say, "Well, we would have done X, Y, and Z, but we couldn't because the technology was too limited." The closest you get is the re-released Star Wars movies. Well, maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

Re:But what does this mean to the movie viewer? (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054498)

With all due respect to the writer of the article, in practical terms, I'm not sure what this means to the viewer of the film . . .

Not much, it just means a less cost to create the same end result. Some details of the end result may not have been fiscally possible otherwise, but only the film freaks would really notice them.

For the most part, it just means more profit for the MPAA-members distributing the film and Rodriguez himself.

However, I have to admire Rodriguez for his "guerilla" approach to film-making, he's an indie director that, for the most part, still runs his productions as if they were independent productions (i.e. very frugally, pushing the edges of best-bang-for-the-buck), just with larger budgets. In that sense, what he does as somewhat of a trailblazer trickles down, enabling future indie productions to reach higher levels of technical quality for the same budget.

Re:But what does this mean to the movie viewer? (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054806)

However, I have to admire Rodriguez for his "guerilla" approach to film-making, he's an indie director that, for the most part, still runs his productions as if they were independent productions (i.e. very frugally, pushing the edges of best-bang-for-the-buck), just with larger budgets.

Yes. I seriously recommend watching the making-of documentary on the Once Upon A Time In Mexico DVD. It is absolutely awesome how he was able to produce a theatrical film essentially in his garage. There are also a large number of clever hacks that he used to create action scenes that would have been prohibitively expensive to shoot in the traditional way.

Re:But what does this mean to the movie viewer? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054566)

Does this mean that the colors/details look better, or that there are less losses in color/detail during the application of digital effects, or is this fairly immaterial to the end viewer and will the end product look pretty much the same as 4:2:2 work?

It doesn't mean ANYTHING to the viewer... Just like breaking the world speed record doesn't mean anything to the average car buyer.

It's a milestone. It means a few things to the makers of the film, but nothing groundbreaking. They mention color-keying, so with 4:4:4, you can have multiple "blue-screens" of multiple colors, which would be quite useful.

will this make a difference in the DVD transfer of this film

Would a jet car, breaking the land-speed record, make your Ford Taurus go any faster? No.

DVDs have always been, and will always be 4:2:2. HDTV is 4:2:2. It's not possible for you to view 4:4:4 video at home, and will be at least a decade before that might change. I say might, because there's good reason video is 4:2:2. It's unlikely you would be able to see any difference between a 4:2:2 video, and a 4:4:4 video.

What? No. You're wrong. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054706)

It's not possible for you to view 4:4:4 video at home, and will be at least a decade before that might change.

What? No. You're wrong. Many formats use color subsampling, true, but many still formats don't. JPEG defaults to 4:2:2 subsampling in all of the implementations I've seen, but I think it supports 4:4:4. And lossless formats, like PNG or TGA or (shudder) TIFF, clearly support full color inclusion.

A thought experiment: render some CGI scene, or do time-lapse photography with a still digital camera in RAW mode, and turn it into an uncompressed AVI. Hey, you're watching 4:4:4 video!

Now, 4:4:4 video production may be a ways off. But it's certainly possible to view the resulting video, though I don't know how many popular codecs support it.

And there is a difference, at least when you're picking out stills and doing CMYK separations on them. Look how blocky and crapulent the yellow channel looks when you separate out an MPEG still or a JPEG image, and how sharp the black channel looks. A significant part of that is subsampling at work.

--grendel drago

Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054422)

I for one welcome our Red Green and Blue, Sin City overlords.

Sin City (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054444)

I can't believe how much I look forward to see Sin City. It's going to be a classic. I'm as hyped and pumped about it as Robert Hamburger is pumped about ninjas.

Re:Sin City (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054508)

The films with the gun toting guitarist are totally pointless, it's like a 6 year olds are allowed to write and direct movies these days. I don't mean any disrespect to 6 year olds who are generally more creative, just that this guy makes absolute garbage films.

Re:Sin City (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054591)

I'm not sure what films you're talking about... but I've seen the Sin City trailers and read about it as much as I can, and it does look good. I suppose you're talking about some other movie?

The big race... (2, Interesting)

papastout (774254) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054482)

Think of all those endeavours ILM has going on...They're about to move to the SF Presidio into a giant new facility where the game company and the film company are going to be rooming in together; Episode III is about to be released (oooh, maybe a PG13 Star Wars flick!) and all those digital film techniques (i.e.: Camera GUI) they have invented. It's a wonder that ILM is no match for a guy that just wants to make a good movie about human depravity.
I wonder how George will take the news? I predict he'll spend a few million (bah! billion) bucks on some cluster racks to console his staff for the loss.

This article is misleading... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054490)

Trying to read that article made me feel like I had ADD again. All of its skipping around on various topics wasn't neccesary. The stupid part of the article is its arrogant attack on ILM when the article later admits ILM has been using this same technology for some time. The only thing is Sin City came out a couple months before Episode 3. Kudos to both studios and I'm not trying to say the Sin City technology isn't an accomplishment, but I wish the author of the article would have focused on their achievements instead of comparing them with ILM.

Does Rodriguez even know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054538)

Maybe credit is due RaveHD, and as long as it didn't crash or hang, then a little credit is due the OS. Maybe this is the beginning of the OS becoming transparent, and apps now matter?

Unless the man is a penguin fanboy that is.

if it was all linux, why use samba? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054550)

so it says the images were made available via samba. Sounds like the rest of the process is windows?

Re:if it was all linux, why use samba? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054576)

Not with SMB client, NFS works on linux just fine until you need concurrent access (that is: file locking sucks).

DDR (4, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054552)

I didn't know I could get DDR for linux. Is there a USB Dance Pad I can get? Oh, wait, this must be some othe kind of DDR.

*sigh* (3, Interesting)

Kurt Gray (935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054595)

I just want to point out that during my tenure at a certain Linux company, the name of which rhymes with "VA Linux".... OK it was VA Linux, back in the heady days of year 2000 I was telling certain key members of upper management there that if VA is going to sell high proced Linux boxen then they ought to consider building and selling boxen specifically for FILM PRODUCTION. I repeated myself more than once. I was told by certain key players in upper management who no longer work there that "We're not interested in going after niche markets."

VA no longer sells heavy Linux boxes but obviously someone is, and they're selling them to Hollywood.

*sigh*

Re:*sigh* (1)

As Seen On TV (857673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054688)

I'm pretty sure they ignored you because you used non-words like "boxen." The whole "no niche markets" thing was just their way of being polite.

Movies quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054640)

Now if all those effects could turn his movies into something viewable that would be great. Besides El mariachi, his crap stinks... and bad... i mean i couln't even make myself watch once upon a time in mexico...

Sigh. (5, Interesting)

As Seen On TV (857673) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054674)

I know you guys have to frame everything in terms of "LINUX WINS!" but you know what? It's not a race. Nobody was sitting around a table going, "I wanna be the first to make a feature with 4:4:4 dual-link RGB!" In fact, just the opposite: Everybody was sitting around going, "Let somebody else try 4:4:4 HD video. I don't want to take a chance on it with millions of dollars of somebody else's money."

Besides that, this whole thing is completely wrong. We've been using 4:4:4 for years in film production with a device called a "datacine." Go out and shoot 35mm film, which by the way has more color sensitivity than any video camera on the market, then run it through a device that scans each frame at high bit depth and high resolution in (you guessed it) 4:4:4 RGB.

Seriously, these machines have been around for more than a decade. RGB production is nothing new. You guys are making it sound like it's revolutionary, or worse, like it COULDN'T BE DONE WITHOUT LINUX. Inferno has done 4:4:4 since the mid-90s, and that runs on SGI gear.

DDR (1)

Armadni General (869957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054774)

We all know that DDR still stands for Deutsche Demokratische Republik.

filesystems (3, Interesting)

noahm (4459) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054777)

It's interesting that the article mentions the use of the JFS filesystem:

During ingestion, the RaveHD wrote sequential DPX files for each shot to a standard Linux JFS filesystem on a fiber-channel disk array, Howard says. When all required shots had been ingested, the entire JFS filesystem was made available via Samba and gigabit Ethernet to the studio's production workers.

JFS isn't one of the high profile filesystems on Linux; People usually talk about Reiser, EXT3, or XFS. I wonder what lead the developers to choose JFS.

noah

Ironic (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054778)

Kind of ironic that the first movie to use accurate color capturing digital camera is going to be basically all in black and white, with most things done in CG anyway.

Don't forget to mention the effects were done at.. (2, Informative)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054793)

...The Orphanage [theorphanage.com] who are a...dare I say it...Windows house.

Ignore the movie watch the extras.... (3, Interesting)

Nik Picker (40521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12054799)

For Spy Kids three that is !

There is a extra on the dvd for the film where RR ( heavens forbid i even attempt to spell his name ! ) explains how to create some impressive visual and audio affects for your own home movies ( the family friendly ones people ! ) . He gives a very clear and engaging discussion with example film of how to include visual affects , editing and audio additions to make the films more interesting. Id say he understands how open source benefits every on e since he is so willing to share his expertise and experiences.

As for Sin City ... well as others have commented few Graphic Novels progress well to film but that does not preclude the opportunity that it can occur !

Title's a little misleading... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12054800)

"Rodriguez uses Linux to Edge out ILM"

Should probably read:

"Rodriguez beats ILM to use RaveHD DDR on a commercial film release"

If you read the article, you'll see that ILM are using the same kit, so edging out has nothing to do with it - he's just completed the first film that uses one. That said, ILM did used to be first with everything new and shiny in film, so maybe it is a bit of a shock.

Anyhows Sin City looks mainly black and white, so what's with the 4:4:4 format?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...