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!

Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar Go Linux

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the moving-into-the-future dept.

Linux 279

robinsrowe writes "Most of the major studios use Linux -- such as DreamWorks with more than 1,500 Linux desktops and 3,500 Linux servers. The MovieEditor Conference is an all-day event on computer-based filmmaking in downtown Los Angeles on August 3rd. Studio technology chiefs and other experts discuss ongoing work using Linux in feature animation and visual effects. Presented in collaboration with LinuxMovies.org."

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

hasn't this been done already? (1)

rockytriton (896444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178850)

They were using SGI before right? I thought that someone has already been using clusters of linux servers for this though...

http://www.dreamsyssoft.com [dreamsyssoft.com]

LOL LUNIX MADE TEH AEROSMITH RIDE CRASH (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178852)


Jobs on Linux? (5, Funny)

Sidde (758228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178853)

So Steve Jobs runs Linux now?

2.33 Servers per Desktop (1)

ChrisCoyier (879797) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178876)

Sweet.

Re:2.33 Servers per Desktop (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179046)

You did know that computer animation studios have huge render farms, right?

Re:2.33 Servers per Desktop (1)

ChrisCoyier (879797) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179323)

Yep. Hence: Sweet.

Re:2.33 Servers per Desktop (1)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179369)

That's because the projects they work on are cpu hogs.

Re:Jobs on Linux? (0, Redundant)

AsnFkr (545033) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178878)

No...it's BSD-based you n00batr0n~!

I'm joking! Smile!

Re:Jobs on Linux? (0, Redundant)

Sidde (758228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178907)

But Pixar uses Linux... And Jobs owns Pixar
That means Jobs uses Linux, aight? ;)

Obligatory American Dad quote (3, Funny)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178966)

I just touched her hand, and her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I just scored!

Re:Obligatory American Dad quote (1, Funny)

BacOs (33082) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179144)

Steve Smith: I touched her hand, her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I touched her boob! Algebra's awesome!

Re:Obligatory American Dad quote (0, Offtopic)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179273)

Yeah that's the one.

Re:Obligatory American Dad quote (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179154)

well you did more than score, most people here would could touching the hand alone as scoring, maybe even just talking to a girl.

(cue the guys who can't take a joke saying "the modern geek is not like this, I for one, have a girlfriend".... whatever, you liars)

New Linux Software? (5, Interesting)

aklix (801048) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178857)

I believe I heard that Pixar released much of their software. Even though these are at steep prices, maybe this will give more companies in the same field a chance to switch to linux.

Re:New Linux Software? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179004)

If, by "much of their software", you mean prman, and some related tools, then yes, they sell licenses. It is not open source. And, FWIW, this stuff has been running on linux for a few years now, so companies in the field have had plenty of opportunity to switch to linux -- some have been on linux since at least '01, if not earlier (Side Effects' Houdini was the first major 3d app to support Linux).

Re:New Linux Software? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179252)

I know Pixar pretty much writes all their software themselves, but I wonder what the other guys are using? Are they just using Pixar's stuff, writing their own...or are they actually using stuff like Blender, Cinepaint, and Cinelerra???

The funniest part (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179276)

The funniest part is that all these movie companies using Linux to make movies wouldn't be able to legally play those DVD movies on their Linux machines.

Re:The funniest part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179421)

Why not? It's their own work...why should it be illegal for them to view it?

So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (4, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178861)

How much does the selection come down to cost vs customization?

On one hand, renderfarms of ~5k machines get pretty expensive already, and adding another $500k for windows liscences is no small change.

On the other, how much of the software is custom/gets customized, and Linux is a better platform for doing custom software and customization?

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178929)

Probably due more to custimization. It is just a lot easier to strip down Linux and make it processes data then it is to do for windows. Being that it is free doesn't hurt. Because they have aready used a good portion on their 5k systems. I find I use linux most at work when I need to make a custom appliance. Get a system powerful enough to do the job I need to be done. Set up linux and usally a small custom app and it just runs. Unlike windows where it just get in the way.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179224)

Not just that, but you can really fix it when it breaks.

Currently, if a movie house is using a closed-source toolset, and there is a feature missing or a non-trivial bug causing issues with their workflow, they have to spend a *ton* of money to get the Vendor to 'fix' it for them. With an open-source solution, they can hire someone and fix it/extend it themselves for a whole lot less money.

Production is *everything* to these kinds of businesses. *Anything* that minimizes disruptions to the production is going to be seriously considered...

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (3, Insightful)

flooey (695860) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179393)

From what I've heard, Linux and other open-source software is also preferred because of its ability to respond to deadlines. If you're two months from release and an obscure bug in your OS interferes with your rendering, you can't rely on the OS provider to get you a fix in a timely manner, especially if it's a bug nobody else encounters. If it's an open-source system, though, you can fix it yourself.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178952)

Windows fundamentally does not understand how to do batch computing.

Try it. Try launching and controlling thousands of jobs distributed across a windows network. Have fun and good luck with that!

Some bonehead VP at Intel tried to get us to use NT for that shit. It was a disaster. We've stuck with Linux and the VP was "re-assigned".

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (5, Informative)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178964)

On one hand, renderfarms of ~5k machines get pretty expensive already, and adding another $500k for windows liscences is no small change.

The choice wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was Linux vs IRIX. This is why SGI's [yahoo.com] stock is in the toilet.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (1)

Black Copter Control (464012) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178983)

$500K is a lot for most people, but we're talking about movies with budgets in the $100M range, and one installation can serve a number of movies. If Windows provided a noticeably better end result, it would be pretty easy to get the budget allocation.

It's similar for the high-finance move to Linux. One transaction can be worth over a billion dollars. Paying an extra $500k for a system that prevented the loss of a hundred transactions would be a no-brainer. These people use Linux because it works not because it's cheap.

The saved $500K just means a quick downpayment for that new yacht.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (2, Informative)

durbnpoisn (813086) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179011)

I'll tell you what I find really baffling about this...

I happen to be an amateur filmmaker... No, really... I really am [durbnpoisn.com]

I have 3 different Linux machines, of the 5 in my house. But, none of the 3 of them are nearly as practical for all the FX work that I do as my Windows machines.

And that really sux! I would really prefer to switch to Linux completely... But, the software simply doesn't exist. Unless, of course, you are ILM and have $countless millions$ to afford the top of the line software.

It's no surprise that these FX houses use Linux. It's been that way for years, in fact. What I would like to see is some of that ingenuity coming down to the home user. It just isn't there yet. And, as a result, I'm still trapped in Windows if I want to get any work done.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (1)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179274)

you are ILM and have $countless millions$ to afford the top of the line software.

They also develop their own customized and home-developed Apps. Pixar developed Renderman/PRMan (a huge expense, with many developers involved, if I remember right), ILM has heavily customized versions of their own software, etc. Each place has an army of support staff to support these customized apps, etc.

They use Linux because they can strip away the crap and customize the heck out of it-- they effectively have custom Linux Distro that is highly specialized to render images in a huge network farm.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (1)

frag thief (757953) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179253)

Because Windows does for computing what AoL does for the Internet -- make it prettier and slower with a whole lot less options. For a company like Pixar, who is *not* concerned about off-the-shelf software, Linux makes all kinds of sense.

Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179414)

This isn't exacly news. The big studios started migrating to Linux years ago.

All these studios used to be SGI and IRIX based, they are just dumping SGI and IRIX because SGI raw performance is so poor and price/performance is even worse. SGI's only two offerings are MIPS and Itanic, both of which suck for animation and rendering especially compared to dirt cheap, very fast Intel IA32 and AMD CPU's. Maybe SGI has an IA32 Linux box, but why would anyone bother to buy one there.

Windows was never a viable options for these places. They've built vast infrastructure based on Unix, both scripting and applications. You have to look to smaller, newer studios to find heavy Windows usage.

Not sure that its entirely true that Pixar is going to Linux, I imagine maybe they are for rendering but I'm pretty sure they going Mac's and OSX for artists desktops. OSX is a dream OS for this business, really strong multimedia capabilites and Unix infrastructure in the OS underneath.

Linux multimedia support by contrast, sucks, and these people need good audio and video. Linux really needs to work out a scheme to port over the BeOS multimedia API or at least the spirit of it. Its producer and consumer audio and video node concept rocks, its API's are really easy to use and consistently designed, best of all there is only one API, instead of 10 like Linux. Best of all in BeOS every audio source creates its own volume control clearly labeled so adjusting audio levels when you are running multiple audio streams is a breeze. Linux is a complete nightmare by comparison.

Why Not linux for movies. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178870)

When you need to do some hard core processing, Linux gives you a good bang for its buck. Plus it can be so easly configured that you can just make it process.

Apps? (0, Redundant)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178872)

Okay, I didn't RTFA, but does anyone know what apps these studios use for rendering? I'm pretty sure Pixar uses proprietary stuff, is anyone using FOSS?

Re:Apps? (0, Flamebait)

FosterKanig (645454) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178930)

Why don't you shut the fuck up? You have nothing to add.

I admit I have nothing to add but to call out morons like yourself who ask dumbass questions.

Re:Apps? (5, Informative)

Shazow (263582) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178939)

Here's a good wiki writeup about the available film editing software available on linux:

Movie Making Manual-Linux in film production [wikibooks.org]

- shazow

Re:Apps? (1)

mislam (755292) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178986)

If I remember correctly "Maya" is the rendering software that most movie studios use. Titanic was rendered on a linux farm. That was what... 5+ years ago?

Re:Apps? (1)

pizen (178182) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179161)

While Maya comes with a renderer it can also just be used as a modeler and RenderMan can do the actual rendering.

Re:Apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179304)

Maya also plugs in to other renders like PRman and Mental Ray (or whatever you got). So even if they use it for modeling/lighting/animation/texturing, they may use something else for rendering.

I think apps take more credit than they deserve as for use in high profile work. For instance, someone may just use Maya for modeling, but use other software for every other step. The company who used the software, of course, will just say "used in production" leading people to believe that's all they used.

Re:Apps? (1)

FIT_Entry1 (468985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179052)

Pixar makes Renderman [pixar.com] , I would assume they use it too as it's been ported to Linux.

Re:Apps? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179230)

Pixar renders with "Photorealistic Renderman". You can buy this from them. It's not proprietary any more than Maya is.

PRman is available for OSX, Windows, Linux and I believe it's still available on Irix...but not sure.

studio-linux.org (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178885)

For an overview of which distros various studios are using (or are migrating to), along with various hardware solutions: http://www.studio-linux.org [studio-linux.org]

So, do we love the studios today? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178890)

Lameness filter. :)

3D apps (1)

andersbergh (884714) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178895)

What apps does the Linux desktops/clusters run for rendering?

Re:3D apps (1)

durbnpoisn (813086) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178922)

I know that ILM uses a very customized version of Maya. In fact, I'm quite sure that's the weapon of choice among most houses.

Re:3D apps (1)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178971)

I thought ILM goes with Softimage software. They were using it since the days of S3d, then migrated to the hottest 3d animation app of the moment, XSI.

I'm sure they're using Maya, but not to the extent you believe.

Re:3D apps (1)

zr-rifle (677585) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179389)

Exactly.

XSI is available for both Windows and Linux, but not for the Mac afaik.

Linkage [softimage.com]

WTF? (2, Informative)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178897)

This is just an agenda for a conference. Are they trying to inform us or sell us seats? Is Slashdot getting a percentage? Do editors edit, or chose stories with a randomized function? Inquiring minds want to know!

Actually, we already know the answer. Never mind.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178997)

yes, the person who submitted the story is charging large sums of money to companies that 'sponsor' this conference.

it's a slashvertisement.

Re:WTF? (1)

HopeOS (74340) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179151)

The conference was news to me. I would have attended if I had known about it sooner. The cost seems perfectly reasonable to cover food and incidentals for the day. I guess I just don't understand what issue you are trying to raise.

-Hope

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179168)

Because *ethical* sites clearly indicate when something they are covering is a blatent plug.

this is news? (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178901)

Well, duh! That's one of the things I like about working in computer animation. In my company there's maybe a dozen windows boxes and most of them are used by HR/accounting/reception. All the production work is done on Linux and Mac.

Clusters (3, Informative)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178915)

Studios use a lot of clusters, which are much better (in several ways) on Linux than on Windows.

Care to elaborate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179095)

or are you just spewing some random bullshit you read on slashdot?

Re:Care to elaborate? (1)

CynicalGuy (866115) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179234)

Would you want to buy 5000 extra Windows licenses for machines that pretty much just perform background calculations?

Pixar (0, Troll)

a3217055 (768293) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178920)

Pixar should invest in a Blue Gene. Secondly for some time now Pixar had there software running on linux x86 clusters. Before that they had some solution from Sun. Anyway but it looks like Linux is being pushed into the work horse area of the movie world. The only two movies that I know that are based on Linux are Toy Stories and Madagascar. They all have penguins and are big budget cartoons.

Re:Pixar (2, Interesting)

Dylapoo (706309) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179076)

I am not sure if investing in Blue Gene is such a wise idea. Though Pixar does have software running on linux x86 clusters and has experience running off of sparco systems, Pixar is best versed in using their own programs and development systems based upon xserve render platforms. These were the very platforms that were used to render amazingly vivid water scenes in Finding Nemo for less than a million dollars a second (which in the industry is an unheard of level of render efficiency). In fact, the render farm that Pixar used for The Incredibles, known in German as Die Unglaublichen, was an amazing tool in allowing the translation of passive elements of the film into 33 different languages for localized distribution. I discuss on my site here: http://www.dadgev.org/ [dadgev.org] , that the German version of Pixar's The Incredibles actually converted the text in everything from Stock Tickers to Newspaper Articles into German so that the central european audiences would gain as much from the movie as others.

Someone stole your wp-config (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179131)

There doesn't seem to be a wp-config.php file. I need this before we can get started. Need more help? We got it. You can create a wp-config.php file through a web interface, but this doesn't work for all server setups. The safest way is to manually create the file.

Re:Pixar (2, Interesting)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179328)

I think your number for a million dollars a second for rendering is WAY WAY overinflated. Lets put it this way, if Finding Nemo were done at the standard rate as you define it, it would cost 6 BILLION DOLLARS (100 minute film) to produce. So, you're saying their rendering efficiency is not only much better than normal but it's several orders of magnitude better? Or is it just the water scenes that are expensive?

Not just Linux (4, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178936)

From TFA: "Get behind-the-scenes Linux and Macintosh insights into feature animation and visual effects production in the motion picture industry." You'll notice that one of the apps they highlight is Apple's Shake, and they mention Mac OS X as a desktop environment with Linux servers.

Re:Not just Linux (2, Interesting)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178975)

Since they're using Mac OS X, it makes me wonder why they're not using FreeBSD.

Re:Not just Linux (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179122)

Because they're already using Linux, why use FreeBSD? Mac OS X isn't used to serve in those instances, its used as a desktop because it has a nice GUI.

Re:Not just Linux (1)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179190)

They were already using FreeBSD through using Mac OS X. Why use Linux?

Not because of ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178944)

It isn't because of ease of use or even configuratoin that they are using it. It is because they have access to the source code and can modify any/all of it in-house.

That's it.

Re:Not because of ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179239)

Yeah, that's why open source is cool. Think about it, but not too hard.

Rolling Credits (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#13178965)

It would be be nice to see credit given to even some of the OSS that is used in the movies; CineaPaint, Linux (how about a tux), etc. After all, the movie companies want credit when they help on OSS (look at CineaPaint).

Re:Rolling Credits (1)

mbbac (568880) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179425)

Put it in the license.

viva la revolution! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13178978)

That's right, linux was chosen over Windows and OSX.
Looks like a pragmatic view wins over starry-eyed fanboism.

not trolling, just a question (3, Informative)

rayde (738949) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179012)

i understand that things like Maya are available for linux, but are there programs out there that are equivalent to say, Final Cut or Adobe Premier... things that an average home movie maker might want?? if Linux is making such big inroads into this area, I'd like to know what apps fill this sector.

Re:not trolling, just a question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179099)

Many of the larger studios use custom stuff on IRIX (at the time I worked there), and now are moving linux... this is not software you can buy and needs large teams to customize it and support it for each large project.

The renderfarms are fairly standard Alfred + PRman, (sometimes with shake for simple compositing), but almost everything else is custom.

Re:not trolling, just a question (4, Informative)

TheSync (5291) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179137)

Check out the open source Cinelerra HD Editor [heroinewarrior.com] . Also there is a company, Linux Media Arts [lmahd.com] that specializes in broadcast video solutions with Linux.

Re:not trolling, just a question (1)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179245)

i understand that things like Maya are available for linux, but are there programs out there that are equivalent to say, Final Cut or Adobe Premier... things that an average home movie maker might want??

I like Kino [freshmeat.net] .

How do I? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179017)

How do I adverstise my upcoming conference on Slashdot?

That's funny... (3, Funny)

motbob (897343) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179020)

Pixar on OS X, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179111)

Thanks for bringing that up. I thought Pixar did switch to OS X, but I was too lazy to search through the archive.

Brickfilms (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179032)

I wonder how good linux is for brickfilming... I use it but don't know any frame-by-frame apps.

Isn't it illegal to play movies on Linux? (4, Funny)

jimbro2k (800351) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179036)

I guess they can create their movies on Linux, they just can't check their work.
That explains their quality.

Re:Isn't it illegal to play movies on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179261)

Yes it is illegal to play any kind of motion picture on Linux, if you do Darl will come and haul your ass to jail. Well unless you've paid your $699.

Yeep! It's true (1)

mynickwastaken (690966) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179051)

I noticed that a while a go when I saw the Madagascar [madagascar-themovie.com] trailer.

Editing or rendering? (2, Interesting)

stevewz (192317) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179053)

As an independent filmmaker and videographer, and as a Mac AND Linux user, I'm curious to see if they use Linux for rendering or editing? There's a huge difference.

Re:Editing or rendering? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179121)

Rendering for sure. Unless there`s some great editing software for Linux that`s been kept secret for all these years...

Re:Editing or rendering? (1)

NMikkila (409521) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179297)

The software is there, as you can see in the fine article [movieeditor.com] .
Even Apple Shake is available on Linux too.

Re:Editing or rendering? (1)

NMikkila (409521) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179397)

Should've checked before posting. It's just for rendering backends, no GUI. Still, I think the amount of software already available is impressive.

Who cares! (4, Interesting)

aergern (127031) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179063)

They can do all these fancy graphics on Linux boxes but this same industry still doesn't support Linux users to view the end product. And when someone takes it upon themselves to do so.. they are taken to court and treated like thieves.

Screw Hollywood.. they use OSS software but do they give back.. nope. Not really.

Re:Who cares! (2, Interesting)

zlogic (892404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179272)

First of all, they don't have to give anything back. It's entirely their choice of doing whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the GPL of whatever license. And second, they DO help the Linux community by making its userbase bigger. Imagine if some company buys software from Pixar and it says "works on Linux only". So using both Linux and Pixar's expertise in using it for film production makes Linux the obvious choice. And also, if some hobbyist/small TV company wants to do video editing, what will they see? Pixar uses Linux, Disney uses Linux, every cool film company uses Linux, so why don't we use Linux? And this scheme works, because when I wanted to move from .NET to PHP I've read an article that GlaxoSmithKline uses .NET and well, I rethought the idea of switching and stayed wit .NET. It's like Pepsi uses celebrities to advertise its products. So why can't Linux use its most popular users for gaining mindshare?

Re:Who cares! (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179417)

Do you really think that Film Gimp [gimp.org] has no Hollywood contributors?

Sneak Previews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179092)

So can we expect movies like "Tux Story" and "A GNU's Life" and "Finding Linus" in the near future??

MultiOS (4, Funny)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179110)

Let me see if I can get this straight . . .

Movies are made with Linux, feature Apple product placement, and are download on Windows machines? Oh, the beauty of 3!

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179134)

Give me Microsoft GIF animator, Paint, and 300 years turnaround time...I'll get your next blockbuster done!

Oh! The Irony! (1, Troll)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179163)

It'll be a laugh riot wont it?

Once SCO's charges are proven, and Linux is declared a "Copyright circumvention device" by His Majesty George W. Bush, the movie distributors will end up suing Disney and Pixar for using Linux!

The distributors will be busy suing the movie makers, and the falling sales figures will continue to be blamed on Linux and the piracy it's Communist ideals encourage. All the while, Disney will come out with "Herbie goes Bananas about Being Fully Reloaded for the Next Generation" and sue a 12 year old for making the movie available for download off Kazaa thus causing it to tank at the box office!

Re:Oh! The Irony! (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179294)

Sit down, relax, drink a big glass of milk, then go fishing for the rest of the day. Consider doing this tomorrow too.

Created with Linux... but do not watch with Linux (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179172)

It would be nice if the movie industry embrassed Linux enough that I could legally play back my DVD's with it. I don't plan on buying HD-DVD or BluRay disks anytime soon because I don't want to buy anything that prohibits me from playing back on my computer.

Irony (4, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179196)

Does anyone else find great irony in this?

I mean, in order for most Linux users to watch these films they have to break some draconian laws when playing DVD's.

Yet, the very thing they use to create these films on is Linux.

Well, if not irony.. some kind of word ending with ony.

Re:Irony (1)

mozkill (58658) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179226)

lol... yeah, thats pretty funny... great observation... :-)

Re:Irony (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179291)

> Well, if not irony.. some kind of word ending with ony.

Um.
crony?
morony?
Ah.
Balony.

And this is news? (3, Interesting)

greymond (539980) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179223)

Taking a look at the System Requirments for the more well known 3D Animation apps we see Alias's Maya and Softimage's XSI run natively under Linux. Which when you are dealing with animations that can take literally days to render for production it's no wonder they'd want to use a Linux machine instead of a Windows machine, I'm sure it cuts the time by at least 30% (totally grabbed that number out of my ass)

So is it news that the big animation companies also use OS X instead of XP too? I think the only big name 3d animation company that is Windows only is Discreet with their 3ds Max software, which I think is really only used for games, can't think of a movie that it was used for.

Sys Requirements:
http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/requirements.php [newtek.com]
http://www.alias.com/eng/products-services/maya/sy stem_requirements.shtml [alias.com]
http://www4.discreet.com/3dsmax/3dsmax.php?id=966 [discreet.com]
http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v42/SysReqs/ [softimage.com]

Why? (1)

AdamInParadise (257888) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179288)

Why are they switching to Linux instead of, say, Windows or Mac OSX?

I'm a Linux user so I'm definitely happy about this move. Really I'm just looking for some good arguments for the next "My OS is da best" flamefest at work.

I didnt RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13179305)

Cause, well .. I couldn't cause there isn't one!

wtf

And this is why Nvidia's Linux drivers are so good (4, Interesting)

delire (809063) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179348)


I read somewhere that there are a ridiculous number of Nvidia developers working on Linux driver support - hundreds comes to mind - and it is largely due to the fact that Nvidia nailed contracts with the feature film industry.

The proprietary Linux ATI drivers (if you want pixel and vertex shader support, this is a must) now perform incredibly well, though are still an annoyance to install for many. Given that ATI seem to be the card of choice for mobile machines, I look forward to the day ATI competes in the feature film market.

OLD NEWS!! (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179363)

Hollywood uses Linux Clusters to Generate CGI's

Article Posted: 11/6/2003

(FORBES.COM) These days the big star at Sony Pictures' special-effects shop, Imageworks, isn't Spider-Man or Stuart Little--it's a piece of software called Linux.

Instead of buying pricey specialized computers from the likes of Silicon Graphics, the techies at Imageworks simply load Linux onto hundreds of cheap Intel-based PCs to crank out dazzling effects for movies like Lord of the Rings, Seabiscuit and Spider-Man. Better yet, these low-cost systems are way more powerful than what they replaced.

"Almost everything we do now we could not have done before," says George Joblove, a senior vice president at Imageworks. "To have Spider-Man swinging through New York City, to have the entire city--the sky, the buildings, everything in that frame--digitally created, that could not have been done five years ago."

Most of Hollywood's big special-effects and animation companies now use Linux. DreamWorks, maker of Shrek and Sinbad, boasts on its Web site of its "groundbreaking adoption of Linux." Digital Domain, which worked on Titanic and Apollo 13, runs Linux on about 1,000 processors. Lucas Digital runs Linux on nearly 1,500 boxes to create effects for the Star Wars epics and Harry Potter.

Most of these companies use Linux in "render farms," where hundreds of low-cost Intel-based servers are yoked together to do the number-crunching needed to churn out visual effects and animated images. Imageworks and others also use Linux to power some desktop machines that artists use.

Until two years ago most effects shops used expensive workstations from SiliconGraphics. The SGI machines used specialized chips and SGI's own souped-up version of Unix. But these days ordinary Intel machines can outgun SGI machines for a fraction of the price, and free Linux sharpens that edge. Hammerhead Productions, a 30-person effects house in Studio City, Calif. that created effects for Blue Crush and 2 Fast 2 Furious, uses Linux machines that cost one-tenth the price of its old SGIgear--$1,200 versus $12,000--and yet are ten times faster, says Thaddeus Beier, director of technology.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html [forbes.com]

Why does the OS matter ? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13179416)

For desktops and servers, the OS choice makes a huge difference in terms of usability and availability of software. For these high-end shops, they're mostly running their own in-house applications and toolchains. Why should it matter whether the underlying OS is Linux, Irix, BSD or even Beos.. they're not shopping for window managers!

Linux would be the logical choice because if you're not going to use something much, might as well get it cheap/free. They probably use Linux merely as a filesystem and multitasking kernel, with some simple network communication between nodes. They don't care about KDE vs Gnome, Konq vs Firefox.. it's just a dumb host for the custom software.

So why do they need a conference about this non-topic ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?