More on LoTR Special Effects

sushi writes: "Another LoTR article: this one focusing on the technology used at Weta Digital (the CG shop). Interesting that they are undertaking "major" R&D into running more Linux, and that Linux "delivers about two times the price performance compared to systems running proprietary operating systems". I've been lucky enough to have seen inside this place, and it's cool to see a render-wall of linux boxen. Full story from a New Zealand newspaper." We linked to another good article about WETA a month ago.

"Linux is only free if you're time is wothless"

[autopr0n]

Linux is free. It delivery's an unlimited price performance.

That's not true at all (actually you would say the price/performance ratio is zero if it were). I Linux takes time to install and get running. If you're just a student with some free time then it is free. But if you're running a company with pay by the hour, or actually has work for salaried employees, then Installing and running Linux does cost money. It may be less money then the cost of installing and running windows (even without purchase costs) but you can't just say that Linux has a zero price/performance ratio.

LotR Topic

[heptapod]

Star Wars has a topic, why not LotR? Steve Jackson's already rubbed the Linux community's collective johnsons hard enough because of the special effects developed on your beloved operating systems and for the simple fact that nearly every "nerd" has read Tolkein's saga.

Isn't this enough to merit a topic already or will LotR continue to play second fiddle to the increasingly mediocre Star Wars franchise?

Re:Troll?

[The Milky Bar Kid]

Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation?

Possibly, because the link between 'suitability of Linux in Office aps' and 'use of Linux as a render farm for LOTR' was fairly tenuous.

And after you see so many Slashdot Stories turn into Microsoft v. Linux for SOHO users falme wars, you get a bit jaded.

Though if you wait about 10, 20 minutes, someone'll post a story about KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, etc. where your post will fit in perfectly.

Also, you forget the rallying cry of the Linux coders (myself not included): if you don't like it, change it!

I'm also annoyed that it does all this flashy stuff while still not getting the basics right

That's an interesting point - many Linux advocates (myself included on this point) would say that Windows is the flashy one, and Linux gets the basics right. Basics like stability, security....

Massive

[Alien54]

Weta crowd supervisor Stephen Regelous has created software, dubbed Massive, that creates realistic crowds. Every individual in the crowd moves in response to stimulus such as terrain, and to the actions of others. The battles in The Return of the King will see hundreds of thousands of these intelligent agents in frame at the same time, Mr Labrie says, stretching the software to its limits.

Aside from the impressive technological feat, imagine looking forward to the day when effects like these are availble for Gaming Engines.

Imagine Quake IX out in an open plane of battle with literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other things out there all at once.

I am reminded of something similar to the weekend dogfights/lanparties at the Airforce Academy, but with a much larger field of action.

[smile]

Mixed Messages, Movies and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really weird about Linux in the film industry is that the business / distribution / promotion side of the industry would love to outlaw free software. (SSSCA, DMCA, etc.)

Meanwhile, the production side has realized that it is really useful and is wholeheartedly embracing it.

You have to wonder if sooner or later some pointy-haired boss at the MPAA is going to wake up and go "WHAT! We USE Linux!? We use that communist, anti-American.... Well that had better stop immediately!"

I wonder how the "copyright" industries will try to resolve this - they don't want regular people to have powerful tools like programmable PCs and free software. But they sure want to use free software to make movies.

Maybe they'll go for an approach of requiring "computer licensing" but only if you use "non-approved" software. Most people wouldn't care because most people just run Windows, and they wouldn't need a license. Only Linux users, software developers, and computer science students would have to get licensed.

Kind of like you need a license for a car, but not for a bicycle. (Or continuing the analogy, Windows XP == tricycle...)

Artists, not technology

[SilentChris]

Actually, a far greater tool was used than Linux-boxen in creating Lord of the Rings. Artists.

You could have all the rendering boxes in the world. If you have high-school hacks, you're going to end up doing hack-level work.

Directors at Pixar once said that they hire artists that can use computers, not computer people who claim they are artists. This movie would have been just as impressive if it was made without the technology.

And let's not forget the artistry involved in writing the book, which required millenia-old technology.

Re:I don't understand linux zealots

[TinWeasle]

I am completely in agreement. I do a ton of 3D models and animating, for money, even, and I have to tell you that a tool is a tool is a tool. I would go a step or two farther, and say that the application matters more than the OS (by leaps and bounds), and this is precisely why most professional studios write their own.

The competitive edge has got to be who can render the best fur, flesh, crowds, etc. Flock of Seagulls was written to do crowd scenes by one group, and Massive is simply the code written to do the crowds in LOTR. As with FoS, Massive will live on after the 3 films, be refined a bunch, overhauled, and tweaked. But in part, Massive will be why this company is chosen for a project over CompetitorX.

See, in the real world, it doesn't matter what car you drive, as long as it gets you to work. Even in school, the brand of notebook paper has damned little to do with your GPA. The only consideration for what OS to use for a major company is, "will it run the software I want on the hardware I want, quickly and well?"

The idea that the "cost" of Linux having anything to do with the decisions of the directors to use it is really funny. Does anyone really think that a cost of even $500 per box would make or break this deal? That's why you budget, kids. Some elementary business knowlege will quickly show that in the budget for the effects for three films, the cost of any OS on rendering stations is absurdly inconsequential.

FWIW, I use a few different systems in my 3D work. Some use an OS from Redmond. Some don't. It doesn't matter to me in the least. As long as I can maintain a good throughput of work at a decent billable rate, I make money.

Re:I don't understand linux zealots

[sigwinch]

I do a ton of 3D models and animating, for money, even, and I have to tell you that a tool is a tool is a tool.

Well, there are tools, and then there are *TOOLS*. Especially when it comes to industrial-scale work, not all tools are equal. You hardly ever know exactly what you want to do when you start out, and in fact what you think you want often changes several times, so adaptibility and flexibility are highly valuable.

The only consideration for what OS to use for a major company is, "will it run the software I want on the hardware I want, quickly and well?"

Until you discover that you fucked up big time estimating hardware needs and all your boxes really need double the processor speed and RAM, as well as gigabit Ethernet instead of 100megabit Ethernet. And unless you have a crystal ball, such fuck ups *will* occur. (If you could predict future software needs, you wouldn't be lecturing us on animation, you'd be picking your teeth with the bones of IBM.) When requirements change, the only relevant question is "Can we just substitute new boxes?" If your OS can handle all popular hardware, the answer is probably "yes". If you picked a poorly-supported OS that is picky about hardware support, you're doomed, you have to stop and convert everything to a new OS. (And it's possible to pick a bad OS several times in a row.)

In my experience, and based on what I've read on the mailing lists and newsgroups, Linux has by far the widest hardware support. I've personally installed it on a huge range of machines, only finding one machine I could never get it to install on (and that was a BIOS problem). Conversely, the few times I've tried BSDs have been unmitigated disasters.

See, in the real world, it doesn't matter what car you drive, as long as it gets you to work.

On the other hand, a Ford Escort can't haul half a ton of widgets across town to a client's emergency, and even an SUV would have trouble with an emergency sheet of plywood. Fortunately when it comes to operating systems you can, in fact, "drive a cargo truck to work".

The idea that the "cost" of Linux having anything to do with the decisions of the directors to use it is really funny. Does anyone really think that a cost of even $500 per box would make or break this deal?

Sticker price is not the only cost. Adaptation and maintenance dominate, and Linux has significant benefits over many other operating systems. Need Beowulf-style clustering to do your rendering? Linux has excellent tools. Have software written for a 32-processor machine? Use the Mosix patches for Linux to tie together 32 ordinary PCs. Want to be able to rapidly upgrade and reinstall all 1000 machines in a cluster? Network boot Linux using the well-documented tools, and watch the entire cluster reboot in less than 10 minutes. (Try that with Windows sometime.)

FWIW, I use a few different systems in my 3D work. Some use an OS from Redmond. Some don't. It doesn't matter to me in the least.

Big jobs are different in kind from small jobs, not just different in size. A 10% mistake in a small job means you stay late that day. A 10% mistake in a one month, 1000 CPU job means you threw away the company. IMHO, the key to keeping large projects running smoothly is having flexible, adaptible tools, and the Unices come standard with awesome tools of all kinds. Windows, on the other hand, is worthless out of the box and remains inflexible even when you shell out the $$$ for the official tools.