[News] Movie Industry Loves Linux

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 26141

The Linux Motion Picture Pipeline

,----[ Quote ]
| Within the industry the assembly line of hardware and software used
| for making movies is called a studio pipeline. Linux is preferred because
| it scales well and is compatible with tens of millions of lines of unix
| code the studios have developed internally over the years. All the
| large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
| renderfarms.
`----

http://linuxmovies.org/software.html

This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
quite a while, too.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> The Linux Motion Picture Pipeline
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Within the industry the assembly line of hardware and software used
> | for making movies is called a studio pipeline. Linux is preferred because
> | it scales well and is compatible with tens of millions of lines of unix
> | code the studios have developed internally over the years. All the
> | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
> | renderfarms.
> `----
>
> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
>
> This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
> quite a while, too.

There is not one single verifiable fact to back up these claims.

Where are the references?

Proof?

Footnotes?

>All the
> | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
> | renderfarms.

Where is the proof of this?

All I see are links to a pile of mostly, semi-done, Linux slopware.

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > The Linux Motion Picture Pipeline
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Within the industry the assembly line of hardware and software used
> > | for making movies is called a studio pipeline. Linux is preferred because
> > | it scales well and is compatible with tens of millions of lines of unix
> > | code the studios have developed internally over the years. All the
> > | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
> > | renderfarms.
> > `----
> >
> > http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
> >
> > This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
> > quite a while, too.
>
>
>
> There is not one single verifiable fact to back up these claims.
>
> Where are the references?
>
> Proof?
>
> Footnotes?
>
> >All the
> > | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
> > | renderfarms.
>
> Where is the proof of this?
>
> All I see are links to a pile of mostly, semi-done, Linux slopware.

FWIW.... this definitely doesn't speak for all of the movie industry
but this past weekend I watched the final DVD's of "Lost Season 2" in
order to catch-up before the new season begins. The final DVD was a
2-DVD set and the other DVD had the typical extra bonus materials.

I watched some of the bonus material and there's one item named
"Anatomy of an Episode" or something like that. It basically covers
everything that goes into making an episode... from start to finish.

Yadda-yadda-yadda, they showed all the production work and how they
digitize the film, do the non-linear editing, add the sound-effects and
overlay some of the voices in the scenes and etc, etc. Being a
computer-guy I was checking out the software they use for this.

Long story short... everything I saw was being done on Mac's with
gigantic monitors.

Technomage Hawke · External Since: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 50

This message is not archived

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> FWIW.... this definitely doesn't speak for all of the movie industry
> but this past weekend I watched the final DVD's of "Lost Season 2" in
> order to catch-up before the new season begins. The final DVD was a
> 2-DVD set and the other DVD had the typical extra bonus materials.
>
> I watched some of the bonus material and there's one item named
> "Anatomy of an Episode" or something like that. It basically covers
> everything that goes into making an episode... from start to finish.
>
> Yadda-yadda-yadda, they showed all the production work and how they
> digitize the film, do the non-linear editing, add the sound-effects and
> overlay some of the voices in the scenes and etc, etc. Being a
> computer-guy I was checking out the software they use for this.
>
> Long story short... everything I saw was being done on Mac's with
> gigantic monitors.

Lost is teevee, not the movie industry.

--
Don't flip the Bozo Bit. -- Jim McCarthy, Microsoft

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

The movie industry has two features that greatly shape its use of
technology:

(1) They greatly benefit by having faster computers, or computers with
more memory, or computers with more storage. (OK, everyone benefits
from better computers...but the movie industry benefits much more).

(2) Each movie is basically independent of each other movie. If you
pick a particular tool for editing or compositing or whatever when you
are making, say, "The Phantom Menace", and then when you are making
"Revenge of the Sith" a few years later, another tools is better, the
tool choice for the earlier movie is almost irrelevant.

What this means is that they are willing, and able, to almost completely
change their tools every couple of years, and they use a wide variety of
tools. On almost every movie, you'll find parts done with Linux, parts
done with Macs, and parts done with Windows.

--
--Tim Smith

arachnid · External Since: Nov 03, 2006 Posts: 192

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> The Linux Motion Picture Pipeline
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Within the industry the assembly line of hardware and software used
> | for making movies is called a studio pipeline. Linux is preferred because
> | it scales well and is compatible with tens of millions of lines of unix
> | code the studios have developed internally over the years. All the
> | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
> | renderfarms.
> `----
>
> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
>
> This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
> quite a while, too.

Maybe the movie industry likes Linux so much because it isn't encumbered
with all that DRM?

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:42:21 -0700, Technomage Hawke wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
>>>
>>> This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
>>> quite a while, too.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is not one single verifiable fact to back up these claims.
> tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Where are the references?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Proof?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Footnotes?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>>
>>>All the
>>> | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
>>> | renderfarms.
>>
>> Where is the proof of this?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> All I see are links to a pile of mostly, semi-done, Linux slopware.
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
> getting the hint yet?

I don't see any of that in the article..........

Where is it?

BTW Lucas's software is HIGHLY customized and not for sale, at least not
the version they use.

Technomage Hawke · External Since: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 50

This message is not archived

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 1500

Technomage Hawke wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
>>>
>>> This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most
>>> for quite a while, too.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is not one single verifiable fact to back up these claims.
> tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Where are the references?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Proof?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> Footnotes?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>>
>>>All the
>>> | large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
>>> | renderfarms.
>>
>> Where is the proof of this?
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
>>
>> All I see are links to a pile of mostly, semi-done, Linux slopware.
> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>
> getting the hint yet?
>
>

Insert "Weta"

"Lord of the Rings" was no only rendered, but also the frontends ran on
linux (KDE)
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 26141

__/ [ arachnid ] on Wednesday 04 October 2006 01:00 \__

> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:14:13 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> The Linux Motion Picture Pipeline
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Within the industry the assembly line of hardware and software used
>> | for making movies is called a studio pipeline. Linux is preferred
>> | because it scales well and is compatible with tens of millions of lines
>> | of unix code the studios have developed internally over the years. All
>> | the large studios use Linux as their primary OS for desktops and server
>> | renderfarms.
>> `----
>>
>> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
>>
>> This is not new, but I only found it now. It has been obvious to most for
>> quite a while, too.
>
> Maybe the movie industry likes Linux so much because it isn't encumbered
> with all that DRM?

Well, production!=distribution. Either way, this could indeed be a love/hate
relationship. Look how they sues DVD Jon for doing something as innocent as
making DVD's playable on Open Source platforms (notable GNU/Linux).

Jim · External Since: Apr 21, 2005 Posts: 996

Tim Smith came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago
in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

>
> The movie industry has two features that greatly shape its use of
> technology:
>
> (1) They greatly benefit by having faster computers, or computers with
> more memory, or computers with more storage. (OK, everyone benefits
> from better computers...but the movie industry benefits much more).
>
> (2) Each movie is basically independent of each other movie. If you
> pick a particular tool for editing or compositing or whatever when you
> are making, say, "The Phantom Menace", and then when you are making
> "Revenge of the Sith" a few years later, another tools is better, the
> tool choice for the earlier movie is almost irrelevant.
>
> What this means is that they are willing, and able, to almost completely
> change their tools every couple of years, and they use a wide variety of
> tools. On almost every movie, you'll find parts done with Linux, parts
> done with Macs, and parts done with Windows.
>

The morphing effects on Terminator II: Judgement Day were created on a 486
(just one processor!) and an off-the-shelf software app called RMorf which
was written for DOS. Not long after the movie came out, that same piece of
software appeared on a magazine cover diskette. Oh, what fun I had with
that. Smile

The effects and external shots for Babylon 5 were rendered on Commodore
Amigas (64 of) and a package called Video Toaster (hardware/software
enhancement for same) through the entire five seasons and the knot of
movies.

--
-*- Linux: Because restarts are for upgrades.
-*- Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- Microsoft XP is like a box of chocolates. You never know when the steel
bolts are going to spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks...
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- Hit every key to continue.
-*- "Thanks. What sort of candle is this?" "Um... Dee-nah-meetay. Must be
Italian."
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > FWIW.... this definitely doesn't speak for all of the movie industry
> > but this past weekend I watched the final DVD's of "Lost Season 2" in
> > order to catch-up before the new season begins. The final DVD was a
> > 2-DVD set and the other DVD had the typical extra bonus materials.
> >
> > I watched some of the bonus material and there's one item named
> > "Anatomy of an Episode" or something like that. It basically covers
> > everything that goes into making an episode... from start to finish.
> >
> > Yadda-yadda-yadda, they showed all the production work and how they
> > digitize the film, do the non-linear editing, add the sound-effects and
> > overlay some of the voices in the scenes and etc, etc. Being a
> > computer-guy I was checking out the software they use for this.
> >
> > Long story short... everything I saw was being done on Mac's with
> > gigantic monitors.
>

> Lost is teevee, not the movie industry.

Since I saw the "extras DVD" they actually address this. So what is the
difference between a TV show like Lost and a movie? For a movie they
have many months, sometimes years to do all the production work for a
90-minute feature film. For a show like Lost they have 7 days to
complete a 44 minute show. Basically they have the same work to do
(editing, dubbing, etc.) only they need to do it faster and more
efficiently than a movie does.

BTW... it actually takes them 12-days to do all of the work. That's why
they start filming well in advance of the season and towards the end of
the season the schedule "catches up" with them.

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Qualig belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> Lost is teevee, not the movie industry.
>
> Since I saw the "extras DVD" they actually address this. So what is the
> difference between a TV show like Lost and a movie? For a movie they
> have many months, sometimes years to do all the production work for a
> 90-minute feature film. For a show like Lost they have 7 days to
> complete a 44 minute show. Basically they have the same work to do
> (editing, dubbing, etc.) only they need to do it faster and more
> efficiently than a movie does.
>
> BTW... it actually takes them 12-days to do all of the work. That's why
> they start filming well in advance of the season and towards the end of
> the season the schedule "catches up" with them.

Time for a humor upgrade.

--
Where do you think you're going today?

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:48 -0700, Technomage Hawke wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>>>> All I see are links to a pile of mostly, semi-done, Linux slopware.
>>> again: tell that to George Lucas and ILM.
>>>
>>> getting the hint yet?
>>
>> I don't see any of that in the article..........
>>
>> Where is it?
>>
>> BTW Lucas's software is HIGHLY customized and not for sale, at least not
>> the version they use.
> the point was the core OS they are now using was a distribution of linux
> setup with Beowulf to run the clusterfarm.....
>
> now, most of the worksations there ran Linux as a matter of course (there
> were only 2 notable exceptions and those were not for rendering, but for
> accounting and word processing).
>
> the key with ILM, they used 'nix! period. no windows and no slopware.
>
> NEXT!

No that's not the key.

The key is, that the article offered absolutely no proof.
Especially interesting would be some kind of documentation showing the
movie industry using Linux on their desktops and in day to day operations.

We all know they use Linux in render farms and BTW it was SGI and *nix
that was replaced for the most part.

NOT Windows.

The point is, you loonies accept anything without proof as long as it is
pro-linux.