Slashdot Log In
Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar Go Linux
Posted by
Hemos
on Wed Jul 27, 2005 02:19 PM
from the moving-into-the-future dept.
from the moving-into-the-future dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Jobs on Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jobs on Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
New Linux Software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New Linux Software? (Score:4, Informative)
Pixar writes their own (Marionette, I believe its called), Dreamworks uses Maya and a host of internally developed apps and plugins (for example [linuxjournal.com]), but I'd be willing to bet that most of the post-production work is done using Avid or FCP (and of course stuff like AfterEffects), which, for the most part, don't run on linux (Shake does, and it's damn sweet).
Most smaller companies (commercials, doing stills for magazine ads, and artists) still use commercial products, like Maya, Lightwave, or Animation Master, mostly, I think, for support reasons, but also because, at this stage, they still have features that are missing from Blender (camera/lens types, focal length and depth, and some heirarchy differences). As for cinellera, I don't know many people using it at all (any personally). No one teaches it in film classes, as far as I can tell, and most home users who have the time to mess around with it and understand it either a) also have the money for a cheap mac and use iMovie, which while nowhere as powerful, is good enough for a lot more than you'd expect or b) also have enough time and expertise to get a cracked version of premiere (of FCP if they have a mac) and just use that.
Parent
So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So what are the reasons? Cost? Customization? (Score:5, Informative)
The choice wasn't Windows vs Linux, it was Linux vs IRIX. This is why SGI's [yahoo.com] stock is in the toilet.
Parent
ILM used Origin 2000 (Score:5, Informative)
Today things like LinuxBIOS and other clustering advancements have made clusters even more reliable and even easier to admin than big iron SGI/Sun/IBM/HP.
Parent
studio-linux.org (Score:5, Informative)
So, do we love the studios today? (Score:3, Funny)
Clusters (Score:3, Informative)
Why Linux is a better cluster platform than Win (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's a pain in the ass to run headless Windows boxes compared to headless Linux boxes.
Because Microsoft's idea [microsoft.com] of clustering is a couple of failover webservers, not a large, highly-parallel computer? (Granted, this makes sense for Microsoft -- "clusters" was a sexy word a couple years ago, before "grid computing" got to be sexy in business rags, and their customers generally have no need for massive parallel computation, but do run web servers and do read magazines that tell them that they need clustering technology deployed yesterday).
Because a minimalistic Windows setup is fatter and eats more disk space and memory than a minimalistic Linux setup, and buying more resources for a couple hundred nodes so that you can run some background crap produced in Redmond is pretty plainly a bad idea.
Because clusters are done by the sorts of smart people that do automation and systems development, and a large chunk of those sort of people can personally benefit greatly from Linux, so they're more familiar with Linux than Windows.
Because there's no reason to bump up your cluster's cost by a significant amount for software licenses when it doesn't help you at all.
Because Linux generally outperforms Windows (especially when you're looking at kernel-level performance), and the sorts of people that get large, expensive systems like this have a lot of interest in getting their code running as fast as possible -- doubling the compute speed means that they require half or less nodes in their cluster. If your kernel can shove more data onto the network more cheaply or context switch a few more times, you're more valuable.
Because they can customize a Linux system much more easily to do whatever they want than the Windows system. I was pretty appalled when someone managed to mess around with an new ATM up at Carnegie Mellon University and left it on the Windows desktop...and the thing was a full-blown Windows box, with all the software installed and whatnot, NOTEPAD, you name it. Not only is that just not professional, it's a sign of the developers having to fight the system to achive the result they want. Linux won't fight you if you want to customize it.
Linux is open source. If you're working on the kinds of projects where a lot of serious large-scale parallel computing is involved, you may well have significant systems expertise available, and hacking your Ethernet drivers or the kernel to speed things up may be reasonable. A large chunk, perhaps a majority of Linux Ethernet drivers started life with Donald Becker, who was working on Linux clustering for NASA, if I remember correctly. The man needed some high-performance networking code, and had the ability to produce it.
And finally, last but not least...Windows isn't fun. Linux is fun. Okay, you can't really put that on a checklist somewhere, but if someone likes what they're doing, they're going to do a better job of it. I'm working on a cross-platform project for my employer at the moment. The Windows developers are kind of apathetic, spend a lot of time chatting and whatnot, but the Linux port guy is a machine. He's *into* what he's doing, he's excited about it. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more enthusiastic people hacking Linux software than hacking Win32 software. [shrug] Make of it what you will.
Parent
Not just Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Rolling Credits (Score:3, Insightful)
not trolling, just a question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not trolling, just a question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Isn't it illegal to play movies on Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
That explains their quality.
Who cares! (Score:4, Interesting)
Screw Hollywood.. they use OSS software but do they give back.. nope. Not really.
MultiOS (Score:5, Funny)
Movies are made with Linux, feature Apple product placement, and are download on Windows machines? Oh, the beauty of 3!
Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And this is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
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/s
http://www4.discreet.com/3dsmax/3dsmax.php?id=966 [discreet.com]
http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v42/SysReqs
And this is why Nvidia's Linux drivers are so good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Apps? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Apps? (Score:5, Informative)
Movie Making Manual-Linux in film production [wikibooks.org]
- shazow
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Having done alot of work on high end Linux (Maya, Blender), Windows (3DSMax, Blender) and OSX (Maya, Blender) workstations, it's safe to say one can't look past Nvidia on Linux for raw polygonal churning power. Linux is an industry standard 3D animation platform, renderfarms aside.
Perhaps with a substantial license deal Apple may deliver a distribution of OSX to fit, but out of the box it's a poor performer. Of note is that the proprietary Aqua interface hits the GPU for fast 2D blitting. The last thing you want is a DE that hogs your precious GPU for mere interface beautification. Similarly relative customiseability is important where mission critical work is to be done, for this reason OSX is significantly less viable. As for Windows, it's barely safe for home users let alone dear Gollum [findarticles.com].
Parent