 Good morning. Good morning. You're live. I'm live. Hey, let's show them a clip. Let's show you a clip. You guys want to see a movie clip, right? Showing some Linux stuff done in Linux, right? Let's show them something they haven't seen yet. Who's heard about spiderwebs? Wait a minute, I'm doing spiderwebs? Yeah! Oh, okay. We did talk about this. We have to turn the lights down a little if we can. So this is a movie that has been destroyed by paramount. I don't think it's quite out here yet. It's called the Spiderweb Crab. That can't be Robin. That gun? How about this? How about this mic? Okay. Okay, it'd be so easy if microphones would work. So, I'm Robin Rowe. This is Gabrielle Panterra. We're here from Hollywood. And we're going to show you some clips today and some slides and talk about Linux in the motion picture industry. Now, Linux is a very popular operating system for making motion pictures. It's used for visual effects, for feature animation. It's not seen so much in television. And what's interesting about Linux in the film industry is that outside the film industry and even in the executive level in the film industry people are pretty unaware of Linux. But where the rubber hits the road, Linux is used on desktop servers. It's everywhere. It's the dominant operating system. You want to show me some DreamWorks? Some B-movie, please? Wait, what did you do with this? Oh? Oh? Enter your double-core. Okay. So this is B-movie from DreamWorks Animation. I worked in technology research and development at this studio. And this studio has its own animation pipeline that they've written. All the software to create the animation is custom-made in-house. And in fact, they had to rewrite all the software when they made B-movie because the B's are so small that it caused rounding error. So they had to redo the entire pipeline in floating-point math in order to have things come out and not have them like jumping around and doing very odd things during the animation. Now, the state of animation is actually quite amazing with what's accomplished today. The DreamWorks has a partnership with HP where they have thousands and thousands of Linux servers that they can call to do this animation, which requires a lot of compute power. Each frame will typically take 20 minutes or longer to render, and there are 24 frames per second, maybe 150,000 frames for the entire film. And they'll work on this film for two years. I was actually at the studio when Seinfeld came by and they first pitched this film. And while they're doing the film, they'll render it over and over again, not just once. And then when they get the film where they think that they're done, they'll render it all again in like the last two weeks or months of the production cycle. So it requires a tremendous amount of commutational power in order to turn that stuff out. Which one do you want now? Don't be picky. Hit it again. Don't click. This is his laptop, not mine. I'm not used to running his. Okay, so this is a movie called Cloverfield. And we're about to see the Statue of Liberty have the head come off and come sailing down the street here. And, you know, whenever you see a movie like this in theaters today with big visual effects, you're looking at a Linux movie. So... But the shakiness of the... Are you on? I don't know, am I on? I guess so. Okay. But the shakiness in the movie is actually something that the director chose to do. They did hand. So it was all done by hand except for like... The handy cam, yeah. Yeah, it was all done by handy cam. Okay. So we're very informal. So we're going to go into some slides next. But as we go here, people can yell out questions. Do we have any questions already? No. Okay, you had your chance. And one thing while he's switching things around, we have two different laptops with us. I actually have the... The triple E. The triple E with me today. But we're doing everything on his big laptop because mine just doesn't have the power to do it. I have the... The surf 2. Surf 3 is coming out soon. Just one second. We'll make that bigger. Hey, too big. Too big. There you go. One interesting thing here. That's the terminator. This is actually a statue that was in Beverly Hills. We saw the preview of the movie. And we were driving home. And I saw this and I said, it looks like a transformer ready to get up. Two days later, it was gone. It got up and left. It got up and left. It was gone. Okay. So we're both journalists. I write for Linux Journal, which is right here. So this is my cover story on the current issue of Linux Journal about the spiderweb chronicles that we just saw a clip of. And Gabrielle also writes for British Weekly and a bunch of other places. Gabrielle works at NGM. I'm a consultant. I work all over. And let's go. Let's go. We'll work fine in rehearsal. It did. It really did. Did we make it too big? Yeah, it's going forward. Okay. So back in 91, Linus said I'm just going to do a little hobby operating system. And next, okay. And here we are in 2008. It's number one in the studios. It's better, faster, cheaper. The studios were running SGI IRIS predominantly before they made the change over to Linux. And so it was a very organic change for them. The studios tried to go over to Windows because Windows was actually ready first. But that was actually too hard. Okay. So the first film, as Robin was saying, the first film produced on Linux won 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture in 1998. What was the movie? Titanic. The best proud nose. So with Titanic, which just went flying by, that was the first time that Linux was used in a big way with servers. The desktop wasn't there yet. In 1998, Linux was the slowest operating system on the desktop. By the time that Shrek came out in 2001, Linux was the fastest operating system on the desktop. Thanks to drivers from NVIDIA and other folks. So with Shrek, that was the first time that Linux was done in a big way on the desktop. And all the tools at DreamWorks were custom made because there were really no commercial motion picture Linux tools at that point. Next. Okay. By the time Star Wars Episode II came along, Linux was getting pretty well accepted in the motion picture world. And ILM said, well, we'll give just a few Linux desktops to people to test out. And then we'll do the conversion on our next movie because we want to test it and make sure it's all right. And when they deployed these boxes, they were five times faster than what people had on their existing desktop. And very quickly, people said, well, why does that guy have a box that's five times faster than my box? I have seniority. I should have the five times faster box. So very quickly, ILM converted over to Linux in the middle of production, which you're never, ever supposed to do because of the danger, of course, that everything will crash and burn and your movie won't get made. Finding Nemo. Yeah, Pixar. Pixar, of course, is part of Disney now. But for a long time they weren't. They were originally part of ILM. When Lucas got divorced, he had to sell Pixar to Steve Jobs to pay for that. And, well, that's how it goes. So, and then Steve Jobs, of course, had been thrown out of Apple at the time. So it's all very interesting how this saga has unfolded. And interestingly, Pixar is a huge Linux user, even though they have an affinity for Apple computers there. Disney was the last of the big studios to come over to Linux. They didn't really do so until Jungle Book 2. And that's just more a function of how big they are and fairly conservative. By the time Disney came over, it was a done deal. Linux was the operating system of choice. And that was only five years ago. Okay, now here's one that's interesting. This is a company called Double Negative, which is based in London. And this is, I think, Captain Corelli's mandolin. The Stuka dive bomber, there are no flying stukas in the world. So it's obviously computer animation. And if you look at it, it's blurry. It's been deliberately motion blurred in software. One of the problems with computer animation is you can make it so much better than reality that when people look at it, they know it looks wrong because it's actually too good. So all the camera defects have to be put onto the computer animated elements, or it doesn't match with the rest of the scene which was shot with film. Now, in the case here, all these tracers and whatnot, those are obviously animated. These explosions, at least some of them are real. The ships are real, except they're running after them so they put in more of them. And you'll often see that in visual effects where they want to make something bigger so they'll have one ship or one aircraft. They'll put in a whole bunch more, and they have to obviously match those very precisely because they actually have real ships and real aircraft in the same scene with the animation. And we have a few more stills as well to show you of this type of thing. Okay, now here's one where... Wait, wait, wait! Guess which one's real and which one's fake, the right or the left? And we'll take it from your left or your right. We'll put your hand up there and say is it this one. Is it this one? Is that the real helicopter? Is that the real helicopter or is that the fake one? No, no, you guys have to. I want to know if you guys can tell. Which one's the real helicopter and which one's... No, no, which one is the real helicopter? Just which one is the real helicopter and point to it? No, I don't remember now. We'll go... I can't even tell the difference. The real helicopter is on the left. Oh, obviously. Look at this guy over here. And actually, if you look, you can really tell because the real one has some more blur to it than the fake one. The fake one looks too perfect. It was before they realized they needed to add more blur to stuff. More blur. What is the real girl? Okay, so this is a movie called Blue Crash and the girls are actually real in this case. But what's not real is all of the water. And they had ski dues. They had people in the water. And they had to take all that out. So they had to fold the water over and even put in more animated water. Water has become much better. In this age, which is, I don't know, I guess six years ago, water was still right at the bleeding edge of what could be done in animation. And today, water is very well understood and very convincing in animation. Scooby-Doo? Scooby-Doo. And this is a case where you have to composite in animation with existing live action. And you know, have things like beams in a warehouse and Scooby has to pass behind the beams even though obviously he's not even there. So how do you do that? So the beams have to be rotated out. Rotoscoping is a process of tracing over things in the picture so you can control how the 3D appearance of the elements works. And that was done by Rhythm and Hughes. Rhythm and Hughes does animals very well. Okay, Matrix. The Matrix is a really interesting movie because up until the Matrix, it was pretty much one visual effects house per movie. And the visual effects on the Matrix were so big that they ended up using, I think, seven different visual effects houses. And no one had ever done this before and it created quite a few interesting problems because they never needed to inter-operate before. They never needed to exchange elements and have them all match. They actually had cases where two studios were working on two parts of the same scene. And so to get the colors to match, to get all the models where they're doing animated ships and things like that to match, they faced some challenges. In one scene, they had a ship that... one studio had gotten an earlier copy of the approved ship design and another studio had gotten a later version and they didn't realize this until the movie was all the way through production when they put both of those scenes together and they realized that the ship didn't look the same when it went from one side of the screen to the other side of the screen. That's because they moved the lights. So they had moved the headlights on the ship at some point along the line in the design and so they could have gone back and re-rendered that but they realized it would take two weeks and they might miss their release date for their movie because it's very time-consuming to re-render these scenes. So what they did instead was a cheat. So if you look at the movie, you'll see a point where the girl flying the ship reaches down with her foot and clicks on the high beams and the reason that they're doing that is that they can cut away and come back and have the lights moved and it all makes sense. Oh, she put on the high beams, good. Instant high beams. Okay, how many of these are real? Okay, you know the answer to that one. None of the orcs are real. The girls are real, but not the orcs. So with Lord of the Rings, this is interesting because it's just a massive number of visual extras that have never been done on this scale where there's just thousands of extras soaring the walls, and all of these visual extras have to be autonomous because it's no longer possible to hand animate each orc because it's too time-consuming. So these actually have ant-like intelligence where they know they're given a direction to go. They're given simple rules for if they crash into something to go around to the right of it or to go to the left of it depending on what rule they've been given. Digital extras swarming in a scene and have them pretty much go on their own without hand animation. And these are by Weta Digital who also did Harry Potter, if I recall correctly. Did they do Harry Potter? No, they did King Kong. That's it, King Kong. South Park, the only television show done with Linux. Yeah, normally television is not done with Linux because the advantage of Linux is that it scales very well. And with TV, typically, it's just a few machines and doesn't have the same massive render firm, doesn't have the number of animators seeing a desk that film does because the lead cycles are much longer. You'll have two years to make a film, but with TV, you've got a week. So the exception to that is South Park. South Park has a Linux render firm. They used to have Windows desktops, but when they replaced those, they actually went to Macintosh. And they really do it in a week. They get their storyline. They start the artwork. They start rendering it on Wednesday. I think it's on Thursday in the States. On Wednesday, they do a final cut and then send it to the studio. And then send it, yeah, to the studio for air. That's it. It's done that fast. OK, Tippet Studio, they're known for their work on creatures. A long time ago, they did a film called Jason and the Argonauts. And they used to do all their creatures as models by hand. And now in the digital age, they've had to completely retool their systems and do everything digitally. And this is an example of one of their playback tools. They're another studio that's written a lot of their own tools. This is not a commercial app that you can buy. This is their own playback system that they wrote that lets them have greater control over how they make their movies. And this is a shot from Spider-Man. OK, so if you go back to 1997, there were some early tests on Dante's Peak, which was the first movie to really try to use Linux. Then when that worked out, it was used on Titanic. And then there's a whole list of movies here going forward from 97. And in 2003, I gave up keeping a list because there are no major Windows studios left. It's all Linux. So any major visual effects or animation feature film you see is probably Linux. OK, so speed rules, especially when you've got thousands and thousands of frames to render, that the Intel chips surpassed risk was a surprise way back when, but we all know that today. Then the game video drivers that those came over and could be used for animation development was key to making the desktops work. And then the alias Maya, Saftou Majek, Sasai, Houdini, Pixar Render Man, and it used to be Apple Shake, but it's actually gone now. But those type apps came over to the Linux platform, made it very practical to make motion pictures as commercial apps. This is an example of a studio pipeline. It starts with the animator, and then it goes to compositor. And then from there it goes to the render farm. See how the render farm is taller than the gentleman standing next to it? And it has some extra space above it. Yeah, so each blade will be used to compute one frame of the movie and so the 24 blades or whatever it is here, you can do 24 frames simultaneously in parallel. And they normally have between 5 to 20 of those in... We'll have thousands. Well, in one room, because you can get too hot, so they have two rooms. Sometimes they have two rooms. Here's Maya from what? A Bug's Life? So here you see the 3D model, which is how the animator usually looks at it. And then here's a test render that shows what it looks like just so the animator can see. But when they do the render for real, they'll put it on the render farm, and it'll compute independently. And now Dreamworks Maya plugin, and this is proprietary. Yeah, so a lot of the... There's a couple of ways that the studios approach writing their own tools. One is that they'll write the tool from scratch. But another way is that they'll write as a plugin to a commercial tool. And that's what we've done here. This is actually a water plugin from Sinbad that is added to Maya to be able to do waves in the ocean and stuff like that. And if you notice looking at the picture, there's minuses and pluses in there, and that's for the motion. Now here's one that's taken a little different approach. This is an animation tool called Carry, which has actually recently been retired. They wrote an ILM, wrote a new tool. All these tools tend to turn over every few years. So we've got Yoda here. The file format is soft homage, but this tool is completely proprietary and secret software from ILM that they use internally. I thought you were going to say secret salsa all of a sudden. And then here's their compositor. The compositing software is the software that's used to put the different elements together. The movies are usually constructed in layers where they add backgrounds, add foregrounds, add an animated character. And the compositing software is what assembles all that. In this case, we're here in Star Wars. Yeah, you can see the outline of where they're actually working. And that's how they did it. They would always outline the area and work on each part separately but they tried to work on it all at once and there was a problem. They'd have to go back and start from scratch. We're going to have to start clicking through these or am I going to make it? This is Digital Domain's Nuke. This is a commercial compositing package working on Star Trek Nemesis in this example. Okay, so here's a list of some of the commercial Linux tools that are available. Pretty much everything that you want to do, you can do. A lot of this stuff is not cheap. It's very expensive because studios can afford it. One of the more interesting ones up here is Piranha, which is an editing system. That's used by Pixar to edit their movies and it's actually an extremely sophisticated video editing system but not for those in the consumer market. It's very expensive. Okay. I'm actually the project leader of this open source project. This came about kind of by mistake, at least for me. I was writing an article for Linux Journal about Rhythm & Hughes which was the slide earlier with the Scooby-Doo and they said that they had the software that the film industry had paid to do some development and it's all open source. They even could have it. I read that in the article and people wrote to me and said, well, that's great. Send it to me. I'm like, well, I'm not the project leader. I just wrote a story about it. I said, yeah, but in the article, you've got the source star ball because you talk about building it. Just send us the source star ball. That was what I did and then people wrote me back and said, whoa, there's a bug in that. Here's a patch. And that's how it begins. Then other people wrote me and said, Robin, I hear you've got the new patch. So I ended up being the project leader for this and it's kind of an odd beast. The film industry had actually funded some development of an open source project that was pre-existing but had them rewrite the core. So it actually looks a lot like another software package but internally is very different. Should we go in? Okay, so... Long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In 98, CinePaint branched off from GIMP. Why before I was involved? Basically it's different than GIMP in a lot of ways but what it can do is it's got a lot... How do I know what? I'm watching you. Okay, well, the big difference is that in the film industry there's some file formats called DPX, CineOn, OpenEXR, 16-bit TIF, and none of these formats can be opened by GIMP. So if you don't know what any of those formats are then maybe you don't really care about this software but if you use those formats every day then you care a lot more. Okay, shall we get some last samurai? Let me show you a clip from the last samurai that they use CinePaint to do some of the special effects. CinePaint is used for cleanup a lot of times and Flash Filmworks did this. And this will show an example of putting together the pieces. So that's how it really looks. Holes. We went into holes. We'll see more last samurai in a second. We'll mash together here. How many of those? Ah, shoot, it went too fast. So putting in some soldiers, putting in some cannons, firing some cannons. There's our governor. Yeah, California's governor. This is an example of green screen work. There's a lot of that done where a green screen and not even having green screen will actually roto it out by hand to replace backgrounds. Okay, now we can see which helicopter is real. And so you might ask, well, why do they even fly one helicopter because wouldn't it be cheaper to just animate two helicopters? And it would, but it's really hard on the cameraman because he has nothing to point out. So they usually fly one helicopter. Where is it? There's no helicopter. With an animal bite, they can put an X on you so they know what to focus on and then they can put in holes, put in the little creatures. So it's actually a challenge for the camera crew and for the actors in a lot of these movies because there's nothing there. Oftentimes they'll hold up like a stick with a little face on it and say, okay, here's the creature. You know, be afraid. Putting in arrows. This is done in cinnapaint where he's doing the arrows that are the close ups. The arrows where they're swarming were done in a 3D package. So this is digital extras. We've got some fake horses in here. And some fake people. But the girls are real. And some fake soldiers who fall off of horses. And it turned out that the last samurai and Lord of the Rings were made at the same time and were competing for extras. So they actually had to double up the extras a lot more in the last samurai than they had planned. The stuff with the digital extras is good because it saves lives. That guy would be dead. Yeah, he wouldn't be around anymore. And so no animals were harmed also. But you still see stuntmen a lot. In Spider-Man, the first movie, the stuntman broke his arm. In the second movie, he broke his arm. So, you know, it really is dangerous and going the digital route is safer, although not as glamorous a way of doing it. And here's some nice little digital creatures that have been added after the fact. This is some early water. You can see it's not quite as convincing as some of these stuff. It was a little too smooth. How many people do you think are really in that audience? More green screen stuff. And also color correction. And this is a straight animation where, you know, there's nothing real in this particular scene. Here's one that's done with models, but the rooftops are real. So, you know, just a whole bunch of different techniques for fooling the audience, basically. Now you can look at this water. It looks a little bit better. It looks a little more realistic. Yeah, the water keeps getting better. Let's see some castaway water. That's exciting water. No problems too. I have no problems, except that all my movies have disappeared. Who's seen Seahorse? Waterhurst. Okay, so here's an example with Roto. This is where they didn't have a green screen, but said, well, we'll do it anyway. So someone has to go in by hand, you know, take the background out, frame by frame. They've got a little bit of blue screen down there below. Now, did you notice he was looking down on a tennis court? So this is some work from Castaway. And see the marks? That's what he's trying to look at, but also those are the marks. The camera keeps moving, but the camera is never still. That makes it much, much harder. In the early visual effects, the camera was always locked off because that way it made it easier to match the shot. Now everything moves. He was running the tank, put some motion around him. It's just a pool. But the water is actually quite cold. Yeah, if he did say that, it was really, really cold the water they had on him. Well, this water is much more convincing. Neuro-technology. It has some rain, too. Yeah, and when they added the rain, they added another element that they had to blend in. I'm kind of seasick. Any questions so far? No questions. Oh, wait, there's a hand in the green? She's kind of... Okay, so the question is, you have shown many, many pages of proprietary software and one free software signed paint. Is there any more? Free software, yeah. No, and there's barely CinePaint. It's very difficult to develop open source software in this realm. Yeah. What's that? I heard him, Blender 3D. The suggestion is that Blender 3D counts and Blender 3D has been used in pre-vis in one of the Spider-Man movies, but it's never been used in production on any major film. So, yeah, it's just not there yet. Whereas CinePaint has been used on at least a dozen films, probably a lot more than that. I had a question. There are many in-house programs in many, many, like, five different studios. Have they ever tried working together for some, or is the demands for movies so special? For the most part, it's too competitive for that. And also, there are intellectual property things that become very complicated because of the state of U.S. copyright and patent law. It's very difficult to know if you're actually in the clear. So, if you haven't developed your software, if you've got really bleeding-edge software that's extremely sophisticated and you've developed it in secret, you're very reluctant to show it widely because you have no idea if somebody's going to show up and say that you've encroached on their intellectual property in some way that you've never heard of them, but now they're going to give you a hard time. And studios have a lot of money. So, they're very attractive targets for litigation. So, there's a lot of resistance to doing things that would open yourself to litigation. For instance, one of those tools that I showed earlier is retired. So, in theory, that could just be like given away to open source is no longer used, but it's a hundred times more sophisticated than any tool that's available in the open source realm. But you ask the question, well, who's going to indemnify the studio if somebody comes back and says, well, that tool actually infringed somehow that the studio didn't know about and now the studio has a lot of money on that. It's like, oh, forget it. And one other thing, if you actually get to get in there and work at the studios, they do train you how to use the stuff and that helps you in many ways to be able to do other stuff on your own as well as work at other studios in learning their software so it gives you an edge. The software is different in each studio, but they have a little bit of a similarity in the way you use them. I don't know if that makes much sense. You had a question right up here up front? In the background here, while I'm talking, here's a test where we've got one car that's real and one car that's not real and they're matching them in sync. When the render farms render the frames, you said you had like 24 each rendering one frame. Surely the contents of each frame depends, at least to a certain extent, on exactly how the frame before it is rendered. So how does that work? Does each one do a second or...? For the most part, it acts like motion JPEG and not like MPEG. In other words, you do not look back and forward. You just render the frame that you're working on. I don't mean for the compression, but I mean just for making the frames fit naturally together. One might expect, you know, it turns out that frame X worked out like this, so frame Y has to take some account of that to make sure it fits where we frame it. Let's compute it all over again as a short answer. Okay. There is an attempt to cache some of that, but for the most part it's not really effective because the camera's moving all the time, the perspective is changing, and as soon as you touch anything, the numbers are all different. Hello. Hello. I was wondering, you said shake is over. I mean, I know development has been stopped a couple of years ago, and what is taking its place in studios? Because I've been told that shake is still used quite a lot because of the experience. Shake is still used extensively at the studios. Apple offered a buyout program when they retired the product. For $40,000, you could get the source code, and so the studios that use shake a lot went ahead and took advantage of that. Nuke is the competing product from Digital Domain, and a lot of places use that. It's still available commercially. That's kind of it for commercial. Well, then you can also use smoke and combustion and tools like that from, God, who is this from? I can't think of who makes them. From Avid, basically. I don't remember who makes those. So there are other tools available, but it's kind of sad that shake went away, but they decided not to support it anymore after they said they would. I have a question about cine paints. How far is it usable for the moment, because I downloaded it from the site, and well, it's a couple of tools, but actually it's not usable. That's my first question. The second question is we are living in Europe. We don't have the Hollywood budgets. I'm, for the moment, using Maya Toxic, all the Autodesk family of products, but I'm a very big interest of using Blender and such low-cost products, which means, well, free. And if there is somebody here in the room who wants to help me to make fancy in Europe with the help of free products, you are welcome to meet me and maybe to see what the future. But the first question is about cine paints. But he's not able to do too much with it right now. Well, cine paint is just a frame-by-frame retouching tool. So it's kind of the equivalent of the debugger if you're a programmer. So it's a very necessary tool, but it's hardly the only tool that you would use to make a movie. And that's kind of the problem in the open source side. You know, the tools for doing all this in open source really don't exist very well. There's cine paint. People are trying to use Blender, but have yet to do that in a major motion picture. You know, as far as video editing, there's a new tool that looks interesting called Open Editor, but the open source side of the business and this just hasn't worked out too well because the one time that the film industry tried to support it, it didn't really take off. The cine paint project before I was involved in it was supported by the film industry and it never made a release until I became involved. And part of that is because, unfortunately, the developers decided they didn't want to go the way the studios needed it to and so there was a divergence of opinion and so that was why it got left by the wayside. And the open source world hasn't always been the friendliest to the studios. Disney, Sony, they're major corporations and there are a lot of people that feel unfriendly towards those. Do you have an insight how these studios do revision control and versioning? How do they coordinate the work of all the animators and things like that? What tools do they use? Did you get that? Versioning and conversion? Revisioning. Several people working in parallel on things and they may do different variations of a scene. How do they keep track of that? Most of them have built their own asset management systems. There are some commercial systems too but mostly people have written their own. For instance, at Dreamworks there's a Java based system where you can preview all your shots and mark whether they're approved or not approved and put notes on them and that sort of thing. There's a company called Rising Sun out of New Zealand that has a fairly popular commercial system that a lot of studios use it. The other thing that they do is they look at everything that's done every morning so they know where they are at and what they still need to do. Yeah, go ahead. I've got a question and maybe this mentions something about Blender. First of all, I'm working at the Blender Institute and I agree Blender isn't capable of doing these things but we have five developers working full time. Maybe three specifically on Blender and rendering technology and some of the stuff that's being done is actually competitive with what you see here but Blender as a whole is not yet there. But for people who are interested in the pipeline we're developing an open source pipeline using Ubuntu, SVN, these kind of tools of course Blender for compositing also to make this possible and so that's our hope or our goal. But my question is, is there a resistance to using open source tools? For example, if people in Hollywood had wanted to use Cinepaint we're sure they could spare developers to work full time on Cinepaint to make it good but it hasn't really undergone a lot of development. From my perspective, maybe I'm wrong but is there a resistance for them to employ people to work on Cinepaint? Okay, well I was at DreamWorks in R&D suggesting that they do more with Cinepaint and they chose Photoshop on Linux instead. So yeah, there is a resistance to it and part of it is just a lack of faith that the open source community can deliver what they need. Cinepaint did not deliver what they needed in back in 2000. The people that were working at that time announced that they were going to do something else called Geagle and the film industry was like well then why did we support the development for two years? What's that about? It really hurt the credibility of the open source world but that did not work out. It did not set the right precedent for going forward. One thing about Hollywood, if they've been burned they're very very cautious about going back a second time. They've got a long memory. The other thing is whether it's Cinepaint or Blender or any other open source tool the training cost is severe for a studio. So if they've got a team of people that are comfortable in Maya to say well let's just all retrain them in Blender, it's like well we don't care that the software is free but that's a lot of money. It's more than the cost of the software. Now the only other way if you really want to get into doing movies and stuff would be to try to target or talk to independent filmmakers who want some stuff like this but can't afford what the studios have or saying no we're not ready to help you yet. We're not ready to back you as a movie yet but let's see your finished product. But the disconnect between the film industry and the open source community is a big problem in my opinion. I have a friend who was working on a video editing system in open source and he now works at DreamWorks and he can't work on that project anymore because it's too close to the type of work that he does at DreamWorks. There's potential that it could leak proprietary techniques back into the open source community that they haven't decided whether they'll release yet. So that project has now stagnated. There's no further development on it and this is actually very typical of things that start to get to where they're like ready to go and then that person gets a real job at a real studio and can't work on that particular project anymore. And actually that is one thing that we wanted to mention a number of people who have worked on open source projects are getting jobs at the studios at big companies. And at Apple. And at Apple as well. I lost one of my best film-paint developers to Apple. So they know you're good. They just can't figure out how to make it work. It's nice to know that Hollywood is using Linux to produce the movies but on the other hand you also know that it's trying to prevent consumers from using Linux to watch the DVDs made by Hollywood. What do you think? Well, there are many parts of Hollywood and it's actually very interesting because Sony actually personifies all of this. Sony has submitted friends of the court briefs pro and con in the same case because the consumer division of Sony and the studio division of Sony have contrary interests. And this is the same thing in the film industry. When a film is put together there's a studio that develops the film there's a studio that releases the film and there's a studio that does the visual effects on the film and typically those are three separate studios maybe many more than three. And so, you know, when you say well the studio is preventing me from doing this well which studio are you talking about because actually a whole bunch of studios have worked on that film and some are trying to do one thing and some are trying to do another politics and policies. So, you know, it's a very complex arena and at the level of the moguls they're not even aware that they're writing Linux in a big way. If you ask them in Redstone how many Linux desktops do you have he'd probably say what's Linux? Robin, do we have another thing we want to show them? We're just about out of time. And actually the one thing they all have in common they all want to make money. What they're working on or what they're doing that's their bottom line they don't want to lose money. Well, and you kind of have to because studios are very expensive to run if you don't make money you go out of business. Right. And one thing, well he's figuring that out Robin and I did a booklet A booklet? It's a book. I'm sorry, he's a book on filmmaking and technology. Speaking of making money, here's our plug. Here's our plug to make money, yes. And we actually have about 20 of them with us and we are selling them so if you're interested you can come to us afterwards and say our two euro, only two euro. Two bucks, okay. No, not two bucks, that would be like 50 cents or something. Isn't that right? That's about how bad our exchange rate is right now. Okay and then have we got someone from the staff are we supposed to end at the 30 or are we going to 10 minutes over because we started 10 minutes late? Your choice please. Oh okay, I started on time. Not the shotgun. Okay so here's some claymation with animation added because it's really hard to do floating rabbits in clay. Flying bunnies. All these lighting effects are obviously very hard to do in claymation. I've got another clip that I'm not going to have time to show which is Corpse Bride and that clip is interesting because it was the first time that digital SLRs were used instead of motion 35mm instead of adapted copy stand motion picture cameras. So the digital stuff has come over to the stop motion site as well. Okay, do we have one last question? No, actually we still have another minute or two. We have another minute or two. According to Philips Watch we have four minutes. Not two. Oh, there's one down here. Hello, good morning. Yes. Yes. There is now today free software for creating images and the question is what is done to have a free access to what has been changed into images? The idea is the first projection of the Lumiere movie which was called The Arrival of the Train. Everybody escaped from the room just because they were thinking that it was real. And the question is to ask okay, we are producing tools with free access to information with open source information. What is done today to movie producers to maintain access for those who haven't those tools to decrypt the information to differ what is real from what becomes to unreality. You asked which copter between the two is real. And the thing is that when I get DVD, when I get a support, when I get file for future generations what is done to allow them to access to the information this was filmed this was unreal. Okay, so the question is how do we know it's real at the movies and basically nothing is real anymore? Except the girls. The girls are still real. That's actually not quite his question. His question is let's say you get your DVD and later on like 10 years down the road who's going to be able to say what's real and what's not? That comes down to the directors real in the DVD if they choose to say it. And for the most part they don't. The reason that these clips exist is to show off for the most part what the visual effects houses can do to show where tricks they can make and for the most part the studios are not keen to tell you what's real and what's not real because there's a belief in the magic of what the movie is. For those who still have questions we will try to find a spot outside the room so they can get ready for the next speaker. Thank you all for coming and thank you for your interest. Thank you.