What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing.
Save Cash This Holiday Season. view!
bing.com - Affordable gifts that look expensive--Bing(tm) helps you find gifts under $50.
269 Comments
- DPimp1262, on 10/12/2007, -19/+133Who ***** cares about what was used to render it? I'm more interested in the fact that all of the filming was done in only 60 days. It's amazing how much is completely rendered these days. Hell I still remember when it was a big deal that Toy Story was done fully in CGI.
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -13/+80The reason Avid is still used for the real editing is because of its superior Pro Tools workflows. Remember in LOTR Special Features when they were on a tight deadline and kept re-editing/scoring the film? Having to move that back in forth is flawless in Avid. Trust me, I love FCP, but for feature film production Avid seems to be hanging on.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -9/+63"I'd say the only reason that Avid is still around is because it was here first by a looong shot, and the old pros won't let it go. Editing anything on Avid is like trying to chop down an oak tree by hitting it with your arm -- and I've edited quite a bit on Avid."
I just finished editing on a mid-sized feature ($50 million or so), and the workflow was exclusively Avid. Yes, everyone in editorial had a Mac on their desk for their personal system, and VFX used quite a few Macs for graphics work (although they were running software that could be used on a Mac or a PC), however all of the actual machines used for editing were PCs running various levels of Avid software (XpressHD up through Nitrous).
I have a Mac as well, but at least for me, editing on Avid results in paychecks. FCP does not. - reevolutn, on 10/12/2007, -23/+77so ***** what?
- Coldstreak, on 10/12/2007, -9/+60Macs used for video and graphics editing? You don't say...
- neszis, on 10/12/2007, -13/+61I'd say the only reason that Avid is still around is because it was here first by a looong shot, and the old pros won't let it go. Editing anything on Avid is like trying to chop down an oak tree by hitting it with your arm -- and I've edited quite a bit on Avid.
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -8/+47I think the point was less about saying Avid is a good program, as it was another attempt to glorify Macs. I'm sure Mac's have made a lot of crappy movies as well, but nevermind me.
As for the blog that the article is from, I have my doubts about any blog claiming to be the "ultimate" anything when they can't even size their images right for their articles. I wouldn't mind knowing what the sources are either, but maybe that's just me. - Skrilla360, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40just day to day mac *****? THIS! IS! SPARTAAAAA!!!!!!
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35Maybe that's how you edited things when you made your emo, black and white "art" video about suffering for your high school film class, but professionals don't work that way.
- probFake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I heard it was made entirely on an iPhone.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43Yeah, I did grow up. I can see this isn't just a "computer article". because if it was, this would be unnecessary.
"Computers used to make 300"? That's not news.
But it supposedly is when you add "Macs" to that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34You sir, fail
This movie is absolutely amazing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29If you've never heard of final cut pro or avid please educate yourself on the REAL tools to edit video with.
- MaxThaRoux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28300 was made in my city... Montreal ;-)
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"put together with a $5000 machine and $2000 in software."
Um, I don't know if the studio using Macs means that they only used a single computer for the entire film... - donkeydrop, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28So let's see. Most of the movie made on PCs, but at a promotional event at the Apple store some of the visual effects guys say they prefer Macs. Truth, or just good manners? You decide.
- overstim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24WOW, do all posts that remotely mention Macs elicit this many whiny responses?
This is an interesting article becuase while people seem to be able to agree with the vague statement that "Macs are better for video and graphics", the truth is, 90% of Hollywood still uses AVID for editing. This is by far the biggest film to be edited with Final Cut thus far. It's pretty exciting that a $70mil-opening film could now be put together with a $5000 machine and $2000 in software. - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I'm Digging on a MAC!!!
(quick, someone blog about me!) - NessTheHero, on 10/12/2007, -19/+34Big deal.
Yes, Macs are better for mass video editing and crap like that. PC users get that. Most PC users are ho-hum average joes who surf the net, gamers, mr. average businessman, grandmas, and all the other regular people of the world who don't have a need to create things of multimedia. Macs do that. PCs don't. I'm a PC user (who uses macs at work) and I'm fine with that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17The great thing about Digg is noobs modding down FACTS they don't like, and then pontificating on topics they know little about.
- sherrington19, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23I like macs...but its stupid that if someone somewhere uses a mac it makes its way to digg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25Who cares?
I'm sure a lot of movies are made with that stuff
but is this supposed to be some reason for Macs being better then PC's? If so, thats a very weak argument to say macs are better - milktea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15This is SPARTA!!!
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I'll be first to admit that I love firing up Shake and experimenting with one or another effect I've just seen, but as far as your comment... WTF?
- Omniscient, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12This is blasphemy! This is madness!
- mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -24/+35Who the ***** cares if it was made with Macs
I'm sick of this "Oh! Look at me! I'm better than you at stuff" attitude that I see on here, especially with Macs
Go ahead, Digg me down now. - CheezIt9109, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Dude. #1 Rule of Digg: Thou shalt not speaketh against Ubuntu or Apple.
- Pulp, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Big.
*****.
Deal. - threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Macs will make a stand against the rest of the PC world...
for years to come, people will remember the few stood against the many.. - hybridcreation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I don't care if was made with Macs, PCs, sticks, stones, piles of ***** or recycled slot processors...
It is an awesome movie....period.
Mac users....your inferiority complex shines through every time you feel the need to point out all of the myriad things (what are we up to now....4....5?) that a Mac can do better than your arch-nemesis PCs. Please.....give it a rest. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22I have a mac and I love macs and all, but how is macs being used for movies news at all? I could see it being on the mac news feed or something, but digg? come on. this is just day to day mac *****.
- jewcantdenyit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16i am sick of people saying digg me down when they have a dissenting view point.
- pfranz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Weta used Shake and Maya for LotR... but most of it was on Linux computers. As far as I know, they used the same pipeline for King Kong
- psychoace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Ripped from IMDB Triva: Post production took almost a year. The film was edited on an Avid, with an HD cut also maintained in Final Cut Pro The 3D was made using Maya, XSI, and Lightwave The 2D composites were made with Shake, Inferno, Fusion, and Combustion. The filmmakers prefer Macintosh, but large portions of the movie were made under Linux. Asset management was handled by custom software written in the Panorama development environment, made by Provue. Color management was handled by Truelight software. The film was scanned on a northlight scanner and was recorded on the arrilaser. Most of the film was shot at high speed, between 50 and 150fps. Normal film is at 24fps. The film was transferred to HD SR tape and quicktime, and HD quicktimes were the basis for the HD preview cuts. The working resolution for the film was 2K, at a working aspect ratio of 2.11 and a projected aspect ratio of 2.35.
In case you don't want to read it all, here is the main thing I saw that doesn't agree with this article "The filmmakers prefer Macintosh, but large portions of the movie were made under Linux" Yeah just cause you prefer it doesn't mean you used it. - enderu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I hope they make an awesome "making of" feature for the DVD, it sounds like seeing this movie come together could be a documentary in and of itself.
- trixdropd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If you have 100's of gigs of footage on your system in a major film, you'd better not be connected to the web for starters...
- milktea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"The film is also meant to not be historically correct, which was done to make the scenes more exciting."
What?! This is news to ME.. :-/ - supersteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I wish i could find out what camera rig they used to shoot this movie. anyone know?
- chays, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11this article is about how the visual effects were made, not about saying that mac is better than windows, it is sad that everybody thinks that just because it is talking good about mac that it is also dissing windows
- OddTSi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14-2 diggs, that's the best the Mac zealots can do? Come on, you guys can get my previous post down at least double digits, I believe in you.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For all the blood that was splattering around the ground was awfully spotless afterwards.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -35/+41This is *so* unbiased "news".
Digg, please do better. Please.
Together, we can work for a fanboy-free news source. - DjOverEZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And lemme guess, all the ***** parts were made with PCs? Give me a break!
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Tonite, we dine in HELL!!
Or La Belle Province, that'd be good too. - rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I remember when a 5 gig hard drive and a copy of Media 100 was cause for a full erection.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8One of very few movies that isn't amateur or very low budget, you mean.
- splinechaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hi.
Some facts.
I worked on this movie, in After Effects on a mac. The After Effects part wouldn't have been my choice, but there it is. The movie was shot on very poorly lit bluescreens (for the sequence I was on). The art direction and VFX supervision took ***** forever.
300 was not what I would call a positive experience.
Mac, PC, Quicktime.. whatever, none of that really matters. I was using a Quad Core Mac Pro with Shake and a non UB of After Effects. Shake was fast, AE was still pretty slow. Now I'm on Linux and Shake at an enitrely different facility.
For what we do, for the front end of the visual effects industry, OSX offers a really positive and interactive experience. The machines are also now coming into their own in speed and usefulness. A Quad Core Mac Pro is probably only slightly more expensive than an identically equipped major brand Windows/Linux machine and it has the benefit of having OSX with a Linux type kernel. Also no big studio builds their own boxes. So saying you can build a machine for half the price of a Mac Pro is disingenuous at best.
300 looks pretty, but it sucked to work on. We did the work on a Mac, and that didn't make it any better or any worse than any other show. - Daole, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Wait... mac hardware and software for video editing?!! THIS IS NEW INFORMATION!
- joltjake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8dude, that's why you don't drink the bong water.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 270 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is