It's also, in my experience, untrue. We've spoken before and I'm quite certain jojolimited knows what he's talking about. These sort of forum posts don't really give you a real sense of the poster, and a great deal is often lost in translation. I have found jojolinited nothing but friendly and helpful in the past, so please let's be courteous.
Let's start with the fact that he's mixing up several different concepts - Dynamic distributed processing of isolated packages. (e.g., SETI@home with tens of thousands of active systems, ranging from general desktops to powerful servers that have resources to spare during the night) - Network rendering - Cloud-based render services (common interface and management for a homogenous group of render nodes) - Heterogenous loose networks of amateur hardware - ... Then there's the software/version/license issue. Professional environments either have a streamlined standard or a standardized production pipeline where content is created and then converted for use down the road (e.g., modeling/surfacing in one application, refining and texturing it in another and then making the materials production-ready in a third application whose format is a standard for the later steps). The version issue relates to how some features can often work slightly different in one version than another and in some patch versions they're simply temporarily broken (happens with many 3D programs), meaning that you can get flickering elements if your resulting render if one frame was rendered in an older and one in an improved or slightly faulty version because version A does something about different than version B (global illumination, depth of field, motion blur, irradiance, ...). How do you plan to coordinate the version update cycles across project contributors on possibly several continents to keep such differences to a minimum? Blender is free, but it also comes with an atrocious user interface that has contributed to the fact that it remains a niche product no matter how powerful the stuff under the hood has become. If you decide on something else for the rendering part of the pipeline you'll have to consider that some applications also require a paid license for each render node, not just for the machines where an actual human is doing the work. And don't forget that the renderer itself is only part of the equation. Most advanced renderers nowadays come with their own advanced shaders that won't work with others (e.g., the omnipresent mia_material shader won't work in most other renderers). Then how do you plan to manage and distribute the resources? Some nodes will simply go down, others will take forever to finish a frame and what happens if you have to distribute more than one sequence or need to re-prioritize during processing because Starship XYZ needs certain content in time for an interview opportunity that has popped up? Long story short: What he's proposing can work in projects that have started out with that process in mind (like the Blender movie projects), but in most low-budget cases you'd be setting yourself up for failure. As nice as the idea sounds, there's a reason why most professional projects either do this kind of thing in a controlled local environment or at a service provider that has a crapload of identical setups and a management backbone into which they've sunk a ton of R&D investments.
I should clarify to add that I meant that jojolimited is knowledgeable about film making. I can't comment on his experience with CGI, but I'd wager he knows the difference between a movie scene and a scene file.
What part of free/opensource software did you not understand? I do know the difference. And I know the technical/legal issues involved. Which is why I talked about free open source software that wouldn't entail most of those issues. The people who's computer power you use would have to sign an agreement. I'm betting lots of Trek fans would jump at this if the technical issues could be worked out. I use the term shots, because that's the general term used when VFX houses talk about their work to the public. Because people who don't know how a VFX pipeline works think a scene is a collection of shots (which it is). If this is beneath you, oh well. If you can be bothered to go to the Luxrender site, they give specific mention of wide area/dispersed render nodes. You want to get hostile instead of thinking outside the box, go for it. Not going to slow me down one bit.
Trenches,2 of Gary Ugareks Zombie movies,Maladjusted,Veil,Treasures in Heaven (faith based movie), and consulted on several other low budget scifi movies. Positions: Producer, Executive Producer, DOP, Camera operator, Director, Technical Director, AD,Grip, DIT, Data Wrangler, PA, extra and sometimes craft services. Usually more than one position on low budget movies which is typical. Have enough equipment (cameras, lighting, audio, support) to make a movie. I'm not a writer, so always need one or more of them. Thanks for asking.
Yup! Here some good news for those of us doing low budget scifi... https://www.yahoo.com/movies/2014-in-review-the-rise-of-indie-scienc-fiction-105980999772.html
I understand the need to setup controls. My references were simply ideas being put out there. This isn't something that can done over night. The idea would be to start small, set standards and parameters, then if that works, move from there. If someone who has experience in this can suggest workflow paths using free and/or opensource software, that would be a great, or adapt workflow paths from commercial tools to free/open source. With powerful free software like Fusion, Resolve Light, Lightworks, GIMP, Blender, Lux Render, Sketchup Maker et al. Along with free render control software. I'm also sure some basic programming will be involved. I'm teaching myself python at the moment. I don't see why all of us could not get together and come up with a system. Test it, address problems, test again...until a reasonable and easy to implement wide area VFX workflow that meets the needs of low budget scifi movie makers can be realized. None of this was possible just a couple of years ago. if we can save just 30% of the time needed to render the sort of vfx shots most of those here are looking for, then it's worth the effort. Instead of getting snarky with each other, I'm hoping people will lay down differences, lend their experience and talent and create something that benefits all of us. I'm willing to donate computers for this. I have 3 laptops that would fit the bill from low end to work station. Currently building a new desktop based on 5th gen Intel CPUs. Plenty of Trek Blender models out there to test with, plus terrain and city and plant models. I'm hoping there are others out there that can pitch in too. Open to any and all ideas on how to move this forward.
Star Trek: Antares Rift, Star Trek: Saladin. I think I've heard from others, too, but those two come immediately to mind. I'm sure you know a lot more about professional Hollywood than I do, I'm sure you know more about everything about filmmaking than I do, but I'm not sure you know more about the myriad of non-pros who create fan Trek, and what they complain about, than I do. The e-mails, PMs, and phone calls I get never stop surprising me.
Barb, I was not challenging you in this regard. It's just that my experience with fanfilm malkers has been that reliable personpower in post is generally a far greater issue than CGI, especially where simple starship flybys are concerned. And thanks for the reply, jojo. I could tell you had some practical knowledge of this stuff, which is why I asked.
As usual, the stuff I've been talking about has already been created. All of these are free/open source. Go to the linked pages to see all their features. All these work with Blender, CGRU works with several other applications. Loki render farm manager, works across internet and on Amazon web services Supports tile based rendering. Java based so runs on Windows, Mac and Linux http://loki-render.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page CGRU Very powerful render farm manager with asset management,will even monitor software license limits. Runs on Windows, Mac and Linux http://cgru.info/home Brenda Runs on Mac and Linux, not Windows. https://github.com/jamesyonan/brenda Put your render slaves on Amazon Web Services. This looks to have great potential because you can rent the amount of servers you need, then walk away when finished without a lot of hardware to deal with. The above three use the Amazon "Cloud" services if needed. CGRU Very powerful render Tutorial on setting things up...... http://blenderartists.org/forum/sho...torial-Network-Render-CGRU-Loki-Render-w-Tile
Finally watched this last night. SPOILERS if you haven't seen it. Pros: Nice cinematography. Interesting core idea of an alien race whose physical development is arrested at around age 11 or so, and their uncertainty about dealing with outside races. Good "spooky" atmosphere -- TREK is a very flexible format, and I think more fan projects should embrace a scary/horror vibe. Cons: The script feels very underdeveloped, and ultimately kind of pointless. This didn't feel like a story worth telling, and I'm especially tired of stories where the characters are caught in a matrix-type dream-world... I understand the appeal (as "anything can happen"), but we've seen this kind of thing far too many times. The pace was lethargic and dull, and I found myself muttering "Cut!" at certain shots that seemed to linger too long. Why did we need the transporter room scene at all? Just cut to the planet as our people materialize. And honestly, as a viewer, I just don't find the Farragut crew all that compelling or well-drawn characters. Being a fan film, it was completely possible that R.T. really was dead (maybe the actor was just tired of doing the series -- it's not like he's getting paid!), but I just didn't really care. Of all the "slick" TREK fan-groups, this one has the strongest sense of "fans playing dress-up" as opposed to experienced actors crafting real characters. This is not meant as a slight to everyone's hard work -- and it's obvious lots of work went into this -- just my feeling as a viewer.
I disagree. Of all the fan films, FARRAGUT has established a really wonderful and believable friendship between Carter, Tacket and Smithfield. Absent that, I might agree with you, but FARRAGUT's triumvirate is pretty solid in my opinion.
I don't disagree that they portray a believable friendship -- but it all seems a bit "samey" to me. There's very little contrast between the characters. Personally, I find the Garrovick/Cutty/Jo/B'fuselek core cast in Exeter to be more varied and interesting. But to each his own.
Oh, I agree the characters on Exeter are much better. More well rounded, better written, and just more interesting. But my response was regarding the characters on Farragut, and their primary three leads have an interesting dynamic that most other fan films have not been able to create themselves, and that's something worth noting and appreciating.
Fair enough. As I said, not trying to slag off anybody's hard work. Making films of any type is tough. ETA: Woohoo, 25 posts! I'm a LtJG now!