Linux got its first big Hollywood break in 1997 when Venice, California studio Digital Domain (D2) used Linux to render the special effects for the hit movie Titanic. LinuxJournal spoke with D2 while they were in production using Linux with Star Trek: Nemesis, which has a scheduled US release date of December 13, 2002. D2 uses Linux for both renderfarm servers and artist desktops.
Linux and Star Trek
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Notice all the software being ported over. Doesn’t do much for the “poor” person on this end, but it does mean that Linux will be a serious 2D/3D player in the future. Kind of the path NT took.
I’m at a loss to see why Adobe doesn’t port Photoshop over to Linux. Maya, Houdini and SoftImage already have Linux ports, along prman and all sorts of other high end 3D programs. Photoshop is very important for textures and touchup editing, so I don’t really understand why they don’t make a Linux port. It would seem to be a no-brainer.
I’m also at a loss to why Photoshop has not been ported over… they did port it to OSX. If they ported Photoshop to Linux, I would have all the more reason to start using Linux daily. No, GIMP is not a satisfactory substitute. Have you ever tried to make actions with GIMP? Are all the same plugins available for use with GIMP? Hardly a good substitute for a serious photographer. Its a nice open-source and free image editing tool but that’s all it is.
>> “Its a nice open-source and free image editing tool but that’s all it is.”
Altough I agree that there are still lots of needed features missing, it is definitely NOT a ‘that is all it is’ tool.
Learn how to work with it and be amazed of its power.
(and use GIMP 1.3.10, not the old and ugly GIMP 1.2.x)
GIMP is not ready to replace Photoshop. I can’t hear it anymore. It doesn’t even do CYMK, for Christ’s sake.
and as a free software program, GIMP can not afford to licence the tech.
it does not do CYMK because Adobe has a patent
Huh? Care to substantiate this? I don’t understand how a company can patent a colorspace.
And for the record, netpbm supports CMYK.
I’m also at a loss to why Photoshop has not been ported over… they did port it to OSX.
That’s because OS X has the same APIs as the OS it was natively developed under.
What sort of market is there for graphics professionals who use Linux as their platform? Adobe has no incentive to port Photoshop to Linux.
GIMP 2.0 will have CYMK and all other color models you can wish for.
And I did not say it is ready to replace Photoshop, but you CAN already do a LOT with it.
You can do a lot with GIMP, as evidenced by FilmGimp, which was been used in (duh) films. However, it’s probably not ready to replace Photoshop just yet. For 3D CYMK isn’t important, but there are other features that are missing.
i once used photoshop for a few weeks. then i went back to using the GIMP. i guess its a question of familiarity, and i wasnt familiar enough with photoshop. the GIMP felt more like home.
the same is true of maya and softimage and (insert application here); the OS has little, if anything, to do with the ability to use the application. if you spent all your time using the web (netscape) and using maya then you probably wouldnt notice if your IT manager switched you to linux, as both netscape and maya look identical on both platforms, especially with a windows-like kde/gnome theme.
which makes me wonder if any of the staff at D2 actually know theyre using linux
“No, GIMP is not a satisfactory substitute. Have you ever tried to make actions with GIMP? Are all the same plugins available for use with GIMP? Hardly a good substitute for a serious photographer. Its a nice open-source and free image editing tool but that’s all it is.”
I’m a former Photoshop user, but then I switched to GIMP. I’m happier with GIMP than Photoshop. Being able to write scripts for the image minipulating program is very good. That’s something I never seen Photoshop have. I can read and write (with a patch for writing) photoshop files, photoshop would not let me even open .xcf (gimp file format) files. And i’ve heard that GIMP can take Photoshop plugins or is ported to gimp (something like that). Something i’ve never had to do.
so IMHO i think that adobe photoshop is not a satisfactory substitute. :p
I think it’s the Pantone colorset that is patent and thus not available on Libre Software.
(Pantone is heavily used for publishing and mass printing)
While old Photoshop users may not find The GIMP a satisfactory replacement, if you started out with it and learned to use it well, like many Photoshop fans did, you’d probably find it quite powerful.
Doesn’t explain why Picard has an evil romulan twin though
Why is that whenever linux is menitoned the same guy seems to scream for Linux port?
Wait a second it is actually relevant to the conversation this time!!
Why does it always turn into a Photoshop vs Gimp discussion?
I would love to see four people that have actually used both extensively enough to be objective review both packages.
I can think of some web design programmers I knew that used Mac and Photoshop and Linux for much of their perl/java development.
There is a free download from Adobe and documentation can be found here:
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/scripting/docs/PS7Scripting…
The reason I’m screaming for a Linux port is because it makes logical sense. Linux is something of a minor phenomenon among graphics artist desktops these days. Linux makes great sense for this segment, because artist shops typically have extensive IT support and can write any little utilities or programs they’re missing, which mitigates many of Linux’s traditional weaknesses. In return, they gain a free platform that works well, is easy to port Solaris or IRIX software too, and can easily be tweeked for their specific situation. All indications are that Linux will continue to grow in this market. You’d think Adobe would want in.
“In return, they gain a free platform that works well”
“You’d think Adobe would want in.”
You said it, not me.
End of question 😉
gimp and photoshop both have a feature i like that is missing.
paint on mask. so so useful
. maybe the new version of ps has it, i dont know. v6 didnt.
linux 3d animation is kicking tail!
“D2 uses Linux for both renderfarm servers and artist desktops.”
People keep writing these stories like they’re something new. What else would they be using, IRIX? No one seems to give Hollywood enough credit. People in production use what works — what lets them get the most done for the lowest cost in the least possible time. MIPS ain’t it, and Windows uptime and manageability make it a poor choice for renderfarms, while it’s relative lack of UI customizeability makes it harder to transition artists from their known IRIX working environments. Linux is stable and customizeable, runs on the fastest/cheapest hardware, has relatively complete API compatability with their prior platforms (IRIX), and has a UI which can easily be made to match the existing IRIX tools [see: ILM], and has binary support from most major vendors. It’s pretty much just an intersection of necessary/desirable features with available operating systems (commercial binary support: IRIX, Windows, Linux; fast, cheap hardware platform: Windows, Linux; customizeable interface for continuity with past training: Linux; common APIs for existing in-house tools: IRIX, Linux). It’s not a religious or philosophical choice, or a statement about the unique greatness of Linux. IRIX [is/was] a great OS, but they can’t reasonably use it today because it doesn’t have much of a growth path in either hardware or software, and it’s supported hardware platform is expensive as hell and slow.
“Learn how to work with [gimp] and be amazed of its power.”
That’s the crucial problem with gimp, in comparison to photoshop: for thousands of new and seasoned artists, photoshop “just works.” You learn to do more just like you learn new tricks with your camera, but you don’t have to “learn” photoshop to do brilliant things with it. No matter how much the gimp engine improves (and, in my opinion, it must still improve a great deal to compete with photoshop in image quality), it still needs a totally new UI and workflow to be a worthy tool. There’s a reason people use photoshop for _everything_, from mocking up designs for anything for print, web, or broadcast/film, to experimenting with new image processing ideas: it lets you be more expressive — with less thought or prior knowledge of the toolset — than anything else out there.
Those are my 2c, anyway.
___
JRK