Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Bollaroid II · Dec 28, 2003, 03:08 AM

In The Matrix the architect says that HOPE is concurrently man's greatest strength and greatest weakness.

I think this applies to Apple as well: their greatest strength is innovation and subsequently their greatest weakness.

By this I mean it will only take a highly innovative technology (with the support of the usual crew - investers, partners, licensees etc.) that competes with one of apples products to effectively compete with it or even outdo it.

I present to you the future . One does not get to fully appreciate the potential of this technology ( Simone anyone?) from the website, though, which is unfortunate.

I first heard about in the current edition of Wired (short article in the back - not yet available online) where they talk about its potential implications, especially to computer games. I would suggest you read the article before you comment.

And realise, this is no longer in coneptual stage, this is a product that has already been used e.g. Lord of the Rings 3 and the creaters (also co-founders) are shooting for the stars.

The funny thing is in the past week I had an argument/discussion with one of my friends. I was saying that in the next 15 years or so a handful of people (artists, storytellers, cg/sfx, etc) - say students at a college/university or a group of friends - will be able to get together and make a decent movie.

My opinion was based solely on my projections of the capabilities of software such as our beloved Final Cut Pro (and its accompanying tecnologies) if apple continues to progress at a pace of doubling capabilities/productivity at a rate of at least every 18 - 24 months, and on the continued compliance to Moore's Law (Sun is anticipating 30GHz by 2007/8, IBM and Intel by 2010).

Because my friend is not a "techie" he could fully understand my "faith" in technology allowing this to happen in this time frame. HE thinks 20 - 30 years is more like it. Now that I have come across this technology, I am even more confident in my projections.

Coming back to the topic of this post - I beleive that apple should buy this company ASAP and bring on board the developers as well. The product and market synergy (Pixar, FCP, Logic + future mac gaming platform) are undeniable.

However my greatest worry would be if MS got a hand on this company, its technology and IP. From nowhere they would begin to command a certain level of authority on the Motion Picture industry (YES - I think this product/technology has what it takes, that's how good it is).

Also its implications to gaming are HUGE. Suddenly the fact Playstation & GameCube have more games will be moot (just like the dozens of high quality freeware/sharware apps for the mac compared to thousands upon thousands of apps for the PC - 98.9% of which are worthless or programmed by a 10 year old).

Once again, try reading the article not just watching the

demos. It gives a bigger picture of the product and its implications and potential future applications.

Sorry to post this here - need responses fast so I can post it a apple's suggestions page.

Misanthrope · Dec 28, 2003, 03:55 AM

I...just...what?

Graymalkin · Dec 28, 2003, 04:01 AM

Oooh forward kinematics, someone find a press and stop it.

sanity assassin · Dec 28, 2003, 07:11 AM

not as good as motion builder. lol

oVeRmInD911 · Dec 28, 2003, 11:44 AM

I can just see it now, at MWSF, a 3D rendered Steve Jobs walks on stage, trips and falls realisticly.

APPL jumps 10 points.

k2director · Dec 28, 2003, 12:40 PM

Funny how technology keeps making more things possible for less money, and yet movies and video games keep getting more expensive and complicated to make.

Why? Because film and video game producers use all the time and money that one set of technologies saves them, and they put it into NEW things that wow people, but that the current crop of technology can't accomodate so easily or cheaply. If the guys who made The Matrix wanted to do a film with effects that rivaled Star Wars (ie, 1977), they could have done it very cheaply. But would that movie have sparked audience's imaginations? I doubt it. Instead, the Matrix team had to come up with new stuff that took a lot of time and money to invent and execute.

You say in 15 years, a handful of college students will be able to make a decent film. What do you mean by 'decent'? I'd argue that a handful of college students have ALWAYS been able to make a decent film. 20-30 years ago, they would have shot it on 16mm film. Over the last 10 years, on video. With an interesting story, matched well to their production budget, the right filmmakers could make a "decent" film pretty cheaply. Same case now.

In 15 years, a handful of students will be able to do the same thing, except with more visual effects. But those effects will seem a lot less impressive to future audiences because they're so much easier to achieve. What will really spark their imagination is originality (in story, in effects, in whatever else). And that takes a lot of time and effort, there's no way around it.

ambush · Dec 28, 2003, 12:59 PM

nice software!

DaGuy · Dec 28, 2003, 02:25 PM

That Wired articled is a bunch of huey. The other options are:

1. Not to innovate and die

2. Start making PCs and compete for pennies with the Gateways, HP and Dells of the world.

That's no way to live.

wataru · Dec 28, 2003, 07:28 PM

Uh, lounge please!

MacGorilla · Dec 28, 2003, 07:58 PM

The truth is out there...somewhere

direktor · Dec 28, 2003, 10:13 PM

The funny thing is in the past week I had an argument/discussion with one of my friends. I was saying that in the next 15 years or so a handful of people (artists, storytellers, cg/sfx, etc) - say students at a college/university or a group of friends - will be able to get together and make a decent movie.

Like K2 said above, you're mistaking 'decent' with 'production value'.

Anybody with any filmmaking experience beyond playing around will tell you that it's talent and experience that make good films, not the tools they use.

I like to compare the current commoditization of video/filmmaking tools to what happened to graphic design/printing in the early 90's. Just because somebody has a copy of Photoshop and Illustrator doesn't mean that they are the best person for the job of making your mom's travel agency's brochures.

With that said, I <heart> DV. I've built a helluva reel on DV, and am thankful for the tools within the reach of anybody with a little ambition.

ChadC · Dec 28, 2003, 10:14 PM

about two years ago one of my teachers showed me a mpeg of some 3D animation with people falling realistically and all that stuff. This software seems to be the next revision of that. Its great! Can't wait for widespread use!

In regards to Apple or Microsoft buying the company, I just don't see it happening. This software to me is raw and unfinished. Why? Because it is standalone and all it does is provide realisitic physics, natural bio-reactions, etc. The widespread use of this type of technology won't come until it is bought and used as either a plugin to a 3D application. Which brings me back to Apple and Microsoft, neither(as far as I know) produces a high end(Maya, Softimage, Renderman, etc) 3D application. What I do see for the next couple of years is the high rollers(Pixar, Dreamworks, etc.) Buying the technology and integrating into their proprietory rendering/animation packages.

Hopefully all that is understandable.

Chad

MOTHERWELL · Dec 29, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by direktor:
Like K2 said above, you're mistaking 'decent' with 'production value'.

Anybody with any filmmaking experience beyond playing around will tell you that it's talent and experience that make good films, not the tools they use.

I like to compare the current commoditization of video/filmmaking tools to what happened to graphic design/printing in the early 90's. Just because somebody has a copy of Photoshop and Illustrator doesn't mean that they are the best person for the job of making your mom's travel agency's brochures.

With that said, I <heart> DV. I've built a helluva reel on DV, and am thankful for the tools within the reach of anybody with a little ambition.

I agree. With this technology that we now have available we will see an amazing film from a 16 year old in [INSERT SMALL CITY HERE], but we will also see a lot of junk from everyone else. I include myself in that statement

PLUG: a film I recently made. Hopefully it won't be grouped with the crap.

kertong · 10:00 PM

wouldn't this program be using inverse kinematics, not forward kinematics?

Motherwell: that is a very cool video.

cdhostage · Dec 29, 2003, 10:34 PM

My brain broke.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · 04:50 AM

A MoCap app? It's been around for years. I fail to see what this has to do with Apple the company, as has been pointed out; 3D applications aren�t really their business. This product seems designed to export to packages like 3D Max and Character Studio as do many MoCap systems.

Also, I don't care what their rhetoric says, MoCap data virtually always has to be extensively edited and often large chunks of it re-animated when CG is combined to interact seamlessly with live action footage. Live action footage is 'hardwired' and can't be changed; character positions or camera angles can't be 'tweaked', therefore achieving a seamless interaction with CG takes real world effort (IE: TIME, skill, and lots of both.) Their claims of no clean-up time I can buy for CG-only work such as for Video Games, but no way in hell for live action combined shots.

First of all, MoCap is always step 1 of about 20 steps to a final shot. It looks cool when you're looking at simple bipeds like that- Rig the actual bodies, morph heads, and cloth on them, and each is another whole layer of animation,siming and problem solving that has to be done. It's still not push-button.

Originally posted by Bollaroid II:
I was saying that in the next 15 years or so a handful of people (artists, storytellers, cg/sfx, etc) - say students at a college/university or a group of friends - will be able to get together and make a decent movie.

Not only is this true now, it's been true for nearly the PAST 15 or so years.

As someone else said, it's not the tools it's in the skill of the people using the tools. It's hard to find a handful of people who can make a decent film, not due to technology limitations (hell, a small crew of truly skilled people could produce an incredible film using early 1990's era equipment) but due to the fact that it's hard to find a handful of people who KNOW HOW to make a decent film.

My opinion was based solely on my projections of the capabilities of software such as our beloved Final Cut Pro (and its accompanying tecnologies) if apple continues to progress at a pace of doubling capabilities/productivity at a rate of at least every 18 - 24 months, and on the continued compliance to Moore's Law (Sun is anticipating 30GHz by 2007/8, IBM and Intel by 2010).

Again, I fail to see what individual tools like FCP have to do with this. You could run FCP on a 95Ghz G9 with quad flux capacitors and it's not going to automagically make anyone's editing decisions for them, nor automagically crank out a film any faster than the human brain directing it. The relevance of processor speed and real-world use of editing applications like FCP have virtually nothing what-so-ever to do with one another.

Apple Pro Underwear · Dec 30, 2003, 06:11 AM

how come Apple always has to be the one that dies?

Whenever someone has something to say, it's always negative even though they are in the midst of doing positive things?!

The most likely speculation of Apple is that it will stay the same as it always has all these years! Profitable, innovative and always around for people who want/need an MS alternative.

I don't even get t he point of the first post. The first thing that came to my mind from reading it and the articles is "THIS BULLSHIT". How old are you Bollaroid? Get in the real world and see how macs are used before you start with your nonsensical jibber jabber.