i came across the article below because it used one of my pictures, which is a good reason to set a Creative Commons license if you want more online presence (presents?), and a Google Alert sent me the link
the article is interesting because Google sees that the video game look works and they are investing millions in promoting the Machinima YouTube channel (link to the Machinima YT is wrong in the article and the link to the company site is http://www.machinima.com/)
the numbers that the Machinima YouTube channel has are impressive – 4,467,855 YouTube subscribers with 3,299,963,317 video views! That’s over 3 billion views! they do have a lot of videos posted (almost 20,000)
clearly a lot of people are okay with the look of games (and a large number do play games) and we all know that game graphics vary from simple isometric like Farmville to super sophisticated like Call of Duty. with that in mind i am always a little surprised when a non-virtual world person is turned off by the graphics of OpenSim/Second Life and by that i mean they completely dismiss their use as a viable 3D platform (either for corporate use or even as video for things like training)
of course, there is a range of 3D graphics “quality” from Minecraft to Unity plus “real” 3D apps like Maya and Blender for 3D video but what is it about OpenSim/Second Life that causes such a strong negative reaction for this group of people?
with the sheer numbers that Machinima has and the money Google is tossing at them, clearly there is mainstream acceptance and tolerance for a wide variety of 3D graphics
is it simply an easy way for some people to dismiss virtual worlds because of their internal negative perception of VWs (like SL is for reclusive sex perverts) by blaming the virtual world look?
“If programmers at EA Games can do it, why can’t you?”
The average person out there doesn’t truly understand the huge difference between the equipment used. What our OpenSim developers are using costs what, a thousand or two dollars? How much does EA’s machines cost? Tens of thousands? Perhaps even hundreds? I have no idea but its enough to keep such equipment out of the average users hands.
We’re running the metaverse on single core machines with a gigabyte of RAM at 250Ghz while the Big Boyz are running machines that are exponentially more powerful with who knows how many co-processors, Terabytes of RAM, running at 10 times the speed.
Since they don’t consider the huge difference in the capabilities of the equipment then they write us off as being unskilled know-nothings incapable of rendering real time graphics to the same level of quality.
When someone gets to talking down on our capabilities, I usually say “What do you expect? We’re running good reliable Volkswagon machines while the BigWigs are zipping around in Lamboughinis”
Sarge Misfit
9 May 12 at 11:50 am
@Sarge, the only reason they use server farms is because of the amount of time it takes otherwise. Most of the CG films would take 3-4 years to render, but the farms cut it down to a week. Since they have to use parallel processing, even the software has to be custom. About Lamboughinis, they can’t float in water. Remember the National Lampoon VW ad “If Ted Kennedy had drove one he would have been president.”
joe
9 May 12 at 4:18 pm
*chuckles@joe* I’m a Volkswagon kind of guy anyway. But what you said about what it takes is exactly my point. We understand because we are interested in this sort of thing and so we learn about it.
But to the average Norman Normal out there? A computer is a computer is a computer, show me the cool stuff is the general attitude. Start explaining and within seconds they get one of those Homer Simpson Doughnut faces, almost down to the mindless drool.
Sarge Misfit
9 May 12 at 4:59 pm
Norman Normal as soon as you start talking RAM and bytes and all http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PLsyqhMySRk/SQAEc1gln2I/AAAAAAAAA4Q/yZMbWO29pv0/s400/homer_simpson31.jpg
Sarge Misfit
9 May 12 at 5:02 pm
Dunno guys, well-done terrain and good builds with graphics on ultra produces a rather impressive scene, and I’m a gamer in more than one world, from way back. The graphics in IW, OS, and SL are NOT low-grade. I think one of the things they actually do very well is degrade gracefully, and the graphics customization capabilities are one (possibly THE one, hehe) thing I’ve always thought LL did right in the viewer. The avatar mesh? It’s a very real possibility that’s one thing that puts people off. It’s WAY past time for an upgrade on that!
ELQ
9 May 12 at 7:57 pm
No dispute there, ELQ, but Norman Normal usually hasn’t a clue about graphics cards and settings. They’ll go with the viewer defaults set to embedded GPU chips.
Its not the graphics, its the hardware, but the average person out there just doesn’t take the time to learn a little. After all, how many times have you heard that they think a computer is so complicated they’re convinced that they need an IQ 250 to understand.
Sarge Misfit
9 May 12 at 9:19 pm
I have recently been using DAZ studio to render 3d scenes and short animations (as a hobby). This is on my desktop PC (not the latest or greatest but fairly decent). It can take several hours to render out a simple low resolution scene that runs for a few seconds (I am actually doing one as I write this :D ).
Sure, SL and OS can do these in real time, but the graphics quality is much lower. Having a render farm would be great, I could do these renders really quickly, but the cost of it would put it beyond a hobby.
Someone who was more serious at this than me could invest a few thousand dollars to set up a small render farm (just several PCs rending a part of the sequence each) and get a better performance than I have, but still not at the speed that would be needed for a full motion picture.
Now days, the tools needed to do CG animation are quite inexpensive (and you can get some quite good ones for free – DAZ, Blender, OpenSim, etc), but still to do high resolution renders is going to cost you in either money or time (I can do 1080p or higher renders just fine, it just takes a lot longer).
This means that it is not the cost of the tools and hardware that determines if a production has high details and quality, but the skill of the people doing it.
Also, you don’t need high details and resolution to tell a good story. What you need is a good story teller and a good artist to create the animations.
As an example, have you seen the animation “Sintel”? It was made completely in Blender. It has great graphics and a good story too, but it was made with free software. You don’t need the big bucks to make good movies. What you need is good skills.
Paul
10 May 12 at 11:01 am
i did a project a few years ago doing a 90 second animation in Blender – we set up a 24 pc render farm and it took 14 days to render it all out!!!
Ener Hax
10 May 12 at 11:51 am
From the perspective of technology and intellectual property, OpenSim provides a far better machinima platform:
1. Running an OpenSim on LAN has potentially much higher rates of Frames Per Second and immediacy than SL. The movement and animations are more instantaneous, and motion is easier to synchronize in frame capture.
2. SL’s texture limit of 1024 x 1024 pixels gives it a lower grade cartoony quality. This is a big factor in making HD video capture, even for YouTube and other web markets where higher resolutions are becoming more common (780p +)
I am using 2048×2048 pixel textures in my OpenSim region, and could go even higher. The resolution is far superior, especially for objects that are at slanted angles to the camera.
3. Since a standalone OpenSim instance does not touch the Linden Labs servers, there are no complicated SL TOS issues, no LL copyright claims, and no hodgepodge of copyright conflicts to taint the final machinima work product Intellectual Property. This is a huge consideration for serious machinima artists and producers. With the egregious SL TOS, it is not surprising to see why Google and Machinima.com are reluctant to touch SL for a platform. SL may be SL’s worst enemy.
4. All the sets, terrain, NPCs, OpenSim simulator ( *.oar files) and user inventory files (*.iar files) provide the producer a complete copy or backup for future reference, ongoing production, sequels, or sharing the work between camera or editing people in different production locations. SL does not even provide the most rudimentary backup file for one’s own inventory, much less a whole production company’s work.
5. One could argue that SL has a larger array of off-the-shelf scene and wardrobe content from many creators. However, if such content is used in the machinima production, the producer must then chase down the derivative copyright legal agreements and sign-offs from the content creators. This could be more costly than making it from scratch.
I could go on about other aspects, but those 5 reasons are enough to make any serious machinima maker or investor think about looking into comparing the platforms.
Lani
Lani Global
10 May 12 at 1:02 pm
@all, each of the exisiting studios in Hollywood started out this way. It took about 30 years from 1910 to 1940 and a bunch of investors until they got to where the had resources and resembled what they are today. About 1910, each of the studios were churning out about 100 cheap 30 minute flicks per week, each movie used one camera, all sets were straight in a row outside, partitioned by fabric. Basically they were indies. The only way to get around from starting out with lower end software/hardware would be like how Mark Cuban started out with the Dallas Mavericks. But that would eliminate indie experience from trial and error.
joe
10 May 12 at 2:30 pm
the long haul from sl to opensim makes opensim a better choice. now if we can get more stuff, that would be super nice. i tried with LL even to get a job but the tide has turned and now i dont know what they are about.
i believe that sl/opensim can be a real machinima factory. but it need work and someone that is dedicate to making it happen. it needs characters including npcs, scripting, game ai, maybe compositions, and dynamic animations.
@lani
you make some of the points that is really different from sl to opensim. i wish there was a true machinima viewer that you could use for either sl or opensim.
i talk to oz linden about taking the sl development client and restructuring but he said it would be a lot of work. from what i have seen, i agreed with him. but i have also seem demos from unity and panda3d for sl. so it can be done.
there are software like iclone and massive which can do machinima but it doesnt have network capability. with opensim it has c# and ironpython or could use basic language too. it not an ideal language for animations but there is not much out there.
should i try to get LL interested in an machinima client and standalone server? sometime i feel i should try again. afterall, i am in silicon valley and these companies are my neighbors. but i dont want to be bristle linden. of course im not a bristle osgrid either.
bristle
10 May 12 at 3:03 pm
When it comes to machinima, I understand some of the tech end of things, but other than that, I’m just an appreciative member of the audience. I do think that it is an excellent method for getting the word out that OpenSim exists. Independent film festivals, Public Knowledge television, film art shows, all those and others are great avenues to get work out there to the general public. And would go a very long way to dispelling some of the negative myths out there.
On a related note: I’m not a machinamist so I’m not all that sure of what features to look for, but if people would let me know via comments on my MIV, I’ll add them to the Index. http://excelsior-station.wikidot.com/misfit-s-index-of-viewers-miv
Sarge Misfit
10 May 12 at 3:49 pm
@sarge
for twenty years people have talked about machinima but except for a couple cases, no one has work on one that is open source. in fact, very few in the commerical worlds too.
the most popular is iclone. some WoW people have mention massive. then there is no more. everything else is 3D game engine.
i put out a feeler today to see what i can get from the sl machinima people. or i will write up what i think needs to be done if i dont see any responses.
bristle
10 May 12 at 7:35 pm
I’m thinking that Machinima, though requiring some skills, brings moviemaking possibilities to the ordinary person. Yes it has great potential for education and artist types, maybe it is a money thing.
Gridjumper
11 May 12 at 12:08 am
i also think you can get nice output for machinima ELQ and my virtual other half, subQuark, does create eLearning video with it that his company’s clients pay for, so clearly some people find it acceptable
spot on Paul! a great story and a good story teller are key – i mean books still sell very well don’t they! =)
there are online render farms you can hire for big projects but they also cost big bucks!
and holy kaw Lani!!! that’s a lot of awesome information! i did not know that about texture sizes and 100% thumbs up on your other info like storing full OARs of scenes and IARs of wardrobes!
lol Joe!!! ” lower end software/hardware would be like . . . the Dallas Mavericks”
it’s no use talking to Linden bristle, i know i am very cynical but . . . and you are bristle of the interwebz!,/strong>
yes, yes, and yes on Gridjumper’s “brings moviemaking possibilities to the ordinary person” =)
Ener Hax
11 May 12 at 9:22 am
well i have to try. i am going to add to my sl post this weekend. then do some sorting because there has to be some reason why except for a few commerical ventures, nothing has been done to make machinima more game-like. eventually machinima and games will be one. but dont have 1000 years to see that happen.
my post will be on the forum under machinima. i think i will change the title to “future machinima”. i expect nothing will be done.
bristle
11 May 12 at 3:28 pm
I liked Joe’s reference to the early days of film studios. Hollywood was where they wound up because of the year round climate for outdoor filming. I had an early infatuation with the studios in Chicago, where I grew up. The business office was indoors, while all filming was in the “lot” outside in back. There were no hard and fast rules then, except to crank it out and collect the money. Is machinima really that much different? YouTube/Google’s bottom line is content to slap an ad on. They don’t much care if it’s good or not. That falls to the content producers. How much different is a machinima from a two reeler, anyway, as far as YouTube is concerned? Don’t sweat the details. If it’s good, the love of the production will show. And we all know what happens to stinkers on the net.
Joey1058
11 May 12 at 8:01 pm
Speaking of stinkers, I screwed up the link. It’s to a wikipedia article about the Essanay Studios in Chicago.
Joey1058
11 May 12 at 8:03 pm