PDA

View Full Version : LW was used on Kong, but "somebody" doesnīt want us to know it


Netvudu
03-06-2006, 10:11 AM
Original LW site profile (cached from Google):

The Ape is here in LW Site (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:8rM45KCavtQJ:www.newtek.com/lightwave/profiles/Branit/+king+kong+lightwave&hl=es&gl=es&ct=clnk&cd=7)

Current LW profile:

No Ape here or reference to it! (http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/profiles/Branit/index.php#top)

This is getting pathetic. How are we supposed to promote ourselves with such a blatant business move on the marketing side from "some other" software package?

Cageman
03-06-2006, 10:33 AM
Hehe... welcome to the "real" world... ;)

Seriosly though, I have to agree.. It is really strange that the article changed. :/

Zarathustra
03-06-2006, 01:55 PM
I'm confused. Who are you thinking was responsible for the edit? Are you saying an outside force made either Bruce or NT edit the article?

ham8
03-06-2006, 05:41 PM
Foundation Imaging did the second machine site work for "Contact", never got credit for it because it didn't cost over a million if FX for that particular set of shots. Same kind of crap if you ask me...

Someone hears you used Lightwave for something and everyone runs screaming like we're Amiga fanatics...

:p

PR/Marketing BS... Squeakiest wheel gets the oil... and Maya needs a lot of oil to keep it running smooth. Should be owned by Exxon or something... :D

Dragon_Lee
03-06-2006, 05:53 PM
Foundation Imaging did the second machine site work for "Contact", never got credit for it because it didn't cost over a million if FX for that particular set of shots. Same kind of crap if you ask me...

Someone hears you used Lightwave for something and everyone runs screaming like we're Amiga fanatics...

:p

PR/Marketing BS... Squeakiest wheel gets the oil... and Maya needs a lot of oil to keep it running smooth. Should be owned by Exxon or something... :D

Well the building of the second machine was kept from the general public, better to have a more cost effective backup on hand and all :)

Bit more back on topic, it is a shame that things like this happen, I'd say be proud of your work, whatever you made it with, and announce it, now it begins to slip towards having to hide one used a shoddy tool... :rolleyes:

mocaw
03-06-2006, 06:00 PM
I don't see it now. Was it the king kong model in LW or something or just a shot from the film. They might have had to pull it for reasons other than LW conspiracy theory if it was just a shot from the movie.

"You worked on the recent Hollywood blockbuster “King Kong”. What was your role?
I came in at the last minute to help out with some of the overflow work that Weta farmed out. I worked at Café FX on compositing for the King Kong capture sequence. It was largely a 2D job, but I had to drop some sky planes, 3D spears, rock planes, and ocean elements into LightWave to render 3D tracked elements on some of those shots. It was a great experience for me. There was a team of 5 full-time artists and about 10 other after-hours artists coming off another feature each night. We all worked about 220 hours each in less than 3 weeks to get it delivered on time."

I don't see him saying he animated, modeled or textured King Kong though.

leigh
03-06-2006, 07:14 PM
I am sorry but this kind of conspiracy theory stuff is just silly.

Bruce worked here at Cafe for a couple of weeks on Kong. His work was MOSTLY COMPOSITING. And it was only on A COUPLE OF SHOTS. Those shots were just sky replacements and sticks and spears and stuff (most of them just positioned planes in 3D space). No major foreground elements, and definitely no ape. Those images were probably removed from the site due to permissions problems.

Honestly, this whole "the world hates LW" underdog attitude is absurd.

Cageman
03-06-2006, 07:16 PM
"You worked on the recent Hollywood blockbuster “King Kong”. What was your role?
I came in at the last minute to help out with some of the overflow work that Weta farmed out. I worked at Café FX on compositing for the King Kong capture sequence. It was largely a 2D job, but I had to drop some sky planes, 3D spears, rock planes, and ocean elements into LightWave to render 3D tracked elements on some of those shots. It was a great experience for me. There was a team of 5 full-time artists and about 10 other after-hours artists coming off another feature each night. We all worked about 220 hours each in less than 3 weeks to get it delivered on time."

I don't see him saying he animated, modeled or textured King Kong though.

Well, the thing you quoted is from the original article. As you can see, LightWave wasn't used on King Kong (the model/texture/rig/animation), but it was used in the making of some digital environments in the movie King Kong.

Wether or not LightWave was used to do digital environments or hero animation, I don't really care. It was used in a production that won the Oscars for best Visual Effects, and some of the invisible visual effects in that move are digital sets. It is sad that NT can't afford to have their name on it, though...

leigh
03-06-2006, 07:17 PM
Foundation Imaging did the second machine site work for "Contact", never got credit for it because it didn't cost over a million if FX for that particular set of shots. Same kind of crap if you ask me...

Credits for films are almost ALWAYS determined by that reasoning (budgets). It has nothing whatsoever to do with software, if that's what you're insinuating. More than half the films I've worked on I have not had my name in the credits for. The same goes for many (if not most) people working in the feature film industry.

PixelInfected
03-06-2006, 07:18 PM
images cut out is a shot where artist correct color and add a background did with lw, this is old image, that which a roolover exchange from original to postprocess image.
no cospiracy, probably he not have right to publish that kind of image, froma rticle they cut out that part. may ba an nda violation.

Cageman
03-06-2006, 07:20 PM
Credits for films are almost ALWAYS determined by that reasoning (budgets). It has nothing whatsoever to do with software, if that's what you're insinuating. More than half the films I've worked on I have not had my name in the credits for. The same goes for many (if not most) people working in the feature film industry.

Ohh.. I thought that if the company behind a software wants to get their name they had to pay money, sort of advertisement. :)

leigh
03-06-2006, 07:32 PM
Ohh.. I thought that if the company behind a software wants to get their name they had to pay money, sort of advertisement. :)

I am talking about studios, not software.

Zarathustra
03-06-2006, 07:32 PM
I thought there should be accountability for how something was used since every software company seems to claim their software was used in every movie. You know, MS running King Kong ads because somebody emailed someone else through Outlook or something silly like that.

Kinda neat how my post magically appeared up there at #3, isn't it?

leigh
03-06-2006, 07:37 PM
Kinda neat how my post magically appeared up there at #3, isn't it?

How is that magic? Posts appear chronologically, regardless of any moderation delays.

3DDave
03-06-2006, 07:39 PM
I think the artist had to pull the Kong stuff off his site, and thus off of Newteks site as well.

Zarathustra
03-06-2006, 07:43 PM
regardless of any moderation delays.

Oh. Well to others checking back to this regularly, it must have seemed weird.

leigh
03-06-2006, 07:57 PM
Oh. Well to others checking back to this regularly, it must have seemed weird.

Aaah right. Yeah. I think it's time to fix that from happening again actually.

Phyrea
03-06-2006, 08:47 PM
Regardless of who "pulled" it, I think it's stupid that it was pulled. I like reading about how certain effects were achieved or how other artists work and there shouldn't be people preventing me from reading it. Is it a conspiracy theory? No, but it wasn't NewTek who decided they didn't want the content up, and I doubt it was the artist, so that only leaves some outside organization who really had no business asking it to be removed. It's not like it revealed some super secret workaround - it's just every day work.

Oh well! Looks like whoever pulled it failed anyway, since it's still on the internet elsewhere and in the end we all read it. :twisted:

RobertoOrtiz
03-06-2006, 09:01 PM
I thought there should be accountability for how something was used since every software company seems to claim their software was used in every movie. You know, MS running King Kong ads because somebody emailed someone else through Outlook or something silly like that.

Kinda neat how my post magically appeared up there at #3, isn't it?

I am reminded of a recent SIGGRAPHs.

Softimage and Alias tendo to have reel that have content that is VERY similar.
Hell in some years they have the SAME shots in their reels.
-R

Netvudu
03-06-2006, 09:20 PM
I am sorry but this kind of conspiracy theory stuff is just silly.

Honestly, this whole "the world hates LW" underdog attitude is absurd.

Leigh, even if you consider my opinion is silly and absurd (thank you very much), Iīm going to think Iīm entitled to it, and Iīm even going to try to give further info on it and to reason it...if you donīt mind of course.

First of all, the person in charge of that profile at Newtekīs site has in fact STRONGLY suggested (I suppose he cannot be brutally honest for obvious reasons) that they were forced by a third party to retrieve that info from the site. I would like you to recheck and verify that the second site, NOT ONLY doesnīt show any pics from the movie, which could be logical for copyright reasons, but also thereīs not a single trace on any of the kong related QUESTIONS anymore. It isnīt said anywhere there was any kind of work on that movie. Not a single pixel of work done, while we know thatīs simply false.

Secondly, this isnīt the first time that happens. There are lots and lots of examples of the same behaviour. This has happened for years. Maybe you werenīt involved in those cases, or didnīt notice but in fact it does happen.

Iīm not going to bring again the "Lw was used in this" or "used in that production" argument anymore, but I really hate not only when this happens, but also when they want us to believe that something was done with "XXXaya" software, for instance, and itīs plainly false.

I have had people involved a few productions tell me personally, "ok, see where they say here was done in this and that? not true. We used this other thing". Iīm not quoting names because they donīt deserved to be involved in a discussion they didnīt start, but trust me, I have better things to do that come here and make up stories.

Of course, Iīm not including into this argument, the recent CGwhatever (donīt remember which CG site was sorry....not CGTalk) article about Serenity which tried to make everybody believe LW wasnīt used at all in the movie, which was laughable at best.

So, maybe youīre in a somewhat privileged position to get access to this info, Leigh, but that doesnīt automagically makes you the whole industry, and in fact it strikes me as weird you havenīt heard of this happen before...simply because it happens all the time.

Iīm not stating anybody is SPECIFICALLY directed against LW, but because of economical matters, LW is ALWAYS on the receiving end, and Alias(or maybe now Autodesk)/Softimage on the shiny one, if you know what I mean.

And itīs still a pathetic attitude on those software houses, and on the opposite end of keeping a good work ethics...but of course it would naive on my side to consider ethics into business affairs.

Again, this is not a rant. Just healthy discussion.

ThirdEye
03-06-2006, 09:24 PM
Again, this is not a rant. Just healthy discussion.

Looks like a sterile discussion about nothing to me, as healthy as cyanide for Lw users, what's the purpose, making them feel like they've been frauded or something? But this is just the personal opinion i'm entirely entitled to.

mummey
03-06-2006, 09:33 PM
Again, this is not a rant. Just healthy discussion.

Could have fooled me. ;)

leigh
03-06-2006, 09:36 PM
Is it a conspiracy theory? No, but it wasn't NewTek who decided they didn't want the content up, and I doubt it was the artist, so that only leaves some outside organization who really had no business asking it to be removed.

Actually, the owners of the material have every right to ask for images to be removed. An artist who works on a film does not own the images of their work, and has no right to post them publically without the permission of the owner. Now, having worked on that film myself, I can attest to the fact that all the original plates (showing greenscreen) were clearly marked as the property of the film production company, which means that if Bruce did not have permission from them to post them, then they shouldn't have been up. These things happen all the time. Believe it or not, you do have to get permission to display film images on reels and stuff.

Netvudu
03-06-2006, 09:36 PM
Well, I enjoyed that article at Newtekīs very own site (not in a public one) and thought it was very cool and now itīs out. Why? Thatīs what this thread really is about.

Also, do you notice how I didnīt say anything about opinions being silly or absurd in your post, ThirdEye?

Netvudu
03-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Actually, the owners of the material have every right to ask for images to be removed. An artist who works on a film does not own the images of their work, and has no right to post them publically without the permission of the owner. Now, having worked on that film myself, I can attest to the fact that all the original plates (showing greenscreen) were clearly marked as the property of the film production company, which means that if Bruce did not have permission from them to post them, then they shouldn't have been up. These things happen all the time. Believe it or not, you do have to get permission to display film images on reels and stuff.

What about questions related to the film....also marked as property?

mummey
03-06-2006, 09:39 PM
Well, I enjoyed that article at Newtekīs very own site (not in a public one) and thought it was very cool and now itīs out. Why? Thatīs what this thread really is about.

Also, do you notice how I didnīt say anything about opinions being silly or absurd in your post, ThirdEye?

Hey Alberto! There's something under the bridge ahead!

http://kck.pathfinderscience.net/construction/troll.GIF

(Ok, maybe that's a little mean, but let's quit taking these quips so seriously guys...)

leigh
03-06-2006, 09:40 PM
Netvudu, I am not saying that stuff doesn't happen. There are loads of politics in this industry, and yes, I am very well aware of that. But this attitude that I've seen time and time again right here in this LightWave forum where people act as if there is some global conspiracy where everyone is out to get LightWave and NewTek and it's just silly. Especially when, in this case, you can be quite sure it's simply due to a lack of permission that the images/info was pulled. In other words, people are way too fast to jump on conspiracy bandwagons.

ThirdEye
03-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Also, do you notice how I didnīt say anything about opinions being silly or absurd in your post, ThirdEye?

Thanks about it dude, but next time feel free to go for it, it'd be just your opinion you're entirely entitled to.

Netvudu
03-06-2006, 09:43 PM
On a strange sidenote...


...why everybody replying against the conspiracy theory as Leight puts it, isnīt a current Lw user?

I mean, people not usually replying at this forum, comes here and starts replying at this post? stating how this is a bad idea or nonsense?...excepting for Leigh, whoīs an active poster, even if she openly admits frequently how sheīs not using Lw anymore but XSI (which I absoutely respect...I, for one, think XSI is a great piece of software)

Ok, this must be my paranoia day...but what did exactly move you to post here, guys/gals?

mummey
03-06-2006, 09:48 PM
heh, someone found the thread amusing and posted it on the IRC channel. I'm not a typical LW user, but my s.o. has a copy however.

One item of note though: I've found LW users to be almost as paranoid as 3dsmax users. ;)

leigh
03-06-2006, 09:54 PM
even if she openly admits frequently how sheīs not using Lw anymore but XSI

I think I've mentioned that a grand total of about five times on CGTalk, and two or three times were in response to why I wasn't updating my LW texturing book, in which case it's a valid point to bring up ;)

Ok, this must be my paranoia day...but what did exactly move you to post here, guys/gals?

Being an admin, I read almost every forum here every day. Considering I know Bruce and work at the same studio where he worked on Kong, I responded.

NanoGator
03-06-2006, 10:00 PM
On a strange sidenote...


...why everybody replying against the conspiracy theory as Leight puts it, isnīt a current Lw user?


Well, if it helps, I am a LW user and I agree with Leigh. My first thought when I saw the two links was that it was simply a permissions issue.

Netvudu
03-06-2006, 10:27 PM
Ok. I still think the whole thing is a bit weird, but my paranoia seems satisfied...for today :D


Also, I appologize if the topic name sounded a tad too "sensationalist" (sp?). Donīt wanna be the yellow press of the CG sector, by any means. :deal:

Phyrea
03-07-2006, 12:31 AM
Actually, the owners of the material have every right to ask for images to be removed. An artist who works on a film does not own the images of their work, and has no right to post them publically without the permission of the owner. Now, having worked on that film myself, I can attest to the fact that all the original plates (showing greenscreen) were clearly marked as the property of the film production company, which means that if Bruce did not have permission from them to post them, then they shouldn't have been up. These things happen all the time. Believe it or not, you do have to get permission to display film images on reels and stuff.
I understand, I just think it's kinda dumb since the images weren't hurting the copyright holder in any way. It's kinda like someone exercising their power for the sole sake of being able to. If it were just a matter of the images not being allowed by the studio (or whatever), why would that necessitate the removal of the interview questions/text? Regardless, it's really not that big of a deal - just a lame move by someone who obviously didn't have anything important to accomplish. :shrug:

Limbus
03-07-2006, 08:13 AM
Its quite clear and logical why the images where removed but I am still curious why they did pull the questions about King Kong.

Florian

Anti-Distinctlyminty
03-07-2006, 10:21 AM
[snip]...why everybody replying against the conspiracy theory as Leight puts it, isnīt a current Lw user?...[snip]

I'm a LW user.

There is no conspiracy. How's that? :)

Also @ Phyrea & Limbus: I don't know about you, but I don't work in the CG film industry and, therefore, I'm not privy to the intricacies, politics and legal mumbo jumbo that goes with it. The point being; I'm sure there are many logical reasons why this material was pulled, but we just can't think of them because we're not bathed in knowledge of the industry.
I do feel that, generally at least, conspiracy theorys are the fruit of the under-informed.

dalecampbelljr
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
Its quite clear and logical why the images where removed but I am still curious why they did pull the questions about King Kong.

Florian

I agree with Leigh on this one, but it is interesting about pulling the other content.


PS
I am a Lightwaver

lots
03-07-2006, 04:50 PM
Is it possible that discussing his envolvment and how he did things in the film went against some contract somewhere?

*shrug* just a thought...

SevenString
03-07-2006, 05:36 PM
I learned a little factoid when I worked at Disney years ago.

Apparently, when an owner of copyrighted material is made aware of an infringement, that owner must take legal steps to curb the infringement. If they do not, the non-enforcement of a known copyright violation can potentially put that material in the public domain. It sets a precedent that makes any FUTURE infringement of the same material more difficult to prosecute or otherwise legally curtail.

Disney received a lot of bad press a few years ago because of an incident where some little school kids had painted some Disney characters on their school walls. Disney found out about this, and even though the execs at the company KNEW it would be bad publicity, and didn't WANT to pursue this particular case because children were involved, they had to do it. If they had allowed this one case of infringement to pass unchallenged, no matter how benign or well-meaning the infringement itself, it would have opened the floodgates for future legal problems for the company.

Zarathustra
03-08-2006, 03:38 PM
Fascinating stuff concerning copyrights. I'll buy the reason for images to be pulled, but I don't follow the text being pulled.
Is there legality to publicly stating what software you used, what hardware, what brand of chair you sat in, brand of coffee you drank, etc? If the tools you used are commercial (ie. - accessible to the masses and not proprietary), does the company still have legal grounds to suppress it's employees from stating what they used or how they used them? Fascinating.

I'm just beginning to stick my big toe in the talent pool and contract other freelancers for things. I would like to learn more so I too can rule with an Iron Fist. :D

Qexit
03-08-2006, 07:05 PM
I've found LW users to be almost as paranoid as 3dsmax users. ;)Just because you're paranoid.....doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you :twisted:

NanoGator
03-08-2006, 07:44 PM
I learned a little factoid when I worked at Disney years ago.

Apparently, when an owner of copyrighted material is made aware of an infringement, that owner must take legal steps to curb the infringement. If they do not, the non-enforcement of a known copyright violation can potentially put that material in the public domain. It sets a precedent that makes any FUTURE infringement of the same material more difficult to prosecute or otherwise legally curtail.

Disney received a lot of bad press a few years ago because of an incident where some little school kids had painted some Disney characters on their school walls. Disney found out about this, and even though the execs at the company KNEW it would be bad publicity, and didn't WANT to pursue this particular case because children were involved, they had to do it. If they had allowed this one case of infringement to pass unchallenged, no matter how benign or well-meaning the infringement itself, it would have opened the floodgates for future legal problems for the company.

I heard somewhere that right after they were forced to paint over it, Warner Brothers came in and painted Looney Toons in Disney's place. (i'd appreciate hearing if this is true or if it's simply an urban legend.)

Balgosa
03-08-2006, 09:37 PM
It all boils down to copyright issues.
Multiple companies can own a image including the producers of the movie and the CG companies that made the images. They pretty much all have to give permission.
also why the Kong pictures were taken down

Onethread
03-09-2006, 02:18 PM
OK, I think it is well explained now, that the pictures were removed most likely due to copyright issues.
But as others noticed, why has the text changed?
Sort of NDA? But then why do WETA talk about it? Or different rules for different guys?


Mike

E_Moelzer
03-09-2006, 03:02 PM
I wonder whether we have to put a disclaimer under everything we write here, stating the copyright owners of each copyrighted thing that we name...
The whole copyright law, etc is just ridiculous.
CU
Elmar

Zarathustra
03-09-2006, 03:36 PM
Well I do notice how everyone here at a "major" studio have disclaimers in their sigs

paulrus
03-09-2006, 04:04 PM
I heard somewhere that right after they were forced to paint over it, Warner Brothers came in and painted Looney Toons in Disney's place. (i'd appreciate hearing if this is true or if it's simply an urban legend.)

When I lived in Miami this happened to a daycare. I don't know if it's the one you guys are talking about, but they had some really poorly reproduced Disney characters painted around the place. So it's not an urban legend - I drove by the place quite a bit.

I never heard anything about WB painting Looney Toons in place of the Disney stuff though.

Paul

etobiason
03-09-2006, 06:30 PM
Disney is notoriously strict with their properties. They don't even allow for fair use: meaning, if you do work for them you can't show the work in your portfolio. Really, you can show it (that's fair use), but the trick is they won't ever hire you again. So, in a nutshell, you can't use it.

Also, people don't have to be in collusion for a conspiracy to take place. It sounds weird, I know, but the idea of a group of people gathering in a room and deciding to do things a certain way is not the only kind of conspiracy. The more usual type is more invisible. If you reward (hire, appoint, give gifts or raises or advancement to) people who share your same views, for example, rather than those who do a good job regardless of view then you don't have to literally conspire with them... they will follow along naturally. Those who don't follow in step will become marginalized.

I'm not saying that a conspiracy exists here, but I think that people discount conspiracy too quickly because they think of the sterotypical dark room gatherings. That's not modern day conspiracy. Modern day conspiracy is binding contracts, promotions and gifts to the like-minded, and so on.

For whatever reason, Newtek started on the Amiga and got a stronger hold on television, and Maya gathered a larger share in the film industry. Both programs have their strengths and weaknesses, and many studios use them in tandem... but it isn't difficult to see that any company would do what it could to protect it's market share in any arena.

I wouldn't necessarily call it conspiracy, not in the traditional sense. In the modern sense of the word it works. But you could also just call it business.

-e

Sbowling
03-11-2006, 01:38 AM
First of all, the person in charge of that profile at Newtekīs site has in fact STRONGLY suggested (I suppose he cannot be brutally honest for obvious reasons) that they were forced by a third party to retrieve that info from the site. I would like you to recheck and verify that the second site, NOT ONLY doesnīt show any pics from the movie, which could be logical for copyright reasons, but also thereīs not a single trace on any of the kong related QUESTIONS anymore. It isnīt said anywhere there was any kind of work on that movie. Not a single pixel of work done, while we know thatīs simply false.


Could be he 'exaggerated" on some of his claims and was infringing on the rights of the owners of the footage he was using. Of course, no lightwave user would ever do that.

I'm sure there were legal reasons that this was changed because I'm sure newtek would love to be able to claim responsibility for this movie.

Get over it.

Sbowling
03-11-2006, 01:42 AM
On a strange sidenote...


...why everybody replying against the conspiracy theory as Leight puts it, isnīt a current Lw user?

I mean, people not usually replying at this forum, comes here and starts replying at this post? stating how this is a bad idea or nonsense?...excepting for Leigh, whoīs an active poster, even if she openly admits frequently how sheīs not using Lw anymore but XSI (which I absoutely respect...I, for one, think XSI is a great piece of software)

Ok, this must be my paranoia day...but what did exactly move you to post here, guys/gals?

Many of us are former lightwave users. One of the things that has driven off many users is not only the lack of any serious updates from newtek for many years, but the fanatical ravings of people like you. A big part of why lighwave isn't taken seriously is because of the users (not to mention the quality of the product).

EtherDragn
03-11-2006, 02:16 AM
Yknow, I kinda think this is nothing so special.
I got a feeling they took it down (as I would have) because lightwave wasnt the main software used on these shots. The company was doing COMPOSITING shots. The main job was to COMP the shot, not do 3D. Sure, they might have had some lightwave created elements flying around, but they weren't 3d foreground shots.

From this perspective, it seemed a bit silly for newtek to be hyping up its products use in a really really big effects flick like Kong, using this as its example.

What I mean would be a good example for instance the alien sequence at the beginning of Men In Black, which (please correct me if Im wrong) was ALL Lightwave.

Sbowling
03-11-2006, 07:55 AM
Here's another POV. I heard these commercials were done in LightWave.

http://www.xsibase.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=22453;start=0

Here's the key quote for those who don't feel the need to click the link.

"Even though the majority of the shots were rendered in lightwave, simply because of legacy and tight schedules - almost all of the complex animation were done in XSI and brought over to LW via the "Point Oven" plugin. A few of the shots (wheel transformation in the first part of XB for example) were animated and rendered entirely in xsi by myself on a laptop!"

Now if you want to see lightwave doing character animation, I highly recommend "Raptor Island". It's a good example of the lightwave CA capabilities.

Cageman
03-11-2006, 08:32 AM
From this perspective, it seemed a bit silly for newtek to be hyping up its products use in a really really big effects flick like Kong, using this as its example.[/QUTOE]

I don't know how you see it as a hype? In the original article, it was clear that he didn't use LightWave much. Also, it was a quite small section of the whole profile that covered his work on King Kong. Though, it was a very good example of how LightWave can fit into a production that is based on a Maya pipeline.

[QUOTE]
What I mean would be a good example for instance the alien sequence at the beginning of Men In Black, which (please correct me if Im wrong) was ALL Lightwave.

Yep, it was done in LightWave and if I remember correctly, it was a dragonfly that dies a very tragic death. :)

Cageman
03-11-2006, 08:35 AM
Now if you want to see lightwave doing character animation, I highly recommend "Raptor Island". It's a good example of the lightwave CA capabilities.

Hmm.. didn't they use LightWave when doing Garfield the Movie and alot of those Dr. Doolitle animals? And what about some of those Alien of the Deep characters? Hmm.. when I think about it... LightWave, for me, is very tedious and almost "unusable" doing a rig. But the art of animation; timing, anticipation, weight etc, isn't any different from other packages at all. If a bad animation comes out of LightWave I wouldn't blame LightWave.

Emiliano
03-11-2006, 05:19 PM
I remember a lot of years Ago.... newtek said that Lightwave was used in Jurassic Park... well it did but only for animatic reasons.

Besides that, you got to know that money rules :) ... maybe there was a contract and the film company cannot mention competition, we will never know.
The trueth is that Modeler is one of the bests modeler in the world, period. So there is a good chance that a lot of main characters were done in Modeler, but will never know neither.

PetterSundnes
03-11-2006, 08:25 PM
First of all, I dont think there is a conspiracy on excluding the mentioning of where LightWave is being used, i.e. the use of LW in Star Wars EPII when R2D2 was flying was mentioned freely. Although it doesnt matter, I found it rather strange that the article on Shadow of the Colossus in the newest 3D World magazine, didnt mention what software was involved (as far as I could see skimming through it), not even a screenshot of the game being in production. It was all in-game screenshots and the following tutorial "make your own rock monster" was done in 3DS Max :)

I've been told time and time again, that us LW users are so fanatical about the software, and personally I think it is true in many cases, but for me that stretches as far as me being fanatical about it for my own sake (i need it for my personal realtime 3d projects). In my experience, it is 3DS knuckleheads that are the most aggressive defenders of their choice of application, and dont think any other software is any good. When someone ask me what 3D application they should start learning, I consider their background and goal. From a usability point of view I always say "use Cinema4D", if they want a job in a technical viz studio here in Norway: "learn 3DS Max", if you want to work in the Hollywood film industry: "learn Houdini"... I promote LW whenever its someone I am going to mentor or they want a cheap allrounder. A local company here in Bergen using 3DS Max, moving into the realm of realtime 3D might ending up using XSI, if I have it my way :) But yeah, some 3DS users are even more paranoid/ stubborn/ aggressive than the average LW user will ever be, and I bet you anything, the writer of the Shadow of the Colossus article isnt using LW, to put it gently :)

Nemoid
03-12-2006, 09:14 AM
there's no great conspiracy. But its all about politics, and advertising. Some software company even pays, and offer free licenses of their apps to productions. the pact is to tell the movie was done with their software, and not mention other packages.

Personally, into an ideal world, at the end of a movie, in credit titles, Logos of all softwares used should be shown. (they would be a very lot , tho hehehe)

The real problem is that this kind of behaviour, reflects on sells of software, and, in time, in job opportunities.
Mainly, in the industry, if you don't know Maya and /or XSI you have way less possibilities to get a job.
Especially in small studios if they're not flexible and are based onto a different software than yours. they simply cannot teach you the software. no time and resources to even think about that. Pixar is a huge company abnd can teach you comuter and software, if you're a traditional animator.

Clearly, these problems reflects also on people buying a particular software, especially if they're not freelancers. "why i should buy software A, if in industry software B is largely adopted and couldn't easily find a job?" better to adopt and learn software B since the start.
So, software A tends to go down ,and be relied into a niche.


this being said I am of the opinion an artist should use what he fits confortable with. if a good pure modeler artist works with Lw, then, he simply can export the .obj and send to his clients with no probs. thiis is possible. geometry is geometry, after all. this is why Lw is adopted in movies for modelling.

an animator instead would have some great probs unless what they ask for are finalized sequences.

PetterSundnes
03-12-2006, 12:48 PM
this being said I am of the opinion an artist should use what he fits confortable with. if a good pure modeler artist works with Lw, then, he simply can export the .obj and send to his clients with no probs. thiis is possible. geometry is geometry, after all.

Agreed, i have been saying "a polygon is a polygon" alot lately.

Nemoid
03-13-2006, 06:40 AM
hey wait ! a polygon could be a face. :D
oh and a point could be a vertex. ROFLMAO.

PetterSundnes
03-13-2006, 08:50 AM
hey wait ! a polygon could be a face. :D
oh and a point could be a vertex. ROFLMAO.

Ofcourse it can be a face, but you have to make sure you have enough polygons and that the edgeloops are good :D

CGTalk Moderation
03-13-2006, 08:50 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.