De niro, quietly but clearly express how I feel about this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Oe9SteE3M&feature=youtube_gdata_player
On Thursday, May 1, 2014, Andres Stephens <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > **pardon my large rant, you have been warned =P** > > Concerning economics of opensource software, I see no danger. Work is not > free, nor knowledge. > > Artwork; be it stills, previz, concept, animation, or FX… may have a price > driven by knowledge/experience and quality driven by time it takes to do > it. I am not sure why the prices dropped, but mainly yes, it was (in my > opinion) because of the catch 42 syndrome: making digital media production > became much easier (thus less knowledge/experience is needed with more > quality for less time - thus logically dropping prices) through easier > software, better hardware. > > Unfortunately I see the industry has forgotten a standard - the basis of > why digital media costs what it costs. > > The demand for quality has exponentially grown with the software and the > hardware exponentially, thus the demand for less time for more quality has > exponentially grown also, and due to the facilitating software and hardware > there is less demand for knowledge/experience (or so one thinks). > Unfortunately that has been muddied, and due to the “it didn’t take you as > long as 5 years ago for something 10 times as good, it must be cheaper!” > things are where you think they are, with doom and gloom and competition > with monkeys. > > Concerning opensource software, I am not saying it’s “free” software, just > available without a direct transaction type free. If you want to keep it > alive, you directly invest in the developers and projects, or develop it > yourself paying your own developers with cold hard WORK. > > What is a software without it’s developer? > > Concerning the particular case of Blender, you can invest (and I > encourage it) directly with a developer or a project or a piece of code - > not just the software. It gives you more power as to how you want your tool > to work, and how it will be developed over the longterm. > > Concerning making life cost the “worth the trouble” when it comes to the > media industry and what it takes to make media, giving the artist a good > run for the money he is given, then yes, the death of Softimage was GREAT > for the industry. We can keep charging MORE for the “time” and > knowledge/experience we would need to do the same job, a job we could have > done “easier” in Softimage - a tool that makes us do more with less time. > Forget efficiency! > > But I differ, just because a tool is more available or “easier” to use or > more “efficient” at doing a certain task does NOT make the job cheaper. > > Yes, Time drives price, Time drives Quality. Efficiency of the tool drives > Time, and Quality. Knowledge of the tool drives Time and Quality and > Efficiency. Experience drives Time and Efficiency. > > Cost for your project should be based off the (Quality=Time) + > (Time/Efficiency) + (Knowledge*Experience[=Efficiency]). > > So, less time you are given drives for less quality, thus the amount that > would cost. More time, more quality, more expensive. Less time, due to > efficiency, similar quality, would give you more cost, thus adding to the > cost; then the knowledge you’d need to achieve the experience which > drives for such efficiency would also drive that cost to more. So the more > knowledge you have grows your experience, experience drives efficiency - it > took time for that knowledge that drives experience, so that costs. All > experience drives your efficiency, thus driving the cost for more - even if > it’s less time but similar quality. > > All those factors drive how much your work is worth. > > So, a tool that saves you time, the hardware that makes it easier for you > to drive the quality, and the time you save for more quality SHOULD NOT > drop the price, because granted, the knowledge of your tool and the > experience you’d need for efficiency should actually drive the price, > not “how easy it is”. > > The industry needs to realize that for the time it took for similar > qualities of more time in the past is because of the “experience” > and “knowledge” that drives efficiency, and due to efficiency it is now > taking less time, but should have the same if not more cost. They still > think the experience and knowledge is the same as it was 10 years ago, thus > dropping prices, but really it isn’t. They forget the factor of efficiency. > > > > I can see the fear you have that a developer would miss out because prices > are dropping for the artists because he’s much more efficient (thanks to > him we can do what we do today). So companies that develop software have > lost, because the artists is being shorthanded because the industry has > forgotten that efficiency and less time for more quality SHOULD make it > MORE expensive - not less, and the artist lives with that, not affording to > invest in more efficiency, being complacent and making hard software the > norm because it’s “worth the trouble” and “cost”. They idea that that same > quality for less time = cheaper is a fallacy. > > Studios and artists who forget those factors and dropped the prices > because it is “easy” to do the work shot themselves in the foot, in my > opinion, thus making developers like Autodesk think it’s “logical” to shut > down an efficient tool to “help the media and entertainment” industry.. Or, > they DO see the issue and want to create more efficient tools to help the > industry.. one or the other.. > > > So how does a product available for free drive an economy based on those > factors? Developers won’t work for free, we all know that, as they don’t. I > am not saying opensource is free. Blender is not completely free, nor it’s > projects. It’s services aren’t completely free. And most certainly the > concept of it isn’t free. If you want to make Blender better, you > work directly with the code, or invest in people who do work with the code > to make it better… sounds very similar to any paid product no? You pay a > group of developers and business men to directly work with the code to make > your tool better? Right? yes.. right, except we are just bypassing the > legalities of a body of people, business men and groups of hired > developers. You manage Blender how you see fit. > > And either way, this investment you put into Blender, or any software, > drives “efficiency” driving your value: less time, same quality, or more - > making you have the right to charge more - or at least you should start > educating the industry that even with the latest most efficient artist > friendly “Easy” software out there…. you have the right to charge - because > of the knowledge/experience and the gift of efficiency by the developer and > experience. > > > Nowhere did I say “opensource free software” is the solution, it is just a > more honest direct one - and it is perfectly ok you support ones who are > exactly like “opensource” in ideology concerning regards to future, > development, relationship with their clients, etc. > > A developer is making a tool to facilitate the job for someone else, > right? Maybe it is best he be paid not by a third-party intermediary but > directly from the client who want and needs that tool. Smaller companies > like The Foundry or SideFX seem to show that, being developers and business > men themselves, they do listen and directly work with the client to make > the tool that facilitates your work, making you more efficient. That is > good, that is not much different than a developer on Blender - except there > with the former there is a third person monetary representation on their > website/business that handles the legalities and cash transfer for the > developer-client relationship. > > Blender is only lacking that, as most opensource software, but the > economics is similar. > > > If I want better efficiency in the tool I use, I invest in it - all I was > trying to say was it would be better to invest directly with a company or > product you could trust for being open/available to you directly, being > coded to make you more efficient, not less. > > Leaving a platform/tool free does not hold back the industry nor drop > prices for anyone - and no, it doesn’t make monkeys. Quality is quality, > efficiency is efficiency, costs are costs, and experience and knowledge of > how to do such a product of quality is king of that all, and thanks to our > developers efficiency has somehow made us think we are cheaper, but really > we aren’t. > > So I see opensource development more as a direct relationship between you, > and the developer - like any software company - but lately with Autodesk, > that relationship has been somewhat broken. > > Opensource yes, is synonymous with “little” or “no development” because > even we forget to invest in the developer to help us be more efficient - > driving our costs for more, making us more deserving of our work - thus > your fear of making the market collapse. > > But in a cyclic system, we dropped the price ourselves, forgetting that > efficiency, ease of work, less time for more quality (and even that is a > lie, it still takes more time for more quality) should make things > cheaper. Those thinking that everything was “easier” because of > technology, forgot it wasn’t really easier, didn’t do the math that > being “more efficient” or knowledgeable has it’s costs… and now forgot to > invest in those who try make us more efficient - thus making software like > Softimage die “logically”. > > And we also forget, the tools developers are trying to sell is to make us > more efficient, and it is for us, not the developer… the artists - and the > transaction of funds from the client to the developer for the efficiency > and quality is what it’s all about. If I forget to charge more for > efficiency and time over quality, thus not being able to pay for more > development for “efficiency” from the developer… then I am shooting myself > in the foot. > > So I just suggested opensource as a more secure way of maintaining those > economics, high priced media products because of efficiency, quality and > the time it takes to make it - with the safe guard that my investment > into “efficiency” and the developers is open, secure and direct (no third > parties) and that my knowledge and experience can go long term. > > If SideFX or The Foundry, Maxon, anyone keep that mentality, that direct > relationship with the client, they will succeed. If Autodesk does not, they > will slowly wane. > > But yeah, I can see how it would terrify you; but even opensource is not > free, just the “transaction of software that provide efficiency and > quality” are different or direct with the client and the developer, no > third party or “corporation”. > > > And even if you didn’t pay a single cent to a developer for the software > you’d use, then the tool you use will be less efficient over time, and yes, > you are right, shoot yourself in the foot. But even then, the more > knowledge and experience you have to make you more efficient in that free > tool should drive you to earn more anyway, not drop the market prices, > that’s absurd.. > > If you have a conscious and support a tool to become more efficient (thus > really helping yourself more), paying a developer directly (Blender) or > through a third party (Autodesk or The Foundry, etc), then you have full > right to charge more also. If the tool makes your life easier, making you > put out better quality for less time, you still have full right to charge > more. More quality, less time, due to efficiency/knowledge/experience = > more expensive. > > ... and that little math trick I did… would solve the whole “media > industry in crisis” mode. Even if quality/time is exponentially > better along with technology, and the “ease” it is to become “efficient” > through free software or paid by intermediaries. > > All artists/studios shouldn’t settle for less just because “it’s easy” to > do, or takes “less time” than 5-10 years go because of great tools or the > efficiency you found out of knowledge, the availability of a tool, or the > experience. > > But quite the opposite. > > > *Thanks for reading.. * > > -Draise > > PH: 313 811 6821 > > *From:* Sven Constable > *Sent:* Thursday, May 1, 2014 15:53 > *To:* [email protected] > > Sorry if i put this straight: Your bottom line is that free/opensource > software is the way to go? That's terrifying. > > > > We still have the problem of discount prices in the industry. Companies > gone bancrupt because of this and the situation should really concern us. > Not the US/VFX sector alone. Artists around the world working 10-16 hours > sometimes to give profit to a job or their companies working for. > 3D-Animation is ridiculous cheap these days and making the software > available for free would be the worst. > > Hardware is already cheap and become cheaper each day. Software is also > cheaper today compared to ten years ago. Just take a look what comes out in > the end: > High quality work, thats good. But achived by monkeys often doing work > barely for free! Just because it's so cool to do 3D? > > > > The problem is, everything becomes cheaper every day. Even daily rates. > But it's a business and thinking of it as a 'ideal world' where everything > should become cheaper or even free scares the hell out of me. > > > > sven > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andres Stephens > *Sent:* Thursday, May 01, 2014 8:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Torn > > > > Torn is the right word I think! > > I am sticking to SI till it no-longer has any juice left for the industry, > like a dried up squeezed lemon. I still see that it is quite future proof > in many areas, even without it’s advanced “viewport” so even after 2 years > of updates and bugfixes, it should still do well afterwards a couple > years - minus sculpting or realtime previz. GPU rendering and CPU rendering > will still be ahead of the league with third party render-engines, you know > the ones I’m talking about. It will remain future-proof for some time yet. > 😉 > > But personally I am delving more into Blender, with it’s GPU+CPU render > engine included, node based modeling addons (free) and soon node based > strands and particles (in development) and other features that are > progressively being developed - not to mention it’s 20 year old mature well > rounded toolset - developed outside of commitees and corporation, even > investment…. > > > *Warning* *My explanation is extensive and written below, needed to get > it out there! Read at your own risk! * > > Out of principle I see Blender as a powerful tool, not to mention video > editing and Nuke like compositing all in the same package…. free… and open > to development personally or as a community. If you’d invest cash > into a software, with Blender, it is directly with a developer or into the > foundation, or into a project to “test” and push and develop the software, > like the Gooseberry Project. > > Out of conviction for future proof development in a software I’d invest > hours (if not the majority of my life) of knowledge into it…. makes me want > to stick to Blender. (because it’s guaranteed development by the demand of > the artist, by investment directly into a developer, by open knowledge of > what is being developed; and anyone has voice as to where it will go, how > it will go) > > I see hair, bullet physics, particles, great modeling toolset (with many > awesome plugins), a grease pencil, NLA animation systems, dopesheet, > keyframed animation systems, shape and morph animation with corrective > blendshapes optional, full body IK and FK, node based shader system for > Cycles, multi-scene management within the same session, sculpting, dynamic > topology in sculpting, multires mesh sculpting, advanced UV editor and > unwrap with texture painting directly into it, integrated game engine with > game logic (also node based in some ways), and a VERY customizable > interface with few icons, etc etc.. yes, it is not optimized in many areas… > but it runs on a mac, on Linux, on pc…. > > And it’s trying to push systems for node based manipulation, aka, ICE a la > Blender. > > And it’s free… > > With a Blender pipeline, I wouldn’ > < >
