I'm sorry I don't have specific details, but having worked in major studios for years I can say they have many strict rules outlined by the MPAA on how assets can be managed. For example final editorial boxes are not supped to be connected to the internet at all. VFX production is usually a little more lax, but the facilities do often have to sign lengthy agreements making them liable for the studio assets. If something where to make it into the wiled they have have huge liabilities to the studio. Smaller productions generally don't have these issues, but often still require massive computing requirements. Even independent films these days have hundreds of shots of fx.

Dreamworks, Disney(pixar), et. al. are all signatory to the MPAA rules.

CG production is all about burst computing. Even with multiple productions going you don't end up with even capacity utilization. You're constantly going from near zero need for the render farm, to wishing you had 20 times the capacity. Just look at an individual artists work flow:

1) Playing video games because the job hasn't started yet.
2) Designing and planning a shot.
3) Render testing (local machine).
4) Production of a version of the shot.
5) Render (artist back to the video games).
6) Review with supervision. If done move to next shot (goto step 2).
7) Else make changes. (goto step 4)
8) Once done with all shots go back to video games.

This mirrors the patter of the facility as a whole. Only one of those steps is rendering, and depending on what your render resources are it will either take up all the artists/facilities time, or almost none. You want a burst of high capacity, then you don't care about the farm at all.

Actually using the cloud is significantly different from using render farms. The overhead of using a render farm is very high. You have to package your data specifically for the farm, which includes methodically fixing all your resource paths, you have to setup an agreement with the provider, and the rates are typically exceptionally high in many cases more then 100x the price of equivalent EC2 instances.

Whereas on Amazon you control the boot image, have exactly the software you need installed and can create a structure that mirrors the facility. You have root level access, and now with VPC you can even have the servers show up as nodes on your local network increasing management ease and exposing the nodes to your own queue managers, license servers etc. It's a totally different game form a usability point of view. Plus the massive capacity of EC2 allows you to do breadth first rendering which is a huge plus on turn around time. Commercial render farms typically have the same capacity issues as any facility does.

I agree that once you have a million dollar cold room your issue is human resources, but we're talking about how the companies that don't have the cold room can now do the work of larger facilities. I don't think anyone is saying that just because you've got access to tens of thousands of render nodes means that you're now competing with Pixar. What's new is small facilities or even individuals can hire up for a project on day one without having to be a fortune 500 company with millions of dollars of infrastructure already invested.

We've been living with the numbers for the last three years. In other industries I'm sure the cost of cloud computing quickly eclipses the cost of owned computing capacity, but in visual effects and animation production you have to remember one important factor; your computers are idle most of the time.

Studio Pyxis (www.studiopyxis.com) is a Burbank based production company that is taking full advantage of cloud computing, both for our own productions and for sharing with clients. The company is a new model of production company leveraging years of development in real time technology such as the Virtual Production process used on Avatar which involve real time graphics and visualization so that directors can shoot visual effects interactively as if they are really happening in front of you, and cloud computing that can complete the photorealistic renders on the back end in record time.

One feature of cloud computing that is often over looked though in these production discussions is the breadth vs depth computing model. It's obvious that it's a value to have a massive cold room that you don't have to buy up front, but the real advantage comes when it costs exactly the same thing to run 1000 cpus for 1 hour as it does to run 10 cpus for 100 hours.

Visual effects and animation production is all about revisions. It's a huge win to have your full renders back sooner. Being able to run every frame of a shot at once regardless of how many frames you have means that you have the entire shot in the time it takes the longest frame to render. This has never been possible before. Production has always wanted a dynamically scalable solution but as always had to contend with some fixed capacity. Granted EC2 has a fixed capacity as well, but it is so much more massive then a typical production facility as to be a non issue.

As for what some commenters are saying about bandwidth issues it is true it's a factor, and this is why it's not a turn key solution for the average small company. We've spend a fair amount of time creating an infrastructure that mirrors assets in the cloud, renders and composite locally to the cloud, then generates compressed images and movie files for download at review. Only when we approach the completion of a shot do we download actual exr, or dpx data. But we do make our infrastructure available to other companies to help them be more turn key.

Another aspect that more then democratizing cg production actually gives an advantage to the smaller facility are the limitations that larger facilities working on mainstream studio pictures have such as MPAA rules about keeping film assets off the internet and/or on physically disconnected machines. Whereas small facilities like ours can be satisfied with a VPN connection to Amazon, larger facilities are often legally obliged not to.

The one area that still needs to be solved to truly make this work for everyone is for the software companies to start offering the same type of pay as you go licensing so that we can more easily use the professional tools. It would be relatively easy for a company like Pixar to offer a RenderMan license server that one could connect to over the internet or even EC2 based that would monitor your hourly usage. Are you listening Pixar?

Copying can not be legislated on the internet. Period. Put the laws in place if you like, but it is meaningless. The RIAA and MPAA missed it, but the power has already passed from them to the audience. No longer can they dictate release windows (theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc.) or decided which version are public and which are not (bootlegs, old seasons of TV shows, special 'limited' editions).

Simply put there is no argument that wins, it is now a physical law of the internet. The only way forward that is actually logical and effaceable is accepting the laws of the intent and embracing them. Torrent is a new distribution channel, with a huge number of benefits. Viral marketing, and free bandwidth are just a couple. Innovate or die. The audience has control now, deal with it.

I don't even have to argue the point, and you don't have to agree with me it WILL happen. Unless the RIAA and MPAA change tactics they will die. Apple showed one way to solve the problem, and nearly 10 years later still no one is willing to monetize torrent.

--> How exactly is it my fault if I decided I want to see or listen to something right now that I can have easily but not legally only because the seller refuses to sell it to me? --

The internet changed the game (a long time ago), time to learn the rules.

f

I remember after finishing on 5th element I interviewed with The Mill in london. They PROMISED me that if I would just sign up I'd be working on "Millennium" the working title for Blade Runner II. I thought that would be cool so I said sure, but when they offered me less then a living wage to live in London, I had to pass.

Nice to see that ploy still works.

I'm sorry Mr. "your wrong, and I'm right", but what are you talking about? The term 'backing' is referring to value. i.e. What is a gold backed 1 oz certificate _worth_? Answer: 1 oz of gold. (what is the gold backed by? nothing)

What is a dollar worth? The US government does NOT back the dollar. The value of the dollar 'floats', by design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The fact that U.S. taxes are accepted in dollars, or that the dollar "is legal tender for all debts, public and private" does in NO WAY back the dollar. All it does it provide a market for the use of dollars. There are plenty of government backed currencies in the world that have no value to your local 7/11 and vice versa.

Bitcoin is like a foreign countries currency it has as much value as you are willing to trade a local currency for it. People are willing to do this, so bitcoin has value period.

You don't use it? So what? I don't use Rubles, doesn't invalidate it as a currency.

Actually it is pretty easy. Especially with tools like www.bitcoinlocator.com with which you can find people near you to trade bitcoins and cash in person.

Since I can't seem to engage anyone on the issue of _why_ bitcoin is a ponzi scheme other then "early adopters get a huge advantage over later adopters" which does not uniquely define ponzi schemes, I will try to argue it myself. Please help me find my errors. I’m am not being facetious, this is a real argument that I’ve outlined for myself. I did not cut out any counter argument that I could think of.

First. What is a ponzi scheme?

[Wikipedia]
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

As I understand it this means:

Person A buys $10 of a Ponzi scheme X,
Person B then buys $10 of X.
X has $20. (and is only worth $20, because it doesn’t do anything)
X pays it’s owners $1.
X pays Person A $1 (dividend interest).
X pays Person B $1.
X has $17.

This can go on for a while if no one withdraws their capital, but at some point someone is going to have to buy $10 worth of X to pay A or B. If it doesn’t happen it collapses. Ok, I think that’s clear, and correct.

Now let me see if I can understand how this differs from say Apple stock.

Person A buys $10 of Apple stock
Person B buys $10 of Apple stock
Apple has $20.
Apple pays it’s expenses
Apple earns profits from doing things.
Apple’s worth is it’s profits minus it’s liabilities.
Apple is profitable, so apple has $21

However, Apple does not pay dividends. How does Person A or Person B make money from investing in Apple? At some point someone is going to have to buy $10 worth of Apple to pay A or B. That is A and B need a third party to realize the value of their investment. Ok, this is confusingly similar, let’s me see if I can understand the differences.

1) X pays dividends, Apple does not.
2) When you buy shares of X you buy them from X, when you buy shares of Apple you buy them from A or B, i.e. other share holders.
3) So this means that there is no set number of shares of X, X wants to keep selling as much as it can. There is a fixed number of shares of Apple.
4) Apple makes a profit, and therefore has a ‘demonstrable’ value. X can only operate at a loss, it’s value is it’s total deposits minus payments.

Ok I think I understand some differences, but what if Apple was operating at a loss? How is that not like X? I guess because each share of Apple is a fixed percentage of the total value of Apple, whereas you don’t have any real percentage of X. So if Apple operated at a loss your share value would go down. That means that another key feature of Apple is that it is transparent, you know it’s value, you know how many shares there are and you know how many shares you have. With X you don’t know it’s value, the number of shares there are or the number of shares you have.

I think I understand these differences. Do I have something wrong?

So which of these two systems is bitcoin most like?

1) Bitcoins do not pay dividends.
2) You buy them from other holders, there is no X to buy them from.
3) There is a set number of them.
4) It is transparent, you know how many shares there are and you know how many shares you have.

This all looks like Apple stock to me. That seems to leave the issue of value.

X is only the value of all deposits minus payments.

This does sound a bit like bitcoin without the payments part. Isn’t bitcoin just the value of all the money that’s been put into it? No wait, there is no X in which all the money spent on bitcoin is being held. Hmm this is a tough one, does that mean that bitcoin is actually worse then a Ponzi scheme? let me try it with apple.

Apple’s value is what it does.

This sounds like bitcoin too. Bitcoin is software that has some unique features. So then is bitcoin more like Apple? A little, but it doesn’t generate revenue. Nevertheless it does seem to have value as a software tool, and that’s not consistent with X.

I’m not sure I’m sold one way or the other on the ‘value’ issue, but in every other regard Bitcoin looks more like a commodity such as Apple stock, then it does like a Ponzi scheme. The point that a Ponzi scheme continues to create “shares” to get new investors seems like a key factor in what is wrong with a Ponzi scheme. Neither Apple stock nor Bitcoins do this.

My conclusion is, Bitcoins are not a Ponzi scheme.

Help me out here, what are your thoughts? Did I get it wrong?

Agreed. Very good.

I don't understand the singling out of the ponzi scheme assertion though. There are a number of assertions about the economic failures of bitcoin. There aren't any peer reviewed economics papers on bitcoin being a ponzi scheme for that matter. I'd like to see a credible paper on _any_ aspect of bitcoin.

"So far as I can tell it's a combination of the worst of all of the above."

Yes perhaps this is true, if these are features you don't like about those things. Some people don't like these features, some people do. I guess we'll find out who's in the majority.

"On my "factual errors", you might be better received if you stopped passing off your opinions as facts."

Factual errors are factual errors it is immaterial how they are received. I have being trying to give people facts, not opinions. If I've made a mistake I'd like to know where.

"So far as I can tell it's a combination of the worst of all of the above."
Is an opinion.

"You can send them in any amount to anyone on the internet, and with almost no fees."
Is a fact.

Odd, I don't see that a single one of my posts have been even remotely successfully rebutted. Your national currency allows charge backs? Really? That's cool, where do you live I what to come there and see how they do that with cash. Your version of the perfect digital currency is that it must allow automatic chargebacks? Odd, but ok, wait until that shows up and use it.

I have at no time advocated that anyone go out and speculate on bitcoin, quite the opposite. So even if I where speculating, which I'm not, I'm not giving the right advice for building the value of bitcoin.

To be crystal, I do not recommend that anyone speculate on Bitcoin. It is very unstable and may lose massive value at any time. Full Stop.

However as a tool for transmitting value across the internet it is very useful. Think software; email, web browser. It's a tool not a political party. This is something that bitcoin can be used for, is designed for, and can happen regardless if the value of bitcoin is $0.00001, or $1,0000.0. Not for you, no problem, that's easy DON'T USE IT. Even if you do decide to use it, buy which I primarily mean allowing people to pay you small low risk amounts with it, I say change them out to your currency immediately. Don't hold them. Don't speculate on the future value of bitcoin. You can easily test it out without risking more then a few pennies. Why all the anger? Just learn about it.

What is frustrating are the people going around talking about how evil it is and they 'know' it's a Ponzi scheme. When in fact they haven't even cracked the FAQ, and have no understanding of how it actually works. People are spreading FUD, instead of facts. You got good facts to argue against it? Great! Lets hear them.

Learn about it, if for no other reason then to have competent arguments against it. Hell, as I've said elsewhere, I want to find out what's wrong with it. Save us all a lot of bickering.

"See.. it may be a feature of the "currency" of bitcoin that anyone in the world can pick up the client and accept/send bitcoin to anyone else in the world (with the client, anyway).. But that is a USELESS FEATURE if it is not also a feature of bitcoin that everyone in the world already HAS THE CLIENT."

That is a bold assertion that I don't agree with (opinion). My position is that if the client is free, and can be downloaded in moments. The the distance between "I can't accept bitcoins" to "I can accept bitcoins" is trivial to the point of being a non issue. Where as "I can't accept credit cards" to "I can accept credit cards" is ridiculously non-trivial.

"If I am in, say, the middle of Brazil, I can still GIVE USD to anybody standing around. It just does me zero fucking good. Kinda like bitcoin, except that bitcoin makes practically everywhere is like being in the middle of Brazil without any real."

Hum no, that is in fact one of the values of bitcoin. You can at this moment exchange bitcoin to currencies all over the world. You may still have to use a local currency at any given shop, but that is not the same thing as saying the currency you are holding is not "valuable".

"(although how chargebacks don't lead to legal action when legal action is called for, you haven't explained...)"

They may do. However finding a business that just sold you a defective TV, is somewhat easier then finding the customer that just walked out with a TV and charged it back.

" but the legal system is of no value for people who cross borders and expect to have their money. Way to stay internally consistent."

Two un-related features. Although I do business over seas, I wonder if they will honor our contract...

"You mean I can travel across borders without having all my cash money on me,"

No I'm saying you can travel across borders and have ALL of your cash money on you. In fact you can have your total net worth on you.

"If I have access to the internet, I have access to my actual currencies."

Really? I'm guessing you're not from an oppressive government.

"I have zero access to bitcoin, despite having my encrypted wallet on me. If I am imprisoned, rightly or wrongly, I have zero access to both."

And yet when you come out your bitcoins will still be there, your credit cards will not.

"Not being one, I don't give a shit."

Which takes you out of that argument. Let's see if someone who is, does.

"If a merchant accepts bitcoin and wants to be paid in bitcoin because it pays no fees, it has to induce customers to use bitcoin."

No it doesn't. It can continue to conduct business with credit cards and cash like any business. But when a customer who would like to use bitcoin comes in it's just one more way to get paid. Just like Meze Grill does right now in New York. (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/the-clock-is-ticking-on-bitcoin/)

"Credit and debit systems offer protection to the consumer (and can offer other benefits to the consumer). If a merchant wants me to discard those protections and benefits for an exchange system that really only benefits the merchant, he is going to have to offer me an incentive."

And maybe he would, or maybe he'd give you a choice, that they currently do with cash vs. CC.

"accepting bitcoin is adding overhead"

No it isn't. Unless you just mean cognitively.

"For the tl;dr people.. The fact that you advocate cashing out bitcoins to currency basically immediately upon receipt is really all I need to know about the system. Bitcoin is Western Union, but cheaper and less handy."

Yes like wester union, but cheeper, more handy, and more widely available.

Well unforttunalty it seems you've devolved into a nearly indecipherable bundle of factual errors and opinion. You can certainly hold your opinion, and I wouldn't argue that. You think chargebacks are a essential feature of a monitory system, fair enough. I don't. Unsurprisingly neither do any governments I'm aware of as no national currency supports that feature. Nevertheless to each his own.

On the issue of factual errors, read up. You will be happier if you can argue your position with greater command of the facts. Learn bitcoin if only to provide intelligent and witty pronouncements of it's imminent demise.

I agree that some of the proponents of bitcoin are complete loons, but so too with apple stock. It has nothing to do with the validity of the underlying technology.