Sunday, May 21, 2006

Three days after the Internet release of the free content 3D short Elephants Dream (see Wikinews coverage), we exchanged e-mails with Ton Roosendaal about the reaction to the film, open source filmmaking, and the changes to Blender that resulted from the production. Ton Roosendaal is the lead developer of the Blender 3D rendering and modelling software that was used for the movie. He is also the chairman of the Blender Foundation, a non-profit organization which was formed in support of the software and projects like Elephants Dream.

How much money did the Blender Foundation spend on producing the movie? Has the money been fully recouped by DVD orders and donations?

We still have to finish the final bookkeeping for this project. It has been executed in co-production with the Netherlands Media Art Institute, and we each had our own internal budgeting for the project. When you exclude expenses of pre-production and producer personnel, the total budget was about 120,000 €, of which we covered half. Our contribution was roughly covered half by the DVD sales, and half by European Union support (http://www.uni-verse.org consortium).

One of the most common criticisms of CGI films is focus on technology over content. For instance, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within flopped with audiences, in spite of being an undisputed technical milestone. I’ve seen many reviews that criticized the plot of “Elephants Dream” as too bizarre or confusing. In retrospect, are you happy with the story development process?

Haha, I knew the story and plot would get a mixed acclaim. There’s a couple of reasons I’d like to mention for it.

First of all; the criticism resembles how people witness Blender itself, too. Many people expect that Free Software is an easy accessible mass audience product. We get a lot of complaints by non-artists that they can’t get into the software easily, whilst the complexity of commercial products like Maya or Houdini is perceived as a confirmation of its “quality”. Apparently an Open Movie created similar expectations with the audience.

Luckily we also got many positive reviews of the artistic result of the movie. It is quite abstract, but definitely has many layers of information, inspiring many of the viewers to see relevant real life messages hidden here.

For this project we’ve teamed up with the Netherlands Media Art Institute, internationally renowned as a resource for video art. So for Elephants Dream, we’ve had the luxury to challenge ourselves to create real independent artistic content as well. The artists had a lot of freedom from the start; they were responsible for the concept, story and creative development of the entire movie. This has resulted in a lot of quite personal choices, based on what the artists liked to do themselves. I really cherish such an approach, it has resulted in a very motivated team working crazy hours the last months to get it all realized.

But, most importantly; the main target of our project was not only to create a 3D movie short, but to experiment with ways to improve the efficiency and quality of open source development. On this aspect only, this project was just a huge success, and the main reason for our sponsors (the DVD pre-sale) to support it. I know they might have liked a cartoonish funny movie with furry animals better, but for that you get already pretty well served by the bigger 3D animation studios. 🙂

I’m the first to admit that – looking back especially – certain aspects worked out quite weakly; there’s loose ends and questionable decisions, especially in story development and continuity. That’s just the risk of doing experiments, and nothing I regret really. The five artists from our user community who were invited to make the movie were young people with no professional background in filmmaking. Their personal incentive to participate in this project was also to learn from it, and to create a good portfolio for their future career. I’ve witnessed them grow in competence in the past year enormously, something I’m incredibly proud of.

On the technical level, the only major criticism I’ve seen of “Elephants Dream” is the character animation, especially in the opening scene — many reviewers felt that the movements seemed a bit unnatural. Do you agree with these criticisms? If so, what do you think can be done to improve on that level?

Yeah, the challenge the artists set themselves – to use quite realistic personages – is also something that easily works against you. In many animation movies they introduce characters in the beginning in a way you get used to their specific characteristic movements, so you accept a certain level of non-realism easily. (Check the weird walk cycles in The Incredibles for example). Another aspect is that we’ve started work on the first scenes, and ended with the last scenes. I can clearly see the animation quality increase, and that whilst the ending scenes were done in much less time due to time constraints.

We also didn’t schedule to do 9.5 minutes of animation either…. Originally it was more like 6. But, it’s always easier to look back to define the right decisions, eh? 🙂

I’m very happy with the reviews we got so far; luckily the movie was perceived as a professional quality product, and reviewed based on comparisons with what the big studios come up with. Even when we couldn’t satisfy all these quality demands, it has luckily not been branded as a pathetic presumptuous attempt by amateurs!

Do you think there is hope for a full-length open movie project in the near future? Would the Blender Foundation be interested in such a project, or do you intend to continue focusing mainly on shorts?

I’d like to wait a little while with defining what a next project would look like. Given the constraints of “organizing projects to improve open source development”, we might have not much choice either. It would probably mean to work with a new team each time, so most likely be based on shorts only. On the other hand, there’s also clear signals that this approach works well, and creates excitement and involvement of a lot of people, also from producers and sponsors. That might enable us to set up a next project based on larger targets. For a full-length feature film however, we should involve a sufficient amount of experienced film makers as well, and/or invite the first team to participate again. That would put a lot of pressure on the required budget…. You can’t do that based on a 1000 DVD pre-sale target. Would more be like 20,000 or so…. 🙂

How did the process of making the movie feed back into the development of Blender? Are there major technical changes that were made only or primarily because of the film?

Already during the pre-production phase the artists have defined the key targets for Blender development. This then was coordinated with the online development community too. I’ve done the most crucial (re-)development mostly myself, though. Especially on the character animation tools, on the rendering pipeline and compositing tools.

It is especially the latter I’m most satisfied with. In 3D movie production the compositing stage creates a giant content bottleneck. By transparently integrating this in our render-pipeline, a very efficient workflow has been achieved. And, not to forget, Blender now also offers the first production-level open source compositor on the market!

The current summary you can find in our work-in-progress release notes.

What are the key technical features in Blender you want to add or improve for future movie projects?

Depends on what the movie is about! There’s always hundreds of features you can work on. However, we’ll have to work on that anyway, movie project or not. There’s a lot of professionals using Blender now, and they can’t wait for the Blender Foundation to do movies! Look at this studio for example:http://www.plumiferos.com/

I read that at least one proprietary software package, Reaktor, was used for the sound effects. Is this because no equivalent free software solution exists yet? Will future projects have a “free software only” policy?

We’ve limited the “Open Source tools” requirement to our own Studio Orange only. That was what we could keep in control at least, and I can tell you it was not always easy even… 🙂

For sound and music we’ve decided from the beginning to seek an external sponsor. We have chosen to work with the best quality studio and composer we could find, preferably using open source, but not as a prerequisite.

My own competence is solely within the CG [computer graphics, Ed.] side of movie making. When it comes to music editing, or video encoding and DVD authoring, I could only decide to choose to work with external parties with proven competences in that area. I have to be practical in projects like this, especially to ensure it will be realized.

Hopefully, now we’ve got so much attention world wide, we can involve more non-CG open source next time, too. I will definitely strive for the maximum here, but it will fully depend on the amount of professional support we can get.

Blender itself was originally closed source freeware, until it was “liberated” through a fundraising campaign. If you could choose one proprietary application to “set free” where such a goal could be realistically achieved, which one would it be?

Well, the “realistically achieved” demand makes it quite difficult. 🙂 Looking back at similar cases, like Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, it was always very circumstantial. It just happens sometimes, you can’t organize something like this to happen in advance. The only common denominator is “a company in troubles”… so, who’s in trouble now?

What is your personal favorite computer-animated full-length film?

Uuuh… that differs every week! Probably Ice Age (the first one). Mostly because they didn’t overdo showcasing 3D technology so much, but created truly adorable characters and great funny gags.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

David S. Touretzky, prominent free speech activist and critic of Scientology, discussed his opinions on the recent Internet backlash against the Church of Scientology in an interview with former Scientologist and Wikinews reporter Nicholas Turnbull. The recent conflict on the Internet between critics of Scientology and the Church has been spurred on in declarations by a nebulous Internet entity using the name Anonymous that the Church of Scientology “will be destroyed”. Anonymous has directed recent protests at Scientology centres across the world, which have attracted significant numbers of individuals supporting the cause. In recent e-mail correspondence with Wikinews, a representative of the Church of Scientology declared that the Church considers the activities of Anonymous to be illegal, and that Anonymous “will be handled and stopped”.

Touretzky, a research professor in artificial intelligence and computational neuroscience at Carnegie Mellon University, has been a prominent critic of the Church of Scientology since mid-1995, and has been protesting against Scientology vociferously since then; he has also run websites that publish material that Scientology wishes to keep suppressed from the public eye, such as extracts from Scientology’s formerly-confidential Operating Thetan (OT) materials. Touretzky views the actions of the Church of Scientology as being “a threat to free speech”, and has endured harassment by the Church of Scientology for his activities.

The Church of Scientology continues to suffer damage to its public reputation through increased exposure on the Internet and vocal protests by Scientology critics such as Prof. Touretzky. A recent event that focused intense attention on Scientology’s totalitarian attitude was the leak of an internal Church of Scientology propaganda video to the Internet video sharing site YouTube, in which celebrity Scientologist Tom Cruise spoke heavily in Scientology’s jargon and stated that that “we [Scientology] are the authorities” on resolving the difficulties of humanity. The declaration of war by Anonymous followed shortly after this leak, in the form of a video posted to the Internet.

The ongoing dispute, cast by some as Scientology versus the Internet, brought Scientology terms such as “SP” (Suppressive Person, an enemy of Scientology) and “KSW” (Keeping Scientology Working) into general usage by non-Scientologists from the late 1990s onwards; increased attention has been drawn to Scientology by the release of the Cruise video in addition to media coverage. This focus has caused an even greater propagation of these terms across the outside world, as Touretzky comments in the interview.

Wikinews asked Prof. Touretzky about the impact that the activities of Anonymous will have on Scientology, the public relations effect of the Tom Cruise video, the recent departure of individuals from the Church of Scientology’s executive management, the strategies that Anonymous will employ and Touretzky’s experiences of picketing the Church.

Friday, September 13, 2013

A study in Nature Communications last month reported the University of St Andrews near Edinburgh, Scotland was briefly home to the world’s fastest spinning manmade object. Physicists accelerated a microscopic sphere of atoms to 600 million revolutions per minute; it then, according to press coverage, disintegrated. Wikinews contacted the team to learn more.

The experiment was designed to explore the boundary between conventional physics, which applies to larger objects, and quantum physics, which applies only to extremely small objects. Subatomic particles obey a very different set of rules than the items we see every day, but the behaviour of particles at just above quantum levels remains enigmatic.

The team wanted to expand upon research using single atoms or molecules, instead constructing a four-micrometre thick sphere of calcium carbonate, in a crystaline form called vaterite, in a bid to examine systems containing over a million atoms. The ball was so small it could be manipulated using lasers; light beams exert a force called radiation pressure.

With the ball held within a vacuum by a laser trap, the scientists were able to apply a twisting force through the light’s polarisation (orientation) as it passed through the ball. The vacuum eliminated air resistance so that scientists could look for evidence of quantum friction, a proposed force that slows spinning particles without external assistance.

The spinning sphere turned into a miniature gyroscope, stabilising itself. The ball cooled as it span to ?233°C (?387°F, 40 Kelvin).

The research was carried out by Dr. Yoshihiki Arita, Dr. Michael Mazilu, and Professor Kishan Dholakia. Wikinews was able to ask Mazilu some questions about his research.

((Wikinews)) What first got you interested in researching quantum friction?

Michael Mazilu: The fundamental aspect that raised our interest is the mechanism that stops an object [rotating] infinitely fast in absence of friction. Quantum friction is one possible but debatable mechanism that will ultimately limit the rotation rate. One can also imagine other interesting mechanisms and we hope that future experiments will be able to conclusively distinguish between them.

((WN)) Press coverage has focused on the fact this is the fastest spinning manmade object ever created, but the aim of the experiment was to research quantum physics. How did you end up with this unusual record — was it by accident?

MM: From the beginning we wanted to go for a very fast rotating sphere to test the limits of transfer of angular momentum of light. The motivation was to explore if we can see [if] any anomaly arose as we rotated the particle faster and faster. The hope was to develop an experimental platform that would allow testing the boundary between classical and quantum physics. That this worked better than expected was a happy accident.

((WN)) How was the sphere manufactured, and how long did it take?

MM: The spheres are produced by mixing three chemical compounds together (CaCl2, MgSO4 and K2CO3) until the mixture becomes transparent. This happens in about 5 to 10 minutes and results in birefringent spherical vaterite crystals of 4.4 micrometer in diameter.

((WN)) How long did the sphere take to reach 600 million revs per minute and break up?

MM: The whole process takes about 10–20 minutes. It all depends on how fast we evacuate the vacuum chamber. If we do it too fast we risk [losing] the micro-gyroscope from the trap. With regard to the sphere breaking up: This is a working hypothesis that we are not able to prove yet. What we observe is that the signal corresponding to the rotating sphere disappears at 600 million RPM. We need further measures to verify if the sphere breaks up or if its motion is perturbed and it escapes in some slingshot or other motion.

((WN)) Could the high speeds attained be taken as evidence against quantum friction, as the sphere simply kept getting faster until it broke apart?

MM: This is a very interesting question. The particle keeps getting faster and faster until the signal disappears, however, just before this happens we observe that the slope of the acceleration changes. This could be seen as a signature of “quantum friction” but we need to look more closely. Alternatively, it might be a consequence of the sphere deforming at such high rotation rates.

((WN)) The experiment failed to conclusively prove quantum friction, but did it provide any evidence to support the theory?

MM: The main goal of the experiment was not to prove or disprove quantum friction but to develop a tool that might be useful to carry out these studies in the near future. Though the micro-gyroscope that we studied sounds like a simple system its behaviour and interaction with the laser beam is very complex. In order to use this experiment to prove or disprove quantum friction it is first necessary to completely understand and model its complex behaviour. We need therefore more extensive experimental studies and more precise simulations.

((WN)) How challenging is research of this sort? What kind of difficulties are encountered?

MM: One of the challenges in this experiment is that it brings together many different parts of physics such as vacuum science, optical micro-manipulation, thermodynamics and potentially quantum mechanics. The main difficulty experimentally and theoretically is to combine all these fields simultaneously and make them work together to create a “clean” system that can test ‘friction’ or other theories.

((WN)) Previous research on the boundary between conventional and quantum physics has used atoms and individual molecules. Why was a sphere in excess of a million atoms appropriate for this experiment? Would that not move further away, rather than closer to, the boundary between the two?

MM: Quantum physics should not just be the remit of the world of atoms or molecules but should apply at all scales in some way. One of the main drives in present quantum technology is to create what is called mesoscopic or macroscopic quantum states, that is quantum states that can be see in a microscope. It is in the hope to achieve this that we chose to work with the micrometer sized vaterite crystals. The other reason for the size of the sphere is that we experimentally found that smaller spheres are presently more difficult to levitate.

((WN)) How likely is this result to be an anomaly? Might a similar ball break up more quickly, or be unable to spin as fast?

MM: With respect to the sphere break-up, these are interesting questions. One can expect that, depending on the mechanical failure property of the sphere, it would breakup sooner or later. Optically, we can make the sphere rotate at any speeds smaller than the maximum speed. So it would be very interesting to fabricate a series of spheres that have same optical properties but different mechanical failure points.

((WN)) Where would you like to see the research go next? More spheres?

MM: Indeed, two or more spheres would bring an additional degree of freedom to the experiments that would allow the study of the rotation rate as a function of the distance between them. Some theoretical predictions suggest that quantum friction effects might be enhanced in this case.

((WN)) If confirmed, what applications might quantum friction have?

MM: It is relatively easy to dream up applications for an effect that has not been observed yet! In general, friction dissipates energy and is seen as a detrimental effect. However, there are applications that use friction in a useful way. Indeed, velocity dependent friction could also be used to slow down microscopic objects to the point where these objects would reach what is called the quantum ground state for their centre of mass. Creating these states on demand would bring quantum technology a step closer and might lead us to “couple” quantum mechanically [macroscopic] objects — a phenomenon more accurately termed entanglement.

((WN)) One follow-up question for publication: You said you found smaller spheres more difficult to levitate. Why is that?

MM: I have double checked the sphere size problem. While it might be more difficult to use smaller sphere in the experiment due to the trapping geometry, as it turns out this was a sphere synthesis problem. With our present method we were not able [to synthesise] smaller spheres.

Friday, July 23, 2021

With five active cases of the Delta variant of COVID-19, South Australia begun a one-week lockdown on Monday. Announcing the lockdown, state Premier Steven Marshall declared “we have no alternative but to impose some fairly heavy and immediate restrictions”.

The first case out of South Australia’s active cases was presented to Modbury Hospital on Sunday night, having returned from Argentina earlier this month. The fifth, which Premier Marshall noted as “far more worrying”, visited The Greek on Halifax restaurant at the same time as someone who was later confirmed to be carrying the virus. Chief Public Health Officer for the state Nicola Spurrier said “if anyone has been at The Greek on Halifax they need to get into quarantine and get tested”.

In accordance with new regulations, there are only five reasons for South Australians to leave home: essential work, shopping for essential goods such as food, exercise, but only with people from the same household and within 2.5 kilometers (2 mi) of home, medical reasons (which includes testing and vaccination against the coronavirus, but excludes elective and cosmetic surgery), and caregiving.

Schools have closed for all but children of essential workers, with online learning having begun on Thursday. Face masks are also be mandated for those who leave home. ABC News reported that “support for businesses is expected to be announced…”, with all non-essential retail required to close under the new regulations.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Russ Aegard is running for the Green Party of Ontario in the Ontario provincial election, in the Thunder Bay-Atikokan riding. Wikinews’ Nick Moreau interviewed him regarding his values, his experience, and his campaign.

Stay tuned for further interviews; every candidate from every party is eligible, and will be contacted. Expect interviews from Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party members, Ontario Greens, as well as members from the Family Coalition, Freedom, Communist, Libertarian, and Confederation of Regions parties, as well as independents.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

War protestor Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen soldier Casey Sheehan who was killed in Iraq 3 years ago, wrote on what has been published by the Daily Kos as a personal web journal on Monday morning, a day in observance of Memorial Day in the United States, that “This is my resignation letter as the ‘face’ of the American anti-war movement.”

Her son Casey would have been 28 years old Tuesday. In what she writes are meditations upon developments in Sheehan’s life after she began a war protest that led her and a following of people to Camp Casey, beside the Texas ranch of President Bush in August 2005, included the notion that, “The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think.”

In the text of Sheehan’s diary she is unable to reconcile herself with the Democratic Party that on Thursday, May 24, succumbed to the Bush administration on language for a troop funding bill that at one time tied funding to a time limit for U.S. involvement in Iraq. The presidential veto of that legislation to set a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq resulted in the U.S. Congress caving to executive branch over the issue of war funding, and may have been the final straw for Sheehan.

“I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike,” wrote Sheehan.

Sheehan said that she has spent every bit of money that she has received as compensation for the loss of her son from the U.S. government, and as a person who garnished speaking fees from the national attention on her campaign against the Iraq war, on trying to bring peace.

“I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost,” wrote Sheehan.