Matador

3D/2D CGI and the tools used in their creation (Maya, Photoshop, Blender, GIMP, etc.).
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.
creepingfur
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:40 pm
Location: NorCal
Contact:

Matador

Unread postby creepingfur » Tue May 25, 2010 1:39 pm

So I was doing some work at a couple fairly well know post production and effects companies down in the LA area (Sorry can't reveal names), both who at one time big SGI customers (but are pretty much all Linux and Mac theses days) and came across a hand full of Octane2 boxes in each of their data centers.

My curiosity got the best of me and I asked what these systems where used for. It turns out, at both sites, all the Octane2's are used for Matador.

It seems that some of their TDs and Artists consider Matador still the best tool to use for certain scenes, even in current motion pictures and television projects (one mentioned was G.I. Joe).

Just goes to show the legs SGI boxes and that there isn't always a modern replacement for good software. It made my week.

User avatar
Bill622
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:47 am
Location: Sherbrooke, QC
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby Bill622 » Wed May 26, 2010 4:54 am

Excuse my ignorance but: what is Matador ?

Even if I don't it, it's interesting to know that old SGI hardware is still in production. I guess they'll use their Octane2 until the end of support of Irix, well probably beyond that...

Very interesting thread.
Strangly, girls talks to me when I walk with my O2?!
Image R12k @ 300MHz, 384Mb Ram

User avatar
recondas
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: NC - USA

Re: Matador

Unread postby recondas » Wed May 26, 2010 5:24 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avid_Matador
The Wikipedia wrote:Avid Matador was a paint application by Avid Technology targeted at the television and film markets. It ran on Silicon Graphics workstations. The main features were paint, mask creation/rotoscoping, animation and stabilization/tracking. Matador was used on several films, such as Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump and The Mask.
***********************************************************************
Welcome to ARMLand - 0/0x0d00
running...(sherwood-root 0607201829)
* InfiniteReality/Reality Software, IRIX 6.5 Release *
***********************************************************************

User avatar
Geoman
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 3:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby Geoman » Thu May 27, 2010 3:40 am

cool!

Image
:Octane2: 2xR12000 400MHz, 4GB RAM, V12
SGI - the legend will never die!!

User avatar
SiliconClassics
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby SiliconClassics » Thu May 27, 2010 8:11 am

I've never used Matador in production, but I have toyed around with it. It has a very unique interface - reminds me of 3D Studio for DOS. There's a full-size screenshot in my gallery section.

hamei
Posts: 10101
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: Matador

Unread postby hamei » Thu May 27, 2010 11:19 am

Runs fine on Fuel, by the way. There was a free download at one time, I think. Details in the sgi newsgroups archives.

User avatar
BoneheadFX
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby BoneheadFX » Fri May 28, 2010 9:26 am

I have Matador on one of my O2's and it works fine. Great paint program.
:O2: :O2: :O2: = Mooseheads!

User avatar
foetz
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5863
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby foetz » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:50 am

eMGee wrote:Elastic Reality is also a very powerful Avid application, I believe it was more or less ‘bundled’ with Matador and/or Media Illusion.


for some time you could get all of it on the softimage site. no lic tho iirc
r-a-c.de

creepingfur
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:40 pm
Location: NorCal
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby creepingfur » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm

Elastic Reality is the odd duck of the Avid apps.

It started as an Amiga app that then evolved into a Mac, then a Mac/Windows app, then a Mac/Windows/IRIX app. The functionality is exactly the same though the SGI version can load a LOT larger data sets (128MB of RAM was all a mac of the era could handle). UI wise, they are all pretty similar. I think I still have an old Mac copy.

I would love to see someone recreate Matador on a modern platform like OS X..

hamei
Posts: 10101
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: Matador

Unread postby hamei » Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:23 pm

creepingfur wrote:I would love to see someone recreate Matador on a modern platform like OS X..

What makes OS X a "modern platform" ? And why would you want to recreate something from the 1870's on a "modern platform" if modernity is such an advantage ?

Just curious.

User avatar
bri3d
Posts: 669
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:08 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Re: Matador

Unread postby bri3d » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:46 pm

hamei wrote:
creepingfur wrote:I would love to see someone recreate Matador on a modern platform like OS X..

What makes OS X a "modern platform" ? And why would you want to recreate something from the 1870's on a "modern platform" if modernity is such an advantage ?

Just curious.


Nice, I'll bite, because this one is obvious.

What makes OS X a "modern platform" compared to IRIX is active development and support for hardware sold after 2006. The technical merits of any OS are up for debate - but the fact that IRIX doesn't run on any new hardware and probably never will return makes it no longer a "modern platform."

And that's why you'd recreate something on a "modern platform" - to take advantage of the speed and power of new hardware. Plus, while you were at it "recreating," the software would probably emerge from the "1870s" you speak of with modern features as well, possibly by accident (for example support for more modern container, compression, and interchange formats).

At any rate, Matador is an awesome app that I'd love to see stick around in some form or another.

User avatar
skywriter
Posts: 3104
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:22 am
Location: living in a linux-blunderland
Contact:

Re: Matador

Unread postby skywriter » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:47 pm

hamei wrote:
Just curious.


the age of the platform is irrelevant, that fact that you can get modern software for it is.
:Skywriter:

DECUS Member 368596

hamei
Posts: 10101
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: Matador

Unread postby hamei » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:58 am

bri3d wrote:Nice, I'll bite, because this one is obvious.

I probably phrased that poorly. I'm wondering why anyone would want to "recreate" a DOS or Amiga program on a "modern" platform. It's an antique program in an antique paradigm. If modern is so great, then why long for an antique ? Modern is better, right ? Then make a modern program with all the wonderful advances we've seen in software over the past twenty years. I'm sure there must be some. Somewhere.

What makes OS X a "modern platform" compared to IRIX is active development and support for hardware sold after 2006.

So the fact that it's actually NeXTStep, introduced in 1990, with pretty icons poured over the top, that has nothing to do with it. I see now. I believe Novell DOS 7 is actively developed and runs fine on new hardware, too. That makes it modern ? If I take a VW bug and slap a fibreglass Ferrari body on top, then it's a supercar ? Groovy, man, groovy.

The technical merits of any OS are up for debate - but the fact that IRIX doesn't run on any new hardware and probably never will return makes it no longer a "modern platform."

Most likely correct. To which the answer has to be "Then who gives a rat's ass ?" I refer you to Eliyahu Goldratt, The Goal : "what's the effing point ?" Are we all mostly interested in playing with our peepees or is the hardware / software combination actually supposed to do something useful ? If we have people reminiscing over twenty year old software then obviously someone, somewhere has been missing the point for a long long time.

Or maybe that is the real point : they collect a lot of money which we happily hand over for the privilege of saying "My peepee is 4 ghz, yours is only 3.2 , ha ha ha !" That's so productive. I'm really glad we're an information and service society now.

And that's why you'd recreate something on a "modern platform" - to take advantage of the speed and power of new hardware. Plus, while you were at it "recreating," the software would probably emerge from the "1870s" you speak of with modern features as well, possibly by accident (for example support for more modern container, compression, and interchange formats).

You mean, something along the lines of multiple threads and processes, to take advantage of all these dual-core cpu's that are so popular now ? yeah, that'd be nice, wouldn't it ? There's only been common smp operating systems and hardware available for fifteen goddamned years. Maybe in another twenty the software idiots will actually get "modern" and take advantage of the "modern' hardware.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

What I would bet is that the useless software companies we have (yes, Adobe, you get to go to the front of the line) will continue to merrily produce absolute crap and the morons who happily buy it will continue to do so because hey now ! it's modern !

Software is shit. The people who produce that crap should be put to sleep.

skywriter wrote:the age of the platform is irrelevant, that fact that you can get modern software for it is.

Such as Fireflop, the "modern" browser that locks up the interface if you breathe hard, CS 4 "Creative Suite" with its wonderful modern interface and superlative programming that could bring Blue Gene to her knees but can't even save as pdf, Acrobat Reader for PORTABLE document format that is twelve versions outdated on anything but Winshit XP, Flash (sooo useful, improves my life immeasurably being forced to watch third-graders' artwork) ...

Yeah. Modern software. I feel so deprived having to run this lousy outdated Irix stuff ... Oh, wait ! I don't have to ! For a buck I can get any piece of software made -- but it's not worth the trouble to take it off the shelf because it's crap !

(I'm not entirely kidding. I have boxes full of this garbage that's not even worth the trouble to install. It's like buying an Andy Warhol poster of a soup can. Get it home, stick it on the wall, then what ? Whoopee. Junk, junk, more junk. )

User avatar
jan-jaap
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:35 am
Location: Wijchen, The Netherlands

Re: Matador

Unread postby jan-jaap » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:22 am

hamei wrote:If I take a VW bug and slap a fibreglass Ferrari body on top, then it's a supercar ?

Hey! I have a VW Beetle :D One day I'm going upgrade it with a Porsche 911 engine. Better upgrade the suspension too :oops:

I tried to move a Crimson in it once. That didn't fit, or at least not without removing a front seat (like a Mexican taxi :lol: )
Now this is a deep dark secret, so everybody keep it quiet :)
It turns out that when reset, the WD33C93 defaults to a SCSI ID of 0, and it was simpler to leave it that way... -- Dave Olson, in comp.sys.sgi

Currently in commercial service: Image :Onyx2:(2x) :O3x02L:
In the museum: almost every MIPS/IRIX system.
Wanted: GM1 board for Professional Series GT graphics (030-0076-003, 030-0076-004)

hamei
Posts: 10101
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: Matador

Unread postby hamei » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:17 am

jan-jaap wrote:Hey! I have a VW Beetle :D One day I'm going upgrade it with a Porsche 911 engine.

Isn't that called a 914 ?

(like a Mexican taxi :lol: )

Should have seen me moving ... two electric tricycles piled ten feet high. Then the poor bastards had to carry a gdm90w11 up seven floors :shock: It died up there ... still there, I think. Probably won't come down until the next earthquake :D


Return to “SGI: Computer Graphics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest