> The high-end visual effects industry that we dominated is notoriously slow to adapt to change this is patently false. They were the first to jump onboard the

> The high-end visual effects industry that we dominated is notoriously slow to adapt to change this is patently false. They were the first to jump onboard the GPU rendering bandwagon, and have been pushing cuda since it was first usable (there is of course a debate about how usable it is..) The issue with shotgun is that its really fucking powerful, but also hilariously configurable. Shotgun is there to track each shot as it goes through every stage of production. Think of it as jira, but far more integrated. Before shotgun was a thing(and f-track) people used access, or filemaker. or worse Excel. > and operates for the most part on razor-thin margins. There were billions flowing into film and episodic production every year, but there wasn’t (and likely still isn’t) an obvious opportunity to further monetise our existing customers. This is true. Unless something makes a significant impact, its out the door. Shotgun is/was expensive per seat, but allows you to cut down loads on time management. You need less production staff to run a lighting/animation/comping department. However thats a fine line. A production assistant is £25-35k, but per seat licenses of some software is £1-5k. Shotgun when it first came out was a massive behemoth. at Framestore it was running on the biggest machine we had (from memory it was a quad opteron with 64gigs of ram[might have been less]) It was ruby on rails, slow unreliable and generally a pain, BUT, it totally sped up production for desperaux.