Blender's Open Movie Project

MrAndrews writes "I just read on the Blender home page that Ton Roosendaal is going to be creating an open movie project called "Orange", which should kick off development sometime in the fall: "The Blender Foundation and the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/Time Based Arts, have agreed on producing a 3D Animated Movie Short, to be created with the Open Source 3D suite Blender and other OS tools such as Yafray, Python, Verse, Gimp, and Cinepaint." Moreover: "... the resulting movie - including all the production files and software - will be published under an open public license." Open source entertainment is another step closer to reality!"

Comments

Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Open Porn for all!

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Talinth]

Would you really want to watch porn created by people who aren't paid for it? Personally, naked bodies of overweight geeks do nothing for me sexually.

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Talinth]

Seriously though, I doubt something like this is little more than a fad. The only way for it to make it would be through massive amounts of advertising.

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Open Porn for all!

Dude, if you are paying for your porn, you're a luser.

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, naked bodies of overweight geeks do nothing for me sexually.

Your new here, right?

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[neongrey]

There's porn that isn't free?

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, guys... do a firefox on it and start contributing money to screen trailers for it in prime time slots.

Or just STFU about it and carry on being apathetic (because if the masses knew about Open Source then every tom, dick and harry would be using the stuff which you use and you would no longer be able to feel superior and look down on them).

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

You asked for it... http://www.autopr0n.net/

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

My new here what? Perhaps you've been the victim of yet another Schrodinger's Apostrophe?

Re:Will FOP be soon behind?

[KeithIrwin]

Already in progress here:
http://boards.thethrillhammer.com/cgi-bin/forum/ve nture.cgi?board=OSP

Being dicussed here:
http://www.shouldexist.org/story/2004/3/1/8946/319 04

And there was a place for it here:
http://opensourcepron.net/
But registration doesn't appear to work.

Keith

Trying to understand the point

[Dancin_Santa]

I'm not sold on Open Source entertainment. I have my tastes, you have yours. I doubt that you'd appreciate my imposing my creative vision on your work, and I know that I would resist your attempts to impose upon mine. Collaboration in creativity leads to such wonderful dreck as sitcoms and "dramedys". Just say no.

What I suppose is interesting about this is that the final product will be open and available for others to use. Free from copyright, so to speak. It seems like a nice idea, much like Creative Commons, but it doesn't seem like some really huge step forward in any respect.

The complete open-sourcing of the toolset would be cool (Blender and a few others are already open).

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Beolach]

So make a fork. If you disagree with the direction something is going, and that something is Open Source, you can take what you do like, and leave what you don't. If you're the original creator, and you don't want people doing that, then don't use a Open Source license. Since these people are using an Open Source license, I doubt they would mind if you made a fork of their movie.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Beolach]

What I suppose is interesting about this is that the final product will be open and available for others to use. Free from copyright, so to speak. It seems like a nice idea, much like Creative Commons, but it doesn't seem like some really huge step forward in any respect.

Sorry for the double reply, but this is a common misconception that I forgot to mention in my other post. Open Source does not mean free from copyright. Many Open Source licenses have stipulations on what you are required to do in order the use the licensed material in a certain way - for example, the GPL states that if you make any derivitive works, those derivitive works must also be licensed under the GPL. It is only because the material licensed under the GPL is protected by copyright that the GPL can make this stipulation. If the material was not protected by copyright (in the public domain), then anyone could use it in any way they wanted, without abiding by any stipulations of any license agreement.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[sgant]

Then again, collaboration also leads to great things too. You can't lump everything into one basket and say "it will suck, without question, because of this".

Don't like how something is going? You yourself can lead it in another direction if you wish. I don't know how many times I've watched a movie lately and said to myself "wow, this really needs to be edited more". Case in point is Revenge of the Sith...there are a few things in there I would slice out to make it a better movie. One would be to take out the Frankenstein moment at the end with Darth Vader learning about killing his wife....take out the "NOOOOOO". I mean, that was just bad. SNIP SNIP...that's gone. Also take out the "She's lost the will to live" bullshit.

And being able to edit a movie could lead to better understanding of just what movie makers face with pacing and story telling.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[natrius]

I'm not sold on Open Source entertainment. I have my tastes, you have yours. I doubt that you'd appreciate my imposing my creative vision on your work, and I know that I would resist your attempts to impose upon mine. Collaboration in creativity leads to such wonderful dreck as sitcoms and "dramedys". Just say no.

I agree. Stories aren't things that can be put together piecemeal, and generally don't adapt well to the traditional open source paradigm. However, there are other ways that Free thinking can help this type of creative project.

There are some aspects of these projects that can be done piecemeal. Films typically have soundtracks, and most filmmakers aren't composers/singers/musicians as well. With shared work out there, filmmakers can build on top of the music that other people have put out there.

Taking video clips from a shared work can be useful as well. In many typical dramas and sitcoms, they show a little clip of the city the story is taking place in or a shot of the skyline. Most people don't have the resources to do that sort of thing, but if a video that incorporates such a clip has been shared, another creator can make there work better by leveraging off of work that has already been done.

The traditional open source methodology seems to be the focus of this article, however it seems that they have a core group working on the creative concept, though they say that others from the community will be involved as well. The collaboration of many people on the technical aspects of the film will work fabulously, but there are some things that just don't lend themselves to that way of working, and I think they realize that. I think the main benefit from shared crative works is being able to reuse bits of that content that suit new works, not the way people put them together. People have collaborated on creative works for a long time. The new development is that the product of that work will be able to be built upon by others.

I actually have a research project on this topic that I should be working on instead of reading Slashdot.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[QuantumG]

There'd be nothing left of ROTS. On the other hand, I thought the film The Village would have been 100% better if they'd cut the early scene that reveals the "twist" of the film. You could actually have enjoyed the movie as a horror flick, the whole time thinking "man this is a cheap production" and then when the twist hits you could see that it wasn't a horror at all. In fact, I'd like to get that movie out on DVD and just press "skip" at the appropriate place for someone who has never seen the film.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[arose]

Stories aren't things that can be put together piecemeal, and generally don't adapt well to the traditional open source paradigm.

Ever heard of folklore?

Re:Trying to understand the point

[westlake]

Ever heard of folklore?

A good storyteller makes the story his own. You will never hear a genuine folk tale told twice the same way, nothing is set in stone, or feels as if it has been written-by-committee.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[arose]

Is everything with an open license is written-by-committee? If that isn't your point what is?

Re:Trying to understand the point

[hachete]

It's my understanding that most - no, all - US entertainment shows are written under a collaborative process. Including X-Files, Buffy, Friends, Seinfeld etc. All movies employ teams of writers, either consecutively or together. The UK has a tradition of lone writers however the series tend to be short-lived and not as successful. So come on already, enough of the lone creative genius. Genius schmenius. Huh!

Of course successful programs fall off towards the end. THey all do. That's why they're dropped

Re:Trying to understand the point

[MrAndrews]

I've been mulling this whole open entertainment concept for a few years now, and what you said was what I always came back to: too many directors and you get a big mess.

The key, I think, is not that anyone can or should be in charge of changing the script, but that anyone can contribute to the final product. How many developers have commit access for the Linux kernel? How many can suggest changes and have them integrated if they're good? How many can fork the entire codebase at any given time to focus on a version they want to see developed?

Most video entertainment is written by at least two people anyway (writer and story editor), but the real difference in open entertainment is that anyone can freely (in both senses) adapt what they do. And not just in the same context, but as branches from the main work... using a short throwaway scene from Attack of the Clones as your base, you could write an entire series about the adventures of some long-forgotten character, and not worry about a lawsuit from Lucasfilm.

Open source methodology actually fits amazingly well when you think about the limitations we already impose on the software side of things, and figure out their equivalents in entertainment.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Patoski]

I agree. Stories aren't things that can be put together piecemeal, and generally don't adapt well to the traditional open source paradigm.

With your post you have complete ignored any literary work created more than two hundred years ago, which includes some of the finest examples of western literature. The list looks a little something like this: William Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Beowulf, any western folk tale / legend / myth / fable you can think of. All of these works were the result of someone taking a story, modifying it and / or combining it with other stories to create a "new" story. All of these great works benefited from a large creative commons that these storytellers could "borrow" from. It is only a very recent phenomenon where artists are walled off from one another's ideas and words and are forced largely to their own devices. We, as a society, have sadly bought into the notion that literature is a pursuit that can only be handled by one person of a very small group of people, mostly in the name of personal and corporate riches.

Don't you think it is a sad commentary on our society that if William Shakespeare were alive and writing today he would be labeled a plagiarist? William Shakespeare, perhaps the greatest playwright in the history of the western world would be an anathema in literary circles today.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Crosma]

It's my understanding that most - no, all - US entertainment shows are written under a collaborative process. Including X-Files, Buffy, Friends, Seinfeld etc.

This is only because they have so many episodes. A series of X-Files is 18 hours of material. Even the most dedicated writer could not work at the required pace or under that kind of pressure.

All movies employ teams of writers, either consecutively or together.

Some movies do the consecutive thing, and only in Hollywood. If you're making an action-blockbuster-extravaganza then there's little creative vision. So, if you're making Crimson Tide and the script is a little light on humour then you hire the likes of Quentin Tarantino to give it a spit-shine. However, if you're making Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, additional writers will muddy the script and the project will lose sight of its original focus.

The UK has a tradition of lone writers however the series tend to be short-lived and not as successful.

British TV series are usually short-lived by choice, especially if you're referring to the BBC. If the original writers want to move on, that's the end.

Whether they're less successful is up for debate, but British TV tends to be more, how shall I put this... streamlined. X-Files, for example, has a plot that literally doesn't make any sense whatsoever and Friends' humour is an inconsistent mess of non-jokes said as if they're jokes ("That's the power of suggestion... GOAL!", to quote Harry Hill).

So come on already, enough of the lone creative genius. Genius schmenius. Huh!

It really depends on what you're aiming for. The Simpsons is a joke (as opposed to a show that tells jokes) because of its writers. The good writers moved on ten years ago, but the writing staff still remains. Any vision or style has been lost in the mist of weak self-parody coming from writers who have their own (misguided) opinions.

David X. Cohen described this phenomenon well on the Futurama audio commentaries (yes, I am that much of a geek). If you've got a writing staff, the temptation is to work for many man-hours on every line so that every line is hilariously funny.

Although Cohen thinks this is a good thing, it's left some embarrassingly weak attempts at humour in their scripts, as lines that can't possibly be funny try their damndest. I love Futurama, but almost every other line makes me think, "Who thought THAT would be funny?" Pretty much every American sit-com has this problem.

Of course successful programs fall off towards the end. THey all do. That's why they're dropped

Towards the end being: a few series from the end. It usually takes a while for the crappiness to sink in.

I guess my point is that the lone-creative-genius method is the only way to write a powerful focused piece of art, while a group will produce something less interesting and innovative but possibly more enjoyable.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[beholder]

There is another aspect of the open content that you seem to have missed that is very interesting in my point of view.

To quote from the proposed DVD shipping list:
- All the digital files (Open Content) and software (GPL) as used for the animation production

This means a budding animator/rigger/director can take this and examine exactly how everything fits together and what happens if/when it is modified.

The educational aspect of this (if they do release everything) will be unbelievable.

And of course the fact that in production of that movie they will drive Blender's development to add the missing/confusing features is a great side-benefits.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Maxo-Texas]

Every television show, movie, video game or play that is not a "one man show" is a collaboration.

The fact that any 3d models will be free is huge. As the cost of producing entertainment grows lower- the powers that be have to be seriously concerned about their future profits.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sold on Open Source entertainment. I have my tastes, you have yours. I doubt that you'd appreciate my imposing my creative vision on your work, and I know that I would resist your attempts to impose upon mine. Collaboration in creativity leads to such wonderful dreck as sitcoms and "dramedys". Just say no.

You make a very valid point here. But, in this case, there will be a very clear creative direction. About 6 people (the 'core team') will be working closely together for 6 months (with defined responsabilities). The 'web team' will probably be able to give suggestions, but the core team will come up with the original plan and make the decisions. It is likely that not even all the material will be public during these 6 months.

So the result will be completely open, but that doesn't mean anyone can just alter anything they like during production. Besides, Ton Roosendaal has been the head of a large animation studio (Neogeo) for years, so i'm sure it will all work out fine.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[endoplasmicMessenger]

I think you're completely missing the point. Does anyone remember Phantom Edit, the edited version of Phantom Menace that tried to make it tolerable? Now, Phantom Edit was probably boarderline legal. With open source media, raw materials will be created that will be accessible to anyone who wants to build upon it. So if you don't like the version that was created, you can start with that and create something that you like. I'm sure that with open media, there will be a lot more forking. But that, I think, is a good thing. The whole point is that a new collaberative, forkable method of media creation is being explored. And this, I'm sure, will have new and surprising benefits for everyone

Re:Trying to understand the point

[PsiPsiStar]

What I want is open source creation of resources. Sharing 3D models, for example. Public domain music for the soundtrack, etc.

Heck, look at all the free advertising that anime gets via AMVs.

It'd be nice if you could buy an extra DVD of film footage with the actors walking in front of blue screens before the background was put in. Or a Golem skeleton that you could attach your own 3D model to and re-render the scene for a video.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[MrAndrews]

I am working on a project that aims to better co-ordinate that kind of idea... pulling together ideas and art at various stages of development, making them searchable, retaining credit and license information, and helping people find the other parts of the puzzle they need to get their idea off the ground. This Blender thing goes in a slightly different direction, but the end result should be close to the same: giving people more tools and resources to do cool stuff.

If anyone has any time for PHP goodness, I could use some more assistance (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/cpvs), and for a preview of what I'm planning on beta-testing with (and releasing all my pre-existing assets from), check http://www.dustrunners.com/.

Okay, done now.

</shameless plug>

Re:Trying to understand the point

[ultranova]

I doubt that you'd appreciate my imposing my creative vision on your work, and I know that I would resist your attempts to impose upon mine.

This statement shows that you have misunderstood the idea of OS style development. Namely, you have missed that:

1. I cannot impose anything on your work; you are free to fork the project and do whatever you want with it. You are even free to only fork the part that you disagree with (say, one scene) and keep everything else in synch (3D models, backgrounds, other scenes...), thereby benefiting from my work in these without any obligation to obey my will. Of course the reverse is also true - I'm free to take any improvements you've made and merge them into my version of the movie.
2. Making a movie is a huge undertaking, even for experienced moviemakers. If you're just starting and working by yourself, you need to learn programs (3D modelers) whose learning curves make even the Mountains of Madness seem flat and unthreatening in comparison, be a natural composer, director and scriptwriter - and don't forget that working with lights and cameras is an art in itself.

Even a small movie is likely to require at least two human models, several props, at least one locale, some music and sound effects. Making these all is simply too much for a single human being. On the other hand, if there was a library of content available under GNU license (for example), you would be faced with a lot simpler task of modifying it to suit your purposes, especially if there was a program specifically designed for this purpose (as opposed to general-purpose 3D modelers).

In short: if you have to make everything yourself, you have a lot to do. But if you can use content created by others, things will become significantly easier.

That's what's needed here - content library and specialized tools for managing (think about package managers - "human hand depends on package human skin texture") and customizing (let's age this face a little with a single control - the face package itself will contain the neccessary morphing information) it.

Oh, and the program which is used to direct the scene should be a different program than the one who's used to create the 3D models, the one that's used to create the textures, the one that's used to connect bones to models, the one that's used to program behaviour of models (you want to be able to say "this model walks here, this one follows with its eyes and looks angry" when directing the scene instead of having to move each joint independently) and the one that's used to actually render the scene - not to mention the programs that are used to put scenes together, add in soundtrack and compress the final movie. Put all this into a single gargantuan program, as is the trend now, and the end result is obviously going to be horrible to use, simply because there's too many buttons to memorize fast. The first sentence of this paragraph is hopefully a good enough example of similar effect ;).

Re:Trying to understand the point

[poot_rootbeer]

Films typically have soundtracks, and most filmmakers aren't composers/singers/musicians as well. With shared work out there, filmmakers can build on top of the music that other people have put out there.

Where's the reciprocity?

What benefit does a musician get when his or her music is incorporated into someone else's film?

Re:Trying to understand the point

[MrAndrews]

I've been working on a theory like this, and my feeling is that there needs to be some kind of credit system implemented as a standard, where each addition along the chain adds a "point" for the contributor... so if recorded lyrics that ended up in a totally different song, and that song ended up in a movie, you'd be getting a share of the profits based on what the weight of the lyrics was. THAT's where the trouble is, tho: determining relative weights to such a diverse array of contributions.

We have the technology available to keep track of things like this, so it's just a question of defining and implementing it. (any takers? no? :)

Re:Trying to understand the point

[speedbump]

Movies projects are by nature collaborative efforts. What interests me about this effort is that the final content will be open source, and the workflow utilized to produce the movie are in the open source mode.

I'm a line producer/director in a project in which 8 teams around North America each make a 10 minute segment, which is woven into a final feature-length movie, which will be shown in theaters and also made available on DVD. It started out as a lark among fans of the Panasonic DVX100 camera, but has taken on a life of its own.

While we are using a few open source tools (such as Open Office) to support the production, most of the software is commercial stuff. However, most of the filmmakers have never met each other, and will not do so until premiere day. We use the internet for collaboration just like an open source project.

Will the movie be dreck? Maybe, but from what I have seen so far from the other teams, it might just turn out to be quite entertaining. A lot of hollywood people are following the project closely, because a successful product would have implications for higher-budgeted films.

Keep your eyes open for http://twomoretomorrows.org/

Re:Trying to understand the point

[coopex]

>In fact, I'd like to get that movie out on DVD and just press "skip" at the appropriate place for someone who has never seen the film.

Well, hey, you could do someone who's never seen it a favor, and rip/download it, and edit it how you think it should be. I for one, would welcome our better edited pirated film overloards.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, dickhead, for giving a spoiler alert.

Stupid cunt.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the closing credits to the TV show "Smallville" sometime.

Re:Trying to understand the point

[some guy I know]

lines that can't possibly be funny try their damndest. I love Futurama, but almost every other line makes me think, "Who thought THAT would be funny?" Pretty much every American sit-com has this problem.

This is why many British sitcoms are much better than similar Aerican ones; they don't try to maximize laughs/minute.
I would hate to see Americanizations of shows such as "As Time Goes By" or "The Good Neighbors".
Even their wackier shows, like "Are you Being Served?" or "Keeping Up Appearances" would probably not survive Americanization.
And when British comedies have tried to maximize laughs/minute, invariably, the jokes fail half the time (even in classics like "Monty Python's Flying Circus (Remember "Confuse a Cat" or "The Gas Cooker Sketch"? Ick.)).

What's it about?

[Beolach]

I can't find any details on a plot or anything. I did find on their site that the script has not yet been written. Have they even decided what the movie is going to be about?

Re:What's it about?

[nacturation]

Ever play that game as a kid where you go around in a circle and you make a sentence by each kid adding one word? It's just like that, only with animation.

Re:What's it about?

[skribe]

Since when has porn needed a plot? =)

Re:What's it about?

[Beolach]

Good lord, I hope it's more coherent than those stories tend to be....

Re:What's it about?

[Adrilla]

I bet it has something to do with a penguin!

Your missing the point though

[youlikemonkeytennis]

Anything which advertises what you can achieve with Open Source software to the masses can only be good. Hopefully this short will become popular and will not become just something else which only the geek masses know about. It would be nice to be able to play around with this however when they release the source.

Re:Your missing the point though

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it sucks. Which of course, it will.

My Suggestion

[QuantumG]

Don't offer a prize. Offer a nice big advertisement on the front page of blender.org pointing to where the work can be downloaded and linking to the home page of the group that creates it, but don't offer a monetary prize. Why? Because when you offer a prize everything becomes an economic rationalisation. "Ok, the prize money is $10,000, that means I can work 100 hours on this thing and I shouldn't try to get others to help me cause then I'd have to give them a cut." People will always work more for kudos than prizes. Even if you offer to give kudos and a prize, people will think entirely in terms of the monetary value of that prize.

Re:My Suggestion

[Alberic]

People will always work more for kudos than prizes. Even if you offer to give kudos and a prize, people will think entirely in terms of the monetary value of that prize.

Now, if you do offer kudos, they'll first have to convert it to money-equivalent value...
It is the first thing I thought reading your post : "Hey, how much is that worth, an ad on Blender.org ?"

How about Weta or Pixar?

[pjbass]

As far as I recall, doesn't Weta and Pixar use Linux for their OS in the render pools? I concede that LOTR certainly didn't open-source the artwork, nor did Nemo et. al, but how much closer to open-source entertainment are we with this? Do I get to see the movie for free (small donation optional)? I'd go see it if I got my Sour Patch Kids for free I suppose...

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[ciroknight]

This is beyond just using Linux on servers; this is an entire movie made using only open source tools.

Honestly I don't see the point. Who cares if the data is created with Open or Closed source tools, just as long as the resultant data is worth the resources their spending on it, at least that's my opinion about it all. I guess to those in the project, it simply proves the tools are "good enough", and that it can be done, if anyone was suicidal enough to attempt it.

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting as a proof of concept. I'd love to see if they make their musicians use only open-source tools. Unless they plan doing it the old fashioned way (write a score, get a bunch of people to play it live) there's not a lot of options. Rosegarden isn't up to scratch, and even if it was there's a massive shortage of decent virtual instruments.

Trying to do a score in Ardour/Rosegarden vs. say Nuendo or Sonar would be extremely painful.

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[LetterRip]

[QUOTE]I guess to those in the project, it simply proves the tools are "good enough", and that it can be done, if anyone was suicidal enough to attempt it.[/QUOTE]

Part of it is to prove that the tools are 'good enough' and to show off to the world that they are good enough. Part of it is the fun and the challenge.

Not sure why you think it would be 'suicidal' to attempt it. The modeling tools and uv tools are plenty fast and mature enough right now (not to say that there aren't nicities that could be added, but they are very solid and powerful already). The animation tools should shortly begin a rewrite that will probably be ready by the time the actual character animation begins. Materials, Lighting, and Rendering - Blender could definitely use 'true' 3d mblur, but asside from that lack is a fairly fast and robust renderer.

So, I don't see this as particularly 'suicidal' since the artists and the programmers working on this project are familiar with Blenders strengths and weaknesses, and thus can plan around them (or code and eliminate them).

LetterRip

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[ciroknight]

As a student, I looked into many different fields before I chose computer science. One of which was digital film making. I spent a summer shadowing a documentary film crew, and I can tell honestly tell you that the amount of work that goes into even the simplest of films is insane.

When we start talking digital animation, the amount of work leaps exponentially. Long hours of modeling, shading, color checks, lighting checks, triangle counts, waiting for renders, etc. It's a tough business.

The "suicidal" part comes in when someone suggests making a feature length film, animated, basically with no money to pay people to come and work for you. You're looking at a group of 10 to 20 dedicated people, spending a great deal of their lives for the next year or two, churning away at scenes, storyboards, models, textures, etc, until finally they come up with something, instead of Pixar's or Dreamwork's thousands of support personel. You're looking at 10 to 20, midrange servers whereas Pixar or Dreamworks has hundreds, possibly thousands of highrange servers in their rendering farms.

Now, will the final product be worth it? Hell yes if it's a good story, looks good, and feels good. Put it in theaters, get a couple million in ticket sales and you've instantly paid for your venture. But the problem is getting even that far. And for that, I would call you suicidal, but I would commmend your work.

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[LetterRip]

[QUOTE]The "suicidal" part comes in when someone suggests making a feature length film, animated, basically with no money to pay people to come and work for you.[/QUOTE]

Well, they have full funding for 5 full time artists for and 1 full time coder for 6 months. Plus funding of a budget for talent that is not needed for the full time period. Also there will be plenty of volunteer effort from the Blender community (there are a number of talented artists who will likely want to contribute but do not have the time available for 6 months but instead will contribute on an ad hoc basis). In addition there are additional personnel that will be on loan from the art institute on an as needed basis. Also there is funding for digital to film transfer, the DVD printing run, etc.

The film is not feature length, it is an animated short - 15 to 20 minutes.

[QUOTE]You're looking at a group of 10 to 20 dedicated people, spending a great deal of their lives for the next year or two, churning away at scenes, storyboards, models, textures, etc, until finally they come up with something, instead of Pixar's or Dreamwork's thousands of support personel. You're looking at 10 to 20, midrange servers whereas Pixar or Dreamworks has hundreds, possibly thousands of highrange servers in their rendering farms.[/QUOTE]

If rendering time becomes an issue there is a serious distributed rendering project that has been developed for Blender (in beta right now), plus a number of modestly sized renderfarms that would be willing to donate time. (It is fairly fast and easy to check for fraudulent or 'bad' frames) So additional available rendering capacity is available if desired. However this is not a Pixar film - rendering capacity needs are dependent on what you plan to render and what features of the render you plan to use.

LetterRip

Re:How about Weta or Pixar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Pixar use Macintoshes? Of course, they might be using an open OS on their G5s; I don't know off hand.

(Given that I essentially live in the same county as Pixar, you'd think I'd know...)

Great news

[saintm]

Lets hope it does for movies what Tux Racer has done for video games.

Oh.

Re:Great news

[MaestroSartori]

Funny you should say that...

I recently took a trip from Glasgow to Amsterdam, for a job interview. In Glasgow airport, I saw a Tux Racer arcade cabinet!

I was actually pretty shocked, didn't know the thing existed, but the little kiddies playing Tux Racer seemed to be having fun.

Re:Great news

[Enygma42]

My 3 year old neice loves it and makes me put on the "penguin game" every time she's around

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Tux Racer ?

Re:Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

> My 3 year old neice loves it and makes me put on the "penguin game" every time she's around

If you have PGP on your system and a digital camera anywhere in your house, I would advise you to immediately get rid of one or the other, at least if you live in Minnesota.

Re:boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong story? http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/2 4/2334240&tid=160&tid=14

Funding?

[kjh1]

While this would be quite an accomplishment should it come to reality, and could set the establishment on its ear, I can't help but thinking from browsing through their site that it's still 'vaporware'. Just take a look at the Sponsors page. They're requesting 6 quality 3D Unix machines and a 10-system rendering cluster, among other things.

I wish them the best of luck in their endeavor.

Re:Funding?

[VValdo]

Well there's always going the donation route.

W

Blender + Orange?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Re:Blender + Orange?

[Dancin_Santa]

Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

I think so, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?

Re:Blender + Orange?

[MoobY]

You can find the stuff you need at amazon for $14.40.

Re:Blender + Orange?

[autOmato]

Allthough I hate those "I wish I had mod-points" posts, just let me say this:

I wish I had mod-points.

This was surely the best uncalled-for post in a long time. Thank you Sir (or Madam, or whatever.)

The tools used

[LetterRip]

Since they will be using Blender, you might be interested in the upcoming features that the next release will have along with some of the scripts available

have a look at the development digest

http://cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=233256

Blender now has manipulators and universal undo - two things that lots of slashdotters complained were missing the last time Blender was mentioned on slashdot.

LetterRip

Re:The tools used

[Anonymous Coward]

It has handles! FINALLY! All right, blender's constraints accessible by mouse interface and (of course) keyboard are damn nice, and I love them to death, but they all require a pretty much continuous action. You start dragging or rotating or scaling, and you can't stop til you have it JUST right. If you want to rotate the view while manipulating, you're kind of SOL. With draggable handles like maya and the rest have, you can push and pull the handle a little here, stop to rest your wrists, maybe gesture at the screen while you explain what you want to your co-worker, rotate your view for a better look, then fiddle with it some more.

And manipulators generalize the concept by giving you persistent handles you can parameterize. Very nice.

Hot damn, blender's shaping up to kick ass.

But

[Dorsai65]

will it have Paris Hilton in it?

Re:But

[Jaruzel]

Of course. Everything has Paris Hilton in it. That woman's more-overexposed than a black negative feefalling into a sun thats about to go nova.

-Jar.

Re:But

[Dorsai65]

I think she's particularly appropriate in this project. If Paris Hilton isn't "open source", who is? :-)

Folk music

[el_womble]

Open source entertainment is nothing new. There are plenty of examples from Folk Music and Hymns to Pantomime (christmas plays, that have nothing to do with christmas). You hear a song, you play a song, you change the lyrics/tune to suite your own politics. You never claim to have written it yourself, you just say something like "Here is a song I heard over in Sheepy Magna, it goes a little something like this..."

Copyrighted entertainment is new, and a little bit counter intuitive. My understanding is that it was brought about to protect the incomes of the artists, whilst provide recording companies to profit from the sale of recordings. Now, as recording companies start to fear for their livelyhood, it seems to be coming full circle.

People have always been able to make a living from providing entertainment and they always will (if they're good), they have not always been treated like gods and they have not always been richer than our leaders. Never mind the dotcom bubble bursting, I think the entertainment copyright bubble might be leaking a bit too.

Re:Folk music

[natrius]

Copyrighted entertainment is new, and a little bit counter intuitive.

Copyrighted entertainment is as new as the means to copy the entertainment is. Copyright came right behind the printing press. It expanded after the player piano. Being able to copy creative works changes how things work.

You describe a time when people create works to entertain themselves and didn't need copyright to prod them along. Folk music and hymns were satisfying entertainment until someone who was really good at singing decided that she could go and perform in front of a crowd and people would pay her to do it. People enjoyed being entertained by professional entertainers more than by themselves. So this trend continued.

Once the means to copy this entertainment came along, that business model broke. People didn't need to go to concerts to hear music, because they could hear it in the comfort of their own homes. If anyone was allowed to copy these performances and pass them along, very few people would attend concerts and the performers wouldn't make money anymore. They would stop writing new songs.

Lawmakers all around the western world saw this problem and enacted laws to prevent this from happening. The (American) founding fathers themselves explicitly gave Congress the power to make laws that would promote the progress of science and the arts by giving their creators special rights.

So you're probably wondering why we can't just go back to the original system we had where we would all entertain ourselves. The cat's out of the bag, and imposing artificial limits on copying creative works is hard to enforce. That's true. But most people don't want to go back to the way it was before.

The quality of creative works that are made by people who can devote large chunks of time to perfecting their works is far more often than not greater than that of someone who is just trying to pass the time in between naps and meals. The reason we gave up the right to copy works as a society was to increase the quantity and quality of creative works we'd have available to us as a society. It works, for the most part.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things wrong with copyright law, such as the extremely excessive duration of copyright. But that doesn't mean we need to do away with it. Instead, the laws as they are now should be fixed, and the people who want to give others the rights that are assigned to them as creators when they make a work are free to do so by using the various licenses out there that make it easy.

You value the ability to share and build on top of other people's work. Other people value the quality and quantity of works that copyright makes possible. If you'd rather the shared paradigm win out, support the people who share their works. When you do that, they get the benefit that copyright was supposed to afford them, profit, and you and society as a whole get the benefit of being able to use the work with much less restrictions. Put your money where your mouth is. Head over to Magnatune and buy and album. Click the PayPal donate buttons on the sites of peoples works you enjoy. Do something to give people an incentive to create and share their works.

Re:Folk music

[el_womble]

In the spirit of healthy debate, I'll retort

People didn't need to go to concerts to hear music, because they could hear it in the comfort of their own homes

That simply isn't true. People have never stopped going to performances. There is simply no comparison between a live performance and recorded one. If anything performances are getting bigger audiences than ever before because of the massive advertising that recorded performances represent. The performance arts that have 'suffered' because of 'piracy' are the intellectual arts, such as theatre, opera and galleries - because they arn't popular enough to be subject to viral marketing that copies represent.

The reason we gave up the right to copy works as a society was to increase the quantity and quality of creative works we'd have available to us as a society

This is true, but what I'd ask is did it work? Truely creative people don't need copyright to create great works of art, and many of our truely great artists died before they ever had a chance to profit from their works. The problem for a great artist is getting there art out there in the first place. Does a Van Gough or Da Vinci reduce in value everytime a print is made? Or does it just encourage more people to pay to see the original? The only thing that reduces in value is the copy.

I'll add a new point to my original post. Copyright is only of value where the product is the copy. If there is no original, then you need to protect the right of the creator for enough time that they can recoup the costs of making that product and a profit. The best examples I can think of are software, books and digital art. I almost included movies and TV, but TV is paid for by advertising and subscription, and movies sell the cinema experience - both of which I believe should be protected by law, if that law is copyright law, I can live with that.

Please don't assume that, like you, I can see the faults in the system, that I don't obey they system. I don't break laws ergo I don't steal copyrighted material. Insinuating that I do makes me look and feel bad.

Re:Folk music

[miyako]

As someone who makes a living thanks to Copyright, I'd like to chime in. (not necessarily to argue, but just to sort of give my take on the whole thread)
I am an artist, and I do consider myself "truly creative". Even without copyright, I would still create art.
That said, I make a living three ways, the first is selling prints of my artwork, the second is creating new artwork on comission, and the third is licensing artwork I've created.
Without copyright, I wouldn't be able to be profitiable doing any of these things. Sure I could still sell prints of my artwork, but competition would mean that I would be unable to under-cut a large company. Unlike with a physical product, there would be no quality difference between XYZ Big Companies print of my work, and mine. Granted competition is good, but in this case, XYZ Big Company isn't competing in producing art, they are competing in putting something on paper as cheaply as possible. Even without my art, there would still be that competition, since companies would still compete for my business printing off the art in the first place.
Likewise, without copyright, I couldn't make any money licensing artwork I've made. "Well, " you might say "why should you make more money off of some artwork, after all, it doesn't cost you anything extra if I make a copy of it". The answer is that it takes me time to create that art, and if I cannot make a profit off of it, then my time will instead be spent doing other things so that I can pay rent, afford food and clothing, etc. This means less art for you to enjoy.
I also make money by doing artwork that I've been comissioned to do. To this one might say "Well, even without copyright, there will always be people who want to comission artwork, someone has paid you to create the art, why shouldn't we all be able to enjoy it". The answer is that the reason most people or businesses comission artwork from me is that they want to give some product a unique look. A lot of my comissioned artwork comes from doing art for fantasy roleplaying books and such. Much of the value from these books is the visual appeal. If another company or individual came come along and copy the artwork from the books and produce a similarly themed book with the same art, then there is less incentive for people to pay to comission artwork. After all, it isn't gaurnteed to offer a unique look for long.
All that said, as someone who can make a living creating art because of copyright law, I do think that it's a little out of hand. I would be perfectly happy if all of my artwork were in the public domain after 5 or 10 years. I have also released a lot of my art into the public domain, or under a creative commons license.

Re:Folk music

[Benny2891]

A few things.

I agree with you that "Copyrighted entertainment is as new as the means to copy the entertainment is. Copyright came right behind the printing press. It expanded after the player piano. Being able to copy creative works changes how things work."

Each time a new technology comes along enabling the distribution of creative works, a new business model evolves exploiting that technology. Depending on the business model, new legislation is introduced to support the new industry. There is usually a period of flux, with a lot of people getting it wrong on all fronts. You cite the player piano affecting copyright law as an example. It also brings to mind the trouble that US movie industry had with with Betamax when it was first introduced. Went all the way to the supreme court. Of course, after it was realized that the home VCR was not going to go away, the film industry changed its model of distribution. Ask any film exec what they would think now about outlawing the home VCR. (OK, now stuff like TIVO) I think we all know what their response would be.

However, the introduction of a new business model does not mean that the old one is broken. To use your example, there is a big difference between going to see a live performance and seeing a recorded version of that same performance. The Grateful Dead are a perfect example of this. They encouraged the distribution of bootleg recordings of their concerts, setting up special sections in the seats for folks with tape recorders. Their record sales were not exactly stellar. Still, they managed to be one of the top revenue producing live acts of time, sustaining a market over decades. In the case of music, the establishment of a new medium, the recording, did nothing to break the business model of live performance.

To add a little personal experience to the discussion, I have friends that are musicians (amateur and professional), and they all still sit around in there homes and entertain themselves and anyone else who cares to listen / participate. For free. It's called a Jam session. And a lot of what happens in these sessions get transfered on to a more "professional" element of the practice.

Yes, the potential quality of creative works is increased by the amount of time that one is allowed to spend on it. And the amount of time that you can spend doing anything creative is always balanced by the amount of time that you need to spend getting the resources to put food in your mouth. No argument there. While the traditional notion of copyright can be effectively used by authors of more conventional media to economically sustain their practices, digital artists may be better suited to a different business model. Much like the film industry did with video. Its not just about the shared paradigm of content distribution being better for the consumers of a culture. More importantly, it could be better for the producers of that culture. I think the FOSS guys are getting it right more or less. I don't think that artists are (for the most part).

I am currently doing research on this topic as well, trying to develop a collaborative method for contemporary artists using digital media. I am curious to see what comes of this project.

Finally I have to whole heartedly agree with your last point. If you value the work of any artist, you should support them. That does not just mean give them money. Spread the word to others about the work, send them feedback on the work, and yes, give them money.

Re:Folk music

[natrius]

I'll add a new point to my original post. Copyright is only of value where the product is the copy.

What copyright does is allow a creator to make the copy a product in the first place. What a creator posesses is talent. It's pretty hard to sell talent. You can either perform that talent for a charge, or because of copyright, you can sell recordings of that talent. CDs are far more profitable than tours are, and while some people use an album as an advertisement for their concerts, most of the established artists don't. The album itself is usually far more profitable than the tour if they already have the exposure they need.

The business model you suggest of allowing free distribution of copies and making money off of tours alone is possibly profitable, but it relies on the consumer not being satisfied with the product itself, and imposes restrictions on the area from which the artist can make money to where she can travel. Sure, it could still work. The whole point of copyright is to not take that chance with our culture. There are tons of ways that artists would find to make a living in a post-copyright society, but we've decided that the cost of giving up the right to freely make copies is worth the increased production of creative works.

So the obvious question, as you've asked, is, "Has copyright actually achieved this goal?" I think it has. It makes it much easier for a creator to make money off their work. They have created something, and they can make money off of the creation itself instead of trying find some other way to do so. We've been focusing on music, but how about books? You can either sell copies of the book or ask for donations. Without copyright, you're basically limited to asking for donations. This model can work, but it won't work for everyone. Having copyright allows the method for making money off of creative works to be straightforward and significantly less risky that without it. This makes the investment of time and money into a creative work more attractive, and causes more people to do so.

Giving up the unfettered right to make copies is a small price to pay for the increased production of creative works. However, I would personally like to build upon the works I enjoy myself, and copyright law doesn't allow me to do that. Some creators have chosen business models that still give me that right, and for doing so, I support them. I think taking away copyright would definitely have some benefits, but we would lose out on the creation of some new works because it won't be profitable enough. We can reign in the rights we've given away to creators without hurting the prospective profit for new creations, and we should definitely do so. Doing away with copyright altogether without having a straightforward, proven business model with comparable risk in place would hurt the production of creative works.

Re:Folk music

[el_womble]

I think we are coming to the same conclusion, but from different ends. We both want you to be able to generate money so that you can continue to generate art. What we don't want is corporation XYZ (or anybody else) from being able to make money off your art without your permision - that just isn't fair.

If people are selling prints of your work, then you are clearly entitled to a cut.

If a body decides to use your art to promote their product they should provide you with a fee - as they are profiting from your creativity through advertising. This is really the same as selling prints. Whether you decide to let them copy your work for a set fee or take royalties is entirely up to you (this is free market after all).

I don't necessarily feel that this should have a time limit on it, except for the life of the artist. If your 'estate' isn't creative why should they benefit from a law to protect the creative? Profits from creativity should go first to the artist. No artist, no fee. If people are satisfied with the art that is already in the public domain, then art is dead and we should all give up anyway.

Art is timeless, but its appreciation is a function of its popularity, which is volatile and can only be nurtured by marketing. If people are compelled to give away your art or copies of your art, for the sake of art, then only the artist can really benefit as it raises their profile, allowing them generate monies from commercial applications and original commisions.

In short, generating monies, whether directly, or indirectly from the creative works of another, without their prior concent should be illegal. Everything else is just advertising.

Re:Folk music

[MrAndrews]

Open source enterainment is new to the world that requires the term "open source entertainment" to imply a new, old way of doing things. It's really just an attempt to say: "Whoa, we went way too far in the other direction... let's find some happy middle ground."

Re:Folk music

[PsiPsiStar]

Ever check out anime music videos?

I think that small artists benefit from sharing and larger artists with significant marketshare are hurt by it.

More details on the people involved in the project

[LetterRip]

Those of you not involved with Glender won't recognize the names of three of the individuals involved in the project thus far,

Bassam Kurdali aka slikdigit - created the animation 'chicken chair' among others.

Andy Goralczyk aka @ndy - has done both gorgeous stills and lively and fun animations.

These are two of the best artists/animators using blender, both have excellent imagination and the talent to accomplish any bit of artistry they put their minds to.

and lastly Ton Roosendaal - he is the creator of Blender and the primary driving force behind its open source development.

With this combination of talent being the driving force behind project Orange, we can be sure to expect something truly entertaining and masterfully executed.

LetterRip

Kiss my shiney metal .....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news. I always thought those other losers where keeping that talented robot back. Can't wait for the movie to come out.

Re:Kiss my shiney metal .....

[deetsay]

I'm Blender, baby! Please insert liquor

Re:Kiss my shiney metal .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiss? Kiss?? KISS???

Dude, Bender says it only, what, 78,000 times. And it ain't "kiss".

Re:More details on the people involved in the proj

[LetterRip]

Bah that is what I get for not previewing and posting at 1 in the morning - I of course meant Blender.

LetterRip

Blender

[abell]

Blender is a truly impressive piece of software. I went a few times through the following steps:

• Install it out of curiosity
• Open the interface and try and "figure it out" for ten minutes, being unable to do anything but move and rotate the default cube
• Close and uninstall and forget about it for months.

Then I bought an apartment and to test out various furnishing options I finally decided to seriously learn how to use Blender. It took way longer than 10 minutes to come to terms with the interface, but once you learn the various shortcuts interaction with the 3D space becomes really efficient. Now I completely love it and use it even for creating simple images. Who needs a pre-made icon of an arrow when I can generate a 3D model and a 2D rendering of it in a few minutes.

Not to mention the facts that the package is smaller than your average text-editor, its start-up is almost instantaneous, that it runs identically on Windows and Linux and that you can extend it with Python routines?

Oh, and did I mention that I love it? :-)

Re:Blender

[JohnFluxx]

I started to learn to use (with no prior experiance in 3D graphics) about a year ago.
I read the documentation, did the tutorial, made my gingerbread man, animated it, textured it and made it dance.

That took me a week in total, making me wonder what on earth people complain about when they say they can't use it. Doesn't seem all that hard to me :)

I now use it to create real life holograms.

Re:Blender

[Anonymous Coward]

Blender's interface has changed quite a bit from the early days when it was closed-source and still owned by NeoGeo (the obscure Dutch company, not the Japanese one). It was practically unusable then. It didn't even have menus, so if you didn't know the keyboard shortcuts, you were screwed. It was also laughably primitive, with a dead-slow internal renderer.

Nowadays it behaves a bit more like Maya and 3dsmax and the like ... not quite, and still fairly weird in places, but it's definitely more usable. The renderer isn't top-notch, but it screams. As for primitive, about the only place it's really lacking is in animation features like softbody dynamics, which I understand is in the next version.

Re:Blender

[TrancePhreak]

Notepad is 68KB you insensitive clod!

Re:Blender

[eille-la]

is that true?
Kate 2.4 is 4K

Re:Blender

[TrancePhreak]

It is true, for my version of XP. Does Kate support multiple languages and unicode in that 4K?

Re:Blender

[abell]

Average that with emacs and my statement still holds :-)

Re:Blender

[eille-la]

yeah of course :)

from http://kate.kde.org/info.php

* Edit all kinds of text files even if they are BIG (i.e. open a 50MB file in a few seconds).
* Powerfull syntaxhighlighting engine, extensible via xml files.
* Code Folding capabilities for C++, C, PHP, ...
* Dynamic Word Wrap - long lines are wrapped at the window border on the fly for better overview.
* Multiple views allows you to view more instances of the same document and/or more documents at one time.
* Can reopen files if you want it to.
* User can choose the encoding he wants for each file at save/open dialog.
* Built in dockable terminal emulation.
* Sidebars displays a list of open documents, a directory viewer with a directory chooser, a filter chooser and more.
* A plugin interface to allow third party plugins.
* Default project handling, possibly to be overridden by project handling plugins.
* A "Filter" command allows you to run selected text through a shell command.
* Global grep dialog

Re:Blender

[ReelOddeeo]

I would also point out that Internet Explorer is only 91 KB!! And look at its list of features!

Yep, just take a look and see: iexplore.exe is 91 KB.

It is amazing that those programming wizards at Microsoft could pack so much functionality into a 91 KB program.

(I'll stop being sarcastic now. I didn't mention anything about the size of DLL dependencies.)

Wouldn't it make more sense ...

[maxwell demon]

... to join the Free Film Project, instead of making another independent project?

Re:Wouldn't it make more sense ...

[shish]

The point is to show off blender and some other apps, the movie is just a by-product -- the FFP seem to want to make their own tools

Distributed rendering similar to seti@home

[tomrud]

Shouldn't it be possible to use distributed rendering for theese kind of projects? Rendering could be done with a software similar to seti@home.

Re:Distributed rendering similar to seti@home

[Anonymous Coward]

there's the BURP project which does distributed rendering.
It's a BOINC project.

Re:Distributed rendering similar to seti@home

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is. It runs on the same system that supports seti@home (boinc), and it's called BURP, for Big and Ugly Rendering Project.

PS. Blender IS awesome... if you haven't tried it before, do a few of the tutorials to get you started.

Where is the open source pron that I'm waiting for

[yudan]

I have been waiting for the true OS pron since long time ago!

Re:More details on the people involved in the proj

[nunchux]

That's all well and good, and I'm sure it will be beautiful, but who's writing the actual story? I work in animation and I have seen many beautiful shorts, demos and portfolio pieces by many extremely talented technical animators... And most of them are boring and meaningless exercises, if that. Or they're based on a joke that's not funny in the first place.

Myself, I'd rather watch the pathetically animated but extremely funny Home Movies on Adult Swim than the beautifully and painstakingly rendered but pointless Final Fantasy movie. Good characters and storytelling should come first, I hope this project realizes that before embarking on this effort...

Re:More details on the people involved in the proj

[Anonymous Coward]

A disaster of the same proportion as Ed Wood's dreadful flop, "Blen or Blenda" :)

Verse

[Emil Brink]

Heh. As a full-time developer of the related technology, I'm glad the mention of Verse survived into the blurb!

Verse is a low-level data model, network protocol and programming API for dealing with distributed applications involving 3D graphics and audio. It is completely open and distributed under a BSD license so you can use it in any kind of application.

For details, see the top-level Uni-Verse site (toplevel page about the current research project). If you're a developer, perhaps heading directly to the Verse pages is more interesting. You could also check out the specification for the Verse core technology. Or why not just surf the CVS and read some code? :)

If you have questions, you could drop by #verse on FreeNode, or use the mailing list. More developers would certainly not hurt.

Re:Verse

[MrAndrews]

I'm glad the mention of Verse survived into the blurb!

I left that bit in when I submitted it specifically because I wanted to see if I could drag someone like you into the discussion :) I am curious: what exactly does Verse do for this project, and is it used in Blender dev generally already? It seems like a brilliant technology, but I'm a bit confused about how it works in practice.

Re:Verse

[Emil Brink]

Cool, I'm glad to be dragged!

I can't answer for Blender in any detail, as I'm not actually part of the developer pool for it. I work solely on Verse, so far.

But I do know that there is a developer who is working on getting Blender to use Verse, allowing real-time collaborative modelling across a network. I've seen him demo early versions of the code, so I know it's happening. I can easily imagine that being useful for a project such as this, where (I guess) many artists will be working on the same scenes. Also, other developments within the Uni-Verse project might help, too ...

I don't think anyone knows what Verse does for a project such as this yet, but I think Ton intends to find out. :)

If you or anyone else has further questions, please don't hesitate to drop by on IRC for instance. It's a bit quicker than Slashdot.

An Open Source Script?

[LinuxSneaker]

Has there been any attempt to create an open source movie script, using maybe a wikipedia? With thousands able to work on that and the screen play, maybe we'll finally have some good movies. ;-)

Re:An Open Source Script?

[Adrilla]

...or maybe you end up with a group of people who just keep overwriting each other with aimless direction. Just imagine a stadium full of people trying to decide where to eat lunch. Wouldn't be pretty.

wer

[photonic]

From TFWebsite:

Render farm: Especially during the last 3-4 months, november-march, we need online access to a render cluster allowing Blender to render movie resolution frames. Our estimate is that it will require at least 10 systems to render 3 months continuously.

Re:boundaries

[__aahlyu4518]

Whoohaha... I need another coffee :-)

Sorry !

Open source Bender!

[skingers6894]

There's no way Bender would go for open source anything - he wants the cash!

Ohh BLENDER, sorry my mistake.

Re:Open source Bender!

[beset]

Kiss my shiny metal.... ohh wait. Dupe.

Re:Open source Bender!

[elrous0]

he wants the cash!

...or the booze, or the hookers, or the hookers with booze...or...awwh, screw it, I'll just pick someone's pocket.

-Eric

Crossover

[Adrilla]

Do you think this would play friendly with music. Say there's a section of the movie that I found interesting musically, do you think they'd let me sample it for free if I agreed to release it under creative commons?

Re:Where is the open source pron that I'm waiting

[lustforlike]

One thing we do not want is thousands of open-source aficionados making 'contributions' to pr0n. TMI, dude.

Render@home?

[photonic]

From the linked website:

Render farm: Especially during the last 3-4 months, november-march, we need online access to a render cluster allowing Blender to render movie resolution frames. Our estimate is that it will require at least 10 systems to render 3 months continuously.

I am not really familiar with the technicallities of rendering, but wouldn't it be possible to use some distributed client model instead of a rendering farm? You could make a program similar to SETI@home that downloads the wire-frame of the scene and sends back the rendered frame once completed. Might be really nice for a screensaver since you actually have a picture to show instead of some alien noise. They estimate 10 systems full-time for 3 months. I guess the same work could be done in the background by 1000 systems in a few weeks.

Some issues that I could imagine:
-reproducibility: subsequent frames that were rendered by different clients should look exactly the same. This means that only a project provided rendering core can be used, no tinkering allowed by the user.
-copyright (not an issue in this case): suppose Toy Story 7 would use this concept. I guess Disney/Pixar wouldn't be to happy if all the frames were posted online well before the final release. Posting only low-res previews might actually create a big buzz.

Re:Render@home?

[lachlan76]

You'd need people to go through frame-by-frame to make sure that someone hasn't slipped goatse in.

Re:Render@home?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd need people to go through frame-by-frame to make sure that someone hasn't slipped goatse in lol

B[l]ender

[Stephen Williams]

I misread the headline as "Bender's Open Movie Project".

"Bite my shiny, metal GIMP."

-Stephen

Blender must be SOOOO good...

[Anonymous Coward]

What other 3D package has to offer to give you a free holiday in order to get you to make a short film using it?

Blender is NOT a professional tool, and this sham only emphasizes that fact.

Blender is "deceptively good"

[Vektuz]

I recently switched over to blender from the more 'expensive' tools due to its extreme flexibility, open source nature, but also because it actually makes a lot of the big tasks pretty simple. It takes a little longer to learn the interface, but as people are starting to learn, different is not necissarily bad. Blender3D and the amazing "Wings 3D" winged-edge modeller make a powerful team.

The next killer app

[master_p]

One of the next killer apps is the "movie director", i.e. an application that allows the direction of a movie using 3d graphics. There have been attempts in the past, but the technology at the time did not allow it. With all the 3d graphics power available now, it is quite feasible.

The success of the Halo movies, the game 'the Sims' and Pokemon success are prime examples that people like the 'director' concept.

Finally, Lots of people have been asking in various forums how to direct their own anime. A 'movie director' application would make it possible.

Re:The next killer app

[MrAndrews]

I read about this kind of product a few months ago (probably here) where one of the newer game engines was being adapted to work in a super-Machinima environment... you would basically just "tell" the characters to go from A to B and wait, and then move the camera around to capture the shots as you like. RvB with finer control. My feeling is something like that is almost entirely in the UI, so if one could completely re-write how people interact with Blender's animation tools, you could probably achieve what you're after.

On the other hand, you still need the story and models and voices etc. But I agree it would be a fantastic next step.

Re:The next killer app

[Animats]

Such apps exist. See Storyboard Quick, which is a cross between PowerPoint and Poser used to make movie storyboards. This is an unusual tool, not widely used outside the film industry. It comes with a good supply of canned characters, props, and backgrounds. (There are add-on libraries, like "Twentysomething" and "Law and Order").

If you're going to make an animated film, first you need a story and a script. A good storyboard is the next big step. It's customary to then make the storyboard into a timed slideshow with placeholder dialog and music. At that point, you and others can tell if the film is going to be any good.

Re:The next killer app

[master_p]

Can this app do the movie in 3d? because that's what I'm talking about.

reminds me of writing class

[Daktaklakpak]

In a writing class we took, the teacher basically told the whole class to write a story. One person would write a page and then hand it off to the next person. All I remember is that the first person started the story off in some lab at a university, with some professor looking for funding or something, but eventually it morphed into a ninja/kungfu thriller with an ending that involved the professor blowing up her former lover with a rocket launcher.

Dawn of a new era

[m0llusk]

It is predictable that few are understanding how big this is. Computer graphics have soaked into entertainment such that people have not yet captured their impact. How is an open movie different from a normal movie? Is the inspiration of the artist dumbed down?

Open entertainment is great for subjects or that happen not to fit the usuall bounds of 44 to 160 minutes. In can also be participatory, allowing viewers to watch scenes over again from different views or with different cuts. Distracted by how things were different in the book? Fix it! Artists learning their art will have the ability to stage and visualize dramatic performances much as musicians can now use high end sequencers and synthesizers to simulate orchestras that follow their lead. And any piece created this way can be tuned and remade more easily than ever.

Re:Dawn of a new era

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so patronising.

This is just a publicity stunt, nothing more.

if theres a will

[Anonymous Coward]

then theres a way that the MPAA and others alike will find a way to own this movie!.

see it as a proof of concept of a tool chain

[KnightTristan]

I agree entertainment is not something that is better of "free" per se. Though it can be. It's a matter of taste.

However, I guess you have to see this project more as a proof of concept, that it is possible to create something like that using only open source tools. To try convincing others to use them to create open source or non-open source entertainment.

Tristan.

seriously?

[cspring007]

the word 'open' is the next 'i(insertActionVerbHere)'
I mean, just because something is 'open' dosent mean its good. In the words of Dana Carvey impersonating Ross Perot on SNL:
'You cant pee into a Mr. Coffee and get Tasters Choice'

its like the word 'organic'. you can stick the word 'organic' on something and charge ten times as much and people will buy it. I would bet that 90% of the people who do so dont even know what 'organic' on a label means.
Just like 'open'.. do you think anyone who isn't a programmer or developer or i.t. savvy knows what open is?

Bandwidth

[anno1602]

The problem here is the amount of data that needs to be transferred: You need all the textures, models, objects, everything from a scene before you can even start rendering. That can be quite a significant amount of bytes. And the resulting rendered frames are, while not large, still huge in comparison to SETI@Home. To sum it up, the CPU-time/data-size ratio is not as favourable. Consider that even in "professional" render farms of a few hundred nodes on a LAN, the delivery of scene data and return of rendered frames is a major bottleneck and needs to be planned carefully if your hundreds of nodes should not be sitting there waiting for the file server.

Nice Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

from the better-dialogue-then-ROTS dept.

It's than, not then.

How are folks supposed to make money?

[willisbueller]

Just curious... at first with open source software I figured one was supposed to earn their living in hardware. Now people are demanding open source hardware and decrying closed hardware as evil... ok fine, but entertainment, surely one can earn a living there at least... nope, soon people who don't open source their movies will be 'evil'. "They can charge, but just give us the stuff for free too, you know, so we can use it" shut up. I am all for people sharing their work with each other, but the idea of attacking those who choose not to is upsetting. Huge Linux fan, but I am becoming disillusioned with what seems like a huge push towards communism. If this is in fact communism, can we please just call it that, otherwise I'd love a clear explanation of why it's not, besides "I hate corporations".

Re:How are folks supposed to make money?

[bmalia]

How will they make money? Consession stands man!

Re:How are folks supposed to make money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The open-source argument only falls apart when you try to apply it to everything.

If you just apply it to certain things, it's fine and works well.

It's the zealots that are the real problem, their constant self-righteousness will reduce the open-source movement to a laughing stock.

Re:How are folks supposed to make money?

[planetoid]

I'm sorry, but how exactly are "open-source" and "profitable" mutually exclusive? Considering "open source" doesn't necessarily equal "freeware". It depends on the open source license you choose -- you are only subject to "communism" if you choose an OSS license that is too restrictive for business (such as the GPL, which I've always felt does more harm than good in the goal of bringing more businesses' trust towards open source models).

I understand your concern but it is fundamentally unfounded.

Re:How are folks supposed to make money?

[willisbueller]

Even though I got modded troll, I appreciate the response. I'll do some research into the other licensing types. I just assumed by the talk I've read on here that GPL is the consensus on perfection.

Collaboriation hardly means Piecemeal

[FreeUser]

I'm not sold on Open Source entertainment. I have my tastes, you have yours. I doubt that you'd appreciate my imposing my creative vision on your work, and I know that I would resist your attempts to impose upon mine.

You don't seam to "get" collaborative projects. Don't feel bad--I used free software almost exclusively for years (based on quality, not politics) before I understood how and why collaborative projects work so well. When one is spoon-fed "you get what you pay for," "profit motive required for progress/production," "no one will create without monopoly entitlements (patents/copyright)," and similiar corporate untruths all of one's life (and we have all been spoonfed that nonsense since they day we were born), free collaboration can be a very difficult concept to get one's head around. As I said, it took me years, and I'm generally fairly quick.

First, collaboration != piecemeal. For that matter, Free Software is rarely piecemail either--equating the two shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the process and its results.

Second, unlike writing a novel (where what you say has some applicability, though by no means is it an axiom--there have been collaborative novels written in the sci-fi genre by well-known authors that are excellent) nearly every film and telivision project of any size involves multiple writers (in the case of telivision projects, sometimes hundreds of writers), and hundreds (sometimes thousands) of people performing supporting functions (compsing the soundtrack, performing the music, lighting, choreagraphy, set design, editing, post-production, etc.).

In short, virtually every project of any size is a collaboration--we're just not used to seeing it as such. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing intrinsicly different between a large collaboration done under the the auspices of a commercial enterprise and that done under an open collaboration, other than perhaps the overall budget that is available. Star Wars Episode 3-1/2 "Revelations" is a fine example of a fan film made entirely through collaboration on a tiny budget.

Yes, collaboration can and does produce absolute dreck. So to does Hollywood...in abundance. Profit motive and corporate-feudal power structures do nothing to insure quality, nor are the a prerequisite to the production of quality, whether it is software or a film.

I do agree, doing the entire project start-to-finish using only free software would be a powerful demonstration of what is possible using only the resources of the Free World.

It already exists...

[phorm]

It's called amateur. While some sites might charge for collections of "amateur" porn often others will post their own for free.

Wings3D is "deceptively good"

[Anonymous Coward]

Side question. Is there a Suse (9.1) package of the latest Wings 3D?

Just a bit trickier than SETI

[sammyo]

A high end render requires several to a bunch of large image files and significant resources, a single frame can take days. Also the precision of different systems can result in rounding errors that are visible from frame to frame, render farms use identical systems too avoid that.

It's certainly possible but there are real issues and BURP is very pre-alpha. A noble endevor!

speaking of open source video editing...

[PsiPsiStar]

Does anyone know of a halfway decent video editing program that's GPL?

Currently looking at Zwei-Stein. Is there anything out there better than that?

Re:speaking of open source video editing...

[MrAndrews]

I read a discussion about this a few days ago on elysiun (Blender-centric site)... the consensus is that there aren't any really solid GPL NLEs out there yet, but there are lots of attempts:
http://www.pitivi.org/
http://kdenlive.sourceforge.net/
http://positron.sourceforge.net/

That, for me, is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for a fully-open movie... I can't live without my Final Cut Pro. Are there any other options anyone knows about?

Re:speaking of open source video editing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cinelerra http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3 appears to be powerful but I haven't figured it all out yet, and it dosen't seem to do minidv direct capture.

Kino http://kino.schirmacher.de/article/static/2 is also rather nice, and does support DV capture. It is less advanced as far as effects and transitions tho, and seems to have largely stopped developement.

Re:speaking of open source video editing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual Dub
http://www.virtualdub.org/

Re:More details on the people involved in the proj

[PsiPsiStar]

Yeah, why are there so many beautifully done movies with horrible storylines? You think if they cared that much about the graphics they'd at least find a good storyline to go with it.

Re:More details on the people involved in the proj

[Anonymous Coward]

Home Movies, Aqua Teen, and Sealab have probably a total of 10 minutes of character animation reused, but they are more entertaining than most bad 3d shorts (the one that comes to mind is a short from blur studios).

Open Source Script Writing

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the folks eager to get started on writing the next Open Source blockbuster, you may as well use an open source script writing tool. Celtx is a collaborative scriptwriting and production breakdown tool that is currently in beta. The development is based largely on the input of its users, where they offer their suggestions and bug reports on the Celtx Forum. Celtx is also cross platform since it is being developed with the Mozilla API.

Re:Open Source Script Writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy bloody cow, that is the most useful Slashdot link I have ever found! I can see so many ways this'll be useful to the stuff I work on... thank you so much for posting this!

Render Farm

[charlie763]

They asked for people to volunteer equipment for a render farm. I don't have the l33t programming skills to write the code, but it would be cool if we could help render in a SETI@home style distributed rendering.

Star Wars fanfilm with blender

[JediMasterHoshi]

I'm making a fan film using blender. The entire film is greenscreen with Blender background.

Never mind blender movies

[Trogre]

I still want to see more work done on Blender CAD.

Blender is a great visualisation package, but is absolutely terrible when trying to design real-world objects to scale, or something as simple as changing the overall colour of the object.

There's not actually that many changes that would have to be made to the codebase to achieve decent CAD functionality. I'd fix it myself but don't have the time. A sentiment echoed by many other developers, no doubt.