Slashdot Mirror


Creative Commons Video Challenges Hollywood's Best

Supercharged_Z06 writes "A short film entitled Sintel was released by the Blender Foundation under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (YouTube link). It was created by an international team of artists working collaboratively using a free, open source piece of 3D rendering software called Blender. No Hollywood studio was involved in its making. Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent. If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road."

6 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Theatrical short? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I own and operate a movie theatre. I wonder if these folks have considered making a 35mm version of their short for theatres to play before the main features.

    It would be a way to gain a lot more exposure and publicity than they will get otherwise.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  2. Re:That is fucking awesome! by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, #2. And I agree that the story is terrible. But the main goal of the project was to demonstrate the capability of open source tools. Of course, the really big cost is not the tools, it's the efforts of the team creating the movie.

    --
    Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  3. Re:Not the first by wardred · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without the scar, there's nothing to differentiate this dragon from any other. If you didn't expect the results by the time the fight paused we get a big hint it's her dragon when he sniffs her. Even then we might not be sure it's her dragon until you see the scar. *shrug* I think they pulled this one off really well. Maybe it wasn't a GREAT tragedy, but it was certainly decent, especially given the time frame. My props to the team. I liked this movie a lot better than Big Buck Bunny or Elephant's Dream - that one would've been a lot better had one of the characters not been named Emo.

  4. Re:That is fucking awesome! by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is what I REALLY don't get anymore with the open source community. Open Source in the beginning was a great way to empower the individual and small users. I myself use Open Source all the time.

    However, to YET AGAIN demonstrate the power of tools is missing the point. I know Open source is great. I am very very aware of that fact. Yes Fact!

    But when will there be a real movie? Here is the thing. A mock movie while great is not getting the voice of the paying public. As one individual says. Giving away software is a good feeling. But getting people to part with their money and give it to you is an even better feeling.

    So what I would like to see is a movie that people are willing to pay for and watch...

    Until then what's the difference between this movie and Numa Numa guy (YouTube). And this guy has a network, etc, etc... While the Numa Numa guy might add questionable value to the overall scheme of things he probably is getting people to part with money to pay him...

    Get my drift?

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  5. Re:That is fucking awesome! by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Drinks all around for the folks behind this, but in many ways it's still far short of what Hollywood can do

    Not really. Blender Foundations budget for this was about 30,000 Euro a minute. A typical Hollywood flick has a budget of a million euro a minute or more. Increase our funding by nearly two orders of magnitude to match that of hollywood and you can get a competitive result.

  6. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps feature wise they are close but having
    used both, it is clear that Photoshop’s interface
    well not perfect, is vastly more thought out and
    user friendlily than Gimp’s.

    Comparing Gimp to Photoshop is like comparing
    Sintel to Pixar’s Ratatouille. Yes, Sintel shows
    promise, but it in no way challenges Hollywood’s
    best.

    On Gimp:

    If you want Gimp to gain ground, why does it still
    feel like it is aimed at code-heads? I do not like
    compiling my own programs and like apps to
    install easily with a good simple installer or by
    drag and drop. I do not wish to hunt around for
    open source libraries which, for some reason,
    are not included but are needed to run.

    Why is there not a user-friendly mac build that
    installs easily and uses a native mac UI?

    If http://www.pixelmator.com/ can do it, why
    not gimp?

    It’s all well and good that it can open PSDs
    (whose file format I hear is a bit of a nightmare),
    but can it work with smart objects?

    Can I use it to open and edit Camera Raw files
    as a professional and not feel limited by the
    technology?

    I know photoshop is not perfect. In fact I am
    finding less and less reasons to upgrade. But
    I am sorry, Gimp is just not usable for me yet.

    - Joel