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."
Holy crap!
Is this really that different from Elephants Dream?
Well they replaced over-repeating the name "Emo!" in dialog with over-repeating the name "Scales!" so that it grates in your ears hours later.
But seriously, this one had the best story in the ED/Big Buck Bunny series.,, though it took a little while to get going and I wish the "twist" was a little clearer. Even a line like "My God. How long have I been..." trailing off would have made it more understandable.
That said, I think it was a technical and creative triumph. There's some real talent out there and I look forward to the next one.
Will it Blend?
Is this legal? I thought the MPAA cartel automatically owns the copyright to everything. These pirates should pay some sort of fine for attempting to subvert our capitalist democracy. Maybe send them to gitmo.
And this film is different from the dozens of award winning independent films produced outside of Hollywood every year how? Hollywood has a monopoly on "dedicated, creative talent" these days or something? Thats news to me, most of the stuff they make is crap IMO. Kudos on making it with open source software, double kudos for licensing it under CC but otherwise its nothing special.
There's no need to use a sledgehammer. Heck, I think the scar on the wing was even a little too blatant.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Funny, I had to go back to that scene to see the scar you mentioned. I think the GP is right, the story gives no idea of the time scale.
After you realize it, she does look older in the final scenes, though.
You minimize the ways in which it is different with your hard to take seriously "kudos". I can share Blender Foundation movies with everyone I wish. I don't recall being able to share copies of Hollywood movies or most independently made movies without risking litigation. When the Blender Foundation makes their movies they improve Blender and show off its capabilities to inspire others to use the program. Few Hollywood movies have that result for FLOSS. The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well. There is no such similar inspiration for Hollywood movies or independent features; I'd like to contribute to more documentary filmmakers but movie makers that let me share the work (even verbatim and non-commercially) have set the bar high enough where I can quickly exclude the vast majority from receiving a donation from me. On the other hand, I'll be ready to buy a credit or a gold sponsorship for the next Blender Foundation movie depending only on my personal finances. Blender Foundation has developed a reputation for helping our community in significant ways. These are big efforts in themselves and should be sufficient to answer your question.
Digital Citizen
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.
So which trends are we supposed to extrapolate out a few years?
Dedicated, creative talent?
Free and open source software?
Sorry, I just don't get the point of this. International, collaborating teams of dedicated, creative people can do amazing things with their bare hands, but I'm not dreaming of a bare hands movement taking over the world. Am I looking at this from the wrong direction? Is the story about amazing free software that brings non-dedicated, non-creative people
to par with creative professionals using their own tools of the trade? No, because that would be a lie.
Some talented people did something interesting with some easily accessible tools. Great job guys and gals, seriously, but I'm not thanking the software. /. headline writing hippies.
I'm not imagining a world where access to free tools is locking up boundless potential, sorry. Keep on dreaming,
Have you considered that you might be the problem? Maybe you're a little too dependent on Hollywood spoon-feeding to be able to actually pay attention to something?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
That was very well done.
Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent.
Yes, yes... but what can be generated with open source software WITHOUT any dedicated, creative talent? Isn't that the more important question here? Creative people can produce works of genius with no technology to speak of, so who cares about that. ;-P
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Well, you don't need to dream, it has already happened.
Ever heard of this "internet" thingie? A "bare hands movement" is what keeps it moving
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!
The question here is that talent alone cannot create anything without the right tools. Artists shouldn't have to sell their souls to buy their supplies.
Van Gogh had to make his own paint because he was so poor he couldn't afford to buy it. Blender is Van Gogh's paint.
It started off a bit cheesy - way too many Hollywood clichés - but it was pretty good in the end. And the graphics are pretty stunning - easily on par with Hollywood.
Well done guys!
I'm not really seeing what's so extraordinary about this or how it's connected to "open source" outside of some tortured link with Blender.
Using MPAA's tactics to minimize the creative output of actual professionals seems like a dumb argument which amounts to "see, they can do it without major financial backing." When it comes to entertainment out in the real world, it so happens that most artists just aren't willing to donate their free time for some illusory cause.
The article title is your standard linkbait bullshit. "Challenges Hollywood's Best"? Hardly.
People have been making movies without help from Hollywood for years.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
I felt really depressed after watching it...
I saw it coming the instant that it was clear she'd be squaring off with the dragon. Completely obvious. And then they flash the shoulder scar for a full second in clear focus. Who is their audience, green bell peppers?
This is what I'm saying. It was a good story, but not as delicately subtle in execution as it really could have been.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I'm pretty sure many of those details are up there on the site. I know that Blender actually has some built in stuff for video editing, so a lot of the editing may have been done in Blender. Check the site for more details, they tend to be pretty open about what they're using.
...art with entertainment. Art is about passion, entertainment is about money.
Or maybe I haven't been watching so many Hollywood movies that the whole storyline is evident to me at the first scene.
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.
They're going to be distributing not just the movie, but everything you need to re-create the movie (or a derivative work). The movie itself is only 14 minutes long, but the full distribution takes 4 DVDs! All under a CC license. Hard to see how you could call this anything but an open source movie!
it so happens that most artists just aren't willing to donate their free time for some illusory cause.
Funny, that's what they used to say about programmers! And, of course, no musician has ever put on, say, a benefit concert for charity. Everyone knows that true artists are motivated entirely by money and nothing else.
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.
Not much better. Blender is a great tool, the people show talent too. But what they lack is budget. That is what will drive that last mile from making a movie with Toy Story 1 graphics to the "I can't believe it's not real life" style of current Hollywood movies. You'll need lots more people, lots more time, and lots more hardware. The basic premise of budget is why the majority of open source projects (and by that I include small apps too) get to the point where it's only just good enough to meet requirements and then no further. This doesn't apply to programmers who have corporate backing to keep working on the code or to people who's lives have been consumed by the desire to contribute.
For the majority of people without funding "good enough" becomes the end of the project. Sure there may be a handful of dedicated people who make a project their life, but for the vast majority who don't get paid they write the app until it works, and then lose the motivation to go further. Others will commit simple changes or may even take over the project but this is not something that will work with a movie that requires full dedication from start to perfection. Otherwise you'll end up with a movie which in the worst case looks like the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but is 5 years behind time, has a development team who is completely fed up and want to get on with their lives and a story that is incoherent.
Someone hire these guys.
If they were trying to say "this is the future of movies" they failed. It looked like a game trailer.
Star Wreck - In the Pirkinning was WAY better.
Did all the network packets generated during the project really only pass through free software servers and switches? Were the mics based on unpatented designs and built in-house? THESE THINGS MATTER!
Imagine if some packet went through a Windows server. The whole project, tainted. Might as well just rm -rf it.
It's like if you said "I wrote this program all on my own" and then it came out that you didn't do the materials science needed to mine the metals you used to build the electronics that is your computer, and then wrote the OS and the compiler and the editor yourself. Clearly, your program wasn't anything special, I'm not even sure if it could be called 'written by you'.
No, I meant at the beginning of the fight you can see the scar clearly.
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.
Nothing. Hollywood doesn't fit into this equation. Hollywood deals with talent and business, not software. Hollywood already uses a great deal of FOSS, and I doubt this movie will change a future audience's experience at all.
Kudos to them nonetheless, it's a fun few minutes of flick.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
Ah. I'll have to re watch as I missed it at the beginning. I need to download a lower quality version as my player chokes a lot on the high quality one giving me big gaps in the action. :-( Though there's a good chance I still would've missed it at the beginning of the fight thinking it's the "bad" big dragon.
Yes it is, and I think there are even hooks into databases to manage it, it just didn't seem to be the point of this project - and I don't know how good it is at handling mobs.
Blender can be used not only for rendering... it features an NLE tool, too (and a lot more - there are games written in Blender).
Coding etudes
No offense to the people involved -- certainly it looks great and it's entertaining. But I've seen countless "short films" like this one that were produced "without Hollywood." Usually they're referred to as "cutscenes."
Breakfast served all day!
And the twain shall never meet? GREAT art can't also be entertaining? One can't be passionate about creating a work for entertainment?
Doctors, police, and even vile capitalist manufacturers can't be passionate about what they're doing? And an artist, being the passionate sort that he is, cannot want to receive some money, or even great bushels of it, both so that he can spend as much of his time creating that which he's impassioned, and so that he can enjoy the fruits of success the same as any other professional? I'm sorry, but most great artists will only be greater if they're making money at their chosen undertaking, rather then diluting their energy having to do "something else", and treating their art as a hobby, to be done only after the bills are paid by some other job that takes up most of their day and energy. And not every form of art lends itself well to "performances". Should those who have to sell recordings, or books, or anything else that can easily be copied not get some return on the time and risk they took to produce the work?
There are some artists, probably even some good or great artists, that may have to do just this to support their work. Some will continue to do it regardless, and some, even some who may be great, may give up their art because the day to day demands of their money grubbing life take up too much of their time. Or relegate their art to a very low priority. I think great artists, artists who take themselves seriously, also want to be recompensed for their art. Man writers, for instance, don't consider themselves "real" writers until they're published. Many don't consider themselves real writers until they can support themselves while writing.
Actually, if the storyline was so evident based on your experiene with Hollywood movies, you would have expected Sintel to turn to a dragon, or Scale to turn into a (male! Can't have no same sex thingy going on in a kid's movie after all!) human, and then they marry (in church ... don't want to offend the religious masses) and live happily ever after, except for the guy she supposedly killed at the beginning who is seen recovering from his not-so-deadly wound, in order to setup the sequel(s). Oh ... and either Celine Dion or Sting would have sung the credits' song
It was painfully obvious that it was Scales she was battling with (the scar thing really was a bit heavy handed) ... but it wasn't obvious at all that it ends as tragedy
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
But what software did they use for the editing the video sequences? What software did they use for the music composition? Did they edit the script in OpenOffice? Did they manage the project using OpenProj?
Blender was used as the non-linear video editor, compositor, color correction tool, and all other 3d and video related aspects. The music was done in various proprietary software. Script don't know, probably openoffice and MS Word (It was worked on by different folks, I think the BI folks probably used Blender but the outside writer likely used MS Word). For project managment they used the OO spreadsheet and notecards, and paper, etc.
What wasn't completely obvious was the time frame. Although they tried to make her look older, one has no way to gauge how much time had passed, she looked like a plastic doll throughout the whole film.
When the big dragon caught the small dragon in flight, it was pretty clear that it was the parent getting the child back.
Perhaps that was the whole idea, but looking at it from her perspective the whole story is stupid. Obviously, she would know exactly how long ago it had been since her dragon had been snatched away from her. Did she think her little dragon wouldn't grow up?
I saw it at 9:22 on a second watch, just before Scales grabs the staff, but I didn't see it clearly before that, and given that Sintel is staring into the eyes of an angry dragon that's been breathing fire at her, I can forgive her for not noticing as well. Even at this point, it's not very well-lit, and I'm sure is easily missed by many.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Hollywood will buy up the talent to keep them from producing anything worthwhile, so that the typical "Hollywood" movies can keep the mainstream public's attention.
Barton Fink, et al..
Don't b*tch if you signed. Nobody held a gun to your head. You can always walk, and take what's yours with you. If you spent your own coin (as you claim you did), then you were stupid to sign.
Amateur. NOBODY obeys a C&D.
Also, the "corporate lawyer" story is also BS. If you fell for it, you deserve to fail.
I don't like tragedies.
I especially hate well-done ones.
i got the idea from when the big dragon sniffed her rather than killing her, i just figured it would must have been a year or so and dragons just grow quick
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Don't forget about Killer Bean Forever by Jeff Lews. Made entire movie himself. No Hollywood. http://www.redferret.net/?p=9573
I needed to be spoon fed because the main character was mentally handicapped. I can't sympathize with brain dead characters' problems. In this case the hero was obviously a retarded nut job.
She walked across a desert, jungle, mountain range and grassland. Now I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that just those 4 things would take at least 2 months. Fine, fine she "Lost Track of Time" but she must have known that at least 2 months had passed. Hell she must have realized that at least 2 weeks had passed.
If Big Dragon snatches Little Dragon you can assume that Big Dragon is going to eat Little Dragon within a week. The Little Dragon is dead meat probably by the end of the day. Alternately someone who understands the concept of children and adults -- or aging -- would realize that maybe, just maybe Little Dragon looks like a little version of Big Dragon because it's a child.
So at the end of this quest our Hero should either find Baby Dragon with Mommy Dragon or bones. Alive baby dragon being held for snack is not one of the options. So even if the Hero lost track of time, if she had an IQ above 30 she should have realized that Little Dragon is a child of the Big Dragon and not food. The damn thing was even in a nest. The 'best case scenario' in this instance was the Hero was going to kill what she thought was her baby dragon's mother. The time scale is a red herring. If it's been a week or 20 years it makes no difference it's painfully obvious to even the lowly earth worm that small version, not being eaten, is offspring not food.
Now there are a few ways the writer or director could have turned this shit show around and at least brought it in for a clumsy landing. For instance if she found what appeared to be the skeleton of the Baby Dragon then she would have had motivation for revenge. If she found no baby and just fought the dragon for revenge it would have made a smidgen of sense. Maybe the baby then shows up after she kills her friend to emphasize the time passed. I don't find incomprehensible actions tragic I just find them incomprehensible. Tragic would have been letting her vengeful rage lead her to make a rash emotional decision which results in the death of her friend.
The hero deserves to be jailed and strung up by her ankles. She's a menace to society and too dumb to be trusted to walk free amongst us.
Also what on earth is a bandit doing on a random mountain ridge. Are there a lot of travelers at that time of year to rob? Isn't there a better road somewhere that isn't on a random cliff in a huge mountain range? Where does the bandit live? What does he do the other 364 days out of the year when someone doesn't happen upon his mountain peak? Is he a cannibal? Is there food up there anywhere? What does the old man eat? How did the old man get up there all by himself? I have a lot of logistical questions regarding that entire encounter.
An interesting point you bring up.
However you have to understand that things don't happen overnight. projects like Vyatta provide open source software for routing between open private networks, and closed public networks. in the not too distant future, I expect to see FPGA's become more and more popular, potentially even to the degree that people are able to build some basic ones at home. (likely a WAYS off, but one can dream)
without open source software, there would be no desire to move to open hardware. progression, it's what get's us through our lives.
Uhhhh.. I don't know about you, but Linux on the desktop has been slowly taking market share all over the world. in some countries, Microsoft won't even licence Windows for trade reasons, REQUIRING the use of OSS.
lemme guess, you're American. If so: there we north Americans go again, assuming the world somehow revolves around us, and whatever we do being the only meaningful thing happening anywhere.
The problem is with the details. Footprints aren't being made in the snow, snow isn't really being moved around much considering it's all fresh powder. The camera is angled to hide the fact that the environment is not changing dynamically with the action.
It's not hard to make high polygon count, pretty, things relative to the rest of what it takes for a solid piece of animation. The challenge is making a bunch of polygons interact in a believable way.
The professionals spend a lot of time making the environment deform in real time in response to the action.
You can't just shake the camera. The ground needs to deform when big giant things are crashing around on it.
Blender, or the animators, have a long way to go to catch up and Pixar isn't standing still.
Work Safe Porn
Why did they choose such an apparently non-standard resolution for the high quality version? Wouldn't 1920x (1080p) have made more sense (especially since the next size down is WAY lower than 1920- it is 1280x (720p))? I suppose it doesn't matter for many systems, but mplayer barfs on it:
"Source image dimensions are too high: 2048x872 (maximum is 2046x2046)" "FATAL: Cannot initialize video driver."
And vlc complains that it can't hardware accelerate video of that size (because they made it 2 pixels too wide!) Regardless, it plays surprising fine.
Also what on earth is a bandit doing on a random mountain ridge. Are there a lot of travelers at that time of year to rob? Isn't there a better road somewhere that isn't on a random cliff in a huge mountain range? Where does the bandit live? What does he do the other 364 days out of the year when someone doesn't happen upon his mountain peak? Is he a cannibal? Is there food up there anywhere? What does the old man eat? How did the old man get up there all by himself? I have a lot of logistical questions regarding that entire encounter.
DM rolled an 84. That's a "Human Warrior 4".
Dude, did you completely miss the entire fucking point of the film? You don't realize that she looks older in the final scenes, she realizes that she is older. Her single goal this whole time was to find her dragon, and she was so subsumed in it that she didn't even notice the passage of time.
Seriously, if you didn't get that simple twist, there's got to be something wrong with you.
Why didn't they use 1080p, 720p, and maybe a 576pal/480ntsc version?
I don't understand their choice of sizes.
Be seeing you...
There are a few things I expect from a movie. Sadly, Hollywood does not provide them.
Other things I would like:
Basically, I don't care a bit about the latest special effects and celebrities. I don't care what kind of TV commercials they have. I would much rather spend $30 on a simple film that meets my needs than $2 on some over budget eye candy that doesn't. Furthermore, I am not effected by fancy advertising. I likely couldn't even name one single movie currently in theaters, but I can name at least three that have little to no advertising. As for distribution, I can burn my own CD. Basically, the only cost there is that of hosting the torrent (and the initial seeding). I'm probably a minority, but I think there are enough of us out there to present a market for cheap films.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
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
It sucked because they didn't have an decent story to tell. The story was just bad. Did some computer geeks write the script? It sure seems like it.
The animation was ok, it aint exactly Pixar but serviceable. The visuals wasn't what made this film bad, it was the lame story.
As a demo of what this open-source CGI software can do, i guess it works. As a film to be watched for its own merits, I'm sorry but it phails miserably. I've seen episodes of Gumby more entertaining than this.
So you like fantasy films about the unbelievable, the supernatural, genocide, murder, homophobia, misogyny, magic - hollywood gives you that but not necessarily in one film.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
As I saw it, she went to speak to the little dragon thinking it was Scales, and the mother reacted by trying to kill Sintel. From that point on till she is flat on her back (and being sniffed by Scales) she is simply fighting for her life. Apparently, she has no idea that a baby dragon would be a full grown dragon at the time; but perhaps dragon lore is exoteric lore in her world.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
in some countries, Microsoft won't even licence Windows for trade reasons, REQUIRING the use of OSS.
In the same countries where having a license isn't really a precondition for using software. Windows market shares are even higher than normal in those types of countries.
Ignoring, all the cliches and some 'dodgy' animation / graphics (1080 version is the one to watch), this is what got me the most.
Other than that, was great story and the sad ending was good.
The market you're in (fundamental christian) is sufficiently small that there will never be a big budget for a movie targeted at people like you.
Uh, Photoshop supports all the stuff he listed.
Or, are you talking about the past? Sure, 15 years ago we didn't have 16-bit color, raw digital images, or any of that stuff. Can it be done? Of course. Is that the current state of the craft - no.
This is like arguing that the features in Blender are irrelevant because in 1982 you didn't need digital rendering software to make an animated movie. Of course you didn't - and you still don't. However, if you want something like the subject of this article, then you need it.
You can always settle for less, and in many cases this is a better use of resources. However, appealing to the past isn't the way to win this argument...
Another reason could be that those professionals learned Photoshop in school , with the idea that companies would require this.
And , since companies already use Photoshop , they indeed require knowledge of Photoshop.
And , since everyone in the company is using Photoshop , switching to GIMP would costs the company money ( if though GIMP is free , it still costs money for the people to learn it ).
So it's a vicious cycle , which has more to do with decisions taken in the past , then with the product itself.
Offcourse , a new company could very well choose GIMP as it's image editor of choice . But then they would have to teach them how to use it , because i don't think there are schools teaching GIMP.
If schools were teaching GIMP rather than Photoshop , the situation would be reversed.
Slipping shoelaces ?
Profanity is a major part of common communication these days that to not use it would make movies simply unbelievable. Unless of course you're trying to make some puritan film which uses other words instead of profanity, meaning the same in context but people are too naive to realize. However profanity for shock value is simply boring and annoys me, but profanity for a reason whether it be fear/anger or simply the way the people talk in a given situation/culture then it's totally acceptable and I don't see why anyone could fault it?
Not sure how many biblically sound movies are made but a few tv movies seem to head heavily towards the godloving region and with the amount of money some of the televangelists have I'd be surprised if they didn't have a bunch of movies you could try.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
I've never ever compiled a single version of GIMP. Maybe you've been looking at the wrong place? Of course you can get the source code for GIMP to compile it yourself; that's the wohle point of Open Source/Free Software. However, there's no need to do so. Ready to install binaries (for Windows even with installer) are available.
Maybe because using the native Mac UI would basically mean a complete rewrite of the UI code, and that's just not worth it for them?
From the web page I gather that Pixelmator is a pure Mac program. Of course, if you only target the Mac, it's easy (actually even the easiest option) to support the native Mac UI. Gimp is a multiplatform application, and it should be obvious that you cannot use the native Mac UI on Windows or Linux. So the option is to either write 3 completely separate UIs to be native on every OS (or maybe even 4 UIs to please both KDE and Gnome users on Linux :-)), or simply stick to one UI which runs on all targeted platforms. Also note that implementing several UIs reduces the time which can be spend on actual features.
WTF are smart objects?
GIMP manipulates images, not feelings :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It is more interesting to ask if the the music and dialog *could* have been done with open source tools. This kind of work is quite demanding.
There has been a lot of work to integrate JACK support into blender, so now it can synchronise it's timeline with Ardour. Blender also has it's own audio timeline that could be used for spot effects, output to the Ardour mixer.
Linuxsampler could be used for samples, as it supports Gigasamper and Akai programs. Rosegarden would sync up with jack transport for midi work.
There is just enough plugins, some Jack convolvers for the reverb, and the usual eq/compression etc are available.
Ardour does support 5.1, though it's pretty crude.
I reackon it could just about be done. It would probably overall be less pleasant for me than doing it in Cubase, but the transport integration with blender is not available with Cubase, so some spot effects and tweaking might actually be easier with open source.
Their fulltime team was around 12 people. Consider a salary of 2,000 euros per person, for a full year (the length of the production), this goes to 288,000 euros just in salaries. They had to move people to Nederlands, pay for the space of the blender foundation, voice actors, film print, Dolby editing and license, etc. When you start to consider real costs then 400,000 euros is not much for a 19 minute movie.
Proprietary or not, the cost of the license here is the minimum part, You pay a Maya license with a couple of artist's salary, the most expensive part is actually the salaries.
The point Blender Foundation want to make is that Blender is suitable to make real life projects. And nobody can neglect it.
She was older, not necessarily old; I got the feeling a couple of years had passed, but not decades. People age under stress; if you were to go back in time to the middle ages, you'd think the 30 year old peasants were 50 or 60.
There are two things I expect from a good movie, which to date Hollywood has done a great job providing: tits.
Minor details like plot, story, consistency, etc. are of comparatively little importance as long as a movie has tits!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
This movie was done entirely with open source software, with a budget bellow the million dollar mark.
http://www.plumiferos.com/
It's not a matter of merely "what people learned in school"; it's a matter of CMYK colour space (which is what things are printed in, as stated above), as well as the >8-bit per channel capability, which are both quite important in the graphic design industry. There is more listed above, so I am not going to repeat it all. Being able to see what you are going to print is very important (and why companies are willing to pay top dollar for wide-gamut monitors and the like).
No, I meant at the beginning of the fight you can see the scar clearly.
It's really much worse than that. As soon as you see her take a beat to look at his scar as a child you know it's going to be pivotal to the story later. Then she encounters a big dragon and - oh. How shocking. Just as bad as the garbage in blockbusters. Nice hair animation, but the facial expressions were like dolls, very poorly exhibited affects.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Wanted to replay the same thing ;-)
1) When a person is mentally dedicated to a single task the certain things about the passage of time can be forgotten. I doubt that Sintel didn't realise that time was passing so much as didn't realise that the dragon she left behind would not be the dragon she saw (she was living in the past). It's also possible that dragons grow a lot faster than Sintel realised.
2)In many species male adults kill and sometimes eat infants of the same species. Usually this is so that the adult females become receptive to breeding but not always.
3) The man in the first scene is not a bandit per say (I will leave you to figure that one out). The old man eats soup and probably traps animals.
The story deliberately plays with your sense of timescale... There is a difference
It's not a question as to if a creature would eat its young. It's a question of "When". When being less than a week I would imagine. Which is my point that if it was the same day then yeah you're rescuing the little bugger from possible lunch. A month or two and the guy is worm food or adopted.
Don't speak if you don't know what you're saying. Otherwise be prepared for consequences. This is a life lesson. If you say "biblically sound" you should know that implies genocide, slaughter, homophobia, fear, and demonization. These are cornerstones of the faith that leads to real world cultural problems. I'm not checking the real world at the door just because I'm participating on a virtual message board. Quite the opposite. I read and chime in because I like to feel somehow involved in the world. I expect and prefer anybody to check me on anything I say. I think it results in a healthier community.
Profanity is rare for me. Amoung the people I spend time with, most use none at all, though I have some acquaintances who slip on ocassion. Most of the clerks at the stores don't either. In fact, slashdot is the only exposure that I have to profanity on a regular basis.
As for televangelists, you would have a hard time finding one that is biblically sound. I'm not sure that I even know of any who are.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
To be honest the majority of televangelists etc seem to just be greedy and full of *insertanotherword.
With the technology becoming easier than I'm guessing we'll see some real/in the flesh biblical stories come to life on the screen, I'd like to see what the original bible's tales were about and not anything that's been translated 50 times with various errors.
It'll be interesting to see media students work from these new tech's, hollywood won't be king for long.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
It's not aimed at code-heads. It's aimed at Linux users, whose systems have proper installers that handle this for you. This is largely just because it's Linux users that create it.
Your other points, I agree with :)