×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trailer For Blender Open Movie Sintel Ready

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the showcase dept.

Movies 182

l_i_g_h_s_p_e_e_d writes "The trailer for Sintel is ready. (We discussed the beginnings of this project in 2007.) Sintel is a Blender Open Movie project created using only FLOSS software. 'For the entire creation pipeline in the studio, we will only use free/open source software. We have less than two months now to finish this completely. ... Imagine the tension that's building up here to get everything perfect. For today, we'll celebrate a big step forward.' Download here."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

Downolad? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32225974)

Quickly, Downolad! To the Up-mobile!

h264 v Theora (2, Interesting)

La Gris (531858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226364)

1080p Trailer:
Ogg Theora 43M
Mp4 H.264 15M

Re:h264 v Theora (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226444)

I am not going to weigh in on this argument because afaik the open movie project isn't about whether H.264 or Theora is better, but I do feel it's worth pointing out that for a fair comparison you need to know the data spent for equal quality, and I don't think you know that here.

First impression Re:h264 v Theora (1)

La Gris (531858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226518)

The huge size difference here is really the first thing that intuitively comes to mind. It may have good unlisted technical reasons, and it may be possible to reach the good weighted educated true argumentation about it.
By the way, the first impression will stick for the vast majority. Considering myself a tech aware and open to more in-depth knowledge does not help much here.
As a show for open source computer graphics, video editing and Creative Commons, the codec/size issue here is a real show stopper.
I feel so sorry about it!

Re:h264 v Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227340)

There are links on their site to the 1080p PNG images (939Mb) & FLAC audio (4.5Mb).
You could encode it yourself to find out.

Re:h264 v Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227066)

The 480p [dotsrc.org] ogv file was only 75% bigger. Both files seem very high quality so I wonder what encoding parameters were used.

Looking great (4, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#32225976)

I've been following this movie for a while now and wish them the best of luck. It's not too late to buy a copy of the movie and every purchase they make allows them to work longer on the movie.

Re:Looking great (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226114)

It's not too late to buy a copy of the movie and every purchase they make allows them to work longer on the movie.

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie? Very few people actually buy normal movies that they don't have the right to make a copy of, so there's actually less incentive to pay for something they do have the right to make a copy of. Fire up your torrent machines, pirates... but this one you can download legally.

Re:Looking great (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226146)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?

It's just to fuck up with the Hollywood executives' heads.

Re:Looking great (5, Insightful)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226188)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?

There are people who are willing to pay for something that they enjoy, whether it's commercial or free.
I've gotten a lot of pirated stuff over the years but I also buy the movies/music/games/software/etc. that I like and it being freely available makes no difference.

Besides, wouldn't you want to give them the extra incentive to create even more movies?

Re:Looking great (1)

PixieDust (971386) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226268)

I've gotten a lot of pirated stuff over the years but I also buy the movies/music/games/software/etc. that I like and it being freely available makes no difference.

That sound you're hearing is a large contingent of black cars with dark tinted windows and government plates filled with suits getting ready to knock on your door.

Re:Looking great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226368)

That sound you're hearing is a large contingent of black cars with dark tinted windows and government plates filled with suits getting ready to knock on your door.

They're just a bunch of Catholics and Mormons. Point and laugh about how their church leaders rape altar boys and marry multiple women in violation of the law and they'll walk away, heads hung, scratching their necks and saying, "Aw, shucks."

Re:Looking great (2, Interesting)

physburn (1095481) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226598)

If there charging for the movie, I think they should donate to the software developers, for writing the software to make it possible. On thing about open software is that it can't pay for marketing so the rule, free for those you know, very expensive to everyone else applies.

---

3D Graphics [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Looking great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226656)

It's all done by the same people - Blender Foundation also does these open movies as a way to promote Blender and to drive development as they try to fill holes in production issues while the movie is being made.

Re:Looking great (2, Insightful)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226660)

If there charging for the movie, I think they should donate to the software developers, for writing the software to make it possible. On thing about open software is that it can't pay for marketing so the rule, free for those you know, very expensive to everyone else applies.

The Blender Institute is the one creating the film, and it pays for the salarys of a number of our core developers and for our project lead. The films are a way for us to increase the rate of Blender development, prove its capabilities in a high pressure and tight deadline environment, to achieve new development goals, and as a tool for marketing.

Re:Looking great (2)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226600)

I agree. At least donate something if you watch the movie and enjoyed it. I mean geez, is it too hard to send them a beer ($5) or something?

Re:Looking great (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227028)

I bought enough beer to drown in (5 24 ounce cans) for $5 yesterday. Seriously, you pay $5 for a beer? You live in the wrong location.

Re:Looking great (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227318)

A good draft beer tops out at about $5 at bars around here (Philadelphia). Of course you can always buy enough PBR or rollingrock to drown a whale in for $5, but sending them either of those would be a bit mean, don't you think? ;)

Re:Looking great (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226222)

People don't mind contributing to something when the perception of the project isn't a nasty profit-machine. Witness the humble indie bundle.

Re:Looking great (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226632)

Also, we know (or at least hope) that the money would go to a good place versus the hollywood accountant scumbags that take 90% of the profit and declare the movie a loss. If you ask me, the government should have never sided with the MPAA and should have looked into them for the organization that they are: a criminal enterprise with mafia connections. I pay for netflix and the occasional movie ($5 night rules!), but to be perfectly honest, I think the first transformers movie was the last movie I actually paid to see. I really don't have any interest in anything that is coming out from hollywood these days. Everything is a rehash or worse anymore. New movies are not looked at as a one off product, they are a franchise to be invested in and milked dry. I blame george lucas. Ever since star wars toys became so huge, everyone wanted a piece of the pie from video games to halloween costumes and t-shirts.

Re:Looking great (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226396)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie? Very few people actually buy normal movies that they don't have the right to make a copy of, so there's actually less incentive to pay for something they do have the right to make a copy of. Fire up your torrent machines, pirates... but this one you can download legally.

Except you can't bittorrent it or get a copy in any other way.

People will pay ahead of time if they want the product to be finished and released. Its really only a hairs-breadth difference from the way people pay for movies today - you buy a ticket before you watch the movie. Its just a longer period of time between buying the 'ticket' and actually watching the movie - and if not enough people buy 'tickets' the movie doesn't get released. Kind of like a movie not testing well and ending up on the shelf instead of being released.

Re:Looking great (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226688)

That's actually a pretty big difference. Movies are not seen based upon previews alone. (Well for some people they are I guess) The smarter movie watcher will wait until they read a few reviews and then decide if they want to go see the movie. Preordering something is one thing, usually when they offer a preorder, the product has already been out in the wild somewhat and people in the press have had a chance to evaluate it and review it. In previews you are generally given some of the highlights of the movie. Often, the previews are the best parts of the movie and everything else is pretty terrible. People are wise to these things. Usually by the time they go to buy the ticket, they have heard reviews on tv, read about them in the newspaper, online, etc, have heard from friends that have seen the movie already, etc, etc. They know more about the movie than just the preview and have made a somewhat informed decision to purchase a ticket. I know that this is not the case for everyone, but I find it kind of insulting to my intelligence that I should just pay money to something that may or may not even be finished. If people did stuff like that, there would be a whole lot more scammers out there then there are now. Think about it, I could "create" a "revolutionary" product and sell it through a website. I could even claim that the product is not complete (ala pandora) and just scam people with vaporware the whole time. Oh wait....I think that's actually been done before. I'm just saying that this sort of thing is what people are generally skeptical of. Its one thing to make a 5 minute blender reel, its another order of magnitude to do a couple of hours, especially at that sort of quality. I'm just saying that I really can't see this becoming a practical payment method. Preorders are for the genuinely insane if you ask me. I wouldn't even preorder software. Id much rather wait and see how buggy it is in the wild first. I won't even buy PC games until they've been patched to playability. I guess console games are one thing, since they are mostly static at release, but I don't have any more consoles, and I eventually see a PC-like situation for console games too, where games are released before they are ready and bugs are slowly ironed out with multiple patches, because their publisher is looking purely at the bottom line.

Re:Looking great (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226784)

Movies are not seen based upon previews alone.

They overwhelmingly are. You've seen something on TV, or on a prior pre-roll. Your friends have sat next to you in the cinema and said "that looks like it's going to be good, I want to see it!". You have nothing to do one night and you decide to go see a movie, you decide what looked best from the selection of what's out and you go. Or most people do.

Usually by the time they go to buy the ticket, they have heard reviews on tv, read about them in the newspaper, online, etc, have heard from friends that have seen the movie already, etc, etc.

How do you think all their friends are able to tell them about it? How do you think blockbuster opening weekends making tens of millions of dollars happen? People like the previews and the buzz and they take a gamble to be part of the excitement.

I'm just saying that I really can't see this becoming a practical payment method.

And who is proposing it should be? The pre-order in this case was effectively a donation if you valued the project.

I won't even buy PC games until they've been patched to playability.

You must be fun at parties.

Re:Looking great (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226788)

That's actually a pretty big difference. Movies are not seen based upon previews alone.

Yeah, they are mostly seen based on the headline actors and in some cases the director. That's why those actors get tons of money - because regardless of any other factors, a big name actor puts butts in seats. A movie's biggest take is on opening weekend when the opportunity for reviews, formal or informal, is at its least. Furthermore it's not only movies - people buy books based on their history with the author, especially sequels. People also buy magazine and cable channel subscriptions under similar time frames based on similar historical factors.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm saying the sales models are identical, I'm just saying they are a hell of a lot more similar than most people realize because people are designed to notice differences rather than similarities.

Re:Looking great (4, Interesting)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226432)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?

I ordered the DVD because the Blender community has proven that they can successfully develop a product, tutorials and documentation that opens up the possibility for anyone to to create awesome digital media for very little to no cost versus solutions that typically cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. Ton has done an amazing job leading the Blender Foundation and pulling artists from around the world together to make these open movies, which not only give us all something nice to look at and bring attention to the project but drive a lot of the technical improvements in Blender itself. It's a pretty smart way to go about things but is no small feat and I think shows a lot of dedication and determinism. The Durian team have kept an excellent blog where you can follow their progress and it's pretty insightful and inspirational.

I'm very much behind supporting projects like this and although I'm no master Blender artist I wanted to support them and buying the DVD is a great way to do that. You know exactly what you're funding with your donation, and you even get a keepsake containing a lot of resources from the project that will help you learn Blender yourself if you chose to.

Rock on Durian team :)

Re:Looking great (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226492)

Because not everyone is cheap.

Re:Looking great (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227048)

Not everybody is cheap enough to wait until the cakeboxes of DVD-R media are on sale, I think you meant to say.

Re:Looking great (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227376)

Who actually burns downloaded movies to DVD-Rs anymore? I don't think I've done that since 2005 or so...

Re:Looking great (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226814)

"Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?"
Reversed psychology:
"Please Pirate this as it is legal please DO IT!"
-"Nah... I will buy it!"
"You are not honestly going to give us more money when you don't have to, do you?"
-"Just to screw with you!"
"Oh noes..."

Re:Looking great (1)

ProfMobius (1313701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226832)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?

Were you hiding under a rock for the last 2 weeks and the humble bundle event ? Event when given the possibility to pay 1c, people are ready to pay more for what they think is a good cause/quality product.

Re:Looking great (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227074)

Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie?

Because they liked it? Because they want to support the creators in a direct way?

There's also always the fact that you get a physical artefact. For example, I have the DVDs from the Star Wreck [starwreck.com] folks. Yeah, I could have just downloaded the Star Wreck 6 when it was out, but heck, if you've waited the film to come out for years, getting a physical DVD from the creators before the thing officially hits the net is still as awesome as ever.

I mean, I have the original Star Wreck videos as crappy home-burned VCDs from years gone by. Extremely smudgy inkjet covers and marker labelling looks a little bit corny when compared to the actual printed DVD covers and factory-made DVDs. =)

Re:Looking great (3, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226168)

Yes, it looks great, kind of. It looks visually impressive, but having seen the trailer I just don't want to see the whole thing. It just gives me a sense of genre, and does not pique my curiosity at all. Manga style characters? Cliched fantasy story? It just gives a sense of being one among thousands of films just like it, except that it's a tech demo for the power of Blender at the same time. Disappointing in an Avatar kind of way.

Re:Looking great (1)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226232)

The trailer reminds me of a cross between generic Final Fantasy and Diablo cgi cut-scenes.

Re:Looking great (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226264)

That was my immediate thought as well, this is by no means on-par with a "real" all-CG movie, it feels more like computer game cutscenes. What really disturbed me was that the character animations felt a bit too "floaty" at times (movement that looks like the characters are floating around under water).

Re:Looking great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226640)

That was my immediate thought as well, this is by no means on-par with a "real" all-CG movie

Keep in mind this is just a teaser. There is a fairly large team of people working on Sintel and still 1-2 months of work to be done improving the movie.

Re:Looking great (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226280)

Yes, that's it. It gives the impression of being something from a computer game, but as the actual game parts are left out, there's just nothing to it to get me interested.

Re:Looking great (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226760)

Unlike Hollywood movies, this one is open source, so you can go jump in and make it better...

http://durian.blender.org/get-involved/ [blender.org]

Re:Looking great (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226948)

Yes, the same way that I can re-write Emacs to be vim. Then again, I could just use vim, or write my own editor from scratch.

Re:Looking great (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227170)

Yes, the same way that I can re-write Emacs to be vim. Then again, I could just use vim, or write my own editor from scratch.

Then again, you can just use Viper mode in emacs which already supports a huge chunk of vim features and bindings. Aside from that, you've missed the point. The fact is, you CAN re-write emacs to be vim. The fact YOU don't want to, but would rather just complain, well, says enough doesn't it...

Re:Looking great (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227380)

x -- Point.

o -- You.

I can't just jump in and re-write the script at this time. It would be like re-writing Emacs, a fairly robust and stable software package, into something which it was never meant to be. On the other hand, I can either (as a consumer) watch one of the numerous films that I actually enjoy or (as a creator) write a script of my own and try to get others to collaborate.

It's all well and good that it's "open source" when its fundamental vision is one I just find trite and boring. If it's only meant as a tech demo, like GooberToo claims, then I think it's very good indeed. But buying a copy? Never.

Re:Looking great (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226968)

And Avatar has a to-date gross revenue of $2.71 billion dollars [boxofficemojo.com]. So if this turns out to be open source Avatar, there will be lots of people going to watch it.

Re:Looking great (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227056)

Is this 3-D too? Will it be played at all the 3-D theatres?

Re:Looking great (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227082)

Is this 3-D too? Will it be played at all the 3-D theatres?

Currently a 3D version is being considered but it is not guaranteed. It would require additional funding to pay for the compositing development work and for someone to do the compositing work and any other changes needed for 3D. There have been talks with some potential sponsors of such work but nothing concrete yet.

The only deliverables that are certain at this point are a 2k and 4k version of the film.

Re:Looking great (4, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227158)

Yes, it looks great, kind of. It looks visually impressive, but having seen the trailer I just don't want to see the whole thing.

To say you've entirely missed the point in an understatement.

It looks visually impressive

This is entirely the point - which you've completely validated. There is no other point.

The OS community wishes to show off what blender and other OS tools are capable of creating. As far as I know, there are no open source tools which create story lines, genres, or any other meta aspect of the movie. People do that. The purpose is to create a technology demo which shows off the technical capabilities of the tools. The fact you call the trailer, "visually impressive", means they've hit a home run. At the end of the day, unless YOU are making commercials, movies, special effects, or a hobbyist modeler, frankly you're not even the target audience.

To be absolutely clear, the intent of these movie projects isn't so the casual movie goer has something to watch while they chew down some pop corn. The intent is to demo Blender's (and other tools) capabilities to those who do create movies, commercials, and special effects, so that Blender will be used in places you already do chew on pop corn. In short, you just gave them a glowing A+ and didn't even realize.

I Just Wrote an Open Source Book! (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226442)

I wrote it in Open Office, atop Linux, with a stuffed penguin on my desk.

What's it about? you ask.

Does it matter? I said, "It's an Open Source Book!" Aren't you paying attention?

Hey, I know, I'll license it under Creative Commons, how's that? Now it'll be really good!

Re:I Just Wrote an Open Source Book! (3, Insightful)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226546)

Yes, haha, you make joke...

But the mere fact that creative projects were created with open and freely available tools is a good thing, regardless of the quality AT THIS TIME.

What this is demonstrating are possibilities, proof of concepts. When the Mind's Eye or Pixar pushed out shorts they weren't anything spectacular from a story point of view. In fact, they were nothing that couldn't have been told better with real actors. People scoffed then and said similar things. But look at what happened with CGI....

The real story is that the barrier to entry has been lowered. And yes, when you lower the barrier to entry the first folks who use the tools are perhaps not the best storytellers or best writers or best mathematicians. But because the tools are now available to many more, the pool of talent grows. And this means that the products become better. And yes, free tools are not yet at the level of commercial tools, and may never be but the mere fact that free tools exist means that everything gets better (rising tide floats all boats).

Re:I Just Wrote an Open Source Book! (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226740)

I disagree. I think the barrier to entry is getting higher and higher with every multi-hundred million dollar upgrade pixar makes every time. You could always render stuff and make movies with lesser resources. There are a number of commercial products out there that will accomplish this task. They are not overly expensive either. Sure blender is free, but I've seen better rendering from commercial products to be honest. What was that short film that was recently making the rounds in the internet with the camera guy and the bubbles floating everywhere? I think one guy wrote that animation and it totally blows this one away. Parts of it look good, for sure, but this stuff would have been cutting edge...what...10 years ago? I think even the CGI in FFVIII is better than this. That being said, I was sort of intrigued by the preview, and now kind of want to see this, just based upon story alone, even if it looks like a clichéd video game plot. Also, I think the early pixar shorts were fairly endearing for their story telling. Each one was a short story that was kind of cute, and when you look at even their stuff from the 80s, its awfully, awfully impressive considering that they were writing that stuff on crays and what not before there were even real modelling and animation tools.

Re:I Just Wrote an Open Source Book! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226612)

I wrote it in Open Office, atop Linux, with a stuffed penguin on my desk.

Sorry. I can't accept any open source books which are not written in LaTeX. :-)

TRON 2 IS COMING !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226006)

You will be humbled, USERS !!

Re:TRON 2 IS COMING !! (1)

spike1 (675478) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227092)

WHEN is Tron2 coming?
Tron 2 has been "coming" for the past 2 years!

Re:TRON 2 IS COMING !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227166)

According to the end of the second trailer [apple.com], released in March: December 17 2010.

Release dates for various countries can be found here [imdb.com], courtesy of IMDb.

The Durian open movie project? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226052)

As long as I don't have to eat them...

They are an acquired taste, I know. In Ipoh last month my son bought an ice cream and asked for mango flavour. He took one bite and uncharacteristically offered it to me. So I took a taste and realised his mistake. Apparently they were out of mango...

It's the smell only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226718)

Durian tastes great actually. Rich creamy goodness which tastes nothing like the foul odour it secretes.

Aspect ratio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226056)

WTF is with the black space?? Cmon make a video with a the right aspect ratio instead of adding a bunch of black pixels.

Re:Aspect ratio? (1)

stjobe (78285) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226076)

It is the right aspect ratio - for a movie theater screen.

Re:Aspect ratio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226110)

The part that isn't black is the right ratio, the whole video is not.

Re:Aspect ratio? (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226254)

The movie will be in a 2.35:1 ratio but the picture is encoded as 16:9 (~1.78:1), hence the black bars. This is the correct size for viewing such content on a 16:9 TV or projector.

Cost Ratio vs Effort Ratio (1)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226246)

While obviously the cost of making this film is nothing compared to a movie studio budget, and the output is pretty much on the same level ...

How does the effort these guys put in compare to how much effort a studio would have had to put in? Cause that's the metric that will really tell us if Blender is as good as the pro tools. Volunteers will always be 100% cheaper than professionals, the question is how much time they took to create this.

Regardless, I applaud the effort, it looks wonderful.

Re:Cost Ratio vs Effort Ratio (5, Informative)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226398)

You completely miss the point of the project. They don't want to make a movie for profit, like studios would, but they want to make a move to determine what they need to do to improve the authoring software and do that while making the short movie.

It's a collaboration between the artists and the developers, that work on the next major version of blender (2.5x) and will directly interact during the project (they'll work in the same location).

They also want to use it as PR to get people interested in the software, use it, improve it, contribute to current and future projects with development, feedback, community activity and money.

They do a very good job with that IMO.

Re:Cost Ratio vs Effort Ratio (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226702)

While obviously the cost of making this film is nothing compared to a movie studio budget, and the output is pretty much on the same level ...

How does the effort these guys put in compare to how much effort a studio would have had to put in? Cause that's the metric that will really tell us if Blender is as good as the pro tools. Volunteers will always be 100% cheaper than professionals, the question is how much time they took to create this.

It depends on which part of the pipeline - in some areas Blender is superior to the majority of its commercial competition (UV Unwrapping, Character Animation) and in some areas it is behind. The budget for this film is actually pretty significant for a short animated film - while some volunteer animation has been done (about 3-5% of total work?) the majority of the work is being done by professional artists and animators - I believe there are about 12 individuals (coders + artists) on the payroll.

For similar quality it is requiring a similar amount of time.

Not peach or apricot (4, Informative)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226252)

(We discussed the beginnings of this project in 2007.)

Well, that is incorrect. You've linked to an article about Peach [bigbuckbunny.org] and Apricot [yofrankie.org] projects, both of which were completed.

This is a seperate, 4th project, Durian [blender.org] (Orange [elephantsdream.org] being the first)

Re:Not peach or apricot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227130)

I (and anyone else who uses blender) can confirm this. Correct the article please?

Free or Pay? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226282)

Article doesn't mention if it's intended as a theatrical release or bit torrent release

Re:Free or Pay? (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226352)

It's Creative Commons licensed, so you can download it from their server or one of the mirrors, torrent it or play it in your home theater.

It'll only be a 5-8 minute short movie, so don't expect a feature film, or something..

Re:Free or Pay? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226360)

Latest estimate in fact is eleven and a half minutes, minus credits.

Re:Free or Pay? (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226386)

The trailer is almost 1 minute.. so that means the trailer is almost 20% of the movie. LOLZ....

Re:Free or Pay? (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226434)

20%? Huh? The movie will be more than 5 minutes long.

Re:Free or Pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226542)

The movie is planned to be about 11 minutes. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEg4sJqzPKw&feature=channel

Re:Free or Pay? (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226712)

Article doesn't mention if it's intended as a theatrical release or bit torrent release

It is a short animated film of roughly 11 minutes. It will be screened in a number of theaters and can be purchased on DVD, but you likely won't be able to purchase a ticket to go see it at theaters except at film festivals.

Looks fine actually - didn't go for realism (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226286)

I found myself comparing this to "Final fantasy: the spirit within" of some 9 years ago, and at first was a bit disappointed, but then I realized that the movie didn't go for realism, and makes up a lot with some interesting animation. IMHO.

!ta3o (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226338)

mem3ers are

Why did it take so long? (1)

deltavivis (26381) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226428)

This is not very impressive for 3 years in production for what other comments are saying is a 5-8 minute film. From the few seconds I could see some things like hair and eyeballs were rendered quite beautifully, but when motion started to happen it just looked weird, jumpy, and crappy. Nice textures and lighting, bad animation.

Re:Why did it take so long? (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226468)

This is not very impressive for 3 years in production for what other comments are saying is a 5-8 minute film

I imagine because it was a handful of people working part-time on weekends? Big studios employ hundreds and use expensive render farms and still take up to a year.

Re:Why did it take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226520)

They are working full-time on the movie. On the other hand they only have a few people working on it and they did only work a few months on it. Beside that they are also developing the software they are using at the same time.

The whole movie will be about 11 minutes.

Re:Why did it take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227020)

it didn't take that long, OP confused the start date of Durian with the starts of previous Blender Foundation movie projects.

Re:Why did it take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226616)

To put this in perspective: They decided to do everything in Blender 2.5, which is mostly a rewrite of Blender 2.4 and didn't even exist when they started Durian.
So it's more like making a 11 minute short film (at a very high resolution) AND writing all the software to do it, including the rendering and post processing software.

Good products survive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226448)

This needs the same treatment as the humble indi pack of games, make it worthwhile for the production group and maybe lend a bit of support for a new business model.

I hope it's better than BBB (0, Flamebait)

distantbody (852269) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226564)

Was I the only one who found Big Buck Bunny a bit perverse? From the title , which sounds like a porno, to the unappealing and grotesque characters, and even the plot.

An obese, stern-looking rabbit with paradoxically dainty mannerisms. I would use the descriptors: unhealthy, sexually confused, weak, unpleasant, sure that can work as a character that the audience could learn to empathize with, but the plot is nowhere near that.

thanks for your support (5, Informative)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226622)

If you are interested in supporting this project you can preorder the DVD which will come with the complete 3D, texture, and assets to make the film under CC Attribution 3.0 - http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info_n.php?products_id=120 [blender3d.org]

Like all Blender Institute open movie projects, these help to drive forward Blenders capabilities and put them to the test in a production environment.

Some of the major improvements that have happened for this project are things like increasing how many millions of polygons our sculpting tools can handle (45 million on decent hardware); another major upgrade to our animation tools; improving our rendering quality; improvements in simulation quality; and of course numerous interface upgrades.

Re:thanks for your support (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226754)

If you are interested in supporting this project you can preorder the DVD which will come with the complete 3D, texture, and assets to make the film under CC Attribution 3.0 - http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info_n.php?products_id=120 [blender3d.org]

You do realize that this means a porn version is sure to follow shortly?

Re:thanks for your support (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226878)

You do realize that this means a porn version is sure to follow shortly?

Links for Big Fuck Bunny, or it didn't happen!?

Re:thanks for your support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32227224)

Would love to but despite all you talk about being open you still use closed processors and storage devices.

After many weeks of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32226836)

After many weeks of fighting technology...

You're doing it wrong (the technology, I mean).

Anyone else... (1)

gaelfx (1111115) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226874)

... reminded of the cinematic scenes from Diablo II? I had a major flashback while watching this to wasting hours of my life on that game.

Machinima? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32226964)

Whatever happened to Machinima [wikipedia.org]? I figured by now viral machinima movies would routinely sweep the Net, a plugin for it would run on most browsers, more kids would watch its movies than watch TV, people would routinely whip up new clips like email, live video would be ported into it automatically.

But it's still totally fringe, practically unheard of. If they'd called it "mechanime", would it have caught on more by now?

Re:Machinima? (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227104)

Whatever happened to Machinima? I figured by now viral machinima movies would routinely sweep the Net, a plugin for it would run on most browsers, more kids would watch its movies than watch TV, people would routinely whip up new clips like email, live video would be ported into it automatically.

But it's still totally fringe, practically unheard of. If they'd called it "mechanime", would it have caught on more by now?

The tools for doing machinima are still quite poor. The interfaces for controlling characters, acting, and setting up scenes are clumsy and time consuming. Until the tools become worthwhile it probably won't catch on beyond the novelty level.

Fails to impress (2, Insightful)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227190)

If the goal of the trailer is to demonstrate the power of open source... it fails. Facial expressions and animations so fluid they compete with late 90s Blizzard cutscenes? Meh. It demonstrates more the power of the uncanny valley. Is that girl trying to be terrified, lost, or innocently seductive in a Japanese sex-doll kind of way? Is that gargoyle thing giving her a "I miss you" look or about to eat her?

After seeing the trailer, I have less than no interest in watching the movie. It screams "copycat" through and through. From the face of some generic woman serving as the backdrop to the font used for the title to the artistic style of the movie to the snowy wanderer to the shaman scene showing off lighting effects to the mystical feeling of some sort of lost warrior on some sort of epic quest with some sort of semi-tribal drumbeats in the background... seriously, that's the best they came up with? It's like they purposely ripped off every cliche in video gaming. Fine if you were making the intro for an indie Diablo clone, perhaps, but as a standalone movie it holds no appeal and only makes open source seem like a poor imitator of outdated tech and themes.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but really, as something designed to show off open source, its primary message seems to be "we're still playing catchup".

Nice! (3, Funny)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#32227192)

And it seems this movie will contain a lot more dialog than the first FLOSS movie (where the only conversation was: "emo." "EMO!" "emo?").

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...