Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the most-movies-are-so-proprietary dept.

290

Joe (and many others) writes "This month has seen the internet release of the first 3D 'Open Movie', Elephants Dream." From the site: "The 3D animated short 'Elephants Dream' will today be released as a free and public download. This is the final stage of a successfully completed Open Movie project which has been community-financed, using only Open Source tools, and opening up the movie itself as well as the entire studio database for everyone to re-use and learn from. The movie and production files are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, which only requires a proper crediting for public screening, re-using and distribution."

cancel ×

290 comments

Stallman Feeds Self Whole Chicken (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366696)

Stallman Feeds Self Whole Chicken
Richard Stallman stunned a conference on Open Source Software and the Free Software Movement when he took the stage with what appeared to be a whole rotisserie chicken. As shocked attendees watched, he then proceeded to eat the entire chicken with his bare hands pausing only to wipe the grease on his shirt while mumbling "microsoft wants you to use a fork and napkin". Upon completion of his one-man chicken eating demonstration he demonstrated the features of EMACS to an audience that could only be described as disguested.

Just the free market at work. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366709)

What we're seeing here is just the free market at work, re-adjusting itself to the distortion of the past 20 or so years. It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly.

Projects like this were bound to happen sooner or later. Now that the technology is readily available, the market is able to take care of the problem of overpaid movie stars and distribution companies.

Just wishful thinking at work. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366806)

"What we're seeing here is just the free market at work, re-adjusting itself to the distortion of the past 20 or so years. It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly."

Translation into slashspeak: I want free movies. Of course as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".

Re:Just wishful thinking at work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367239)

+5, Insightful. But I suppose you meant to say "translation FROM Slashspeak to English".

Re:Just wishful thinking at work. (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367556)

Movies at the lowest price possible, consistent with quality.

Re:Just the free market at work. (1)

malraid (592373) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366915)

Square didn't do very well with Final Fantasy and Aki Ross, so I'm not sure we're there yet.

Re:Just the free market at work. (3, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366928)

Whatever. The thousands of low budget copyrighted short films produced before this "open" short film didn't kill Hollywood, and neither will this one. If you think Pixar and Dreamworks are worried, you're seriously deluded.

Re:Just the free market at work. (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366984)

Marketing and Tie-ins

Pixar surely isn't worried but the first time some toy company wants to foot the bill on some merchandise, they'll pay attention.

Re:Just the free market at work. (2, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367114)

You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?

I'm absolutely shocked that you're not the CEO of Mattel by now, with brilliant thinking like that.

Re:Just the free market at work. (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367212)

Viral marketing will have more play within the next 15 years than traditional methods.

Mattel won't be the one to squirt out platic for a geek fan movie but those off companies that only sell to SunCoast or other comic shops certainly will.
At the point that demand outpaces supply, Mattel/Hasbro will listen.

Re:Just the free market at work. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367570)

You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?
I think its more likely that the toy company would take the movie and promote/distribute it where it can get more eyeballs on it (no development or licensing costs -- well, maybe some of the former if they do their own edits -- just marketing costs), and then squirt out a bunch of toys based on it.

Re:Just the free market at work. (2, Insightful)

starwed (735423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367000)

They could have been replaced by human actors as well, many of whom can act better than those paid $20 million.

Re:Just the free market at work. (4, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367012)

"It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly."

Clearly obvious to geeks, maybe.

The reason that Joe Public goes to see a movie is not for the plot, nor for the special effects, but for the star power. People will see Pirates of the Caribean for Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp, not because it's about pirates.

Even if we replace actual actors with CGI clones, or purely CGI characters develop, it will cost $20 million to license their image, because star power is what draws people to the movies in the first place. The movie industry is one of the freest markets, and I think it's a tough case to make that the money stars make is somehow distorted.

Re:Just the free market at work. (2, Interesting)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367287)

I agree. Being a father, I am exposed to a lot of cartoon/CG movies. I love pixar movies becuase of the writing and the stars that say the lines. I am looking forward to seeing cars. Come'on can anybody replace "Larry the Cable guy" in a role like that?

However, I have also seen some real crap. The Barbie movies are CG and they suck. I can't stand to watch any of them. Along with the care bears (not cg but cartoon). Its not the medium, it's the story and the actors. Even if it's only their voices. Robin Williams as the genie? Have you seen the after-market dvds with another actor. It really makes a difference.

Take care.

It'll never work..... (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367085)

...Don't the producers know that OSS is neither relieable nor dependable [slashdot.org] ?

Jeez....

Half Right (2, Insightful)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367154)

CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism, emotion, or raporte that real ones do. I personally doubt (and kind of hope they don't, because it would be somewhat creepy) they never actually will. CG is a great medium for getting creating fantasy (like with Toy Story or Shrek) or for unique special effects (like the Matrix or Fight Club...but not Star Wars. ILM owned CG in the original trilogy, in my opinion).

Where you are right is that real actors aren't really worth $20 million or whatever a film. I'll bet there's thousands of aspiring actors out there with just as much talent and even as much good looks as the celebrities who roll in the dough from major productions. The reason they do get the money though is marketing. It's a familiar face and a person who's given the audience a positive experience before. How many people go watch a Tom Cruise movie just because it's Tom Cruise (although I no longer understand the appeal behind that one)? How many CG films still pay out big bucks to get major names doing the voice acting?

I'm not saying that a movie can't succeed without big name actors, but it's almost like an insurance policy. The major studios can basically rely on a certain amount of income based entirely off of who's name is with the movie.

Half Right-Supply/Demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367322)

"CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism, emotion, or raporte that real ones do. I personally doubt (and kind of hope they don't, because it would be somewhat creepy) they never actually will. CG is a great medium for getting creating fantasy (like with Toy Story or Shrek) or for unique special effects (like the Matrix or Fight Club...but not Star Wars. ILM owned CG in the original trilogy, in my opinion)."

Tom Hanks in "Polar Express".

"Where you are right is that real actors aren't really worth $20 million or whatever a film. I'll bet there's thousands of aspiring actors out there with just as much talent and even as much good looks as the celebrities who roll in the dough from major productions. The reason they do get the money though is marketing. It's a familiar face and a person who's given the audience a positive experience before. How many people go watch a Tom Cruise movie just because it's Tom Cruise (although I no longer understand the appeal behind that one)? How many CG films still pay out big bucks to get major names doing the voice acting?"

So let's see if I understand you. All those people who go to a Tom Cruise movie, shouldn't be able to because some other person deserves a chance? Or Tom Cruise shouldn't be paid $20 Million even though moviegoers want to see HIM, not an unknown? What happens if the unknown makes $20 Million? Do we tell moviegoers you can't and start the cycle all over again? Do you even understand how the world works?

Re:Half Right (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367431)

"CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism..."

Various anime come to mind for being very good at conveying a far more 'realistic' sense. CGI is an artistic medium, and as long as you treat it like 'film on a budget', you wont be any more successful than a painter using his paint as 'photographs on a budget'. Once you start using the medium for its strengths, I dont think it's inherently any less expressive than real film.

"The reason they do get the money though is marketing."

Actually, the reason they get the money is the monopoly structure of intellectual 'property'. Marketing acts as a force-multiplier when you have a monopoly, which inherently results in the non-competetive cost structure conductive to such salaries. In a competetive market, such gross abberations would be unlikely to appear; with competitors undercutting you with interchangable products, there's a limit to the ROI on marketing.

Re:Just the free market at work. (2, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367272)

Uh...in a word.....no.

CG actors aren't even close to replacing human actors for most things. CG actors are great for cartoony characters that humans couldn't do anyway. You try to sell a CG actor, in their current state of development, off as a real human actor people immediately spot the fact its synthetic, start noticing all the little traits that aren't human, it immediately starts bugging the audience, they get distracted and turned off by the whole movie. Animation tools simply aren't there to pull off a synthetic human for any length of time. Its really hard for an animator to key every nuance of a lifted eyebrow, or just to lip sync well to a sound track of a voice recording. When an actor speaks every motion and nuance is perfectly in sync with and natural for the audio track. It takes enormous effort for an animator to just get close and then they still don't nail all the nuances of emotion that goes along with whats actually being said. Again it works for cartoon characters because people don't expect perfection. As soon as you try to pull off a synthetic human everyone does expect perfection.

Human actors who have real character, like Humphrey Bogart or Lauren Bacall are a pretty valuable commodity, though I will agree many actors today don't rate the salaries or praise they get. A key problem is they are often working off bad scripts and with bad directors.

I wager part of the wasteland that is film today is because todays movie makers, script writers and actors grew up in the TV age and are remarkably devoid of creativity and character. This is a reason we see so many crappy remakes of medicore plots and TV shows like Bewitched. I'm wondering if the rising generations will do better. They grew up in the Internet age and have the ability to search for ideas, and their searches can take them in a billion different directions, versus the one spoon fed direction TV takes its viewers. They have an increasingly vast pool of information and ideas at their disposal so maybe they will be more creative than the current largely failed generation of film makers.

Re:Just the free market at work. (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367451)

They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses.

Not even close. Name one movie where CG actors were good enough to pass as real people. Some movie where you really couldn't tell. Just one.

Re:Just the free market at work. (2, Funny)

saboola (655522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367592)

You can try to make a CGI person jump up and down on a couch like a monkey on a daytime talk show, but it will never be quite right. This is why actors are worth $20 mil.

Wrong... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366719)

This is the final stage of a successfully completed Open Movie project which has been community-financed, using only Open Source tool No, they used Final Cut Pro and Mac OS X for example. Sad... Cineralla could have done it couldn't it?

Re:Wrong... (1)

damg (906401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366916)

Where did you get this information from? From the credits it shows: Special Thanks to Open Source Projects Gimp Twisted Python Ubuntu Linux OpenEXR KDE Verse GNOME CinePaint DrQueue Inkscape Subversion Not that your wrong, but I just haven't heard that anywhere else...

Re:Wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367066)

Re:Wrong... (1)

damg (906401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367378)

Ok, I see they used Linux and Mac OS X, but haven't seen anything about Final Cut Pro?

They do have a response about that: http://orange.blender.org/blog/equipping-the-studi o#comments [blender.org]

and

"We never said that wed work with exclusively open source software for every bit on the hard drive, because thats almost impossible (think closed source linux graphics drivers) and its not the point of this exercise. Apart from of course providing the final product as open content, the aim is to develop and improve open source graphics software by using it in a production environment in the real world - we arent going to be coding drivers or OSes here. We already have a bunch of Linux machines that we are using and testing in this way, maybe we will have a Sun box too. None of the things we do or the formats we use will be Mac only, (or Linux only for that matter). I personally think what were going through here is precisely part of our aims - practically testing these sort of things in the real world. People in the real world use Macs, so how can we find ways to promote and improve open source graphics software for them.
Reno, sorry I cant help you here, we arent using Windows at all. From all Ive heard GIMP pressure sensitivity works ok on there, but thats all I know.
Cheers,
Matt"

Re:Wrong... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367056)

No Final Cut Pro, all composting and editing was done inside Blender.

Re:Wrong... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367130)

though a big hooplah is often made about "OSX workstations" only 2 out of 6 workstations were running OSX- the rest were running linux (x86 platform). All the creation tools used for the movie were open source; no final cut, no photoshop. Editing was in blender, as was compositing (the compositor was in part coded specifically for the movie). Rendering was in blender, running on donated renderfarm time (the renderfarm runs OSX). The "making of" movie on the DVD was not made by the core team, rather by a seperate group of film-makers- they used their own tools (I believe final cut) so that may be where the rumor arises.

Re:Wrong... (2, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367402)

Sad... Cineralla could have done it couldn't it?

Nope, it turned into a pumpkin after midnight.

Re:Wrong... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367543)

The film was edited using Blender's sequence editor. This is discussed quite a bit on the "making of" DVD documentary.

One of the biggest developments of this project (imo, as a filmmaker) is the vast improvement of Blender's sequence editor. The RAM usage has been fixed up so well that it now functions very well as a non-linear editor, and doing complex cutting is easier than any other open-source program. 2.42 will also integration with FFMpeg, so it will be able to handle a multitude of formats.

Before it's slashdoted.... (4, Informative)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366725)

Download the movie AVI, MPEG4 (mp42) / AC3 5.1 Surround

Only playable in: VLC Media Player [videolan.org] MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu]

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (1)

Mr. Frilly (6570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366751)

Anyone have a mirror of the .torrent file? Look like even that's been slashdotted...

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (5, Informative)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366786)

Yeah, even bigger too! 1920 (HD):
http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD. avi.torrent [tribler.org]

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366914)

Well while we're assuming the tracker will hold up:

Here's low res [tribler.org] and hi res [tribler.org] to go with the HD.

We'll see..

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367158)

Somebody mod this guy up -- The 1024 res one is the one I'm downloading, so I hope the torrent gets slashdotted! :)

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (1)

khedron the jester (888418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367250)

Wow - 700 leachers...

Resolution (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366825)

I was hoping for a nice 1280x720 version. I'm sure someone will rerender it at that resolution since all the source files are available ;-)

Great stuff.

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (2, Funny)

Elrond (24327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366926)

They should have put it up on video.google.com.

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... (1)

dasdrewid (653176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367432)

It's been on YouTube since before it was officially released on the web...

The name of the file is getting me down (1)

mattACK (90482) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367500)

Reflexively, I have difficulty downloading any movie with a "ED_" prefix. On a related note, it seems the mirrors can't get it up.

Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366728)

Anyone else have to read that title a few times before it made sense?

Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! (1)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366754)

Release of first 3D 'Open Movie'; Elephants Dream

That would have worked better.

Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367003)

Yep, I was just scrolling through the comments to see if anybody beat me to that comment.

Nor movie does (1)

elhaf (755704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367159)

watch it. No sense does it make.

This Equates to... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366735)

1 for the little people, 0 for the Big Greedy Corporation(s) :)

Re:This Equates to... (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366792)

I think the score for the "big corporations" is somewhere in the thousands, actually. It's nice to see this sort of thing, but don't expect the big players to roll over and die anytime soon.

And That's not all... (2, Funny)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366740)

There is also the Open Video Project [open-video.org] which sports a very cool library of footage, etc...

Elephants Only Web Dream Release? Huh? (2, Funny)

i_am_the_r00t (762212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366752)

did someone chew on these words and spit them on my slashdot?

Any information at all? (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366764)

OK, so the homepage is Slashdotted, and the Mirrordot link is just the notice explaining the Slashdotting. So does anyone have any information about this movie at all?

  • How long is it?
  • If it was created using a "community process," how did the writing and direction work?
  • Who does the voice acting, if any?
  • Where did the music come from?
  • WTF is it about?

Re:Any information at all? (5, Informative)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366832)

ummary from Motevideo:

        Elephants Dream is a story with quick-witted dialogue, tightly designed architecture and unusual sound effects. The main characters, Emo (a cool young trumpeter) and Proog (a confused - or maybe not? - loner) are each stuck in a world of their own. At a certain moment they cross paths with one another. The oddball Proog cautiously tries to introduce his young friend Emo to his world. When Emo realizes that Proog primarily wants to push his ideas on him, this leads to a conflict between them. But can Emo survive in Proog's world? And can they overcome their conflicts, or will they each go their own way in life? Tygo Gernandt and Cas Jansen create two unique personalities that command the imagination, and carry the viewer along into a bizarre world that consists of a bleak wasteland with a tangle of cables and other alien landscapes, a living typewriter, an enormous elevator shaft, and especially a lot of very strange birds.

Also checkout the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephants_Dream [wikipedia.org]

Re:Any information at all? (2, Informative)

slapout (93640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367032)

The whole point of the project was to see if a movie could be created using Blender 3d. It's called the Orange Project and they have a blog about the production. The Orange Project website, however, is currently slashdotted.
When it comes back you can check it out at: http://orange.blender.org/ [blender.org]

Here's some more information.... (1)

spiderworm (830684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367046)

Here's a nice write-up written by somebody very much in cahoots with the Orange team and the heads of the Blender project:

http://www.blendernation.com/2006/05/18/the-worlds -first-open-movie-released/ [blendernation.com]

You can get Blender here:

http://blender.org/cms/Blender.31.0.html [blender.org]

and learn how to use it here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_P ro [wikibooks.org]

and get community help here:

http://blenderartists.org/forum/ [blenderartists.org]
IRC: irc.freenode.net/ #blender #blenderchat #blenderqa

spiderworm

Re:Any information at all? (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367115)

Just type elephants dream into Google and click cached for the first result (clearer if you click cached text only too).

Re:Any information at all? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367304)

Quick questions warrant quick answers!

"How long is it?" 10 minutes plus end credits. "If it was created using a "community process," how did the writing and direction work?" Uh, looks like they, like, picked a writer and a director and stuff? You know, "benevolent dictator" stuff and all? "Who does the voice acting, if any?" Fellows by the names of Cas and Tygo, apparently. "Where did the music come from?" There was this composer, you see, and apparently he got the bright idea to make some Music, you know. "WTF is it about?" Well, good question. 3D artists tend to love Weird Dream Stuff. This is just that! And I kind of liked it.

NOOOOO (5, Funny)

benjjj (949782) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366765)

YOU CAN'T MAKE OPEN-SOURCE MOVIES!!! Who gets the money??? Who sells shitloads of licensed garbage??? My head is about to EXPLODE!!!

Re:NOOOOO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366793)

Mod parent up! LOL

Just great... (1)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367447)

Now Marcellus has to get "The Wolf" to help us scrape all those bits of Jack Valenti's brain off the floor, walls and ceiling. It won't be a pleasant day at all...

Misread headline (0)

cgrayson (22160) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366770)

And thank god it wasn't right. At first skim all I caught was "wet" (rather than "web"), "release", "dream" and "Elephant's".

I don't care how it was made, the last thing I want to see is a movie about elephants having wet dreams!

Elephant's Dream (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366789)

> From the site: "The 3D animated short 'Elephants Dream' will today be released as a free and public download.

Also from the site:

> 425MB (USA #1)

Not for long, it won't be.

(Where are an elephant's genitals located? In his feet. Because if he steps on you, you're fucked. Any parallels between a webserver with a 425 MB .avi file that just got linked on the front page of Slashdot are purely coincidental.)

A start, I suppose (3, Interesting)

Benanov (583592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366810)

Open movie...open build process, open tools... But...no open codecs.

I Dunno About ALL Open Tools... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366906)

...wikipedia identifies Reaktor as Proprietary.

Just sayin'

Re:A start, I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15366958)

mpeg4 and AAC are open codec standards. They could have used Ogg for the container format, but it's just not as widely supported.

Re:A start, I suppose (2, Insightful)

fossa (212602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367052)

Truly a shame... especially if the claim of a previous poster is correct "VLC or MPlayer only". Both of these play Ogg Theora for example on Linux, Mac, and Windows. If you're already using a format that doesn't work by default with, say, QuickTime and Windows Media Player, why not go all out and use Theora?

P.S. It looks like the latest version of Xiph's QuickTime Components [xiph.org] has preliminary Theora playback. And there have been DirectShow (Windows Media Player) filters for Ogg codecs [illiminable.com] for some time now.

P.P.S. Anyone know that status of Dirac?

Teasers / Trailers for the impatient (3, Informative)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366811)

30MB MPEG4 [letwory.net] (BitTorrent)

30MB MPEG4 [blendertestbuilds.de] (blendertestbuilds.de)

Update Oct 17: Here are some other mirrors and compressed versions made by the community!

24MB MPEG [thepiratebay.org] (BitTorrent)

9MB Xvid/Vorbis OGM [ourmedia.org]

Teasers / Trailers/ Torrents for the impatient (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367112)

http://www.isw.uni-stuttgart.de/~xbk/Filme/Orange/

Elephants_Dream_1024-h264-st-aac.mov         19-May-2006 10:39   312M
Elephants_Dream_1024-h264-st-aac.mov.torren t 18-May-2006 14:41    25k
Elephants_Dream_1024.avi                     19-May-2006 10:32   425M
Elephants_Dream_1024.avi.torrent             18-May-2006 08:18    33k
Elephants_Dream_480-h264-st-aac.mov          19-May-2006 10:29  98.8M
Elephants_Dream_480-h264-st-aac.mov.torrent   18-May-2006 14:41     8k
Elephants_Dream_720-h264-st-aac.mov          19-May-2006 10:25   145M
Elephants_Dream_720-h264-st-aac.mov.torrent   18-May-2006 14:41    12k
Elephants_Dream_HD.avi                       19-May-2006 12:42   815M
Elephants_Dream_HD.avi.torrent               18-May-2006 21:24    32k 

wait for it.... (0, Troll)

simonjp (970013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366848)

Where's the lawsuit...?

Re:wait for it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367204)

Do you end everything you say in ...? ...

Re:wait for it.... (1)

simonjp (970013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367299)

Dunno who you think I am, but this is only post of 3 today that ends in a question. Why don't you get your facts straight?

i can't wait (2, Funny)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366865)

I laughed, I cried, it was part of me. Too bad it's still downloading.

A little more info (3, Informative)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366868)

Since the link only provides download mirrors and torrent links, here's some background about the project from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

"Elephants Dream is a computer-generated [slashdot.org] movie made using open source [slashdot.org] applications [slashdot.org] that premiered on March 24 [slashdot.org] , 2006 [slashdot.org] . Beginning production in September, 2005 [slashdot.org] , it was developed under the name Orange by a team of seven artists and animators from around the world. It was originally known as Machina, before being changed to Elephants Dream to more closely match the way the script was developed.

The film was first announced in May, 2005 [slashdot.org] by Ton Roosendaal [slashdot.org] , the chairman of the Blender Foundation [slashdot.org] and the lead developer of the foundation's program, Blender [slashdot.org] . A 3D modelling, animating, and rendering application, Blender is the primary piece of software being used in the creation of the movie. The project is joint funded by the Blender Foundation and the Netherlands Media Art Institute [slashdot.org] . The Foundation raised much of their funds by selling pre-orders of the DVD. Everyone who preordered before September 1 [slashdot.org] has their name listed in the movie's credits. A number of companies also donated render farm [slashdot.org] time for the movie.

The film's purpose is primarily to showcase the capabilities of open source software [slashdot.org] and evaluate it as a tool for organizing and producing quality content for professional films.

During the film's development, several new features, such as hair and fur rendering [1] [blender.org] , were added into Blender especially for the project.

The film's content was released under the Creative Commons [slashdot.org] Attribution license [2] [blender.org] , so that viewers may learn from it and use it however they please. The DVD set includes NTSC and PAL versions of the movie on separate discs, a high-definition video [slashdot.org] version as a computer file, and all the production files.

The film was released for download on the Official Orange Project website on May 18, 2006, along with all production files.

"


Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation [slashdot.org] ; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License [slashdot.org] ".

Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers [slashdot.org] .

Re:A little more info (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367024)

Wow, you haven't just taken the Pointless Wikipedia Link to a new level, you've taken it to two new levels!

Re:A little more info (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367110)

You do realize that all of the Wikipedia links you copied are relative, right?

Re:A little more info (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367143)

ARGH!

High Definition (1920x) torrent now available (0, Redundant)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366873)

High Definition (1920x) torrent:
http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD [tribler.org] . avi.torrent

Leave those windows open when you go to Lunch people!

Re:High Definition (1920x) torrent now available (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366947)

Karma whoring rule #1: Don't break your links

OT link working? (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367041)

link works for me.

Re:High Definition (1920x) torrent now available (1)

fruity_pebbles (568822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367475)

Link works, but it wants a codec I don't have.

Multi-core (3, Funny)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366918)

Now we know what people will do with 4 cores and up. Render their own movies.

Re:Multi-core (3, Funny)

ggy (773554) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367050)

Yup, I just did 'emerge elephantsdream'. Should be ready in time for the sequel. ;)

Re:Multi-core (1)

starwed (735423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367096)

Apparantly they got companies to donate processor time for the rendering, so not quite yet. ^_^

By this price... (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366939)

...I can have all the PS2 Sony can pry INTO my cold dead hands.

Won't someone think of the fluffers? (4, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15366973)

"...so please, please remember - when you make "open" movies, you don't just take profits away from some Hollywood fat-cats; You hurt the gaffers and set designers and makeup artists and fluffers and all the rest of the "little guys". Without all of them, the movies you love just couldn't exist!"

Re:Won't someone think of the fluffers? (1)

Isotopian (942850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367467)

While individual stormtroopers may be innocent souls, they all exist as part of the same evil empire ;). Maybe we need another Timothy McVeigh to bomb some movie sets! Only the bad ones though...

And I thought the Elephant's Dream... (3, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367132)

...was to live on a muddy peanut farm in a world without circuses or pianos.

Well... I wonder... (3, Interesting)

rcastro0 (241450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367160)

I wonder, and I am too lazy to research, whether being open source
also means that I could download the 3d models they used and create
my own film stories, TV commercial, product endorsements, pron, etc...

Is there any "open source", copyright-free 3d model characters out there
that one could just grab and use ?

Re:Well... I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15367278)

Yup, that is exactly what it means. And that of course includes the 3d character models.

Re:Well... I wonder... (2, Informative)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367347)

Yes, they released their source.

Re:Well... I wonder... (2, Informative)

The_DoubleU (603071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367508)

Yes. If you buy the DVD version you will get all the textures, bender modules, etc used for this movie. You can copy it, modify it and release it, as long as you provide credit where credit is due.

311MB (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367193)

311 Megabytes. This is going to be a Slashdotting to end all Slashdottings.

Re:311MB (1)

k-vuohi (973009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367262)

Considering that the servers have been struggling to hold together hours before the slashdotting... Bye, movie.

Obvisously a technology demonstration (5, Insightful)

Enselic (933809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367229)

I saw the whole thing, and it is obvious that this movie was made by technology geeks, and not cultural geeks. The graphics is easily in par with commercial movies, but the script sounds as if it was authored by a chatbot.

Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration (5, Funny)

brjndr (313083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367388)

...but the script sounds as if it was authored by a chatbot.

or George Lucas

How good is it? (4, Insightful)

hexix (9514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367240)

All the comments seem to be focused on the open source aspect, which is cool and very important. However, did anyone actually watch this movie?

I watched it the other day (I think it was on digg or boing boing or something). I thought it was insanely bad. It was like I came in halfway through some crazy anime. I didn't know what the hell was going on. I couldn't even begin to figure out what the characters were suppose to be feeling or thinking.

This has a cool factor going for it, but man it was painful to watch. The 3D work was well done as far as textures and models, but the animation seemed really awkward and bad.

I don't think anyone should be patting themselves on the backs too hard yet. If this is what the open source model can produce for entertainment, then I don't think Pixar has much to fear.

However, the possibility for movie remixes should be pretty cool.

Re:How good is it? (1)

pjludlow (707302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367442)

Yes, let's talk plot please. For some reason since this is an open source project plot must not matter to slashdot users, although if George Lucas were to have helped out in this it would be a different story. I just watched it and while the animation and rendering were interesting the plot bored me to death. I felt like I was in an bad anime movie (I don't like those anyway), and after hearing the word emo about 10,000 times (someone might want to count the exact number) I thought I might as well turn emo and slash my wrists to save me the pain. I applaud the work that was done by the open source community in it's creation, but it really did not captivate my attention.

Re:How good is it? (1)

commonchaos (309500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367453)

The best explanation I've seen of the movie so far is that the older guy is crazy and trying to convince the younger guy that what he is seeing is real.

Can't see in xine? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367308)

Xine on my FC4 box doesn't have a codec or something, I get "couldn't find demux for Elephants_dream_1024.avi" adn't didn't see anything on their site. Too new for Google to have info i guess.

Its just like Windows then ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367354)

Even if it is so ? For windows has been so since 1995.

What? (4, Funny)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15367372)

> Hello, I am Eliza.
* Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream
> Say, do you have any psychological problems?
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...