Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Open Source

Creative Commons Video Challenges Hollywood's Best 455

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-giant-rabbits-in-this-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creative Commons Video Challenges Hollywood's Best

Comments Filter:
  • by airfoobar (1853132) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @06:15PM (#33772642)
    Holy crap!
    • Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shikaku (1129753) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @06:24PM (#33772692)

      Will it Blend?

    • Yeah it is good. But why's it all pixelated?

      Oh wait. That's because the tropical storm killed my DSL, and I'm stuck on dialup. :-| Anyway... I bet it looks fantastic in HD - as good as Final Fantasy Spirits Within. The software they used is called "Blender"? What other open source software exists for development? Like, is there a OSS clone of PaintShop or JPEGedit?

      • They have a listing of the software the project used in the Credits at the end.
        • Thanks.

          I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?

          • by jesset77 (759149)

            I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?

            The GIMP is an image editor roughly comparable to Photoshop and Paintshop Pro. It can view and edit GIF, JPEG, and a myriad other static image formats.

            ffmpeg and mencoder are also important and powerful open source projects for video work including encoding, muxing and compositing. I'm not sure if those were either listed or used for this specific project.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Peach Rings (1782482)

        It looks good. So I guess it's great publicity for Blender. But the directing is laughably cliche. The running montage made me pause and return to slashdot to rant.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday October 02, 2010 @11:27PM (#33774262)

      Holy crap!

      Yes. But here's the real "holy crap!" part:

      Next on our todo is wrapping up the 4-dvd box release, NTSC/PAL discs with extras and documentary, and 2 DVD-ROMs with tutorials, and all the data to reproduce the fim entirely.

    • by syousef (465911)

      Cinematically gorgeous of course. But did it have to be so fucking depressing though? I mean really did one of the first open source movies have to be about killing your pet dragon because you didn't recognise it?

  • Legal? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RockMFR (1022315) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @06:26PM (#33772714)
    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.
  • Different how? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lando242 (1322757)
    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.
    • What's remarkable is that unlike Avatar or Pixar's latest and greatest is that this is a CG movie that doesn't involve giant expensive renderfarms and really brings CG techniques to the masses of amateur film editors.

      Sure, there's a lot of crap independent art(film, music, still visuals, etc), but, this empowers the possibility of a CG equivalent of Clerks or The Blair Witch Project

      • by siddesu (698447)

        What I find really remarkable is that it seems to demonstrate all the features of blender in one neat piece, which is opensourced, so people can learn from it.

        As a piece of, well, cinematography, this sucks balls though. Still miles ahead of that crappy "Sorry Ass Elephant" from a few years ago though.

      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        What's remarkable is that unlike Avatar or Pixar's latest and greatest is that this is a CG movie that doesn't involve giant expensive renderfarms and really brings CG techniques to the masses of amateur film editors.

        You've never needed renderfarms, the limiting factor is time.

        Sure, there's a lot of crap independent art(film, music, still visuals, etc), but, this empowers the possibility of a CG equivalent of Clerks or The Blair Witch Project

        I thought the whole reason those were "good" is because they accom

    • by jbn-o (555068) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Saturday October 02, 2010 @06:50PM (#33772840) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iluvcapra (782887)

        The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well.

        I don't understand, how is this different from selling tickets? Or going to see a film directed by Darren Aronofsky, without necessarily knowing ahead of time wether it's good or bad, because you like his work?

        Films are funded on the basis of demand for ticket sales. If "Hollywood" doesn't think something will sell tickets, it isn't getting money. I think the problem with

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @08:21PM (#33773416)

          Films are funded on the basis of demand for ticket sales.

          No. Films are funded on the basis of demand for ticket sales as perceived by middlemen - middlemen who care nothing about quality of the end-product or even the long-term viability of the people making the movies.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Cyberax (705495)

          "I don't understand, how is this different from selling tickets?"

          You cannot take a Hollywood movie, modify it to suit your tastes and then re-release it. You cannot even use movie's universe to write your own plots!

        • by houghi (78078) on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:07AM (#33774432)

          The truth is, in fact, Hollywood gives people exactly what they ask for

          No it does not. It looks at the majority of people, not people. Firefly anybody?
          It does not give the public what the public wants. Hollywood gives the public what it can sell to them. And then I agree with

          with the scientific precision that only the free market can provide.

          And that includes all the marketing tricks to make you think that 3D is the next best thing and you MUST see it.

  • 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 professional

  • by Dr. Sp0ng (24354)
    That was very well done.
  • Talent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3 AT phroggy DOT com> on Saturday October 02, 2010 @06:55PM (#33772874) Homepage

    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

    • Talent needs tools (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mangu (126918) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @07:15PM (#33772970)

      what can be generated with open source software WITHOUT any dedicated, creative talent? Isn't that the more important question here?

      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.

  • Theatrical short? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by innocent_white_lamb (151825) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @07:06PM (#33772936)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is licensed as Creative Commons-Attribution. They made a 35mm print for the premiere at the Dutch Film Festival. You're also perfectly free to make your own or show it on a 2k digital cinema projector. You don't even need permission to show it thanks to the cc-BY license, though films like Nina Paley's Sita Sings the Blues (under a similar cc-by-SA license) have done quite well this way by allowing theaters to show it. Audiences frequently appreciate knowing if a certain film like this is receiving a

    • Omg, that would be amazing -- ask them!!
    • by am 2k (217885)

      Maybe you should talk to them instead of posting on a random website about it...

    • Re:Theatrical short? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2010 @07:53PM (#33773236)
  • 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 linkba

    • by bcmm (768152)

      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.

      The "tortured link" with Blender is that it was produced in Blender, as a project initiated by the Blender Foundation to promote Blender, demonstrate what Blender can do, and stimulate Blender development.

      The open source angle would be that Blender is open source, and so is every other bit of software used to create the film (GIMP springs to mind).

      Read the "About" pag [sintel.org]

    • by Xtifr (1323) on Saturday October 02, 2010 @07:48PM (#33773204) Homepage

      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.

  • People have been making movies without help from Hollywood for years [youtube.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by maxwell demon (590494)

      There is need to imagine, because at that link, I only get the information that this video is not available in my country.
      Unlike the Sintel video, which is available, and even in HD.

    • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

      Bollywood movies are hardly "independent"...

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...