blenderblog

There's an interesting rant over at /. called SIGGraph and Open Source posted by Sean Cier. Sean makes the arguement that seeing as all the top 3D [Hollywood] animation studios develop a staggering amount of in-house 3D software [applications, plug-ins, add-ons, etc], and a lot of this development is similar in function [Fluid dynamics, Hair, Subsurface scattering, Muscle-and-skin systems, Crowd control, etc.], that it would be beneficial to both the sutdios and the 3D community at large to release this software under an open source licence.

So, what if they all worked on Open Source stuff instead? ... No drawbacks, all upside: no lock-in, you can fix stuff, you can add stuff, you don't have to wait on anybody else, and plus, you can do all this while also using what others have written.

The knee-jerk reaction that may be some executives' first objection: our code is a strategic advantage, giving it away would be throwing away money. If we can do hair and our competitors can't, we'll make better films then they can (and, if it's a visual effects studio, we'll win contracts based on that unique ability).

Bull honkus. If your competitors need hair, they'll write hair software, no problem. Another quote from the Pixar RenderMan user's group, this one by a RenderMan developer (paraphrased): "this is based on the subsurface scattering papers from a couple years ago. Everybody does this, based on those papers." Nope, I don't see strategic advantage there: I see waste.

It is, as they say, a win-win scenario; the studios contribute their code to Open Source projects, and everybody helps make that code better. ILM started it in a small way, with OpenEXR, and it worked: OpenEXR is *the* format for high-dynamic-range images, no questions asked. Did it benefit ILM? You betcha: major packages everywhere (Photoshop, RenderMan, etc) either import/export OpenEXR now, or will soon. Pixar even contributed new compression code.

So, a great scenario, and proof that it works. Why hasn't it happened in a bigger way yet? Fear of the unknown. But listen close, and you'll hear a flood coming that could change the landscape -- and it's hard to divert a flood.

In the article he mentiones Blender...

Blender's great for what it does, but medium-to-large studios aren't its intended audience; it's not going to displace Maya any time soon, because it doesn't offer anything that Maya lacks as far as the studios are concerned

Which is true to some extent, but there's a comment that counters his statement quite well...

Studios are not going to just open source and give out all their code. Even if they did, they'd be huge and confusing to the open source world and nobody would know how to use it. We'd have another Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla thing.

If you want to have open source 3d tools (which there are already), you've got to work from the other end. Creating your own. Taking on the studios at their own game. Growing up between their toes.

If you're a graphics nerd, don't sit around pining like this, start using/hacking on blender [blender.org] and yafray [yafray.org]. They are already seriously good and getting better by the day. If they don't meet your requirements yet, start using them and they soon will with all the extra attention. Besides, half the "really cool" stuff done/needed by 'professional' 3d artists are implemented in custom scripted things. Blender's fully python scriptable. Has been for a long time.

At present, Blender is still the most complete open source 3D solution out there, and with a community that is egar to move forward and supportive.