The Open Movie Projects use Open software for soundtrack!?!

Discussions and feedback around the Open Projects such as Orange (Elephants Dream), Peach (Big Buck Bunny), Apricot (Yo Frankie!)...

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Jan Morgenstern
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:12 pm

Postby Jan Morgenstern » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:31 am

alexstone wrote:Jan, Ton, i'd ask here, what, in your view, is the most pressing requirement in linux audio to take this further forward?

alexstone wrote:I think you made a couple of good points in your earlier post, but they didn't get to the actual point of the question without being smothered in several layers of personal preferences.

I think I have no more comments at this point.

ccherrett
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:15 am

Postby ccherrett » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:28 am

Jan Morgenstern wrote:
alexstone wrote:Jan, Ton, i'd ask here, what, in your view, is the most pressing requirement in linux audio to take this further forward?

alexstone wrote:I think you made a couple of good points in your earlier post, but they didn't get to the actual point of the question without being smothered in several layers of personal preferences.

I think I have no more comments at this point.


Hi Jan,

This thread pulls at me hard considering I have been working on a building a professional orchestral pipeline in Linux for the last 4 years.

I can see you are not yet aware of the limitations imposed on your pipeline. I hope in the next 6+ months that you will come to understand what the imposed limitations are and how an open pipeline can liberate your music.

I have been in the blender community for quite some time now and heard a lot of bad mouthing regarding one of my favorite applications. People use to come in with their lists of things that they needed before they would use blender. That crowd has grown to be few lately, due to the fact that there were people committed to seeing blender go forward no matter what. I see Linux audio as the next candidate for this transformation. I just hope you decide to give it a chance and that Ton sees the value in an open audio pipeline.

P.S. I tried to get some audio source files for BBB but could not find anything. Even folly on a separate track. It all seems to be video assets. Is this correct?

Jan Morgenstern
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:12 pm

Postby Jan Morgenstern » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:40 pm

ccherrett wrote:I can see you are not yet aware of the limitations imposed on your pipeline.


What are you, a clairvoyant? All I've written about in this thread is what I perceive to be the some of the bigger limitations of an open source pipeline. Putting aside the fact that you don't even know what my production pipeline consists of, rest assured that I'm well aware of its limitations.

I hope in the next 6+ months that you will come to understand what the imposed limitations are and how an open pipeline can liberate your music.


Or maybe you could liberate your mind from the perception that using anything else than pure open source goodness somewhere in a pipeline would somehow taint the end result with evilness. You know, my music happens inside my mind. I'll use whatever tool that gives me the best results in making it audible. Egregious concept, I know.

This discussion has really taken an ugly turn. I tried to explain the reasons why I don't see a full open source pipeline as a viable alternative for me at this point as pragmatically as possible. Because, you know, a pragmatist is what I am. I figured that developers could either dismiss it as the rambling of a relative nobody, or maybe use it as food for thought (both views are legit). I've stated repeatedly that I'm actually a big proponent of free software, and that I'd love to reconsider my stance as soon as new developments in the realm of free audio projects warrant it, or in case someone points out that I've missed something fundamental. I'm also willing to discuss matters with developers directly in a civil and constructive manner in case anyone deems my opinions to have any significance.

I won't, however, waste another minute engaging in pointless discussions with people who are determined to prove that my workflow is wrong, that I have no clue how the Big Guys™ work, and that my heart is not pure enough to recognize the redemptive power and beauty that is open source software. If you don't like the fact that I'm putting the quality and efficiency of my work above the question of which software project could benefit the most from me using it, well, that's entirely your problem. Last time I checked I was being listed as a sponsor for this project, not a team member with a full-time salary.

roos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:43 pm

Postby roos » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:59 pm

Thanks for comments.

@Jan, your last replies are a bit defensive/offensive. As a reader of this discussion I don't see very well why. Maybe because you have some bad experiences with criticism on your workflow in the past, but the comments in this tread don't attack you as far as I can see. They just discuss your criticism on certain 'workflow' points of the OpenSource software for pro audio. Most of the comments even agree with a certain part of your criticism and they even want to use those in the development of Ardour3. But it's free to also have some criticism and discussion about proprietary software and the workflow of them, right?


I think that's what a discussion is all about. No need to attack or feel attacked. Just give arguments, if possible with some sources.

And yes, there can be some idealism in OpenSource software. I think that's also one of the reasons why there is such thing as Blender nowadays. Why use Blender if there is also other software like the kind Pixar is using...

If you work for an OpenSource project such as Blender is, it's a matter of time till you get the question about the software you use. Just interest or some idealism too. It's pretty logic imo and you shouldn't be surprised about it. It would only work in your advantage if you could say that you use OpenSource software too. Of course the question is, whether the level of the OpenSource software is good enough and when it is good enough to make the switch. But don't be surprised that you get the question and a discussion about it, and so also don't feel attacked about it.

Jan Morgenstern
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:12 pm

Postby Jan Morgenstern » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:54 pm

Fine, I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes with the sarcastic tone in my latest posts. It's just that I find the style of reasoning that surfaced in the last third of this thread to be rather ludicrous.

"Hey, why aren't you using free software?"
"Well, I need $FEATURE for my work, and so far, no open source program has it."
"No, you don't need $FEATURE! Nobody does! You're just afraid of change!"

Alex, you complain that the stuff I write is too subjective and too centered on my personal preferences, but honestly: What on earth did you expect? For every universal truth I'd be dumb enough to proclaim here, a dozen people would jump on me yelling that I'm an idiot and that they like their way much better. And who am I to argue? After all, you'd probably find people out there who prefer to write their music with a hex editor, and you know what? That's cool.

If you feel the most recent sample libraries don't add anything substantial to your possibilities, that's cool. If you feel you can do without any of the commercial plugins on the market and the LADSPA arsenal works just fine for you, that's cool. If you feel the limited choice of professional audio interfaces imposed by Linux doesn't constrain you, that's cool. If you feel your own sequencer serves you just as well, or better than commercial solutions could, hey, that's way cool. And I don't mean any of that in a sarcastic way.

But don't ask me for an opinion about what's missing, only to tell me that my priorities are all wrong. I believe I've been in this business for long enough to claim with a certain authority that I know what works for me, and – perhaps more importantly – what doesn't.

And roos, if you really think it was the question of why I wouldn't be using free software that surprised or offended me, I suggest you read the thread again. You may find that I did my best to answer this question in an elaborate and constructive manner.

One last comment concerning Blender, as you specifically cited it for its success: Did you ever notice that Ton, for all the blood, sweat and tears he puts into it, keeps a remarkably professional and pragmatic attitude about it? I've never seen him talking down to professional Maya or 3ds users claiming that Blender would make them so much happier and free them from their self-built prisons. Food for thought, maybe?

I'm all for idealism. Idealism is great. It's zealotry I could do without.

ccherrett
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:15 am

Postby ccherrett » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:06 am

Jan Morgenstern wrote:Fine, I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes with the sarcastic tone in my latest posts. It's just that I find the style of reasoning that surfaced in the last third of this thread to be rather ludicrous.

"Hey, why aren't you using free software?"
"Well, I need $FEATURE for my work, and so far, no open source program has it."
"No, you don't need $FEATURE! Nobody does! You're just afraid of change!"

Alex, you complain that the stuff I write is too subjective and too centered on my personal preferences, but honestly: What on earth did you expect? For every universal truth I'd be dumb enough to proclaim here, a dozen people would jump on me yelling that I'm an idiot and that they like their way much better. And who am I to argue? After all, you'd probably find people out there who prefer to write their music with a hex editor, and you know what? That's cool.

If you feel the most recent sample libraries don't add anything substantial to your possibilities, that's cool. If you feel you can do without any of the commercial plugins on the market and the LADSPA arsenal works just fine for you, that's cool. If you feel the limited choice of professional audio interfaces imposed by Linux doesn't constrain you, that's cool. If you feel your own sequencer serves you just as well, or better than commercial solutions could, hey, that's way cool. And I don't mean any of that in a sarcastic way.

But don't ask me for an opinion about what's missing, only to tell me that my priorities are all wrong. I believe I've been in this business for long enough to claim with a certain authority that I know what works for me, and – perhaps more importantly – what doesn't.

And roos, if you really think it was the question of why I wouldn't be using free software that surprised or offended me, I suggest you read the thread again. You may find that I did my best to answer this question in an elaborate and constructive manner.

One last comment concerning Blender, as you specifically cited it for its success: Did you ever notice that Ton, for all the blood, sweat and tears he puts into it, keeps a remarkably professional and pragmatic attitude about it? I've never seen him talking down to professional Maya or 3ds users claiming that Blender would make them so much happier and free them from their self-built prisons. Food for thought, maybe?

I'm all for idealism. Idealism is great. It's zealotry I could do without.


Before I got into this game I did my research on what would not lock me down. I ended up sticking to the .gig format so that I could use Linuxsampler. Funny enough Garry Garitan turned me onto Linuxsampler years ago.

In the end I settled down on VSL PRO Cube and Project Sams True Strike 1 and 2 in .gig format.

Anyways my point is that having the tools in Linux meant so much to me that I decided to take the steps necessary to make it work. I made the decision not to use East West because they are so locked down. I also have issues using dongles, it just rubs me wrong :)

Do you work with East West? Is that why you got upset?

I agree with roos. The open source community will be asking these questions. It is natural, expect it.

P.S. I have been in irc quite a few times when Ton takes a poke at the commercial boys.

roos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:43 pm

Postby roos » Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:10 pm

There is at least some connection now between Blender and Ardour ;)

http://www.jpbouza.com.ar/ESP2/tutorial ... dour/id/en

ccherrett
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:15 am

Postby ccherrett » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:33 pm

And so it begins :)

roos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:43 pm

Postby roos » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:20 am

Let's hope that in the near future the patches are not needed anymore, but Blender can connect with Ardour 'by default'.

ccherrett
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:15 am

Postby ccherrett » Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:35 pm

The first technical overview videos of The Open Octave Project - Pipeline are up.

You can see from a technical stand what is going on.

http://www.openoctave.org

You can also get to the videos right at youtube:

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lAjxb25hpI

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcKz3Aw8zP8

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv65yBQIdOg

Enjoy!

nonlinearsound
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:53 pm
Location: Hamburg

Postby nonlinearsound » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:49 am

Hello everyone,

interesting discussion. To answer your question, Roos:

Ardour: It is nice but comparing it to the tools, I am using now (Protools and Samplitude), it is not as feature complete, well put together and stable as them. It needs more time in development.

LinuxSampler: I didn't test it, didn't even know about it oO Looks good - the java version provides a good UI (although that sounds like eating a lot of resources) - Soundfont playback and editing would be a very nice features and I will monitor the project for more.
But it does not look like something I would use now.

OpenOctave: Looks interesting as well. To me it looks like a project for bringing together applications and connecting them for the best work flow.
Does it only care for projects on Linux?

Linux: I used Linux before but not for professional audio work and I wont use it in future. Working on Linux means too much time is needed for administration then for creating content. I read a lot about people saying that it is not true but I don't know any colleague who uses Linux nor heard of professional audio projects being produced on Linux. I am talking about audio post production and audio design as well as audio fx design. You just cannot get away from integrating your own workflow into the one of your clients or associates :) I got windows and OSX running here with Protools, Samplitude and audio editors like Soundforge or Acoustica.

It is simple as this: I cannot afford time to integrate Linux based tools and current open source audio tools into my toolchain and workflow as they are not as feature complete, integrated, well put together as the commercial software I am using.

Even on the audio fx design side I mostly use commercial stuff: audio plugins of my DAW's (here as well Logics synths like Sculpture) or Plogue Bidules.

So, why do I talk about my own opinion here? Well, I think that open movie projects are just like every other film making project. They are heavily time constrained and need integrated workflows. There is no space for evaluation during the content production and all tools I know, including Ardour, are at a point where one (a composer who is capable of creating great audio for movies like Jan for instance) could not afford to use extra time for making them better. And an important fact is that the composers and sound designer first need to learn the new tools but most of them are working as professional engineers in the industry which is a hard business where you need to concentrate on producing content and learn production techniques instead of twiddling around with new tools which are not ready yet.
Don't get me wrong but we are not at the point in the open source audio world where Blender is already. Just look at the long way Ton and his team had to go to be able to start the first open movie project.

I would even like to see good audio post production features in Blender which will take some time :) But I offer my help wherever I can.

ccherrett
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:15 am

Postby ccherrett » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:23 am

nonlinearsound wrote:Hello everyone,

interesting discussion. To answer your question, Roos:

Ardour: It is nice but comparing it to the tools, I am using now (Protools and Samplitude), it is not as feature complete, well put together and stable as them. It needs more time in development.

LinuxSampler: I didn't test it, didn't even know about it oO Looks good - the java version provides a good UI (although that sounds like eating a lot of resources) - Soundfont playback and editing would be a very nice features and I will monitor the project for more.
But it does not look like something I would use now.

OpenOctave: Looks interesting as well. To me it looks like a project for bringing together applications and connecting them for the best work flow.
Does it only care for projects on Linux?

Linux: I used Linux before but not for professional audio work and I wont use it in future. Working on Linux means too much time is needed for administration then for creating content. I read a lot about people saying that it is not true but I don't know any colleague who uses Linux nor heard of professional audio projects being produced on Linux. I am talking about audio post production and audio design as well as audio fx design. You just cannot get away from integrating your own workflow into the one of your clients or associates :) I got windows and OSX running here with Protools, Samplitude and audio editors like Soundforge or Acoustica.

It is simple as this: I cannot afford time to integrate Linux based tools and current open source audio tools into my toolchain and workflow as they are not as feature complete, integrated, well put together as the commercial software I am using.

Even on the audio fx design side I mostly use commercial stuff: audio plugins of my DAW's (here as well Logics synths like Sculpture) or Plogue Bidules.

So, why do I talk about my own opinion here? Well, I think that open movie projects are just like every other film making project. They are heavily time constrained and need integrated workflows. There is no space for evaluation during the content production and all tools I know, including Ardour, are at a point where one (a composer who is capable of creating great audio for movies like Jan for instance) could not afford to use extra time for making them better. And an important fact is that the composers and sound designer first need to learn the new tools but most of them are working as professional engineers in the industry which is a hard business where you need to concentrate on producing content and learn production techniques instead of twiddling around with new tools which are not ready yet.
Don't get me wrong but we are not at the point in the open source audio world where Blender is already. Just look at the long way Ton and his team had to go to be able to start the first open movie project.

I would even like to see good audio post production features in Blender which will take some time :) But I offer my help wherever I can.


Your arguments for Linux not being professional will only last so long. Blender was at this point for 3D not so long ago. I believe audio is next.

So what will you say when people start producing professional scores with Open Octave? "Oh there are just a few people"? At what point will your arguments start to crumble? What is this cracking point?

roos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:43 pm

Postby roos » Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:30 pm

@nonlinearsound, thanks for comments. Linux might have some disadvantages, but advantages as well. Think of the ability to configure it the way you like and the way your system functions optimal!

You should try Linuxsampler (which you can run also without GUI, so no high system load by Java).

Also try Ardour3 when it is ready. Btw Ardour 2.8.4 functions very well and for midi connecting Openoctavemidi with Ardour works great.

With projects like OpenOctave especially the workflow on Linux improves. I also like to mention some new Session Handlers for Linux like LADI (http://ladish.org/). Which makes it easy to connect Linux audio applications to each other, and build your own DAW basically. If you miss an feature in your DAW or plugins, I bet there is an (small) app or plugin which has the feature...

Also think of the possibilities you get when video applications have JACK support too...


Btw. Has Blender already JACK support by default? If not, where can I do a FEATURE REQUEST?


Return to “Blender Open Projects”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests