Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Blender Gets Audio Sequencing 168

Posted by timothy from the sound-of-frappe dept.
Qbertino writes "The universal GPLd 3D tool Blender that was bought free by the Blender community not so long ago, has gotten audio sequencing added to its feature set. This has been missing ever since the integrated Video NL (Non-Linear) Editor/Sequencer was introduced. The only other 3D package known for its integrated Video NLE is the proprietary Houdini, which also runs under Linux but comes at something like $3000 for its small featureset. This finally gives the OSS community a lightweight alternative to this and eases syncing 3D animation and audio a great deal. Audio sequencing will be integrated in the upcoming 2.28 release of Blender. Early adopters can download here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blender Gets Audio Sequencing More

Blender Gets Audio Sequencing

Comments Filter:

  • But can it still (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:08PM (#6033108)
    Make smoothies? I hope so! Mmmm, smoothies...

  • Blender? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:08PM (#6033109)
    Blite my shiny metal ass!

  • It doesn't make too much sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Samir Gupta ( 623651 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:09PM (#6033112) Homepage
    Just like those all-in-one cell phones, or printers/copiers/scanners/faxes, I suspect that they will have to compromise on quality, lest they end up with some bloated software product.

    I'd much rather have separate best-of-breed software packages, than an integrated one that does everything OK, but not great.

    • It *does* make sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AsparagusChallenge ( 611475 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:20PM (#6033152)
      Blender's primary target is to be able of making ready-to-publish video from scratch. Composing audio is a priority, unless you aim to recreating the beginnings of cinema.
    • You have the counter argument. Look at dvd players and cdplayers. Every dvd player I know can play a regular cd. Every oven has a broiler. Every shower has a tub. Well... mine does :)

      Point is, some things go well together. Scanners and printers use such different technology, no wonder one does well and the other doesn't. Same with these cell/pda's.

      A phone has 12 buttons minimum, to dial a number and communicate via audio. The technology used are for converting audio to digital signal and back.

    • Re:It doesn't make too much sense (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      By the way, everyone who modded this jerk-off up should take a look at his posting history, in which he's claimed to be an employee for several different companies, lied, trolled, and generally made an ass of himself.

      I wish you moderators would put down the crack-pipe long enough to make sure this guy doesn't keep worming his way back.

    • Bloated? (Score:5, Informative)

      by metalhed77 ( 250273 ) <andrewvcNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:49PM (#6033255) Homepage
      Blender may be crap, but at 2 megs it is hardly bloated.
    • Although your point does make sense, have you seen Maya? The thing IS an intergrated package that does everything. 3d Studio Max is kind of like what you speak of, where plugins make it best of breed, but Maya is bundled with just plain everything, and it IS basically quality all over the place. Version 5.0 finally includes mental ray that everyone was using anyway.

      So, compromise is not an issue if you happen to have $2000 to blow.
    • Just like those all-in-one cell phones, or printers/copiers/scanners/faxes, I suspect that they will have to compromise on quality, lest they end up with some bloated software product.

      Isn't Mozilla an all-in-one program, it might big in size. IMHO Mozilla is the best all around internet application packs you can obtain.
    • I suspect that they will have to compromise on quality, lest they end up with some bloated software product.

      I'd much rather have separate best-of-breed software packages, than an integrated one that does everything OK, but not great.

      I disagree with the myth that addition of features necessarily compromises quality or causes bloat. If you're talking about a highly monolithic application, then yes, that *can* be an issue. However, proper modular design entirely dispenses of the drawbacks of feature 'bl

  • Counterparts to Photoshop, Maya (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitalhermit ( 113459 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:14PM (#6033127) Homepage
    Blender is definitely a great success story. Like Gimp is to Photoshop, Blender is to Maya. Though Photoshop is still the heavyweight tool for photo manipulation and though I'm an experienced Gimp user, I know that there are things that Photoshop can do that Gimp cannot do as easily. But the $500 price tag for Photoshop makes me a big, big Gimp fan. It does everything I need. Same for Blender. It is not in the same class as Maya but with a little work, can do many of the same things. In fact, it's at the point where it competes well against many of the lower end commercial packages costing hundreds of dollars.
    • Like Gimp is to Photoshop, Blender is to Maya.

      AAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA!

      I like blender but this is hilarious.
      Have you ever even *glimpsed* at the things Maya can do?

    • But the $500 price tag for Photoshop makes me a big, big Gimp fan. It does everything I need.

      Unless you're a graphics design professional (in which case, $500 is a business expense and can be written off on your taxes, and is a small price to pay to have the industry-standard tool), you probably don't need most of what Photoshop does. However, Photoshop's interface is one of its greatest assets, and you can get that and all the functionality most enthusiasts need in Adobe's Photoshop Elements [adobe.com] product.

      • Re:Counterparts to Photoshop, Maya (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Gimp is useful to some casual users. But it lacks many basic elements of a professional tool of its category. Here's a missing function that you don't hear about that often, but I promise you it's a biggie: STEP AND REPEAT.

        I've gone looking for an analog to this in the Gimp interface and Gimp manual. It simply doesn't exist. The closest thing to it --"offset cloned layers"-- just doesn't WORK.

  • Houdini != small feature set (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry for the nitpick, but for the sake of not propogating mis-information, Houdini has anything but a small feature set, modeling/rendering/compositing very powerfull scripting, CHOPS/SOPS very powerfull particle systems, its been around quite a bit longer then blender as well. More along the lines of Maya Unlimited and Softimage XSI featureset wise.

    http://www.sidefx.com/
    • Not to mention they offer a FREE learning version. It even runs on Linux ;)
    • In addition, it has UI more towards Blender's end of the spectrum in the ease of use department, and a pricetag of $15,000, not $3000.
    • That was a missunderstanding. Predictable though, I'll admit that.
      Houdini is a kick ass product if you pay the price which is something like 9000$ for the full featureset version (renderman and mental ray included!).
      The smaller featureset versions cost aprox. 3000$.
      That's what I ment.

      Having used both I must say Houdini is OK, but it's interface builds up slow as hell whenever it's redrawn which gives the impression of a somewhat clunky piece of software. I'll still have a look at the new version though, al

  • How in the ... ?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gergi ( 220700 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:49PM (#6033252)
    I'm totally impressed. I can't even figure out how to use blender much less resequence my audio (or whatever)!

    Seriously... Anyone out there know how to use Blender? Wanna send me some links to documentation, particularly tutorials? Even better would be tutorials that are up-to-date!

  • missing functionality, but adding new toys? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:49PM (#6033256)

    Maybe it's just me, but they seem to be rather confused between the "About Blender" pages, the Changelog, etc...2.2.7 specifically says cartoon shading doesn't work. "About Blender" says it does. Which is it, guys?

    Then, note that a lot of file formats don't work on Linux- only Win + MacOS X. None of the plugins work in OS X yet...so on. It's beta quality stuff, like walking into a house and the owners keep telling you "no, don't open that door, it's not on the hinges!" or "watch your step" when you pass by the 3-foot hole in the floor. Oh, but look at the MARVELOUS sun porch they just finished!

    See this all the time- developers working on the bright+shiny things, while leaving behind major, glaring problems. Guys, fix it up so existing stuff works, THEN add new toys. What good is a car that has a really sweet stereo setup, but only 3 wheels?

    I get the distinct impression Blender developers have bitten off more than they can chew, but are back in the kitchen for dessert regardless...

    • Maybe it's just me, but they seem to be rather confused between the "About Blender" pages, the Changelog, etc...2.2.7 specifically says cartoon shading doesn't work. "About Blender" says it does. Which is it, guys?
      Blender already has basic toon shading capabilities - it can render toon-style 'edges' on models, and with a bit of fiddling with textures and normal-dependent falloff gradient textures, you can get a reasonable result (as is on the left in this thumbnail image [blender3d.org], however this isn't dependent on light sources.

      One of the new volunteers, Cessen, has been working on an updated shading system which adds on an Oren-nayar blinn shading and a toon shading method to the current phong shading. Cessen's new work is a much easier and more accurate way of toon shading (works based on light sources, specularity etc), not to mention the obvious improvements in adding blinn shading too. Unfortuately there wasn't enough time to integrate Cessen's changes for the 2.27 release, but it should be in the next.

      Also keep in mind that Blender has only been open source for a relatively short time, and want' originally developed in an open source context (a la netscape->mozilla). It will take some time for developers to properly familiarise themselves with the huge amount of code in there, and start to re-organise it into something that facilitates an open-source model rather than the previous.
      • Blender already has basic toon shading capabilities - it can render toon-style 'edges' on models, and with a bit of fiddling with textures and normal-dependent falloff gradient textures, you can get a reasonable result (as is on the left in this thumbnail image [blender3d.org], however this isn't dependent on light sources.

        Excellent clarification- thank you.

        It will take some time for developers to properly familiarise themselves with the huge amount of code in there, and start to re-organise it into s

        • and just which priorities would those be?

          Blender is stable. There are certain things that some want it to have... hence, they are being added. In the mean time, other specific parts are being re-written/optimized.

          Just because you say their priorities are 'out of whack' doesn't really mean anything, with all due respect.

        • My guess is that most of the Blender developers are using Linux, or Windows, and fewer of them use Mac OSX. While I would love to see all of the features running on OSX, I can understand that a Linux developer would have a different priority set that I do.

          If they already have working plugins, why shouldn't they work on new features? If there are Mac users who want the plugins to work, they can look at the source code and start making it happen.

          I think a common misconception with Open Source software is

    • missing functionality? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by swerk ( 675797 )
      Just because some of the newest features aren't fully fleshed out yet (quicktime support, multilingual interface, this new audio stuff, etc) doesn't mean things are broken.

      Every single blender developer (of which there are many now, thanks to Ton's hard work and the fundraiser resulting in the code being opened) shouldn't have to concentrate on one new feature at a time. So naturally there will be several things being added at a time, at various stages of completion.

      By the way, toon shading does work, we

  • Kudos to the Blender community! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stox ( 131684 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:50PM (#6033259) Homepage
    The Blender project is a major milestone in the progression of open source software. For the first time, a closed project was brought into the open by the users. Compared to others, they have been remarkably fast at bringing a working product to market. They have also been extremely responsible in respect for copyright, and are currently helping to bring more closed work into the open. This project is one class act, and I hope that their model is extremely successful.

  • Bloated? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crunchywelch ( 656708 )
    It's interesting reading the posts bewailing software bloat, I wonder how many of these posts are submitted by media creation professionals? Have you taken a look at Newtek's [newtek.com] VideoToaster [newtek.com] lately? Or how about Final Cut Pro [apple.com]? Granted, both are more NLE video editors (Although VideoToaster comes with Aura and Lightwave) but both of these products are chock full of "bloat" and causing the industry leaders like Avid take notice. I'd much rather have a production suite with some "bloat" in order to curtail some

  • bah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2003 @08:51PM (#6033262)
    Adding useful features is such a waste of time!

    Now, rewriting it in Java, That would be a REALLY good use of development time!!

  • Using Blender (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Blender has more buttons then a 747 Jet Airliner. While its amazing to see that Blender raised enough money, I wish that they would rework the entire GUI.

    I also use Windows (please dont kill me), and seem to experience some annoying problems with blender (like the window not resizing correctly to my resolution, and just annoying GUI bugs)

    Unless I need something complex, I'll stick with milkshape.

  • user interface blues (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sashang ( 608223 )
    I've tried several 3d modelling packages. Most of them have innovative and different user interfaces. I've found blender's ui to be hard to get to grips with. It's incredibly cluttered and the shortcut keys aren't standardized. You're also presented with a myriad of buttons and switches that easily confuse.

    • Re:user interface blues (Score:4, Informative)

      by digitalhermit ( 113459 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @10:13PM (#6033519) Homepage
      Keep this in mind:
      The focus of the mouse pointer determines what each key sequence does. This can be confusing at first but makes it easier later. In other words, if your pointer is in the modeling window then keys will have a different effect than if you're in the controls pane. The alternative may have been to assing a modifier sequence, but you could argue that this forces you to put two hands on the keyboard. As it is, you keep one hand always on the mouse and the other always on the keyboard.
    • Give Softimage|XSI [softimage.com] a try. The basic hotkeys are standardized, as are the dialog boxes. It takes all of an hour to get used to the basics. Beyond that it may take some time to get GOOD output... XSI gives the user basic tools with which one builds up different effects. Check out XSIBase [xsibase.com] for a good discussion group, complete with links to tutorials.
  • Does anyone do any fact checking at all on /. ? Here's the current pricing which ranges from 1299 to 17000:
    http://www.sidefx.com/sales/pricing/index. html

    • The article was talking about the NL features, which aren't available on the $1300 or $1800 packages. Yes, you can get houdini for less than $3000, but you have to leave out the features this article is talking about.
  • Hoe is audio sequencing going to improve anything for a drunken robot?

    Oh, wait, remembering my own drunken ramblings, this makes a lot of sense.

  • Now that that's taken care of (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fluxrad ( 125130 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @09:59PM (#6033479)
    How's about someone get to work on a fully featured audio sequencer for linux?

    I'm super happy that we can now sync music to animation in blender. It's just too damned bad we don't have an app to actually make that music in linux.

    • Re:Now that that's taken care of (Score:4, Informative)

      by sharph ( 171971 ) <sharp@sauropod.org> on Saturday May 24, 2003 @10:33PM (#6033591) Homepage
      You want to make music in linux?

      Ever heard of audour?
      Or audacity?

      You want an audio sequencer? Check out soundtracker.

      Or if you like to mess with oscillators and stuff, spiralsynthmodular.

      don't you DARE tell me we have no sound apps in linux.

      if you're STILL unconvinced, check out http://linux-sound.org/
      • don't you DARE tell me we have no sound apps in linux.

        Woah there, brother. Taking this a bit personally?

        Yes, I will dare tell you that there aren't any sound apps in linux or, rather, no decent ones. I've used most of the apps you mentioned above (and then some) and have found them all lacking. Name one artist who says "Oh man, I could never give up my linux box for audio."

        Give me something with the feature set and usability of apps like Reason, Cubase, etc. and only then will I tell you that Linux has

        • Name one artist who says "Oh man, I could never give up my linux box for audio."

          fucksl4shd0t

          :)

          But then again, I found the audio world of Linux to be a rich and colorful world.

        • I think what was irritating was your statement that their are no audio apps for Linux, when it turns out that there are just none that meet your specific need. Not everyone wants a softsynth-tracker like Reason, some prefer synths like JMax, PD, etc. Not everyone wants a sequencer like Cubase, many are looking for a SADiE or audio PT solution, which is filled nicely by Ardour.
          • I don't klnow if I'd say that Ardour is a solution for the PT market that "is nicely filled by Ardour" by any long shot. I've been using pro tools since '95 and have since used pretty much every other audio NLE that exist with the exception of nuendo and I can say that Ardour has a ways to go. I've never heard a studio engineer saying "so, you run ./configure, then make install.....?". Granted if you are a masochist and need a studio to work in but don't want to pay for software with time instead of money
            • Really, compiling a program is not a big deal. I have heard many engineers saying "So, I need to terminate the SCSI at the sampler rather than at the external HD?", "So moving the card to another slot and dowloading new chipset drivers may fix the interrupt problem?","So the pops and clicks are caused by windows update starting while I'm recording?", "So by reverting to MacOS 9 and using OPCODE drivers my midi might work?". Most of us studio engineers are fairly technical bears, and have dealt with much w
              • well, I see what you are saying but there is a big difference between downloading patches, turning off options in windows, and swapping cards then configuring a low-latency kernel, configuring and installing Jack and ardour (not to mention if you don't have GCC and company loaded up to compile all the previous to begin with). I tried Ardour out, it works, sort of, when it doesn't crash, but it is nowhere as mature as PT or the rest of that crowd. I literally spent over 40 hours getting that system running a
        • I could never give up my linux box for audio.

          Really.

          And I know other people who feel the same way.

    • The May 2003 issue of Linux Journal features Linux and sound. Check out Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com] then navigate to the May 2003 issue in the archive section. The ones they mention are still in beta or development stages but some are useful, according to the articles.

  • Undo? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Saturday May 24, 2003 @10:11PM (#6033513)
    Okay, and UNDO is going to be implemented when? Seriously, I can't take a graphics package without an UNDO feature seriously.
    • Seriously, I can't take a graphics package without an UNDO feature seriously.

      And my wallet can't take a graphics package with a $1000 price tag seriously. In fact it's cracking up, laughing at the thought.

      Really people, coders are busting their ass working on this.

    • You know, Lightwave only has an Undo feature that is one level deep (IE you can only undo your very last move). I don't know if that says more about lightwave or about undo's in general.
      • Better than nothing. Understanable too, since complex vertex ops could easily involve thousands or even hundreds of thousands of points.
        • Multiple levels might involve storing more than one temporary copy. "Undo" doesn't actually undo what was done, it just has to revert to a state before the action was taken.

          Even one step of undo could involve thousands of points, but still they have it. So extending that to muliple steps may mean more storage, or writing to files or whatever.
      • IMHO it says "it's almost impossible to retrofit an unlimited undo/redo system into an application that wasn't designed with it in mind".
    • Seriously, I can't take a graphics package without an UNDO feature seriously.

      Learn how to use save then.
      • And that's a good thing, there's also autosave. Another smart thing to do is duplicate..(undo and you can compare with the old version too) ..
    • Of course blender has an undo function

      Press U to undo changes made in edit mode
      pretty simple really
      (not saying it's a terribly GOOD undo, but it DOES HAVE a Undo)
  • Thats just awesome. Blender is an nice 3d package and its coming along nicely. Though it needs a more configurable user interface and alot of graphical refinements which gives the n00b a more straight forward approach to it i think its cool to see every new added feature. Its not fair to compare it to Hodini though since that is the biggest powerhorse of all package and beats the crap out of maya with its procedural workflow (but Maya is easier with character animation and houdini makes the FX job). So hope

  • Use AnimationMaster from Hash (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Sunday May 25, 2003 @02:04AM (#6034097) Homepage Journal
    Personally I have been using Hash Animation Master for about 3-4 years now. Has all the power of the big boys, but its only $300 and has a community which is very open and helpful. Patches come out all the time, and most bugs are found by the community.

    If you want a 3d package but do not have $3000, but want something easy to use than any other, check out www.hash.com.
    • I'll use Hash when he makes a Linux version.
      Since it doesn't look like that (which is a shame, imho) Blender will do just very(!!!) fine and often even better.
      • I have to admit that I would love to have a linux version as well. but linux is not really a big Multimedia Platform yet. It seems to be heading that way within 2 years though. Not that the applications will be there, but the US itself will be very appealing to MM application developers the way its going now.

        Of course their is never an excuse not to have a network renderer that works on Linux even if the main application does not...

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close