(I had originally started this as a response to a reference to an e-book in Guitar Solo (Gallery), but realized it didn’t belong there…)
Count me in for a copy of that e-book.
If there is one thing, imho, that Blender needs more than just about anything, it would be “better documentation.” Nevermind that it is a hugely moving target, with all sorts of amazing features being added all the time, and nevermind also that CG in general is a mind-blowingly-large subject … it still needs high-quality documents that will help people move beyond “the basic monkey” without starting from scratch.
Granted, CG is a lot like swimming: you can’t just read a book about it, you gotta get in the water. And you won’t find any book on CG an “easy read.” But much of the material I’ve seen has fallen short of creating a bright, clear, easily-followed continuity from the basic to the advanced.
Still… every time I see a good CG book that discusses Maya or what-have-ye, I keep thinking that Blender represents an enormous un-tapped publishing opportunity.
I mean, think about it: if you want to learn 3D graphics and do video-oriented work in it, Blender is the most powerful and readily-available tool that you can get, to do that. Sure, it won’t be the only tool that you need to become familiar with if you intend to break in to studio work … but then again, if you’re signing on to a shop that does video, Blender just might well be the package you are expected to know! If you’re doing a contract for Hollywood, yeah, it might be Maya or Lightwave; but if it’s video (and a lot of work is done in video, especially HDTV), it is imho quite likely that Blender is going to now be the tool of choice.
Now mind you, I don’t mean this as any sort of negative comment about the fantastic work that’s now being done by The Blender Documentation Project! But why is the conventional publishing industry overlooking, as it were, this incredibly powerful open-source package?