The true DEFINITION of Matte Painting

[Ricardo Garces]

Hi everyone.

Due to the most recent entries in this forum, I realized we need to have a definition of matte painting somewhere, so people can understand what it is and what it's not.

Has I always say, each one's art is his own, and there are no better or worse artists among us. There are only different points of view and sensibilities regarding our art.

Yet just like sculpture, oil paintings, watercolor paintings, photo collages, digital painting, and other forms of art, matte painting by it's name and specifics has a definition.

This topic has no intention to categorize positively or negatively any works. The sole purpose is to help differentiate what is a Matte Painting and what is something else.

Many first comers think that by joining some photographs together they are doing a matte painting. And some even think that by knowing how to do that they can became matte painters.
Unfortunately this is not so easy, and here is where the definition of matte painting is required.

I would define Matte Painting has the ability to produce an image, either by painting or photo manipulating, working with traditional mediums or digitally, with the intent of creating and image, animation or set extension for movie making purposes where the building or travel to a given location would be impractical due to financial reasons, time schedule, or physical possibilities.

A Matte Painting is composed of a base plate, which can be a photograph or moving footage, and composited images or animations on top of it.
Usually for better integration and ease, base plate moving footages are taken with a still camera, although nowadays with the help of camera tracking software, an image or any other element can be put over the base plate and move with it has it was part of it.

Since Matte Paintings intention is to trick the viewer into believing he is seeing real things, a Matte Painting has to be the closer to reality has possible.

Matte Paintings are still images, that once complete are sent to the compositing department to integrate with the movie footage. It is the compositing department task to give life to the scene, and therefore matte paintings do not have moving elements in it.

It should be the aim of an artist, who is developing a matte painting, to prepare the image for animation, meaning that all images that are done without this concern should not be considered as matte paintings but just paintings or digital art ( when done in the computer ).
There are exceptions for example when still images are used in movies for establishing shots.

( On a personal notice, I do not consider myself a matte painter for several reasons. I am a digital artist like 90% of the people that visit this forum. )

I would like your contributes for this topic, there is still plenty to address for. And I ask the Forum Admin, to link this Topic to the homepage of the forum, for better visibility.

Kind regards,

Ricardo.

[Shamma]

Well Said Ricardo...
I am a newcomer to mattepainting.org and as such I have already come with the definition of Matte Painting in mind. I admire the people who can make you believe that the backgrounds in Gladiator, Troy, Lord of the Rings and other Epics, were indeed shot on location.
Coming from a traditional dicipline I find it all facinating. This type of art is primarily used to create locations, backdrops, extentions to camera shots, extentions to populate and many other examples.
Placing the White House in the middle of a desert from one photo to another does not constitute a Matte Painting. It is as you say, Digital Art. I have seen so many good examples from experts and amatuers on this site of Grat Matte Paintings. Paintings that could and have been composited into animation and included on the original take. That said, I think that to work towards this medium, one should be comfortable with Manipulating Digital Art as a stepping stone to becoming a Matte Painter. Using reference to create a close-up photo-realistic shot requires a lot of photo manipulation and colour correction, skills that would be required by the digital artist.

This is a Matte Painting site and if members are going to post Digital Art then maybe the admin section should create a section just for Digital Art and Manipulation.

Thanks for listening and I agree the definition of Matte Painting is misunderstood.

[everlite]

I agree, it's a very misunderstood title, though you did kind of contradict yourself with the following:

Many first comers think that by joining some photographs together they are doing a matte painting. And some even think that by knowing how to do that they can became matte painters.
Unfortunately this is not so easy, and here is where the definition of matte painting is required.

I would define Matte Painting has the ability to produce an image, either by painting or photo manipulating

So the question is does the traditional matte painter still exist, and in an ever demanding world of VFX/ tight budgets where more and more people are required to take a plate from start to finish including comp work and 3d can they still call themselves matte painters?

Is there anyone in the industry who just does pure matte painting for a living? By the definition that you gave?

It's an interesting point, what is a matte painter today? If you take a still frame and a photo of a castle and comp the two together, does this make you a matte painter?

I think many would argue that a matte painter today is one who creates an environment for film by whatever means, photo, 3d, paint, minitures.

Not sure, I still feel very unsure.

- Dave.

[Da_Elf]

funny how time flies

http://www.mattepainting.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1655

a quote from you is :::

I would define Matte Painting has the ability to produce an image, either by painting or photo manipulating, working with traditional mediums or digitally, with the intent of creating and image, animation or set extension for movie making purposes where the building or travel to a given location would be impractical due to financial reasons, time schedule, or physical possibilities. :::

funny i said the same thing and i got blasted for it


when you say though that matte paintings are still i dont agree with that. traditionally they were due to technology, but even dilan cole would say a mattepainting can have motion elements to further sell the realism. And he should know alot about mattepaintings. Anything else not used for the purpose of film i just clasify as digital art.

[Ricardo Garces]

Hi Guys!

... when I mean "photo manipulation", I intend to say artistic manipulation, rather than just photoshop cut and paste, like we see many times.

Da_Elf:

I might have said it "started" has stills images, but right in the quote you made from my words you can read "... the ability to produce an image... with the intent of creating an image, animation, or set extension..."

Meaning that, a mattepaint can and usually do have moving elements, but obviously not painted in the background if the intention is to make them to move.

Anyway is good to see that this post is not dead. Thank you guys for reviving it, and for your clarifications and ideas.

King regards,

Ricardo.

[everlite]

Hey Ricardo,

I'd like to ask, do you think that matte painters still exist in the context of the description you gave?

I've always had a strong interest in matte painting, ever since i was a kid when i first saw Raiders of the lost ark and the last scene with the secret warehouse :) From that point on i knew what i wanted to be. In the last few years that dream is starting to become a reality, i've produced a few matte paintings for TV/film, nothing much but enough to think i was a matte painter maybe, however in recent months i've begun to seriously doubt that such a job exists anymore, the work i've done (mostly) had to be taken from plate to final comp; including 3d effects (snow etc) i can't really allow myself to think of them as mattepaintings, because in truth they were photographic elements comped from another location into the scene, with a lick of paint to help blend the seams.

So what criteria does one meet to call himself a matte painter?

This is a good subject and one that i hope continues :)

Cheers - Dave.

[greg lamont]

hi guys,
first of all i am not a prof matte painter, so i am following this topic with interest. though,i do have a few friends in the industry who say that the majority of work the mp do is just joining photographs. at the end of the day it all comes down to budget, time and the desired effect.
there are two things spoken about that interest me.

1) Is the only difference between digital art and matte painting its final application (if the work isn't used in a film etc)? If so, how do you clarify one as DArt and the other as MP?


2) (photoshop cut and paste, vs photo manipulation) im wondering if wat we are talking about isn't just skill level. in a recent topic 'how hatch did it' http://www.mattepainting.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1284
hatch discusses the matte 'riverqueen'

For "River Queen" the shot required a low backlight morning sun. Try to find photos that matches the angle, the terrain and the light at the same time. Almost impossible. So I decided to build my forest. I bought 10 huge packs of lichen at the train store, built the hills , put the lichen on it, shaped it. It took us an afternoon to do it with Mark. Light it , put some smoke.
an advanced skill level where no boundaries are applied.

[Eisner]

Is it that neccessary to define Matte painting?

The term matte painter stems from the early days of the film industry where the construction of a painting may have varied (but predominantly painted in the true sense) But the application was always the same.

It seems to me that the initial discussion serves only to oust digital art from this forum, in an attempt to preserve the ideal that everything on here is a mattepainting.

On the whole most works on this site never end up on film or TV and so they are never applied as mattepaintings, making a lot of stuff on here simply, digital art; which is fine. They are steered by the unfluence of mattepainting both old and new.

We are very lucky to gain access to some pros who willingly provide advice and help on this site, and it's worth remembering that they all use varying techniques to get the job done.

So I don't think that they way a mattepainting is constructed defines it at all. It's application of the work. That is..does it end up on screen(TV/FILM). Rick Rische pointed this out ages ago, and I have to agree that ultimately its the application of a particular piece of digtial art in film or tv that defines it as a mattepainting.

On the whole mattepaintings have been used to describe environments, landscapes, and even interiors which is pretty much the same today. So if my skills extend to particle effects for snow or rain, or 3D for buildings and animation then that's just a bonus for the director and production team. It doesn't change that balance of what constitutes a mattepainter or a painting. The boundaries are very blurred. I know pros in 3D that have created what some people would consider to be a mattepainting yet they disagree!

This forum is really about people interested in the job and the art surrounding it, and as I said before we are fortunate to sit alongside some of the great pros. Creating boundaries and definitions in this day and age is fruitless. Technology is changing so fast that even our favourite matte artists like Dylan are redefining themselves as art directors etc.

[greg lamont]

hello,

I just wanted to revive tis thread as i had an idea which may or may not be useful.
In the first post ricardo askes if the "Forum Admin could link this Topic to the homepage of the forum, for better visibility".

Not sure how that would work, but as a start, perhaps in the resouce section we could get a history category, monitored by the admin ,with specific links to the pioneers, movie homage, techniques etc. I think all people using this site would find this useful.

Any Thoughts?

Cheers
Greg

[Meaty]

Firstly can i just say this is a great topic. i dont class myself as a matte painter, matte painting is something that really interests me at the moment and i would like to know at what point does a photomanipulation become a matte painting, Ive read the comments and have sat here and admired the works produced her for some time, I do both paintings and manipulations and often merge the two together, so when does a manip stop being a manip.

[egamez]

Let me say this is a great discussion.

I believe matte painting will continue to evolve like many other art forms. Today a matte painting can be done with photographic manipulation, painting or 3D.

My opinion is that 3D will eventually be the medium of choice for film and TV production just because it allows to more camera movements, it is faster to produce and is more realistic , but I also believe that the way it used to be created (painted on glass) was more artistic.

My two cents....

[Da_Elf]

dont forget though that someone needs to do a good texturing job for the 3d. this was done by a friend of mine is has briliant texturing.
http://www.itsartmag.com/features/ruins/Ruins1.html

[Meaty]

Someone once told me that a matte painting has no moving parts in it (ie. people, birds, insects, ect) so how come i see alot of images with heavy clouds, waterfalls,or waves surely these would be moving as much as people would. This is what i find the most confusing about when a manip is not a manip.

[Felicity Moore]

Maybe some of those images are layered so when the compositor has them they can remove the static and add in the moving elements? So the water or whatever is a guide for the compositor for placement/lighting?
Also I see what I think is very finished work but is a colour concept work before the matte painting is produced.

Dunno, just a thought...

[thenextside]

Hi guys I just saw this post and thought I'd jump in. People seem to ask this question over and over again. The term matte painting is taken from a technique where the artist would paint on glass and a portion of the painting would be left blank for the live action. So the painting would be a "matte" over the live footage. Today this technique has evolved into using digital technology to accomplish the same results and then taken it further allowing for more complex camera movement.
So when does a manip stop being a manip? It doesn't. Neither does 3D stop being 3D or photography being photography or painting being painting. But all of these techniques are utilized to create digital environments or digital matte painting.
Many artists including my self will put birds or waterfalls into their paintings to sell the idea but yes your right, they would need to be replaced with footage for the final composite. If it's for a personal piece you can put whatever you like in it and call it a matte painting or a digital painting or environment painting. It doesn't really matter because it isn't actually a matte painting until it's being used as one just like a book cover isn't a book cover until it's on a book.
If your starting out and need to call personal work matte paintings to sell the idea that you can do a matte painting, everyone knows what you mean and they aren't going to question you about why there are static birds in your picture. It comes down to your ability to render photo reel environment images and an understanding of how they are to be used.
Does any of that make sense?

Cheers,
Tim

[MysteriousMan]

Hi all, matte painters and/or digital artist ?

First of all, I would like to say that I have very sporadically attend to forum discussions, while accidentally browsing the page news I saw this thread . Unfortunately, it seem to me that such matter of discussion disqualify the site itself in its own.

I just wanted to highlight two most important aspects:

1/ I must only agree with the statement of Eisner that " the whole most works on this site never end up on film or TV and so they are never applied as mattepaintings"

2/ It is also true what also said Ricardo that 90% of the people that submit to this forum are rather digital artists than a matte painters. It's also my
personal point of view. I would like to hard working in the field of computer
art and actually don' t interst me whether I will be considered by the
forum as digital artist, photomanipulator and/or matte painter :wink:

By the other words, I would like to more improve my skills in "compuart" and from this point of view I much appreciate the knowledge shared by renowned artist to us.

Finally, the question is whether it will be reasonable to rename the web site
to something else or accept the fact that the forum remains to be opened not only for "matte painters" but also to a computer art in a broadest sense.

Thanks for your kind attention,

Mysteriousman

[thenextside]

MysteriousMan,

Regardless of whether or not most of the artists here work as matte painters I think that it is clear that they share the common love for the craft of matte painting. What separates this site from others like it is it's focus on matte painting and related disciplines. I'm not sure what the point of expanding the focus of the site would be when there are countless other sites covering that ground already. I'd be quite disappointed if that happened...

[emptyslot]

This site is one of a kind if i may say.. ive been here for a while and i really like the guys/gals that put up all their wonderful stuff. and i just love the art of mattepainting.. even if i dont get to be one would love to explore more in the field .. therefore mattepainting.org creates a community that i have grown to love and compared to others like conceptart.org or 3dtotal.com and cgtalk.com they are simply too broad where as we here are focused. wich i miss in the other fields of art in general..

oh well im bored sounding formal and all.. just keep this site going :twisted:

[Meaty]

That makes perfect sence Tim, thanks for taking the time to explain, the reason I asked was after someone said I did a nice matte, I posted the piece at another forum and I was told it was a manip as opposed to a matte because it had water, insects, birds and a human. So i was kinda confused.

[photoshopped]

Yeah, this forum needs to stay as it is if you ask me. I have spent ages looking around for similar forums and found none that compare. Most of the other forums are nothing more than a tangled mess of everything in one place and most of these confusing forums seem to use the most annoying cluttered message boards too.

I also use cgsociety frequently, but there message board is one of the worst I have ever seen anywhere. Very confusing, over cluttered with sticky topics taking you more than half way down every page of each forum and no real dedicated forums that work for me at least. I think the way to describe most other digital art forums would be "jack of all trades, master of none". (no offense to any users of these boards)

Although there are clearly a few members here that enjoy making other people feel bad about there work in an attempt to make themselves feel better, rather than helping. The forum still fits its requirement and works very well in that it provides a truly dedicated place for anyone with a true passion for Matte Painting.

L8rz,

Jay

[greg lamont]

Hi jay, i wouldn't go as far as saying that other sites are "jack of all trades, master of none". It's rather insulting towards the people that enjoy those sites. Those sites may be broad, but it still gives them a place to belong.

Rather I agree with tim's comment " What separates this site from others is it's focus on matte painting and related disciplines." and i think that is the key issue. Keeping the interest focused.

Im sure people have said it before but i am grateful to the people who share there knowledge on this site.

Now, wats a matte painting...

[Alex Jenyon]

there are clearly a few members here that enjoy making other people feel bad about there work in an attempt to make themselves feel better, rather than helping.

Blimey. That's pretty harsh. You really think so?

To be honest, the most aggressively-worded post on this site at the moment is probably your sig - I haven't seen any 'flame wars' for a long time.

[mordecaidesign]

Hi, my name is Matt. I am currently not a professional matte painter. I am, however, a professional web designer and graphic artist. I am slowly working my waytowards a mattepainting career and in doing so I am getting to know my peers and make new friends.

I kinda lurk around the forum trying to give my fellow artists a positive boost whenever I can. I haven't really been involved in this discussion because I have felt it is juvenile and not worth my time. This "flame war" is now moving into other discussions where I don't think it belongs. I think it's fine for one discussion but having it spread across the forum is another thing.

Some highly skilled and respected matte painters have a strange criteria for what is a matte painting and what is not. I'm sure that some of the same comments could have been applied to discussions traditional matte painters had with Michael Pangrazio when he used a projector to shine photographic reference directly onto his work for the first time.

What IS OR IS NOT a matte painting should be treated with some common sense. There is unfortunately no scientific method for determining what constitutes a matte painting.

Saying that a matte painting is not a matte painting until it shows up on film is kind of like telling a graphic designer that they aren't a designer until someone pays for their work. If a deaf matte painter's Wacom breaks in the forest and no-one is around to hear him/her scream, do they still make a sound? Come on, you know they do. Matte paintings are now showing up in interactive sites, video, video games, and print campaigns. The criteria of showing up in film is sort of a catch 22. When Dylan Cole began digital matte painting, his work was to be presented in a VIDEO reel that was
going to be shown to art directors and senior matte painters. These paintings where never meant for a major motion picture.
If a matte painter's work has to be in a film to be considered a matte painting then no-one would ever get a starting job in matte painting. We could discuss semantics all day but in the end it comes down to what you get paid for or want to get paid for.

I could also discuss the use of 3d, photography pasting, moving objects, and dynamically created terrain and vegitation. But it's not worth my time and honestly these are all great methods of getting the job done.

A discussion like this not creates a polarity between two different groups of matte painters, it also makes the community a less professional resource for our trade.

I now understand why so many matte painters are now calling themselves enviroment artists. Probably for the same reason that so many graphic designers have started calling themselves graphic artists, or web designers who have started calling themselves user interface designers. Many professionals don't want to be associated with people who think that they can just slap something together and get paid for it. 40-year-old-stay-at-home-moms who learn a few lines of html and then call themselves web designers has certianly affected my work and has affected how clients treat me. Future clients and peers are on this forum and if you act unprofessional, they'll remmember it.

I really have high ideals and hope for this community but I fear that those dreams of a highly skilled and professional resource for people and ideas that push our craft might be slowlyfading.

[photoshopped]

there are clearly a few members here that enjoy making other people feel bad about there work in an attempt to make themselves feel better, rather than helping.

Blimey. That's pretty harsh. You really think so?

To be honest, the most aggressively-worded post on this site at the moment is probably your sig - I haven't seen any 'flame wars' for a long time.



I don't really know what you going on about m8. Although I get the impression that you seem to have a problem with me? If this is the case then please drop me a pm and lets resolve this asap. I am sorry that you seem to think my sig sounds aggressive as it is not meant that way at all. I class myself as a decent, genuine person and I just hate any bad attitude, arrogance and lack of manners. Thats all my sig. is about.

Surely, no decent person can argue with that logic? However, nothing suprizes me any more. Message boards and chat are the rudest way to communicate and its so easy to take somone the wrong way completely by mistake.


greg lamont - no offense was meant, I was clearly using it as an example. Although I really don't understand how what I said could actually offend anyone using those boards as I didn't slate the quality or content. Another way of saying what I meant would be

"They don't really specialise in any one area"


Take care,

Jay

[Madme]

mordecaidesign

Saying that a matte painting is not a matte painting until it shows up on film is kind of like telling a graphic designer that they aren't a designer until someone pays for their work.

Allow me to reply on that...

I agree on that... but the camera consideration should always be there otherwise lets call it a straight illustration because for what i have learned about matte painting it exist only for a camera. it's a kind of argument for a special scene it gives the location of a shot.. and to push the idea if we dont consider the camera i think that we are not helping ourselves to find a job in the movie industry...

Pascal

[mordecaidesign]

I agree on that... but the camera consideration should always be there otherwise lets call it a straight illustration because for what i have learned about matte painting it exist only for a camera.


Semantics.

The camera is your eyes. In video games and 3d a camera doesn't really exist. It's virtual. So is Dylan Cole's matte painting for Hellgate: London (http://dylancolestudio.com/Matte/personal/pages/Hellgatelondon.html) any less of a matte painting because there's no camera (video or film) actually there recording it?

Does a matte painting become an illustration when it gets printed in a book?

If that's true, then the book "The Invisible Art" is filled with nothing but cute anecdotes and pretty little illustrations.

and to push the idea if we dont consider the camera i think that we are not helping ourselves to find a job in the movie industry...

I will agree with that. Shot design and composition is VERY important. But we're not talking about method here. We're debating something as silly as what is a matte painting or not. That's not important and that's not what I am upset about.

I'm upset about the amount of rude behavior and ill-will being left in this community for the sake of a small argument.

[Madme]

Hello again

The Hellgate london matte painting your linking was done for a cinematic
(look for it on gametrailers.com) and yes there is a camera in 3D and in videogames! no cam no 3D no games...


Does a matte painting become an illustration when it gets printed in a book?

If that's true, then the book "The Invisible Art" is filled with nothing but cute anecdotes and pretty little illustrations.

that last part ... not sure i understand... that book is filled with matte painting! real old fashion ones.... and new digital ones ... printed or not whats the difference? they were made for one purpouse... the shot needed

I'm upset about the amount of rude behavior and ill-will being left in this community for the sake of a small argument.

i agree with you too on that!

[mordecaidesign]

Does a matte painting become an illustration when it gets printed in a book?

What I'm trying to say (and I speak from a bit of experience), sometimes I have worked on a piece where I knew that the final output was going to be printed/interactive. But until the final stage I treated it as a matte painting. I focused on depth of field, fstops, lighting, scale, composition.

So was my work any less of a matte painting just because the final output was printed or shown up on a website?

[Madme]

I think that in the pure essence of the term matte painting ...it was not


wiki defenition:


Matte paintings are used to create "virtual sets" and "digital backlots". They can be used to create entire new sets, or to extend portions of an existing set. Traditional matte painting is done optically, by painting on top of a piece of glass to be composited with the original footage. Nowadays, matte painting is done in computers with the use of a tablet as a drawing device. In a digital environment, matte paintings can also be done in a 3-D environment, allowing for 3-D camera movements

[greg lamont]

Language is alive, definitions change constantly. thats why we are debating.
The good thing about different ideas is it allows us to grow on a macro level. The bad thing, we scuffle over micro details.

I feel generally, we need to be careful of what doors we open. We can easy become a new cg community where anything goes (including posting digital art of ya mother with a polar bear. 'its a matte man, It was used in a short film'). :lol:

The passion here tells me that no-one wants that.




the newly titled
'environmental artist'

[Madme]

not my mother with a polar bear!! naaah

but A babe with large (. ) ( .) yeah!!!

hehehe

[matte]

yet again, make sure to watch this video clip.

http://www.mattepainting.org//forum/vie ... php?t=2974 (http://www.mattepainting.org//forum/viewtopic.php?t=2974)