lazer
07-18-2007, 03:40 PM
There have been many discussions on this forum regarding what is, and what isn't a matte painting. These discussions and arguments pop up everywhere and they're polluting the forum in some respects.
Regardless of technique, I think we should all accept that if a image is used in a film as an extension of original photography, or as an establishing shot, it is a matte shot. If it was created with traditional painting techniques then it's a matte painting. If it was created with digital techniques (encompassing digital paint, photo manipulation, 3d models) then it's a digital matte painting. Of course, these are not absolute definitions or anything, but it can be a way to decipher the difference in various work flows.
In some cases when no painting techniques are involved whatsoever in the creation of the matte, then it only seems appropriate that the word "painting" not be used to describe, define or label the work. In these cases it can be perhaps labeled as digital matte art.
I'd like to reiterate a point that was made by several people -- it doesn't matter how you get to the final product. It only matters that it's done good and on time.
Finally, for those who choose to use more photo manipulation and 3d in their work than painting techniques, please don't assume that it's the fastest or best way for everyone to work because there are matte artists who understand how to paint very well and can get to the end result that the director's looking for within the budget and the time line. Let's accept the fact that there are different work flows to achieve the end result. And the best approach can vary from shot to shot.
Here's a great resource from Matte World Digital's Craig Barron. They use a lot of 3d but their fundamental painting skills always shine.
http://www.matteworld.com/projects/siggraph01.html
Regardless of technique, I think we should all accept that if a image is used in a film as an extension of original photography, or as an establishing shot, it is a matte shot. If it was created with traditional painting techniques then it's a matte painting. If it was created with digital techniques (encompassing digital paint, photo manipulation, 3d models) then it's a digital matte painting. Of course, these are not absolute definitions or anything, but it can be a way to decipher the difference in various work flows.
In some cases when no painting techniques are involved whatsoever in the creation of the matte, then it only seems appropriate that the word "painting" not be used to describe, define or label the work. In these cases it can be perhaps labeled as digital matte art.
I'd like to reiterate a point that was made by several people -- it doesn't matter how you get to the final product. It only matters that it's done good and on time.
Finally, for those who choose to use more photo manipulation and 3d in their work than painting techniques, please don't assume that it's the fastest or best way for everyone to work because there are matte artists who understand how to paint very well and can get to the end result that the director's looking for within the budget and the time line. Let's accept the fact that there are different work flows to achieve the end result. And the best approach can vary from shot to shot.
Here's a great resource from Matte World Digital's Craig Barron. They use a lot of 3d but their fundamental painting skills always shine.
http://www.matteworld.com/projects/siggraph01.html