Invisible work??

[Ventana]

OK, the term "Invisible work" has come up a few times in the Dylan Cole, new DVD thread. what exactly does this mean or how does it differ from regular matte painting? Isn't matte painting the invisible art? Shouldn't all matte painting be invisible?

[robbla1981]

it depends on who you ask. as someone who works/makes a living in this field, I would consider an "invisible shot" to be one that is virtually indistinguishable from real photography. The art of matte painting was kind of born out of necessity. in the 1930s and 40s, when resources such as lumber, tools, as well as the craftsmen who built movie sets were becoming more scarce, due to WWII and the rationing of materials, matte painting was used as an alternative.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... l%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.matteworld.com/projects/images/paradine_new02.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.matteworld.com/projects/siggraph02.html&h=167&w=250&sz=20&hl=en&start=102&sig2=2gtxdtE0Ek6LSSbRWRg5Lw&tbnid=Nh17Bbcw2xQgPM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=111&ei=q0G-R8fECKnUpgTr1PjaDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtraditional%2Bmatte%2Bpainting%26star t%3D100%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Do ff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)

At the time these techniques were guarded secrets, as many people in the studios feared the public would not want to see movies with a bunch of fake-shots. for this reason, these early matte paintings had to blend "invisibly" into the film.

Today, however, there is much more of a public awareness of how contemporary visual effects are created, thanks to those behind-the-scenes documantaries that artists my age and older would have loved to have when we were growing up.

the current trend seems to be a more "stylized" look:

http://www.letual.ca/images/Alphavision ... ting_1.jpg (http://www.letual.ca/images/Alphavision/300_matte_painting_1.jpg)

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resour ... certop.jpg (http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/12/speedracertop.jpg)

As a movie goer, for the most part I prefer the "invisible" shots over the more "stylized" ones, but that's just a matter of personal taste. while I try to inject as much photorealism into the shots I create, at the end of the day, it's about what works best for the film as a whole, and what the client wants

[Ventana]

wow, that's so much for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly. I really appreciate it.

[Ricardo Garces]

I fully agree with Rob.

On a general rule, someone wanting to become a matte artist, nowadays need s to know how to move in the several areas that arose with digital effects.

While "invisible work" is present almost in every movie, from huge shots to simple footage part removal, most audiences are more willing to accept not so realistic scenes if the stories are good.

The TV series "Heroes" is one perfect example. There is a shot on one of these last episodes, where we see a cabin in the middle of the jungle. Then the camera pulls up to the sky and we see there is nothing around it.

The whole scene was probably done with Vue D'esprit it's really bad, but it worked.
Another TV series, suffers the same problem. The Tudors have some shots of the Palace grounds, we can perfectly see it's a 3D scene. They didn't even try to conceal it.

Gladly, we are reaching a point where it's more important to tell stories artistically than rather fight to make them has accurately real has possible.

300 and Sincity were a very good examples. But so was Underworld, and Lord of the Rings.

If you have the chance, search the forum for the work done in "DaVinci Code" it has a matte work done on the residence of the art collector that is truly amazing.
The last Blade movie has some pretty nice invisible work as well.

Take care,

Ricardo.

[Justin Atkinson]

Ventana, here's possibly the finest example of invisible work online.

http://www.dneg.com/projects/united_93_18.html

Invisible work is the kind of matte-painting that you least expect to be a matte-painting. It often exists within the boundaries of what the audience understands as being 'real to them' and not 'fantasy'.

The link above will definately explain this. Put simply the matte-painting/shot doesn't scream out at you, it is designed to be 'invisible'. I'm sure you'll understand when you watch the clip.


Films like 300. Sin City and Speedracer are bringing a different kind of aesthetic to the screen compared to regular movies. It's fair to say that these kind of movies employ great artistic licensee, which the audience accepts, but it is employed throughout the entire film not just on one shot.


Ricardo
I'd have to disagree when it comes to TV stuff. I'd say the poor quality matte-paintings you see on TV are more about time and budget rather than artistic temperament. TV audiences just tolerate it because we don't expect to see high end FX on TV.







[/quote]

[fillishave]

Justin, Thanks for linking to that clip! Haven't seen it before and it was, just like you say, possibly one of the finest examples of invisible work to be found online! Truly masterpiece stuff.

Have to agree with you on the tv-issue. Only "tolerated" because of awareness I would think.

[Speculart]

check out the cloverfield stuff at that dneg link. It is an incredible example of what will become the normal way of making movies in the next few years. Minimal physical sets surrounded by digital environments made from extensive photography and 3d elements. This film was made for something like 30m and took 40m on the first weekend in the U.S alone.

[Suirebit]

Ricardo, I noticed the same thing in Heroes...I thought I was too picky about it :D