Render Node Interviews Dylan Cole

[stevenbray1]

http://www.rendernode.com/articles.php?articleId=216

Good interview. "95% of matte painters use photos, the other 5% are liars." Discuss! :P

[slart]

its true, why bother to paint something if you can get photo reference of something similar and change it to suit your needs.

sometimes you need to paint if nothing exsists to photograph but usually that is only a small part of a matte painting. its all about manipulation mixed with a good eye for reality chucked together with some artistic talent.

If we at Framestore started painting from scratch we would never get anything finished in time.

Digital matte painting is different to matte painting as it was just 10 or so years ago. Photorealism is the minimum expected on each shot so we all use photos. we would all like the time to paint away until everything is perfect but in production that aint going to happen. time is money



slart

[Tchook]

An average matte painting is one to 3 days of work including modifications.
It involve so much people director/ad agency/client/ post supervisor etc
They want fast tryouts and quick modification. And there is no time for painting except, like slart said, for small areas or far background when you are working in tv rez.
A great matte painting is a matte painting that is invisible, that totally blend with the movie style, the director of photography ' s light , and the
set designer style. and the best way to achieve it is to use photography

[stevenbray1]

No need to get defensive folks, I completely agree!

I just wish I COULD paint too! :(

[slart]

not being defensive, just trying to help people out.

[hman]

...There are times though when the renders are done & the photos have been placed that it's time to just kick back with the wacom & go silly. It differs shot to shot, but I find I'm painting a decent amount to add the "this's & that's" to make things look real.

[AliK]

An average matte painting is one to 3 days of work including modifications.

I hope the producer of our current project doesn't see this.
one to 3 days!

[Ross Forster]

Yes, matte painting has definately evolved over the past 10 years with regards to newer techniques, but sadly, many 'traditionalists' still look down upon them with resentment.

Traditional techniques are of course, timeless.

[stevenbray1]

It all depends on why you want to do, what is now called 'Matte Painting'?

Is it to create the best, and most believable, visual FX shots? Or is it to earn a living by painting?

Fifteen years ago, the best technique for such a an FX shot was to handpaint the image with oils or acrylics. That isn't the case anymore.

[rrische]

After years of traditional matte painting, working with Photoshop
was weird at first. I was a fast painter, but the paint tools in PS
sucked (IMHO) and what used to be easy was now SLOOOOOOW.
So I quickly figured out that the things PS did well were things you
could NEVER do with traditional painting. Using photography to create
your image, for instance.
I find that on real world jobs, this is never as simple as it sounds. I've
never been asked to collage 2 or 3 photos together and call it finished.
Frankly, if the image was that easy to get, production would have
photographed it themselves! Directors want shots that are tailor made
for their story, and no matter how big my photo library has gotten, I
still find myself shooting new photographic elements on every job.
Often, I still do a basic lay-in with PS paint. It's rough and loose and
isn't anything I'd show the client. But it tells me what I need to go out
and get to complete the shot.
And there are endless ways to use photographs- cutting and pasting is
only one method. I use the RGB of the photo, but sometimes I also
use only the alpha channel (for a painting mask or "frisket"). Also,
getting rid of film grain or digital noise is another artform altogether!
Frozen grain is obviously unacceptable. Oftentimes, my end result looks
very little like the photos I used in making it.

As far as time goes, my average schedule is about 2-4 weeks. I've had
a few things that took longer. I had a couple digital backings (180 degree
views of the Coruscant skyline for SW1) that took 10 weeks to complete.
The shortest schedule I ever had was for 2 full-frame traditional matte
paintings for "Bram Stoker's Dracula" that had to be done in 4 days,
2 days per painting!

Anyway, if I wasn't really painting anymore, was I still a matte artist? The
answer is yes. I decided that it didn't matter what tools I was using. What
makes me a matte artist is the eye I developed for it, not what I was
holding in my hand.

[jamesvfx]

I completly agree whit rrische the tools you use, the techniques you apply and the results you get it's all art , and that's why I like a lot of matte painting, that it becomes so persnal that there's no technique equal to another artist each artist has his own and no matter what he uses or how he uses the final image is the one that speaks. we all paint but as you guys said just to enhance details or complete something , traditional painting is what makes a digital matte painter a magician , I don't like to use the word collage eventhough it is , but it is an art to take photos and whit that build a great sci fi landscape or ancient scenarios, the knowledge of composition, color, mood, design, are only in the hands of the matte painter not in the original photos