[Garrett]

Hey Thanks metalrahul.

Hey gfilmman - I when I say "Full Matte Painting Environment Workflow" it still adheres to a matte painting methodology. Basically getting great Photoshop paintings to work through moving cameras. It is very far from the "Full CG Environment" methodology. I think that is where the confusion comes in for a lot of people.

[rockhoppermedia]

I have at least five matte paintings in virtual positions for the five camera positions in one scene, so to make life easier and to reuse the paintings I have the paintings in different positions with a virtual camera, so for each scene I have the camera set. The shot is in a town square so using sketch up i have a virtually rebuilt set. All worked out prior to compositing, however as the backgrounds are static the paintings are 2d. So Photoshop is used the only difference is rotoscoping in after effects.

The 3d data is just place holder there is no need for detailed 3d models, this technique is fast and quick.

Still traditional methodology albeit done using a digital format.

[kaustavsinha]

I personally prefer 2D Matte-Paintings over 3D for many reasons! Up-and-coming Matte-Artists like Mateja Petkovic is an entirely a 2D Matte-Painter and I love his works very very much! I do not think that, the demand of 2D Matte-Painters will fall. The thing which needs to be done right now is provide more exposure and make the Matte-Painters more popular by making Matte-Painting heavy films, like the Avatar or LOTR, but in 2D, not in 3D. Organize more Matte-Painting contests and bring out new talented Matte-Artists and have more schools dedicated to Matte-Paintings.

[gfilmman]

I think digital matte paintings work, and I agree about the 80/20 rule being trumped by a good matte artist. But I notice in your own writings Garrett that it's not always that cut and dry. There are many forces to deal with and many people think CG is the better answer, because it remains easier to change, and as you said changes are frequent. If it's support for matte painting you seek here vs full cg, you'll get it from me and most everyone I would say. :)

I was disagreeing that doing Photoshop 2d work only was a lame approach, which in your opinion meant having to do what you're told. No matter what approach you use or how many software packages you are good in, you're still serving the client and supervisors, to provide a final 2d frame or frames. Would you agree with that? I guess you're saying for matte artists to remain viable and hold onto some control they need to be proficient in several areas so they can be the one stop shop solution person who saves time, correct?

I think we're on the same page actually, just getting caught up in semantics and so forth.

[nickmarshallvfx]

Originally Posted by gfilmman

No matter what approach you use or how many software packages you are good in, you're still serving the client and supervisors, to provide a final 2d frame or frames. Would you agree with that? I guess you're saying for matte artists to remain viable and hold onto some control they need to be proficient in several areas so they can be the one stop shop solution person who saves time, correct?

I'd be interested to see what Garrett thinks, but i'd pretty much agree with that.

I think actually that people fall back on CG a lot because if a matte painter gets something like perspective or lighting wrong, it can ruin a shot. Its a sad thing to think that losing those skills causes studios to prefer the CG route, but along with the difficulty to make changes I think is what causes matte painting to be approached with caution by supervisors.

I'll admit I sometimes fall back on CG to save time as i'm sure many do. However it always amazes me when a supe shows surprise that you can work out perspective almost as accurately as a 3d package with nothing more than technical drawing in photoshop.

But yes, the matte painter kind of has to be a one stop shop, and if that includes handling some of the CG assets yourself, then you can be left to do that kind of thing too. Personally I like having ownership of a shot for as long as possible, but there are some amazing artists out there that prefer to just focus on painting and leave the rest for others to handle.

[rockhoppermedia]

mastered photoshop and photography now for:

c4d
z brush
nuke
mari
sketch up
texturing
maya
mudbox
sculptris
after effects
architectural study


I do all this because I love tricking people into suspension of disbelief, dont care how its done just love creating the illusion, matte painting is just a small fragment of the creative process created by a team. Not one person in the crew is bigger than the show.

I think the term matte painter is placed too highly on a pedestal,

CG can trump matte painting in some terms, however a talented craftsman would be able to blend cg and matte painting into a unbelievable shot. Am I worried about the CG replacing matte painting, no not really as I think 3d matte painting is the leap forward. However you need to be good in 2d to transfer into 3d realm.

Jim Cameron was once a matte painter, apparently he done a few films as well.