Re: SFX in 3D movies

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Berlin writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  My point is that there is too much elimination going on
>with the assumption these F/X don't work in 3D. Most if not all of them do
>work in 3D and it is the computer that helps to make it easier to make use
>of them. They are still the same effects, just easier to realize with the
>versatility of the computer. 

I'm sorry, Larry, but my definition of a matte painting is "a painting
usually on glass made by a matte artist [such as Rocco Gioffre]".  The
folks who do these things are incredible artists, with an absolutely
amazing understanding of perspective and light and shadow.  But if
you're suggesting that they are now going to paint a totally
stereoscopically accurate left and right eye matte painting completely
by hand, I'd like to have some of whatever you've been smoking. :-)

If (as I believe is the case) you are saying instead that computer-
generated imagery will replace the standard matte painting (and by
the way I think you're probably right), then that isn't a matte
painting at all.  I.e. it ain't the same effect.  (Or, as Abe
Lincoln put it, "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.") And
it certainly isn't going to have the same resolution as a real matte.

Why do you suppose the Hollywood still builds miniatures and models
and photographs them instead of building everything in the computer?
I don't think it's entirely that old habits die hard (although this
is certainly part of it), I think there are just some effects (e.g.
smoke, fog, flame) that are not yet entirely convincing when done by
computer.

        -Greg


------------------------------