Re: SFX in 3D movies

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>P3D Gregory J. Wageman Comments:
>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.
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>  That is at least part of what I'm implying. The main reason to
paint on glass or build models is to make sure there is sufficient detail in
the result that when enlarged to projection sized images, it is still
realistic. In the case of computer generated 3D imagery created for IMAX use
they are able to obtain sufficient detail by working in a high enough
resolution. Since that is quite a bit more detail than required for smaller
screens and projection techniques, there is the opportunity to develop
images of sufficient detail to fool the eye.

It is also possible to hand paint stereo matte paintings by creating one
image by hand first, then use computer graphics to obtain the matching
image.  Then either render the matching image by high resolution techniques
or careful hand work. There are a number of ways to insure accuracy and
sufficient resolution in the results. More than likely such paintings are
easier to work with if they stay in the computer or they could be
electronically combined with actual film footage. Perhaps it takes on a
different name when done in this way but it still serves the purpose of a
matte painting.

Another method is to paint portions of the matte image on many different
panes of glass so that they can be arranged to provide layers of depth.
Other techniques can blend the images from the different depths so that in
the finished images, the layering isn't apparent but important spatial
relationships are visible.

You mention smoke, fog and flame which can be captured in the traditional
way from real sources on film in stereo and then composited to the left and
right scenes with the aid of a computer. This would retain the image
quality, realism, and be the correct parallax and depth to fit into the
scene. Laser beams, and similar effects can be either painted or computer
generated in stereo and composited.

Small models used for some scenes can be photographed in macro stereo and
composited in a similar way. The computer then allows them to be correctly
matched with other images. 

In the future it may turn out to be easier to keep track of each kind of
effect by retaining the original name of the effect even though it's being
done in a computer environment. This reduces confusion in the production
process. A matte painting then serves the same function even though it may
not be painted on a piece of glass. It could still be painted by the same
artists who are highly expert in creating these images. I've seen some of
them and they are very nice. If the function is appreciably different then
it can have a different name.

I agree that many effects currently done entirely in the computer are not
very realistic and it is often possible to tell by looking at it that it is
that type of image. Generally they use it when that is the "flavor" of the
whole production so that you immerse yourself into it and go beyond the
evidence of it being computer generated. These effects will no doubt become
more realistic as newer and better software is developed.

What I'm really saying is that every trick that has ever been learned still
has value and use in a 3D production, especially if a high quality
production is desired. The computer doesn't have to be the source of the
image but it is the best tool available for compositing all the effects in
the complexity of 3D, with the aid of someone who knows how to think and
work in 3D.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/


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