Introduction

I am a senior lecturer and PhD student at Leeds Beckett Univeristy specialising in visual effects for film and television and with a long-standing interest in matte paintings.

This blog serves me by allowing capture of my progress without being hamstrung by the disciplines of academic writing. Later this will act as a compendium appendix to my dissertation allowing me to reference myself and not clogging the document up with overly technical and detailed content.

I really welcome a conversation on the subject of camera-projected matte painting so please offer any comments, thoughts, insights etc. on any of my posts.

Matte Painting

A matte painting is a painted representation of a landscape, set or distant location that allows filmmakers to create the illusion of an environment that is not present at the filming location. It is one of the most popular forms of visual effects and has been around, almost from the very beginning of filmmaking, when used by Norman Dawn, the pioneer of matte painting on California Missions (1907).

In the early days matte paintings were produced by placing a sheet of glass between the camera and the scene to be filmed. The artist would then paint an image on the glass that blocked out, and therefore replaced, that part of the scene. The camera and painting had to be positioned in such a way as to align and therefore were always presented to screen as ‘static’ shots.

The emergence of the optical printer in the 1920’s allowed sections of film to be ‘matted out’ in advance and the matte painting added later by superimposing it onto the unexposed section of film. This improved the matte painting process but could still only be shot from a fixed camera.

Even with the emergence of digital compositing, matte paintings were shown, either as static shots, or with gentle dollying or panning motion. It is really only over the past 10-15-years that directors have started to demand the presentation of matte paintings through more dynamic moving cameras.

Because the matte painting is essentially 2D artwork, this has exposed limitations in the traditional form of matte painting as it is unable to reconcile extreme changes in perspective or display parallax between objects. This is the visual perception cue, used by humans, to calculate depth.

The Project

Mattingly (2011) dedicates a section of his book to the use of techniques, undertaken in 3D software, which utilise virtual cameras to project the matte painting onto 3D geometry. This enables an accurate representation of the artwork to be returned to screen, without degradation or artefact, even when subjected to parallax and perspective distortion through complex animation of the scene camera. This is in contrast to other methods (i.e. multi-planing) which typically result in visible distortion when exposed to anything more than the slightest and simplest of camera moves.

Thhe use of camera projection will be a central theme in my research enquiry because it brings together my passion for the creative and artistic aspects of matte painting, with the technical challenges associated with modern presentation of 3D digital environments.

My initial research indicates that the camera projection workflow is becoming more significant in the production of digital environments for film and television. However I found almost no academic enquiry in this subject area and no publically available learning resources that extend beyond the most basic application of this technique.

My Approach

A second strand to my initial reading was to better familiarise myself with research approaches and methodologies. This was a stated objective from my CoR. As part of this, I read a book by Robin Nelson, which introduced me to the ‘practice-based’ research methodology.

I believe that, in order to fully explore the application and scope of this workflow, it will be necessary to produce a body of artwork, as the basis for the enquiry. This would be new work, in the form of a substantial portfolio of ‘industry standard’ digital environments, presented through animated camera moves of various types and degrees of complexity.

My main concern with the research approach proposed in my CoR, is that the various techniques are likely to be grounded in technical accuracy as opposed to audience perception and the identification and analysis of these ‘fine margins’ requires greater levels of experience and expertise.

I have therefore concluded that a ‘practice-based’ model would be more coherent and practicable. I have discussed this with my supervisory team and I have their support.

Conclusion

In conclusion I feel that my reading has taken me into interesting territory which offers scope, both for creative/ technical learning and academic enquiry, within an area that is becoming more important in the field, yet is professionally and academically under-investigated. I feel that the refinement of enquiry gives a much greater sense of focus, whilst acknowledging scope for further refinement as the study evolves. Finally, as a former industry practitioner, I am excited at the prospect of producing a new body of work.

References

Lucy Fischer, Mark Shiel et al. 2015, Art Direction and Production Design. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. PP.144-152.

Mattingly, D,B (2011) The Digital Matte Painting Handbook. Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Nelson, R (2013) Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances. Palgrave Macmillan.