[spooge demon]

Here�s an example of a matte at full rez. The whole thing is about 6k across. I started with a wireframe model. The shading that I was getting from my 3-d package was more a hindrance than help. I recommend that for anyone dealing with 3-d. use it as a drawing, but get rid of those harsh edges really quick.

You can see that the right VP is brought in a lot. I whined about this but since the camera is panning from the white house to the west wing pretty quickly, It is not a problem. This is a good example of why it is important to previs shots and plan. The director had this idea of the camera starting on the white house and panning over to the west wing, where some action will take place. From this vantage point, the passageway between the wh and wing is very, very long in reality. If you make it accurate, the camera pans over black rooftops and airconditioners for way too long. So that is why the VP was brought in and the passage was shortened.

In a few years this shot will be done 3-d. Samdragon and anyone else, you have to learn that as well as painting if you are interested in this stuff. But the 3-d guys are clueless, mainly cause they don�t know how to light, but with radiosity that is irrelevant. It will be interesting. I hope to be doing other things by then.

Here�s the whole thing (it was never meant to be seen like this)



here�s me reference. Very little out there. The trees are modified photos. The rest is painted.EDIT Except the plate of the cars and the ground they sit on.



Here is a 100 percent closeup



Here is a view of a smaller area.





[This message has been edited by spooge demon (edited October 28, 2000).]

[Freddio]

I could do better if I wanted...


haha.... That is just awesome....

What movie again?

And how long does it take you to paint a piece like this..

?

Also are you saying that 2d digital art is a dying breed of Cg....

that painting will become irrelivant to 3d?

Bummer dude

[YourMum]

WOW! This is something absolutely interesting and great! How long did it took to paint?

I'm irritated because of my quite slow computer. I couldn't ever do as huge work as you do. I have to play with very low models/surfaces/etc.. when modeling and quite small images when I paint or draw anything. It really sucks. What kind of machine do you use, spooge?

I know the problems which show in modeling stuff but what do you mean when you talk about harsh edges? I think that 3D models and forms are quite nice reference and help when you don't rely on them too much and don't trust in all things. I have been in the habit of make models for help on drawing but preferably I try to find the answers from real life - the aswers of right lighting, shading, etc. Every 3D programs work with many many math functions and there are also some bugs inside. The reality gives you never wrong information. By the way, Da Vinci has got many philosophical thoughts and ways of thinking about the reality of the real life. He was an interesting man tho. Yeah, it's true that many 3D modelers trust much to 3D programs. Perhaps they feel that the programs are the only truth when you try to get right camera angles, lights and stuff like that. It could be better for people to get rid of that emotion. This is my opinion...

Okay.. here were some thoughts which came to my mind. Hear ya!

-Juha-

[CapnPyro]

Oh my.

do you realize how insanely detailed that is!?!

So, it's about 6,000 pixels wide? Wow. Uh, shit. I'm speechless. I uh, just hope you got payed very well for that. oh yah and like the other guy said, how long did it take to do? My gawd, that's amazing. I hate to give praise with no form of comment or giving nothing though provoking but, uh. Yah, wow. Is the whole thing that detailed? Geez...

-Capn'dumbfounded'Pyro


------------------
http://home1.gte.net/capnpyro

[-HoodZ-]

wait which one is the matte painting?

ah nevermind just noticed the sky in the first one.......damn.....i like matte paintings, post some more of em spooge.....

[Sumaleth]

That is pretty remarkable. Is this the most elaborate example of a white cube painting to date?

I would love to see;

. The original wireframe version.

. The entire image at full size. (yes, I know it would be a big file )

--

On the subject of 3D based matte artists, I've always been really impressed by the work of Eric Hanson;
http://www.loop.com/~ehanson/

Totally love that 5th Element work.

Spooge; do you have a professional opinion of this Erics results?

Row.

[n8]

okok...all i can say is...OMFG (OH MY F'N GOD)...truely speechless...you could skrew up the finer detail and nobody would notice it...hehehe...top left of the matte not important??...geeeze..i want your talent...

[aNoah]

I think that when spooge mentions 3-d stuff he means that it is also important to know that. From what I understand, 3d cg is a much larger area than cg painting in 2d, but the people who go straight into 3d stuff without any kind of artistic background (which includes 2d art) end up making more of a simulation than a piece of artwork. What I mean is, they model well and know all the functions of their 3d package, but their work doesn't have anything artistic in it. Ideally, a person does both cg-painting and 3d.

------------------
-aNoah
Current Project Snapshot
My Gallery

[samdragon]

Of all the stuff I've read, even in Cenifex, this has to be the most fulfilling. It's full of the B.S. that some people want to put in an explination. Good Job Spooge! I never concidered some the of things you mentioned. It never occured to me that you would be adjusting things like the VP.
3D hu? I'm loving matte painting more and more by the second!
Thanks for the great info and explination.

[opticillusion]

Mr. Mullins, thank you for the detailed explination. I just feel more and more like being a matte painter every time you post

You said you're thinking of doing something different in the years to come. Will you stay in the same field of work...or move onto something different?

Those pics sure tell a lot of how to go about matte painting. Was this a new project, or a previous one you're showing as an example? Wait a sec, are you working on the series, 'The West Wing'? ...just a thought.

Excellent work....and thanks for the behind the scenes of it all

------------------
Metavisuals.com

[napalm]

"But the 3-d guys are clueless, mainly cause they don�t know how to light, but with radiosity that is irrelevant."


Not all 3D guys are "clueless". There are a huge number of highly talented and skilled modelers, coders, animators, and yes, even lighting engineers working on 3D projects. Just because the majority of the things you may see on the web or on TV might be badly lit or innaccurate doesn't mean that the 3D medium as a whole is "clueless" to the concept of recreating reality. I could say the same exact thing about the 2D art community as a large portion of that is complete caca as well. Oh, and even with radiosity bad 3D is still bad 3D, it's just another tool in the box.

Matte painting will be around for quite a while still. In many ways it is cheaper, more economical and faster than 3D recreations. The detail needed for a fully 3D version of this shot would be huge, and for a quick 2D pan it would be complete overkill. Keep painting, you're not out of a job yet

All other comments aside, it looks fantastic.

------------------
[email protected]
personal: http://www.deadzebra.com / cia productions: http://www.creators.org

[dr . bang]

hmm.....which one is the reference pic?

[pierre]

If I was not so tired as I am right now, I would probably write you a book about this post.

Just great Craig, just great. Really love the close ups, they say alot.

Matte painting has been, among other things, in the main focus of my interest for a very long time and I just love it when your posts deal with the subject.

I have promised myself that I will do atleast one matte painting in my life, then I'll be happy.

The white house building are the only ones that was worked out in 3D?

What 3D software do you use Craig, FormZ?

Very Nice work Craig!

------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pierrehannah

[Brue]

Hey. Thats a great pic! But are the clouds supposed to end that abruptly? all of a sudden there is a whole new colore and look of sky! I dunno why, i just saw that but i did.

[Isric]

Elysia Mother of Aedon! Its good this world has people who can stand that kind of detail work.
And no shell, they're not suposed to end abruptly, its part of the process.silly girl

[Jenn]

Nice images spooge.. as FE asked.. What movie ? :

------------------
DarkChyld

[Anthony]

By Odin's many legged horse, what values!

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Trance-R]

Hoolly Spooge!
You spooged that painting again!
WOW!!!! Totally impressive! Damn!

!!!
Oh great, my jaw won't close now.

[JohnGone]

Wowzers!

------------------
digitalart.org - Better than pr0n!

[Flexible Elf]

unbelievable Spooge. Awesome stuff. I also have the same question.. which movie?

-Flexible Elf

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/flexible_elf/Main.html

[jasonN]

Whoa.....

I'm speechless.

Didn't you have to do something like this for the movie 'contact'?

Just a guess.

[Liquid!]

Your grasp of values and lighting is humbling. Thanks for posting the close ups.

Damn. I hate to sound like one more guy in here telling you how awesome this is. So I won't. Wait I just did.

-c

[Sumaleth]

Spooge;

I dont know if you can answer this, but in addition to knowing how long this took it'd be very interesting to know how much you were payed for this image as well.

Row.

[Jaymo]

Nah, I'm not gonna do Liquid!s mistake and tell you what a fantabulous, mindbending, kickass artist you are! You already know that.

[Loki]

Sumaleth: please don't ask Craig how much he's been getting paid. Prices are a well-kept secret in this industry, so Craig certainly woudln't give you an answer, because it belongs to the hmmm 'trade-secrets' ...

It's really hard to find out even the general ranges. But here's what I was able to dig out:

for a shot in a commercial, depending on the complexity, people charge between $4000-$8000 ... very wide range that can differ. For features it could be $6000-$200.000 - these are sooooooper rough extimates, so don't anyone bag on me!

[Void]

Loki: I'll keep that thought of $200k in mind when I hire you to make my feature films (but of course, I'll subtract $199k from what I give you )

[spooge demon]

Thanks folks, glad you like it.

Napalm. I apologize for my smearing of 3-d people. They certainly are not all �clueless.� It was a glib and offhand and tongue in cheek remark that I should not have made. Yes, there probably more clueless 2-d guys than 3-d guys.

Isric, I know what you mean about detail. But digital has made it a lot easier, being able to generate masks and such. Also, the rez makes it so I am always painting loosely. No 000 brushes here. Just paint it big and scale it in.

There is really quite a lot of invention; I find the ID training coming in very handy when filling in the gaps. They won�t let you near the white house or fly over the capitol building, hence matte shots.

The movie is some Kevin Costner wonder-buns saves the planet crap. I don�t remember the name.

I don�t know how many hours went into this, It was done with 3-4 other jobs running concurrently. I would guess 60-100 hours.

Pierre, have you tried to get some matte work? You probably could...

One of the real challenges with this piece is the white super bright surface. Yes it is matte, but it does reflect most of the light that hits it. It just doesn�t come of the surface in an organized way. Also, it is an object with very little variety of materials. This can easily make it look like a model. I tried to play up subtleties and differences wherever I could to help this problem.

Sumaleth, I will try to dig up the wireframe. It got overwritten at a later stage of the painting. i still have the original 3-d files. It is like a big white cube! If I hadn�t studied those things as carefully as I did, I could never have pulled this off. In a lot of ways, I don�t think I did.

That is always the probelm with mattes. In the back of your mind, you know one of them out there has your name on it. You have to be crazy to even attempt them. You worry that you analyze and think as much as you can, but there is some aspect of the subject that may go right over your head. Zip. And your painting looks, well, like a painting. Deadline coming, it�s still a painting. Get out of town. I think every matte artist has felt this anxiety.

I used form-z for this project.

Optic illusion, I would like to paint with real paints. Paint what and how I would like.

Brue, the camera doesn�t see that area in the move that it makes. So why paint it?

I don�t know Eric Hanson personally. The images on his site are the product of many peoples labors. I really like a lot of them. But they don�t make my pulse raise a notch. Go see John watkiss. com Much nicer.

[Hurri-cane]

you are stupid, geez, thats really SO stupid...i hate you..hehe u missed to do that left dust rat a little more clearer, u can see the brush strokes

geeZuS.


.caneman

[Transcendent]

I have a question, I hope it does not take too much of your time ... from what I'm hearing, it appears you painted over the rendering output, but if you did, how did you get the scene to animate ? Frame by frame ?

Sorry this question sounds silly, I'm completely clueless when it comes to 3d mattes. Hope I'm making sense here.

[Sumaleth]

Trans;

Spooge used a simple wireframe (maybe filled, maybe not) version of the scene as a basis for the image. It's not a "3D" matte image in the sense that has been discussed here.

This matte doesn't need to animate. The camera just looks at the top/right portion of the image at the start and slowly pans diagonally to finish in the opposite corner. It's a real cheat because there is no paralax or animating elements yet I think you'd be surprised how realistic it would look.

--

New Kevin Costner movie? Sounds like that one about the Cuban missile crisis.

Row.