View Full Version : My first Matte attempt
J.R. Hudson
11-16-2005, 01:23 AM
Alright PS Lovers. Here is my first matte (from a tutorial). Learned a ton on this one. I can see what does and what does not work. Tons of layers and things going on here.
The cool thing would be to actually film and use this as a matte; which is my goal of course!
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/1638/churchorgina2kx.jpg
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/197/goth1sm.jpg
Weston
11-16-2005, 01:54 AM
Thats really amazing! Nice job. to put that image in motion will be quite the task though....
Matt Grunau
11-16-2005, 07:11 AM
That's f**king creepy. Awsome job John. It has real depth too. rock on.
greg121
11-16-2005, 08:38 AM
Hudson, how long did that take? it looks amazing.
SilverWolf
11-16-2005, 08:58 AM
Bravo! That Kicks Ass
Ill Eagle
11-16-2005, 09:14 AM
*Speechless*
Slimothy
11-16-2005, 09:41 AM
Looks good.
David Jimerson
11-16-2005, 09:42 AM
Of everything in that composite, you know what I think sells it? That extra steeple in the background.
Nice work!
tigeba
11-16-2005, 11:05 AM
Looks good. We should start a thread about how one would incorporate something like this into a movie.
J.R. Hudson
11-16-2005, 12:01 PM
Thanks dudes!
Took a few hours; sipping some wine, jamming to some old school Ratt and Van Halen tunes.... Oh sorry.
The church steeple really does sell it; thanks David. I think the trick on this Matte would be to have the birds become a separate element via After Effects and also have the lightining and clouds be separate....
Also would have to better plan where the talent would be if putting live bodies into it; which is what I want to do this weekend.
Learned so much on this. Between the sapce and this one I have taken Quantam Leaps in my PS skills this week. Amazing what few Tutorials will do for you
David Jimerson
11-16-2005, 12:05 PM
If you want to use a still matte as a background plate (or mid-plate, or whatever), apply a little animated noise or grain to it in Vegas or whatever else you're using. It'll give the impression of a locked-down motion camera, because there will be a little bit of motion in the plate. Of course, less is more. You're selling an impression, not an effect.
jamestmather
11-16-2005, 12:07 PM
very nice painted (i presume) gravestones in the left foreground. Impressed with your ps skills.
jamestmather
11-16-2005, 12:08 PM
I unfortunately tend to produce images that would make a five year old blush. Just missing that left brain interaction. damn!
pookie_old
11-16-2005, 12:13 PM
Looks good John, buy you might need to keep in mind where the light is coming from.
You seem to have a couple of sources of moonlight.
Good stuff.
J.R. Hudson
11-16-2005, 12:20 PM
Thanks James
Yeah Pookie; I noticed that. I was in such a hurry to get the Toot done I didnt even look for those details until I noticed it 3 hours later :P
Stay tuned Dave! I'm gonna try and do a nice plate this weekend!!
Great stuff John! I've been working on learning this stuff as well because I intend to use matte paintings in 2.5d instead of 3D. Much easier.
The birds and lightning would have to be done in AE as you say. Not particularily hard. In fact you could get really crazy and create some faux camera dollys with a greenscreened person and an extra large matte (and motion tracking of course)!
HorseFilms
11-16-2005, 12:54 PM
That's freaking sweet! That's the kind of thing that could really come in handy.
J.R. Hudson
11-16-2005, 12:57 PM
TOTALLY!
It's not like I can create some crazy ass CGI 3D XSI Studio Max crap so I have to go old school like ILM in the good ole days
David Jimerson
11-16-2005, 01:21 PM
CGI should be there to enhance traditional effects, not replace them.
Sirius_Doggy
11-16-2005, 01:39 PM
Still got a bit to go. Only removed text and changed sky so far.
http://www.pbase.com/siriusdoggy/image/52353869/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/siriusdoggy/image/52354081.jpg
Matt Grunau
11-16-2005, 03:24 PM
TOTALLY!
It's not like I can create some crazy ass CGI 3D XSI Studio Max crap so I have to go old school like ILM in the good ole days
Nonsense. Sure you could, and it is not nearly as hard as you would think. You simply need a model of a bird (and not even with any real detail, just the shape), and a quick animation you can save as a motion. then you set up a very simple particle system (you only have 10 or so particles to worry about), replace the particles with the bird object, apply the motion you saved and boom, yer done.
You would then have the option of using the particle properties (as well as the influencers like wind, gravity, and the rest) to tweak and get a desired result. With such a small number of birds, you could even do them independently and layer them all in as seperate animations. Kick in some motion blur and you have all kinds of ways to get rid of obvious compositing.
What about texturing the simple models? How many polygons would you refer to as a "simple model?" I'm just curious as I've never attempted combining both 2D and 3D elements before.
Matt Grunau
11-16-2005, 06:40 PM
I would consider anything under 1-2K as simple. You could easily model a bird for a distant animation shot with only 50-200 though. Texturing would be simple, as you would really only need to color the polys. Combining 2D and 3D is a snap (technically, but blending the two as far as coloring can be mildly hard sometimes), and when you are color grading as much as is being done here for the effect, they would blend even easier. Factor in motion blur, and high detail wouldn't show anyway.
If I can do it, anyone can. And seriously, it's not that hard.
Cool. Thanks for the info. I may have to give it a shot for the upcoming fest.
I used a 4 triangle "bird" in a particle system on a recent espn open, and it looked as real as can be. No one was the wiser.