Darth Venal said:
I don't know what it is about traditional matte painting, but I just prefer it. I just feel it works better on film than digital mattes have so far. Yes, of course, digital mattes are more detailed and can be manipulated in 3D for different angles etc, but there's just something about painted mattes...
Maybe it's the work that goes into them, I know the artist has painted every bit of it, but with digital art, that's rarely the case any more. Is digital stuff technically more accurate? For sure. Does it look more real? Often, no. I feel the same about digital animation over hand drawn. Most of us are aware just how much work went into traditional animation, and how much the machines have taken that skill away. Oh, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't wish a workload like that on anyone! But people used to do that, every frame of it, and I can't help feeling they deserved higher praise than someone who does theirs on a computer, like me.
Well, there are some of you guys who do(did) both. Many folks like Chris Evans from Matte World, Mike Pangrazio from Weta, and Yusei Uesugi from ILM all did mattes on glass before transitioning. I think those folks creations work very well in the digital medium. Then there is some great matte work I've seen recently in some recent films that was very good by people who've never painted on glass.
Now I'm not saying any of these people approach Ellenshaw, Whitlock, etc. But they're very good in their own right.