Talk:Matte (filmmaking)

message: I edited the entry somewhat, to clarify the distinction of static and travelling mattes. I removed the description of what was more properly called a "glass shot" and the Schufftan process, as these did not involve the use of proper mattes. I hope my description is clear and acceptable.
Hello all. I edited the steps in the section on the "Latent Image Matte", (As the Whitlock unit called it) to try to make the steps in using the 'test strips' clear. I will also edit in the phrase "latent image matte" as that was a widely used term at the time to describe the differences between what Whitlock style effects artists were doing, vs. what 'Optical Printer' matte artists ( i.e. J. Danforth, I.L.M. & so on) were doing back in the day. Although towards the end the Universal -Whitlock unit was mixing Latent image & Optical & Blue screen work more often than not. 
(The RKO Lynwood Dunn unit did lots of optical printer matte paintings for Citizen Kane.)  
The Segment on Bi-Packing & traveling Mattes is difficult to read & understand. To be fair Bi-Packing technology is  difficult to understand anyway, so I sympathize with the writer. I'm not sure how I would describe it for clarity myself! Perhaps there should be a link to the wiki pages on Ansco color & technicolor as those were both multi- pack film processes themselves. Several times in the Bi-pack section the word "Tape" instead of "Film' is used, which adds to the confusion, so I do recommend some clean-up there, I just don't feel qualified myself to do it. 
:I made the change from 'tape' to 'film', that's obvious. (Bi-pack wouldn't work with tape!) But further clean-up would be wise: I agree this tricky concept isn't very clearly conveyed. DanEfran (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: matte painting is pretty much a different toolset.  It's more artistic in the painting/drawing sense, whereas the generation of mattes is a fairly technical task where artistic enhancement is not the goal.  Glennchan 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matte Painting should get its own page??

message: I wonder if this article is rather US centred. In the UK the masking on film prints to change the aspect ratio is quite distinct from 'process shots' (actually an American term, I think), and thus might best ber treated separately. Philip Cross (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Matte or mask

message: There seems to be multiple confusions here. The phrase "Process Shot I have seen used incorrectly used before. In American production, Process Shot meant a "Rear-Screen Projection" and had nothing to do with "Masks" "Mattes" or "Murgatroyd". Also I understood Hard & Soft Matte in connection with production to mean that if the DP shot the negative with a Matte to mask the shot 1:85 to one that was a "Hard" matte because it was irrevocable. But if it was shot Full Frame & distributed with the recommendation to Matte to 1:85 to one, it was "Soft" because you could mask it to 1:66 if you chose, or even leave it off & project Full screen. This emerged with the ascendancy of shooting for theater- but with TV prints in mind while shooting. )  MBD (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Matte or mask

message: All links to other Wikipedias currently point to Matte painting - this is obviously wrong! Also German WP has a separate article to Matte painting (named the same as in English) which must NOT be here! (correctly linked from Matte painting)-andy 92.226.193.156 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moscow we have a problem ... 

message: I find the suggested derivation of "soft" and "hard" as being from the edge blur highly unlikely. Far more likely, it's like a "soft" deadline and a "hard" deadline - the former can be changed later, the latter cannot. Besides, matting via camera is not in the focal plane either (it could be when making the positive though).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.13.159 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: True reason for "soft" and "hard" names?

message: There were no movies in the 1880s to mid 1890s, as the history section of this article more or less explicitly claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.91.66 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first motion pictures on film were made in the (very) late 1880s, but they were strictly experimental. The task at hand was to make them practical, not to work out methods for creating special effects. I just bumped "late 1880s" up to "late 1890s", amazed that the former has been allowed to stand for at least six and a half years. I've no access to the cited source, but if the source really says "1880s" it brands itself as unreliable on early history. 66.249.174.42 (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No movies in the 1880s 

message: Most of the text is more or less meaningless without showing some examples from films that pioneered or perfected the techniques described.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show some screencaps