Matte Painting Quotes

Technically, the green screen acting can be difficult because there's something worse than a tennis ball on the end of a stick; it's an Australian visual effects assistant running around a field with a cardboard dinosaur head on the end of a stick while wearing sandals.

Visual-effects shots should flow into the rest of the live action, and you shouldn't be able to see a difference.

Green screen's not my favourite thing to do.

'2001' used a lot of what's called 'front projection.' You project an image onto this giant reflective screen, and the image bounces back and comes back to the lens and seems to be in the background behind the actors. The whole 'dawn of man' sequence in '2001' was projected eight-by-ten photographs of the African savannah.

I used to do stop motion in my own garage and Claymation and all that stuff. That led to doing backgrounds and matte paintings. I started doing matte paintings professionally back before the computer, sort of painting on glass.

When you act against a blue screen, you have to imagine what's not there.

It doesn't bother me to work with so much green screen. I prefer real settings obviously.

When you're doing a film that has so many effects, you do a lot of it on green screen, and you can't see what that world is.

Special effects are characters. Special effects are essential elements. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I'm not a great fan of green screen. It's not much fun for actors. It's great for directors and technical people and cameramen.

When you take something that's inert, and through motion, give it life, make it appear to be alive, living, breathing thinking and having emotions, that's animation. But when you take something that's live-action, and move a part of it, that's a special effect.

Acting on a blue screen is awful.

I love CG - it's a great tool. I just don't think you should use it to replace reality; you should use it to augment and enhance. Do matte paintings, do composites, do replications, stuff like that, but you're taking something real and working with that as opposed to trying to fake it from scratch. The human brain can tell the difference.

I think a lot of times, in a lot of modern-day movies, a lot of things are CGI, but so much of the stuff in 'Star Wars' is built and created by these artists.

I did what we call dry for wet effects, some of the miniatures work and two animation sequences.

I work a lot with a green screen, which is really time consuming. All the special effects are.

I wish they taught green screen acting classes.

On 'Game of Thrones,' we always shoot away from the green screen because it's bloody expensive to shoot green screen.

Other effects in the show included models of the ships which were extremely expensive to make. We used to do our shots in front of a blue screen and they'd put the effects on after.

My background is in VFX, and I know from experience that the best VFX are when you have something real in the frame that you can either extend or work off of. It was really important to get as much as possible in camera, for real.

If you give an actor a green screen, the shot may work, but that green screen will not inspire you on the set as a director or as an actor.

'King Kong,' especially the first two acts of it, is a really good example of the use of miniatures mixed with digital characters and how convincing it was.

I've done some effects shots. I've done some compositing. And in 'Just Like Heaven' did a lot of, like, motion control and things like that. But never done, like, computer-generated imagery in action.

I don't like camera trickery and editing and doubles and all of that.

Maybe 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' didn't have a lot of visual effects in it, but most movies have some sort of visual effects.