Would that be stellar or solar parallax?
Ok... first thing I had to do was wiki parallax... then I wished I hadn't. Maybe you can explain the wikipedia explanation to me. Second... I speak about a lot of things with authority but I don't expect to get called out on them! We tend to do this a lot in Texas.
Anyway... about mattes... yes they are flat 2D images or if you are going to move the camara (but not too much) you put them on a curved surface and make sure the camera doesn't go outside that surface. By 3D Matte in after effects I'm speaking of a particular effect that reads the depth (G-Buffer) information. You then place two or more of these mattes at different levels on the timeline with different depth settings and put between them anything you want to interact between 2 objects such as walking to a car instead of walking over the car.
You got it right with the camera movement question. 2D mattes or backgrounds work great on single camera angle shots either static or moving in or out but you can lose the perception from 3D to 2D if you get the wrong camera angle or move the camera outside of the curved surface.
Years ago we used mattes for everything and sometimes that meant as many as 8 to 10 different matte setups (render angles) to form one moving camera shot that was put together in an editor. It could even be more matte setups if it was a long camera shot.
The DareDevil movie with Ben Affleck was a great matte movie. Almost everything was shot on greenscreen (like the movie 300) then the city was actually layered mattes... some with opacity to cut out the skyline. Some will say this is not using a matte but its still a 2D image. A real matte painter is an artist and way over my head.
That being said... I'm a self taught hack with mattes. I learned them because I had to and still use simple forms of them today or as stated above... with G-Buffer info that does all the distance work. Still can't do just anything with the camera though as it has to stay within the focal area of the matte or you lose the 3D and get the flat image that no one wants or likes.
Convergence was a factor we worried about similar to the 3D steroscopic rendering... by that I mean what is line of convergence that fools the eye of the viewer. I did it by trial and error. I'm sure there is a better way.
Remember...you asked! I shall now go off and speak with authority about something else I know little about... but then... that's just me.
EDIT: As if I could add more to this lengthy post... we never worried about items in the background moving slower than items in the foreground. It never came up in any conversation I ever had with a creative director or team leader.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIVE to anymate, irritate and machinamate. Not necessarily in that order.
Edited
14 Years Ago by
warlord720