FSTD: “Dick Tracy” was considered to have been filmed in 65mm. Some tests were filmed by Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC, as I recall, but ultimately, the film was shot in 35mm, then released with a number of 70mm prints. Still, was there any large format visual effects work in this film?

Ellenshaw: I didn't begin my work on “Dick Tracy” until the film was in post-production. At that time, I was told that it was the intent to compose all shots for 1:33:1 AND 1:85:1. No one could explain to me how such impossibility would be achieved. But since Disney had no interest in spending extra money to create special 1:33:1 aspect ratio release prints (something the filmmakers probably

"Dick Tracy" (1990)

should have considered when they discussed film formats initially), the issue appeared resolved. Most of the plates for the effects were shot in VistaVision, except for a few shots which utilized sodium vapor traveling matte photography, a dual film strip 35mm system for which Disney owns exclusive U.S. rights. It was a huge challenge to composite matte paintings and opticals using elements shot without a definitive and clear idea of what the final aspect ratio should be. In addition, Storaro had convinced Warren Beatty and the studio that all the prints should receive an ENR treatment, which makes the blacks richer, but desaturates the color. With such a vibrant color design created for the film, this along with the wacky aspect ratio decision seemed to make little sense to me. I do not recall if there were any 70mm prints made of “Dick Tracy,” I don't believe so. I think I would remember, as that would have only made matters worse if we would have had to consider a third aspect ratio.

FSTD: Indeed, there was quite a large run of 70mm prints made for “Dick Tracy.” Some were even combined with the first commercial use of digital sound, Cinema Digital Sound (CDS).

Ellenshaw: Thanks for refreshing my memory. I wonder if those 70mm prints were "ENR'd" or not? I just don't remember seeing any of them. If they were not "ENR'd," then the color must have been really spectacular.

FSTD: My recollection is that the blow-ups were in a side-matted 1.85:1 ratio and that the color was quite vivid.

Do you think 65mm and VistaVision should be used in today's visual effects films, or has digital technology rendered them obsolete?

Ellenshaw: There will always be a place for large format photography. Film as an image-recording medium will eventually be completely replaced by CCD chips and then even newer technology. But just like pieces of halide crystal, the more pixels you can assign to an image, the better. Hence, large formats will always yield better resolution and quality than small formats.

FSTD: Do you have a preference of which format to use when you're involved with a film project?

Ellenshaw: It all depends on the presentation of the piece. What will be the type of screen? CRT? LED? LCD? White canvas? Perforated screen? Or...? What will be the aspect ratio? What will be the size of the screen? But if cost were no object, I would use a 60 frame-per-second, progressive scan digital camera with the biggest CCD chip available. And with digital projection, of course.

FSTD: You’ve worked in nearly every filmmaking format available. But you’re also a forward thinker in terms of new technology. What do you like about digital cinematography and digital projection?

Ellenshaw: I won't miss the dirt and scratches that are all too common with film. Digital storage is getting cheaper and smaller all the time, as opposed to film that will remain the same physical size indefinitely and the cost of film will always rise over time. With digital, there’s no more reloading (unless you're using tape and

"Pete's Dragon" (1977)

that's almost gone). There is no waiting for dailies with digital like there is with film. To have to send in your storage/recording media and have it developed and printed in order to see an image will seem almost insane in a very short period of time. Think of still cameras. Do you know anyone who goes to the camera store or drug store and orders prints from film anymore? And digital projection? What's not to like about a steady clean image that is equal in film in terms of color fidelity and resolution?  And it will only get better.

FSTD: A lot of matte painting today is done on a computer. Are any mattes done via hand and brush today, and have you worked with digital mattes?

Ellenshaw: After the live-action plate has been shot I believe the best way to create a good matte painting composite is to layout/block in the painting with brush and paints first around the plate. Not many people do this because they lack the ability to paint and a true understanding of perspective -- which can take years to master. Regretably, digital has provided the means to skip this step. However, the problem with skipping the "blocking in with paint" step is that the matte artist never gets a sense of the geography of the image. An effective image in a narrative sequence of moving imagery is a result of many things including composition. Often misunderstood and usually underrated, composition is an important key to great art. Most artists spend their life struggling to create good composition. It is what guides the eye; it is what gives weight to certain areas of the image; it is what tells the story. The process of drawing or painting is nothing like cutting and pasting. There is a flow, a rhythm -- unconscious choices of how to block in the image -- a kind of zen-like push and pull of elements that if done properly creates a successful image. It is impossible to describe fully in words. A mouse and a monitor do not adequately allow the artist to create his or her composition with the same organic flow that doing a painting does.

What the digital aspect of matte painting does today is provide the means to make perfect matches of color and texture between the live action plate and the painting. As well as composite and render the final image with high resolution. These are all very good things and I do not mean to minimize their importance. But to create a really excellent matte painting composite all the tools must be used properly.

FSTD: If you’ve worked with digital mattes, was there a difficult learning curve for you coming from painting on glass to painting with a mouse?

Ellenshaw: I haven’t found it too difficult to work on matte shots in digital. Photoshop is an amazingly powerful and friendly piece of software.

FSTD: You directed a film in 1989 called “Dead Silence.” Can you tell us a little about your experience on that film?

Ellenshaw: I learned that being a director can be the loneliest job on earth. I don’t think I’ll ever direct again; too much waiting and too frustrating, especially for a control freak.

FSTD: Can you tell our readers about some of the painting you’ve done recently?

Ellenshaw: I still enjoy painting outside of visual effects. My work is shown in different galleries in a number of different cities. I have just returned from Japan, where I am fortunate enough to have gained a following. I sometimes collaborate on paintings with my father. We do paintings of scenes from Disney films and publish giclées of these paintings which have become quite popular. We’ve been very fortunate.

 
FSTD: Thanks, Harrison.

Ellenshaw: My pleasure.
 

Special Thanks to Harrison Ellenshaw

*Ellenshaw was nominated for an Academy Award for his work. The other Visual Effects nominees on "The Black Hole" were Peter Ellenshaw, Art Cruickshank, Eustace Lycett, Danny Lee and Joe Hale.

Bibliography

Houston, David. The Magical Techniques Of Movie And TV Special Effects; Part IX; The Matte Artist: An Interview With P.S. Ellenshaw, Series Edited by David Hutchison, Starlog Magazine, June 1978

Smith, Thomas G. Industrial Light & Magic: The Art of Special Effects, Del Rey, 1987

This is a revised version of an interview originally posted in 2002 at www.widescreenreview.com.

Photos courtesy of Harrison Ellenshaw, Starlog, Industrial Light & Magic: The Art of Special Effects