Does anybody know of a definitive source that describes exactly how the sequence where the couple is shown walking through traffic was done?
It was obviously a process shot, but I'm not sure exactly what they did.
Curiosity.....FTW!!!!!
Rear projection, maybe.
shareIt didn't look like that to me. It was rougher. Also, some of the traffic passed in front of the actors, obscuring them. I'm not sure why they weren't just out in (controlled) traffic. Were cars that unreliable back then?
some of the traffic passed in front of the actors, obscuring them. I'm not sure why they weren't just out in (controlled) traffic. Were cars that unreliable back then?
It's more complicated than that.
This video explains the effect very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8aoUXjSfsI&feature=youtu.be&t=4m51s
Put the cursor at the start if you want to hear the whole evolution of these kind of effects.
....Frank Williams used a traveling matte composite in the traffic scene.
Yes, it's quite apparent that Gaynor and O'Brien were matted onto the background. I've seen a photo of this scene being shot with a big black scrim held behind the two actors by stagehands as they walked away from the camera(used to create the matte of the actors). But what I don't get is how the cars in the foreground(between the actors and the camera)can reflect the background buildings and the actors in their shiny hoods and bodies as they pass through he frame. If the foreground cars were part of the background film (which explains the reflections of the buildings but not the actors), how can they block out the matted actors as they pass in front of them?
What I suspect they did is to matte the actors onto the background film strip, then take that composite film and use it as a rear-projection strip for the cars and extras that can be seen passing in front of the two actors. That seems to be the only way the foreground cars can reflect both the buildings and the two actors. It also explains why the actor/background composite is so grainy because it's third or fourth generation on the finished film.
You can see the scene at 2:30 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_BBf_bP16A&feature=related, but it's much easier to see the reflections on the cars I'm talking about if you go frame-by-frame while watching the dvd.
This still from the dvd shows what I'm talking about more clearly: http://i51.tinypic.com/1040yo0.jpg
....Your solution makes sense.
....Interesting how the one area that really gives away the matte effect is the edge around O'Brien's head ( aside from the slight camera-shift in the background when they embrace ).
[deleted]
That's right. The separate masks must not have been perfectly aligned during printing. Another thing that gives away the matte process is that the camera that shot the background tilts up slightly while the perspective on the actors remains the same. It's also interesting to note that the actors stay very close to each other as they walk, which may be because Murnau knew that hand-painting the masks in preparation for doing the process printing would be easier if the two actors formed one big shape instead of two separate shapes.
If that is indeed how that sequence was accomplished, I think it was very clever of Murnau (or whoever) to come up with the idea of putting live action in front of a matte composite by using the matte as a rear-projection. Had anybody else in that era tried anything like that? It's a shame there are so few sources of information about the making of this film.
Objects in spoiler appear wittier than they actually are