Well we would see no nebula's from earth, none in the general vicinity. 
But I go out in the country and look up I can see the Milky Way accross
the sky.  A more dense area of stars.  And Lens flares, are they not a
product of atmospheres, so really lens flares in space are an artistic
toush.  But I could be wrong.  And the Hubble could not get a lens flare
because it would fry the optics.

Ken wrote:
> 
> Opinion time !
> 
>   I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
> star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
> lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
> are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
> where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
> can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
> when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
> there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
> are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
> night sky.
>   Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
> I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
> photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
> in our solar system.
> 
> What do you think about this generaly ?
> 
> Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?
> 
> Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
> space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
> at through the atmosphere of the earth ?
> 
> Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?
> 
> Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
> landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
> special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
> the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
> live?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message