In article <3ea3055e@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   All this to simply get some white dots on the image?-)

Nah, so people won't ask where the stars are. ;-)

Really, having a visual background of some sort would be useful, just 
for ease of mind, or for judging changes in orientation on the fly 
(assuming you would ever need to do so). You could have the computer 
project a background grid, but why not just make something that is 
already there visible? Also, the idea is to mimic what the eye would 
see, and it can adapt so the stars are visible. You can see the stars 
when standing on the sunlit side of the moon, it's just hard to catch 
them on film. And you'll probably have these types of sensors anyway, 
they would be lighter than multiple cameras.


>   Space movies often exaggerate the beautiness of stars in space, but
> I wouldn't be surprised if actually they were just extremely boring
> white dots... :)

Are you saying the astronauts we've sent up are exaggerating too?


>   The images of the Hubble telescope are marvelously beautiful... But those
> images are photographind details thousands of light-years big. You don't
> get that kind of colorful images when photographing a planet or a
> spaceship...

And they're nothing like what this camera would show. They are not what 
it is intended to show. Having a ship go through a densely foggy nebula 
is unrealistic, showing stars is not.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message