Major improvement. I'm glad you put some of them really close up to give it
more depth. I also like the galaxies themselves; good media densities.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> A new version, incorporating some of the suggestions I got on the last
> one. I've tried to make it feel more like those hubble deep field images.
>
> In case you're wondering, there's 1000 galaxies that are as detailed as
> the ones you see close-up, all created by varying the parameters to a
> macro that creates a media filed sphere. Then in the extreme distance I
> have a sky_sphere with some small dots on it pretending to be even more
> distant galaxies.
>
> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Tek


I guess representing space with only 1000 galaxies can be considered
minimalism :)

It looks fantastic!

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.

Focal blur for an astronomical image?  Why??

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

Larry Hudson wrote:
> Tek wrote:
> 
>> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.
> 
> 
> Focal blur for an astronomical image?  Why??
> 
>      -=- Larry -=-

Sorry, I should have added that this *is* a great image.

I just wondered why you think that focal blur is needed.  It wouldn't 
exist in a real astro-photo, everything is (optically) at the same distance.

      -=- Larry (again) -=-

Post a reply to this message

In message <42daa961@news.povray.org>, Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> 
writes
>A new version, incorporating some of the suggestions I got on the last 
>one. I've tried to make it feel more like those hubble deep field 
>images.
>

>
>What do you think?
>

Have you thought about sending that to the Astronomy picture of the day 
website?  :)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/
-- 
Alex

Post a reply to this message

Yes I realise that even with the tiny amount of blur I used it would 
suggest a camera with an aperture several thousand light years wide!

The theory was that I wanted the most distant galaxies to blend into 
just being indistinct glowing blobs a few pixels wide, so I could use a 
sky_sphere for the farthest ones without a visible transition. Also I 
was trying to emulate the imperfect focus on the hubble images I used as 
reference.

Though in fact it takes less time to render with more galaxies and no 
focal blur, so I've now changed it to have 8000 galaxies, enough to make 
the farthest ones smaller than 1 pixel, then a sky_sphere to fake even 
further ones. Also the lack of focal blur means you can see detail in 
even the fairly small galaxies, so I much prefer it that way.

Tek


Larry Hudson wrote:
> Larry Hudson wrote:
> 
>> Tek wrote:
>>
>>> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Focal blur for an astronomical image?  Why??
>>
>>      -=- Larry -=-
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have added that this *is* a great image.
> 
> I just wondered why you think that focal blur is needed.  It wouldn't 
> exist in a real astro-photo, everything is (optically) at the same 
> distance.
> 
>      -=- Larry (again) -=-

Post a reply to this message

Loved it! It reminded me a lot of the Hubble Deep Field.

F


Tek wrote:
> A new version, incorporating some of the suggestions I got on the last 
> one. I've tried to make it feel more like those hubble deep field images.
> 
> In case you're wondering, there's 1000 galaxies that are as detailed as 
> the ones you see close-up, all created by varying the parameters to a 
> macro that creates a media filed sphere. Then in the extreme distance I 
> have a sky_sphere with some small dots on it pretending to be even more 
> distant galaxies.
> 
> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Tek
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
news:42daa961@news.povray.org...
> A new version, incorporating some of the suggestions I got on the last
> one. I've tried to make it feel more like those hubble deep field images.
>

Excellent! Very much the ultra deep field images of Hubble. Makes one
feel....tiny.



Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> What do you think?
>
> Tek

VERY good !!


"Lenx" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I guess representing space with only 1000 galaxies can be considered
> minimalism :)
very good too...

Rene
http://rene.bui.free.fr - online portfolio

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, Bob Hughes saw fit to write:

> Funny how these deep space pictures always make me feel like
> we're all just a tiny part of some kind of pondwater microbe.

I got the strongest "tinyness" feeling with a photograph of the Moon
occulting Mars. Somehow, it gave me some sense of scale seeing the planet
so small behind our well-known moon... That's *far* away, I thought. I
don't get the same feeling with galaxies, you know they're made of billions
of stars, but you don't really see them.

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message