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

Attachments:
Download 'evrythng3.jpg' (314 KB)

Preview of image 'evrythng3.jpg'

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:42daa961@news.povray.org...
>
> What do you think?

I think I want to borrow this and replace my asteroids wallpaper already--  
so with your permission...?

This is very good, Tek. I've always wanted to try something like this 
myself.

<rhetoric>Funny how these deep space pictures always make me feel like we're 
all just a tiny part of some kind of pondwater microbe. More fun to see how 
incredibly enormous and limitless it all must be. I'm glad it isn't a boring 
looking place for us. Imagine being stuck in a thick intergalactic cloud and 
not being able to see beyond the nearest star or planets! Our whole visible 
universe could have been the Sun, Moon, and maybe a few planets. Something 
like living in a city with perpetual smog and light pollution. Luckily 
there's those telescopes on mountaintops and in space to see with, so it's 
even better than just starry skies.</rhetoric>

; )
Bob

Post a reply to this message

You don't need my permission to use my images as wallpaper!
Thanks for your comments :)

Bob Hughes wrote:
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
> news:42daa961@news.povray.org...
> 
>>What do you think?
> 
> 
> I think I want to borrow this and replace my asteroids wallpaper already--  
> so with your permission...?
> 
> This is very good, Tek. I've always wanted to try something like this 
> myself.
> 
> <rhetoric>Funny how these deep space pictures always make me feel like we're 
> all just a tiny part of some kind of pondwater microbe. More fun to see how 
> incredibly enormous and limitless it all must be. I'm glad it isn't a boring 
> looking place for us. Imagine being stuck in a thick intergalactic cloud and 
> not being able to see beyond the nearest star or planets! Our whole visible 
> universe could have been the Sun, Moon, and maybe a few planets. Something 
> like living in a city with perpetual smog and light pollution. Luckily 
> there's those telescopes on mountaintops and in space to see with, so it's 
> even better than just starry skies.</rhetoric>
> 
> ; )
> Bob
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:42dab890@news.povray.org...
> You don't need my permission to use my images as wallpaper!

Whew! Because...  heh-heh-heh

Post a reply to this message

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