So yesterday I added moonlight to my fastcl.. fastsky system (clouds are 
now only a small part of it, actually :))

However, while watching the real sky, I realized I had to add something 
else too: light polution.

So here is a completely unrealistic picture of an uninhabited island 
with lots of light polution!
..and a slightly more realistic version, without light polution :)

cu!
-- 
ZK

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lightpolution.jpg' (134 KB) Download 'clearsky.jpg' (136 KB)

Preview of image 'lightpolution.jpg'

Preview of image 'clearsky.jpg'

Am 13.08.2012 21:04, schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
> So yesterday I added moonlight to my fastcl.. fastsky system (clouds are
> now only a small part of it, actually :))

The moon's reflection in the water is way too bright.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/08/2012 21:44, clipka wrote:
> The moon's reflection in the water is way too bright.

yeah, I believe you're right, but my landscape-system, including water, 
is for later, for now I'm just concentrating on the sky :)

..however, I fixed it:

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'clearsky2.jpg' (134 KB)

Preview of image 'clearsky2.jpg'

Am 13.08.2012 22:36, schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
> On 13/08/2012 21:44, clipka wrote:
>> The moon's reflection in the water is way too bright.
>
> yeah, I believe you're right, but my landscape-system, including water,
> is for later, for now I'm just concentrating on the sky :)
>
> ...however, I fixed it:

Way better.

Still not perfect though, I think. Are you using highlights to fake the 
reflection? Note that the default highlight parameterization is not 
energy-conserving; try using the new "albedo" option (e.g. "specular 
albedo 1.0" for a surface that reflects 100% of all incoming light). You 
also need to take into account that your moon is not a full sphere, but 
only some 40% of it.

Try with true reflection for reference.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/08/2012 11:51, clipka wrote:
> Way better.
>
> Still not perfect though, I think.

Just to be clear: I'm not going for perfection, I'm going for speed 
while maintaining believability.

 > Are you using highlights to fake the
> reflection?

yes

 > Note that the default highlight parameterization is not
> energy-conserving; try using the new "albedo" option (e.g. "specular
> albedo 1.0" for a surface that reflects 100% of all incoming light).

let's give that a try :)

 > You
> also need to take into account that your moon is not a full sphere, but
> only some 40% of it.

using specular highlights, the only way to take that into account, is by 
lowering the brightness of the light_source, which I of course do :)

..though I'm not sure, I'm doing it the physically correct way, but it 
looks OK

> Try with true reflection for reference.

I just did :o
Either my moon-"object" (it's not an object, it's pigment on the 
sky_sphere.. btw: I lied, the sky exists of more than just a sky_sphere: 
each cloud layer is a large sphere by itself) is too dim, or my 
light_source was way too bright, or the specular highlights were way wrong.

Probably a combination of all three :)

Anyway, here's the revised version, with a brighter moon-pigment, dimmer 
moon-light and redone specular hightlights.

Low resolution landscape and no area_lights this time though.


And yes, I know it's a very dark image, but what do you expect, it's the 
middle of the night over there! :)
Just for fun, I also tried to adjust the time, while keeping the 
location of the moon, so I'd get a more full moon.

Still have to work on an automatic moon placement.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'clearsky3.jpg' (80 KB) Download 'clearsky4.jpg' (101 KB)

Preview of image 'clearsky3.jpg'

Preview of image 'clearsky4.jpg'

Am 14.08.2012 13:08, schrieb Zeger Knaepen:

>> Try with true reflection for reference.
>
> I just did :o
> Either my moon-"object" (it's not an object, it's pigment on the
> sky_sphere.. btw: I lied, the sky exists of more than just a sky_sphere:
> each cloud layer is a large sphere by itself) is too dim, or my
> light_source was way too bright, or the specular highlights were way wrong.
>
> Probably a combination of all three :)
>
> Anyway, here's the revised version, with a brighter moon-pigment, dimmer
> moon-light and redone specular hightlights.

Now /that/ nails it.

Post a reply to this message

Now /that/ nails it too ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message