 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.03.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 15-3-2017 19:09, clipka wrote:
>> Am 15.03.2017 um 13:23 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>
>>> Yes indeed. I intend to add some brighter stars. Otherwise, the idea is
>>> that we are in a part of the galaxy much brighter than our own and that
>>> star clusters are also visible in daylight, like in this image. The
>>> 'moon' is intended to be in a much earlier phase of development with
>>> lava fields and impacts highlighted.
>>
>> Fun fact: Contrary to popular belief, celestial structures whose
>> apparent size exceeds the resolution of an image sensor (eye, camera or
>> whatever) do /not/ exhibit an increase in "pixel brightness" as you get
>> closer(*). They just exhibit an increase in apparent size.
>>
>> (*Unless you traverse dust clouds as you approach.)
>>
>
> Hmmm... that makes sense somehow. So, I should correct what I wrote
> earlier about a 'brighter' part of the galaxy. Still, I suppose that
> with a sky filled with star clusters rather than individual stars, those
> clusters could be visible by day. Like some comets for instance do.
Certainly not in the way you've depicted it: The average brightness of
the [night] sky shouldn't exceed that of the galaxy's brightest place,
the core.
If the stars in the core were arranged into hyper-dense clusters (which
they most likely aren't, since the core is such a busy place that the
clusters would keep ripping each other apart), then you might see /some/
isolated blotches of light at daytime, being the few clusters nearby
enough to cover a noticeable area of the sky while still being far away
enough to not being visible as individual stars.
Also, presuming the planet's sun is part of a cluster itself, the sky
would be riddled day and night with other stars from the "home cluster",
some of which would be much closer than our nearest neighbors, and thus
also much brighter, possibly even so bright as to drown out the still
comparatively dim blotches that are the neighboring clusters.
For giggles, you might want to try some calculations to see how dense a
star cluster would have to be in order for it to have a per-area
brightness comparative to that of the moon, which is probably a good
benchmark for the minimum brightness of an object to be seen at daytime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-3-2017 9:53, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 15-3-2017 19:09, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2017 um 13:23 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. I intend to add some brighter stars. Otherwise, the idea is
>>>> that we are in a part of the galaxy much brighter than our own and that
>>>> star clusters are also visible in daylight, like in this image. The
>>>> 'moon' is intended to be in a much earlier phase of development with
>>>> lava fields and impacts highlighted.
>>>
>>> Fun fact: Contrary to popular belief, celestial structures whose
>>> apparent size exceeds the resolution of an image sensor (eye, camera or
>>> whatever) do /not/ exhibit an increase in "pixel brightness" as you get
>>> closer(*). They just exhibit an increase in apparent size.
>>>
>>> (*Unless you traverse dust clouds as you approach.)
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm... that makes sense somehow. So, I should correct what I wrote
>> earlier about a 'brighter' part of the galaxy. Still, I suppose that
>> with a sky filled with star clusters rather than individual stars, those
>> clusters could be visible by day. Like some comets for instance do.
>
> Certainly not in the way you've depicted it: The average brightness of
> the [night] sky shouldn't exceed that of the galaxy's brightest place,
> the core.
>
> If the stars in the core were arranged into hyper-dense clusters (which
> they most likely aren't, since the core is such a busy place that the
> clusters would keep ripping each other apart), then you might see /some/
> isolated blotches of light at daytime, being the few clusters nearby
> enough to cover a noticeable area of the sky while still being far away
> enough to not being visible as individual stars.
>
> Also, presuming the planet's sun is part of a cluster itself, the sky
> would be riddled day and night with other stars from the "home cluster",
> some of which would be much closer than our nearest neighbors, and thus
> also much brighter, possibly even so bright as to drown out the still
> comparatively dim blotches that are the neighboring clusters.
>
>
> For giggles, you might want to try some calculations to see how dense a
> star cluster would have to be in order for it to have a per-area
> brightness comparative to that of the moon, which is probably a good
> benchmark for the minimum brightness of an object to be seen at daytime.
>
Ok. Fair enough. I am KO now ;-)
I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
Realism is over rated.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-3-2017 10:24, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
>
> Realism is over rated.
>
Yes. It is very much 20th century's.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-03-16 8:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 16-3-2017 10:24, Stephen wrote:
>> On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
>>
>> Realism is over rated.
>>
>
> Yes. It is very much 20th century's.
>
I wish I could somehow stand on that beach and look up into that sky.
It looks phenomenal. I wonder what it would take to render a version
that can be used with an Oculus or GearVR.
BTW, this is my new desktop background image.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-3-2017 15:22, David Buck wrote:
> On 2017-03-16 8:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 16-3-2017 10:24, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
>>>
>>> Realism is over rated.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. It is very much 20th century's.
>>
>
> I wish I could somehow stand on that beach and look up into that sky. It
> looks phenomenal. I wonder what it would take to render a version that
> can be used with an Oculus or GearVR.
>
> BTW, this is my new desktop background image.
>
> David
>
Thank you indeed, David! I am truly honoured.
For an Oculus view, there should more to see than just the image.
Ideally, the viewer should stand in the centre of the landscape. Here,
there are several limitations, not the least being the star scape which
is only a vertical plane. I chose that option to limit excessive
deformation of the Apophysis flame in a spherical projection. So, the
scene would need to be re-thought profoundly. Not impossible but a
serious overhaul indeed.
I have some free time so, if we can charter an ftl ship, we may be able
to assemble quite crew to go and explore. :-)
[in the meantime, working towards version 2...]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-03-17 3:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 16-3-2017 15:22, David Buck wrote:
>> On 2017-03-16 8:05 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 16-3-2017 10:24, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/2017 9:04 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> I just go for the SF view and not for realism.
>>>>
>>>> Realism is over rated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. It is very much 20th century's.
>>>
>>
>> I wish I could somehow stand on that beach and look up into that sky. It
>> looks phenomenal. I wonder what it would take to render a version that
>> can be used with an Oculus or GearVR.
>>
>> BTW, this is my new desktop background image.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Thank you indeed, David! I am truly honoured.
>
> For an Oculus view, there should more to see than just the image.
> Ideally, the viewer should stand in the centre of the landscape. Here,
> there are several limitations, not the least being the star scape which
> is only a vertical plane. I chose that option to limit excessive
> deformation of the Apophysis flame in a spherical projection. So, the
> scene would need to be re-thought profoundly. Not impossible but a
> serious overhaul indeed.
>
> I have some free time so, if we can charter an ftl ship, we may be able
> to assemble quite crew to go and explore. :-)
>
>
> [in the meantime, working towards version 2...]
>
The other issue is that POV-Ray's camera is based on a flat plane in
front of the viewpoint. To get a VR view, you'd probably have to change
POV-Ray source code to introduce a VR camera that properly distorts the
image.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-03-17 06:11 AM (-4), David Buck wrote:
> The other issue is that POV-Ray's camera is based on a flat plane in
> front of the viewpoint. To get a VR view, you'd probably have to change
> POV-Ray source code to introduce a VR camera that properly distorts the
> image.
That's true of the perspective and orthographic cameras, but at least
some of the others cannot have this basis (especially those that allow a
viewing angle of more than 180!). So, given that the POV-Ray code
structure evidently already has this flexibility, a VR camera shouldn't
be that difficult to integrate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17/03/2017 à 17:45, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> On 2017-03-17 06:11 AM (-4), David Buck wrote:
>> The other issue is that POV-Ray's camera is based on a flat plane in
>> front of the viewpoint. To get a VR view, you'd probably have to change
>> POV-Ray source code to introduce a VR camera that properly distorts the
>> image.
>
> That's true of the perspective and orthographic cameras, but at least
> some of the others cannot have this basis (especially those that allow a
> viewing angle of more than 180!). So, given that the POV-Ray code
> structure evidently already has this flexibility, a VR camera shouldn't
> be that difficult to integrate.
>
>
Which VR camera do you need ?
There is already in hgpovray branch the ODS camera from google:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/User:Le_Forgeron#Omni_Directional_Stereo_camera
and IIRC, there is a function camera in some part of uberpov (or is it
somewhere else ?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> and IIRC, there is a function camera in some part of uberpov (or is it
> somewhere else ?)
It is somewhere else indeed: The 3.7.1-beta ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
