Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 14-3-2017 5:56, jhu wrote:
> > Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
> >
>
> That is the atmospheric media.
>
> --
> Thomas

Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stranger-moon-05-post-processing.png' (1339 KB)

Preview of image 'stranger-moon-05-post-processing.png'

On 14-3-2017 20:29, jhu wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 14-3-2017 5:56, jhu wrote:
>>> Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
>>>
>>
>> That is the atmospheric media.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
>

Lol! Which is not really what I personally like. Too garish to my taste, 
but good try nonetheless. :-)

Wait for next version.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 14-3-2017 20:29, jhu wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> On 14-3-2017 5:56, jhu wrote:
> >>> Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is the atmospheric media.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas
> >
> > Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
> >
>
> Lol! Which is not really what I personally like. Too garish to my taste,
> but good try nonetheless. :-)
>
> Wait for next version.
>
> --
> Thomas

me neither, original output was more natural but I agree it did lack some
contrast.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >
> > * isn't scale of the clouds too small? making them bigger would create larger
> > holes where the "moon" could be let visible and still get some occlusion from
> > the clouds, because as it is, the moon looks closer than the clouds.
> > *beaches are too vertical, ideally a small fringe of the terrain with lower
> > slope would make them less linear, but I guess it must be difficult depending on
> > how procedurally the height field was generated... If not possible then I would
> > try to make the sandy yellow line much thinner to make up for that.
>
> I was expecting this! ;-) The point is that those as /not/ clouds but a
> starscape, maybe somewhere closer to the galaxy's hub. Star clusters and
> groupings are supposed to represent this aspect. Of course, the
> image_map used of an Apophysis flame is not really star-like nor
> realistic but I liked this nonetheless for an alien sky, and why go all
> the realistic way after all?
>
> As far as clouds are concerned, there is a scattering media present
> which expresses the heat of this planet but no clouds are formed at this
> hour of the day.
>
> >
> > Great work and a hard subject to depict !
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Thomas

This is a good idea that was not yet readable: no one can honestly tell you yet
that they look like star fields rather than clouds, despite what is realistic or
not... Maybe some really brighter stars with streaks would help, ideally the
"foreground one" with asteroid belt would be even more brilliant since closer
and have more streaks... The problem you face is we're reading the picture from
what we know and the only such cloudy star field visible to the human eye is the
milky way. If it can be of some inspiration, the sky needs to be just dark
enough for it to appear.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-3-2017 9:10, Mr wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 14-3-2017 20:29, jhu wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 14-3-2017 5:56, jhu wrote:
>>>>> Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the atmospheric media.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
>>>
>>
>> Lol! Which is not really what I personally like. Too garish to my taste,
>> but good try nonetheless. :-)
>>
>> Wait for next version.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> me neither, original output was more natural but I agree it did lack some
> contrast.
>

Let me elaborate a bit more on this topic. I think that high-contrast, 
colourful views are 'dictated' by our daily confrontation with what 
television shows us of the natural world. More often than not, it is 
shown as more colourful than is really the case by well-chosen camera 
views and selective editing of them. Nature is often much more subdued 
in colour with a softer chromatic scale and only some stronger highlights.

However, I realise that living in NL also influences my perception. The 
light is soft most of the time.

Again, next version will show some changes.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 15-3-2017 9:23, Mr wrote:

> This is a good idea that was not yet readable: no one can honestly tell you yet
> that they look like star fields rather than clouds, despite what is realistic or
> not... Maybe some really brighter stars with streaks would help, ideally the
> "foreground one" with asteroid belt would be even more brilliant since closer
> and have more streaks... The problem you face is we're reading the picture from
> what we know and the only such cloudy star field visible to the human eye is the
> milky way. If it can be of some inspiration, the sky needs to be just dark
> enough for it to appear.
>

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.

Oh well, this is a work of imagination ;-)  No intention to mimic 
reality, although I would like to own an FTL ship and go exploring to 
see what it really looks like. Maybe I should contact our local 
Puppeteer* ...

*Alien species created by Larry Niven and owners of the hyperdrive shunt.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-03-14 09:00 AM (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
> My monitor is calibrated, to the best of my skills ;-)
>
> Admittedly, those skills are so so...

They're good enough to have shown me that my own monitor was poorly 
calibrated back in 2009.

Post a reply to this message

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.)

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 15-3-2017 14:16, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-03-14 09:00 AM (-4), Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> My monitor is calibrated, to the best of my skills ;-)
>>
>> Admittedly, those skills are so so...
>
> They're good enough to have shown me that my own monitor was poorly
> calibrated back in 2009.
>

Surprises come from the most unlikely sides :-)

I am joking of course. I am certainly satisfied with my current POV-Ray 
skills but there are always new things to learn and I must say that the 
latest developments on the beta front have left me behind. I shall now 
wait till the dust has settled down a bit and ideally till a new stable 
version. I am currently using UberPOV as standard.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message