 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-3-2017 9:10, Mr wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
