I started the TerraPOV series with a preliminary article in  
povray.binary.tutorials. Hope it is the right place for that. Following:  
TerraPOV's sky system/Atmosphere.

    Bruno


-- 

http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> I started the TerraPOV series with a preliminary article in 
> povray.binary.tutorials. Hope it is the right place for that. Following: 
> TerraPOV's sky system/Atmosphere.
> 


latitude) shot by using my old isosurface earth model (based on the NASA
Blue Marble data) and added your 'simple' atmosphere with Raleigh
scattering.

Date is the 9th of May and time is 10:30 in my local timezone ;)

It is hard to tell how realistic this is because most images you'll
find are heavily post processed so it is difficult to compare - but it
looks quite good to me. I do especially like the scattering effect on
the day/night line.

Now I'll have to create scattering media for the ocean sphere...

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'earth.jpg' (93 KB)

Preview of image 'earth.jpg'

> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>> I started the TerraPOV series with a preliminary article in
>> povray.binary.tutorials. Hope it is the right place for that. Following:
>> TerraPOV's sky system/Atmosphere.
>>
>

> latitude) shot by using my old isosurface earth model (based on the NASA
> Blue Marble data) and added your 'simple' atmosphere with Raleigh
> scattering.
>
> Date is the 9th of May and time is 10:30 in my local timezone ;)
>
> It is hard to tell how realistic this is because most images you'll
> find are heavily post processed so it is difficult to compare - but it
> looks quite good to me. I do especially like the scattering effect on
> the day/night line.
>
> Now I'll have to create scattering media for the ocean sphere...
>
> -Ive

Wow! Nice work! Already an application of TerraPOV's atmosphere!!! I did  
not expect someone uses it so early in the tutorials  :)
Perhaps, the atmosphere looks a bit too white, like the first atmosphere  
render FirstBlueSky. But I do not know how it is in reality. I'll try to  
have a look on the Net for outer space photos of Earth, even  
post-processed, just to have an idea.

Thanks again, Ive.

Bruno

-- 

http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

One of the nicest CGI images of the Earth that I've ever seen.  Kudos!

KW

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> One of the nicest CGI images of the Earth that I've ever seen.  Kudos!
>
> KW

"kick it up a notch"

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'planete.png' (135 KB)

Preview of image 'planete.png'

alphaQuad wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> One of the nicest CGI images of the Earth that I've ever seen.  Kudos!
>>
>> KW
> 
> "kick it up a notch"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Nice, but I'm a bit worried by the sharpness of the rings' shadows on 
the planet. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong, but I just feel that they 
should be much more diffuse.
I guess that with the distance of the light source there shouldn't be a 
significant area_light, it would be more of a point source, but I don't 
know.

Post a reply to this message

> alphaQuad wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>>> One of the nicest CGI images of the Earth that I've ever seen.  Kudos!
>>>
>>> KW
>>  "kick it up a notch"
>>      
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> Nice, but I'm a bit worried by the sharpness of the rings' shadows on  
> the planet. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong, but I just feel that they  
> should be much more diffuse.
> I guess that with the distance of the light source there shouldn't be a  
> significant area_light, it would be more of a point source, but I don't  
> know.

I will not answer for him, but I can give my feeling about it. Perhaps  
some of these may contribute to the problem you raised:

-) the scattering amount needs some tuning
-) the real 'useful' atmosphere might be thicker than that of TerraPOV.  
Upper atmosphere low density is negligible from ground but may be not  
negligible from outer space. It might have a significant contribution in  
the integration in the latter case
-) the behaviour we have can be due to position of the sun relative to the  
planet and camera, and be normal...

What is certain: I'm not sure ...


Bruno

-- 

http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:

Don't be confused by the post of 'alphaquad'. I'm pretty
sure his image does not use TerraPOV atmosphere 'cause
he's known for unrelated posts in this NG or even images
not made with POV-Ray at all.
Usually I do just ignore him.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>
> Don't be confused by the post of 'alphaquad'. I'm pretty
> sure his image does not use TerraPOV atmosphere 'cause
> he's known for unrelated posts in this NG or even images
> not made with POV-Ray at all.
> Usually I do just ignore him.
>
> -Ive

OK. I acknowledge.

Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>
> Don't be confused by the post of 'alphaquad'. I'm pretty
> sure his image does not use TerraPOV atmosphere 'cause
> he's known for unrelated posts in this NG or even images
> not made with POV-Ray at all.
> Usually I do just ignore him.
>
> -Ive


it was a motivation for you to keep working on it, let us know when you got some
realistic looking atmospheres. you go right on ignoring the best input you ever
got.


and it is always related, just because you can't grok the relation doesn't make
less so.

ya you would be better off ignoring me.

Post a reply to this message