We can all see the Orion nebula from earth.  It's pretty bright.  I
think some others are visible too, they just look like stars is all. 
You can see the Andromeda galaxy under clear skies too, and it's
actually pretty big.  Looks like a faint fuzzy patch if you use averted
vision.

Lens flares are internal reflections of the camera lens.  That's why
they are shaped like the diaphram of the camera.  The colors are at
least partly attributable to the coatings used on lens elements (thin
film interference like POV's iridescence).

-Mike

portelli wrote:
> 
> Well we would see no nebula's from earth, none in the general vicinity.
> But I go out in the country and look up I can see the Milky Way accross
> the sky.  A more dense area of stars.  And Lens flares, are they not a
> product of atmospheres, so really lens flares in space are an artistic
> toush.  But I could be wrong.  And the Hubble could not get a lens flare
> because it would fry the optics.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Opinion time !
> 
>   I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
> star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
> lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
> are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
> where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
> can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
> when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
> there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
> are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
> night sky.
>   Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
> I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
> photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
> in our solar system.
> 
> What do you think about this generaly ?
> 
> Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?
> 
> Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
> space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
> at through the atmosphere of the earth ?
> 
> Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?
> 
> Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
> landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
> special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
> the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
> live?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
;-)
The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
actually orange in stead of pale).
I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
know where it comes from  ;-)

Regards,

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Mike wrote:
> 
> I'm waiting for someone to create a project to develop macros for the
> sun, moon, stars and just about everything else involving the solar
> system as seen from earth.  Throw in day and night cycles too.
> 
> It would be kinda' cool if someone could create an outline for a macro
> that calculates the positions of various stars in the sky in such a way
> that it would be easy for others to add to it.  I figure the sky could
> be divided up into zones and then someone could get that section of sky
> and using star charts add all the visible stars up to about magnitude 6
> or 7. I figure with a few dozen people working on it we could have them
> all covered in a few months, though I really don't know how many stars
> this would actually cover.  Anyone know?
> 

I already have a load of #include files which correctly solve Kepler's
equation for eliptical orbits - we use them for solar system anumations

Scott Manley
spm### [at] stararmacuk

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:

> I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
> ;-)
> The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
> same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
> getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
> movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
> darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
> go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
> for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
> actually orange in stead of pale).
> I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
> look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
> do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
> know where it comes from  ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Remco

I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
the most part faithfull to reality.
  I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
  If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
is needed.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I agree with the fact that things have to be defined very precisely. It's true that a
lot of POV
features allow to make very 'fantastic' images. But I think these features were
originaly made
to improve the realistic touch.Showing POV capabilities is not only making beautiful
pictures
using lens-flare everywhere, surrealistic lights.
I am not a real-only POV user. But in this sort of project (I suppose), it should be
"The"
interesting part.

                    David GEMELLI



> I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
> movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
> the most part faithfull to reality.
>   I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
> I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
> noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
> planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
> site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
> super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
> look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
> one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
>   If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
> is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
> is needed.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

My 2 eurocents:
 I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives it
the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.

As a kid, my favorite SF painter was UK cover artist Chris Foss, who made
all kinds of different terrestrial or space skies, most of them in unusual,
totally unrealistic colors.
If you don't have his 1980 book "XXIth Century Foss", just have a look this
page for inspiration :
http://www.stl-online.net/vanya/fossart/fossvirtual.html
BTW, anyone knows whether Foss is still active today ? He seems quite
forgotten today. I couldn't find any recent info (>1991) on him.

About city night skies, I live in a big city myself and rarely see the
stars, planets and such. However, I find that the general hazy glow of a
city is far from being dull and could be something pretty complex and
interesting to model.

Gilles Tran

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:19:00 -0600, Mike <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>It would be kinda' cool if someone could create an outline for a macro
>that calculates the positions of various stars in the sky in such a way
>that it would be easy for others to add to it.  I figure the sky could
>be divided up into zones and then someone could get that section of sky
>and using star charts add all the visible stars up to about magnitude 6
>or 7. I figure with a few dozen people working on it we could have them
>all covered in a few months, though I really don't know how many stars
>this would actually cover.  Anyone know?

I think there are probably databases of this sort of thing.  I guess I'd
start by checking some astronomy sites.  Once you have one, put it into 
a format that #read can understand, and the rest is just banging a few
bits together.

Post a reply to this message

AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
didn't because I didn't want to start a war!

Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
experience don't bother...

Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!

Mick Hazelgrove

Gilles Tran wrote in message <369DF610.A75EC6E4@inapg.inra.fr>...
>My 2 eurocents:
> I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
>IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
>head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
>of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
>many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives
it
>the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
>
>As a kid, my favorite SF painter was UK cover artist Chris Foss, who made
>all kinds of different terrestrial or space skies, most of them in unusual,
>totally unrealistic colors.
>If you don't have his 1980 book "XXIth Century Foss", just have a look this
>page for inspiration :
>http://www.stl-online.net/vanya/fossart/fossvirtual.html
>BTW, anyone knows whether Foss is still active today ? He seems quite
>forgotten today. I couldn't find any recent info (>1991) on him.
>
>About city night skies, I live in a big city myself and rarely see the
>stars, planets and such. However, I find that the general hazy glow of a
>city is far from being dull and could be something pretty complex and
>interesting to model.
>
>Gilles Tran
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>
> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> experience don't bother...
>
> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>
> Mick Hazelgrove

I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.

  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic looking
in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a definate
challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
This can be most satisfying.

  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history favors
the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
tha an image of a light bulb.

  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
in the same body of work.

Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
things it escapes me.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen

Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
we should aim for.

Mick

Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
>Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
>> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
>> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>>
>> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
>> experience don't bother...
>>
>> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>>
>> Mick Hazelgrove
>
>I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
>
>  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
looking
>in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
definate
>challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
>This can be most satisfying.
>
>  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
>stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
>artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
favors
>the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
>captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
>tha an image of a light bulb.
>
>  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
>pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
>with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
>importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
>I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
>to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
>in the same body of work.
>
>Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
>things it escapes me.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message