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

Post a reply to this message

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?

Sound like fun?

If I had the time I would start it now.  Otherwise I'll get to it in
about a month if no one runs with the idea.

-Mike

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

Post a reply to this message

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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