 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2003 18:53:50 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Do you know the reason why your pupils get larger and smaller depending
>on the amount of light?
> When the pupils get smaller, less light gets through and thus you don't
>see dimmer light.
> This is the reason stargazers (those using telescopes) never use white
>flaslights but red ones. It takes lots of time for the eyes to adapt to
>the darkness.
> You may see *some* stars, the brightest ones, but only a minimal percent.
>
You forgot to mention that the dark adapted eye looses colour perception and
goes into greyscale mode. Though I am sure you know that.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea4767e@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> Forget the glass. Remove it. Look out the door. Whatever.
Have a hard time breathing on the moon that way, but OK...
> Do you know the reason why your pupils get larger and smaller depending
> on the amount of light?
> When the pupils get smaller, less light gets through and thus you don't
> see dimmer light.
I am aware of this. It is the means the eyes use to quickly adapt to
changes in illumination. It has limits though, and doesn't account for
the whole adaptive response, it can take hours to fully adapt. It
doesn't really have anything to do with dynamic range, the range of
illumination the eye can respond to at one time.
The pupilar response is the reason I referred to glancing out the door.
It would only take a few moments for substantial adaptation to occur, so
you would have to do it quickly enough that your eyes were mostly
adapted to the room.
> You may see *some* stars, the brightest ones, but only a minimal percent.
And you said the stars were invisible. I said they are visible, not that
it was optimal viewing conditions. (though if you shield the sun and
surroundings, it is ideal)
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> And you said the stars were invisible.
No, I didn't. I said (quote): "it's difficult to see many stars outside".
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rich <SrP### [at] ricoswebcom> wrote in
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226:
> So, realism is not the best option here, but I'd at least like to
> get rid of the stars that are visible through the sun's "atmosphere"
> and a bit beyond that.
Wow, I didn't expect this kind of response! I am an amateur astronomer, so
I do know the whys and wherefors of why stars shouldn't appear in images
with brighter objects. At the IMAX film "Space Station" I was asked why
there weren't any stars in the outside shots (any of them), and I had to
smile.
Anyway, I'm taking the suggestions by Tek to see if I can achieve the best
of both worlds, so to speak. :)
Rich Allen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
