"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:3ea1aab9@news.povray.org...
>   Actually if you want a photographically realistic result, the stars
> shouldn't be visible even if you are "photographing" (ie. in this case
> rendering) a planet (eg. Earth). Well, at least not if you want the
> details of the planet to be visible.
>
>   This is related to exposure time. The planet is brightly lit by the
> Sun, but the stars are rather dim. If you set the exposure time of your
> photographing device so that the details of the planetary surface are
> visible, the stars will be way too dim to be seen. If on the other hand
> you set the exposure time so long that the stars become visible, the
> planet will become overexposed, ie completely white (well, the lit
> part of the planet).
>
>   Space movies are always unrealistic in this matter. There planets and
> stars are perfectly visible all alike, which can't be achieved with any
> ordinary photographing device. (In theory you would need some kind of
> digital device which analyzes the image and corrects the exposure in
> different parts of the image depending on their brightness.)
>   On the other hand, space shots with completely black skies would be
> pretty boring, so we can forgive this artistic effect.
>
> --
> #macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb
M()}}
> N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
> N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  -
Warp -

i think you think too much, don't you think ;-)
it is true what you say, but imo if art was scientific correct it wasn't
called art anymore.

regards, lenx

Post a reply to this message