Yes I realise that even with the tiny amount of blur I used it would 
suggest a camera with an aperture several thousand light years wide!

The theory was that I wanted the most distant galaxies to blend into 
just being indistinct glowing blobs a few pixels wide, so I could use a 
sky_sphere for the farthest ones without a visible transition. Also I 
was trying to emulate the imperfect focus on the hubble images I used as 
reference.

Though in fact it takes less time to render with more galaxies and no 
focal blur, so I've now changed it to have 8000 galaxies, enough to make 
the farthest ones smaller than 1 pixel, then a sky_sphere to fake even 
further ones. Also the lack of focal blur means you can see detail in 
even the fairly small galaxies, so I much prefer it that way.

Tek


Larry Hudson wrote:
> Larry Hudson wrote:
> 
>> Tek wrote:
>>
>>> Render time was 7 hours with focal blur at twice this resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Focal blur for an astronomical image?  Why??
>>
>>      -=- Larry -=-
> 
> 
> Sorry, I should have added that this *is* a great image.
> 
> I just wondered why you think that focal blur is needed.  It wouldn't 
> exist in a real astro-photo, everything is (optically) at the same 
> distance.
> 
>      -=- Larry (again) -=-

Post a reply to this message