On Sat, 08 May 2004 11:23:22 +0100, stephen parkinson
<ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote:

>also sun seems oversized ?

If you are referring to technical realism, then not necessarily. The
Sun's apparent size depends on the camera's angular field of view.

FYI, the Sun's angular diameter can be calculated by dividing the
Sun's diameter by the Earth-Sun distance.   This works out, on
average, to 0.00929 radians, or about 0.53 degree.  So with the Sun
modeled accurately, if camera { angle 3 } is used, then the Sun
*would* look as big as in Dave's image.

If you are talking about artistic composition, it's therefore just a
matter of taste, and of what effect Dave wants to achieve.  The size
does seem a bit awkward to me; it looks as if the Sun is too big for
its reflection in the water, or conversly, the reflection is too
narrow for the size of the Sun.  The relative dimness of the Sun
(which is acknowledged) might also be contributing to the sense that
the Sun isn't quite right.

(This is one inaccuracy that shows up in a lot of astronomy paintings.
Up close, a star is too bright to look at--our Sun is an example of
this.  Yet, most artist renderings of stars show all the granulation
and other surface features, which are impossible to see without very
dark or narrowband filters.)

Whatever the size of the Sun however, i think it would have a better
"sunset" feel if it were flattened slightly into an oval, the way
sunsets appear IRL.  (This happens due to refraction through the
atmosphere; the atmosphere is much thicker towards the horizon than
overhead.)

-- 
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~  U.S. Virgin Islands    ~  USDA zone 11  ~  18.3N, 64.9W  ~
~  eastern Massachusetts  ~  USDA zone 6 (1992-95)          ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------

Post a reply to this message