 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> I'd be interested to know from one of the photographers out there if you can
> actually get two different shaped lense flares in the same image.
This is not lens flare. You can get this effect with a filter, but the stars
will then have equal number of arms.
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> I'd be interested to know from one of the photographers out there if you can
> actually get two different shaped lense flares in the same image.
The different stars were not intended. Just a mistake :-)
When I found out myself, I didn't want to stop rendering.
BTW, I took a look at your web-site logos. Nice effect. I never thought
of using additional light sources because rendertime will increase. In
my special case rendertime would higly(!) increase. So faking with Chris
Colefax' LensFX is allright.
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello Karl,
Seeing that I come from a typograpoher's family, I cannot help remarking
that the text is not very well readable. The type is not balanced: I had
really great difficulty in getting the word at all! Especially the top
stroke of the "T" is much too short compared with the layout of the other
characters. The flare on the first "U" prevents you to easily see whether
this is a single char or two chars. In general the flares make reading
difficult...
I hope you are not mad at me now!?! :) :) :) :)
--
Regards,
Sander
Karl Pelzer <Kar### [at] t-online de> schreef in berichtnieuws
38C0E61A.B47E1D5D@t-online.de...
> Hi !
>
> This is a rerendered version of my previous post. I hope it's not so
> bright now and better readable.
> Still no photons because it seems useless for this image.
> I tweaked the area_lights and reflection. Render Time now: little more
> than two hrs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
> I hope you are not mad at me now!?! :) :) :) :)
No way ;-)
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I'd be interested to know from one of the photographers out there if you can
>actually get two different shaped lense flares in the same image.
Yes... but it would almost certainly involve multiple exposures, and
in this case, moving the lighting between exposures or multiple lights
that are individually switchable.
First, take one exposure with a light arranged to give you the
highlight on the left. Use a 6-point star filter for this exposure.
Second, move the light to a new position to give the highlight on the
right. Use a 4-point star filter to photograph the same scene with the
new lighting. This second exposure is done on the same frame of film
as the first.
Individual exposure times will need to be cut in half, in relation to
a normal single exposure of the scene, to restore a proper over-all
brightness for the frame.
So yes, it can be done.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 15:38:15 +0100, Sigmund Kyrre Aas
<as### [at] studntnuno> wrote:
>This is not lens flare. You can get this effect with a filter, but the stars
>will then have equal number of arms.
Why do you say this is not lens flare? One doesn't always need to use
a filter to create star patterns from bright highlights. Sometimes the
iris inside the lens itself will create such a pattern. The shape of
the iris will control the number of "arms" in the star pattern.
Are you reserving the term "lens flare" only for those "colored disks"
of light that sometimes appear in photos? Just for the record, what
*do* you mean when *you* refer to lens flare?
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
>
> Why do you say this is not lens flare? One doesn't always need to use
..
Guess I should have elaborated on that. Sometimes subtlety gets lost on it's
way from my Norwegian speaking brain to the keyboard.
When a photographer sees this image, he thinks star filter, not lens flare.
I consider lens flare a flaw in the lens producing light of any shape that's
not really there. I just don't believe that the stars in Karl's image could be
generated by a lens. I know flare shapes and sizes depend on the lens, but
these are way too big. Okay, I guess you might argue that foo still is foo even
if it's out of scale, but not if it has a much stronger resemblance to bar.
Me sig, you Jane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry wrote:
>
> >I'd be interested to know from one of the photographers out there if you can
> >actually get two different shaped lense flares in the same image.
> Yes... but it would almost certainly involve multiple exposures, and
> in this case, moving the lighting between exposures or multiple lights
> that are individually switchable.
>
> First, take one exposure with a light arranged to give you the
> highlight on the left. Use a 6-point star filter for this exposure.
>
> Second, move the light to a new position to give the highlight on the
> right. Use a 4-point star filter to photograph the same scene with the
> new lighting. This second exposure is done on the same frame of film
> as the first.
>
> Individual exposure times will need to be cut in half, in relation to
> a normal single exposure of the scene, to restore a proper over-all
> brightness for the frame.
>
> So yes, it can be done.
>
> Later,
> Glen Berry
I am not altogether convinced that multiple exposures are necessary. For
example I was watching a PBS program the other day that talked about the
formation of new stars. One thing that I noticed in the actual star images
they were showing was that perhaps one in one thousand stars shown were
bright enough that they had star shaped flares coming off of them. These
were present not only in the center of the image but reaching out to the
edges as well.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Rerender of previous post (for Simon and Steve)
Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:06:53
Message: <38c3590d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dust in space.
Might be possible for both a ice crystal cloud and water droplet cloud to be
side by side, and thin, with a couple very bright stars or plane lights or
whatever would work there shining through. Not sure if there would be different
"flares" or not but it seems a likelihood to me.
So not all such things would be in the lens of a camera. In fact I know window
screening is one thing that can cause it so maybe a square mesh one next to a
hexagonal mesh?
Bob
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38C32992.601EA36B@pacbell.net...
|
| Glen Berry wrote:
| >
| > >I'd be interested to know from one of the photographers out there if you
can
| > >actually get two different shaped lense flares in the same image.
| > Yes... but it would almost certainly involve multiple exposures, and
| > in this case, moving the lighting between exposures or multiple lights
| > that are individually switchable.
| >
| > First, take one exposure with a light arranged to give you the
| > highlight on the left. Use a 6-point star filter for this exposure.
| >
| > Second, move the light to a new position to give the highlight on the
| > right. Use a 4-point star filter to photograph the same scene with the
| > new lighting. This second exposure is done on the same frame of film
| > as the first.
| >
| > Individual exposure times will need to be cut in half, in relation to
| > a normal single exposure of the scene, to restore a proper over-all
| > brightness for the frame.
| >
| > So yes, it can be done.
| >
| > Later,
| > Glen Berry
|
| I am not altogether convinced that multiple exposures are necessary. For
| example I was watching a PBS program the other day that talked about the
| formation of new stars. One thing that I noticed in the actual star images
| they were showing was that perhaps one in one thousand stars shown were
| bright enough that they had star shaped flares coming off of them. These
| were present not only in the center of the image but reaching out to the
| edges as well.
|
| --
| Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
| http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:44:18 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>I am not altogether convinced that multiple exposures are necessary. For
>example I was watching a PBS program the other day that talked about the
>formation of new stars. One thing that I noticed in the actual star images
>they were showing was that perhaps one in one thousand stars shown were
>bright enough that they had star shaped flares coming off of them. These
>were present not only in the center of the image but reaching out to the
>edges as well.
To generate the effect in the rendering in question, via photography,
one will need two different star filters to achieve the effect
reliably and predictably. Of course, there is almost always another
way, but what I outlined is probably the most practical method.
One thing you curiously don't address is the idea of some stars having
a different number of "points"compared to other stars in the same
image. Did that PBS program show an image such as that? I doubt it.
Normal lens flare, star filters, and such, produce the same number of
points on each flared highlight. Not all highlights are bright enough
to exhibit the effect noticeably. Of the ones that are, you will find
that they have the same number of points.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
