 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> BTW, I must know how you did the stars in the bg. Please explain.
It's a crackle pattern. Not the standard one, but I don't know the
'form' I used.
I'll look it up for you.
I'll put it on my webpage, someday...
Next year, or something...
When I find the time to do so...
ZK
http://www.crosswinds.net/~povplace
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saadat Saeed wrote:
>
> Most probably a background image.....
Nope.
No images used in this image...
Hmmm.. Sounds silly...
ZK
http://www.crosswinds.net/~povplace
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Wilkinson wrote:
> Spaceship renders are usually a big turn off for me, but this has
Why's that?
something I
> find very attractive. Thinking about the glow from the "headlights",
Cool! Thanks!
perhaps we
> could consider this as some sort of micrometeorite shield that is visible as an
> ionisation glow :-)
?
It's a lensflare! It's caused by the camera! The only ionisation
glow is the exhaust: it spits out an ionized gas.
>
> I like it so much I shall use it as wallpaper for a while. Thanks Zeger.
>
Wow! Thankyou!
> ----------------------------
> dav### [at] cableinet couk
> http://members.vavo.com/squiffy/
> http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
> ----------------------------
ZK
http://www.crosswinds.net/~povplace
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I haven't used crackle for stars yet but it does look promising.
What I have used is granite, like this:
sky_sphere
{
pigment{
granite
color_map{[ 0.9 color Clear][ 0.9 color White]}
scale .02
}
}
This has been one of my standard include files for years.
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> TonyB wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I must know how you did the stars in the bg. Please explain.
>
> It's a crackle pattern. Not the standard one, but I don't know the
> 'form' I used.
> I'll look it up for you.
> I'll put it on my webpage, someday...
> Next year, or something...
> When I find the time to do so...
>
> ZK
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~povplace
--
Mr. Art
"Often the appearance of reality is more important
than the reality of the appearance."
Bill DeWitt 2000
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I did happen to think of being in a space suit with the helmet creating the
effect. Glad you pointed that out. The overall post-process 'soft_glow' makes
that seem plausible (it is still using post-process isn't it?). Except those
fairly bright green jets and other bright glare places probably need some extra
glow too. But then maybe those two sources of light are extremely bright by
comparison.
Bob
"Zeger Knaepen" <ZEG### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote in message
news:38D8EDD4.2DF10A7E@student.kuleuven.ac.be...
| You're right. It isn't called a 'lensflare' fot nothing :-)
| But still it gives quite a humid look to the scene , I think.
|
| >
| > For the record, this image is one of the best space images I remember
| > seeing here. I hope to see more work like this in the future.
| Thank you! I'll try to make some other blobby spacecraft someday,
| but school has precedence now :-)
|
|
| > Later,
| > Glen Berry
| ZK
| http://www.crosswinds.net/~povplace
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saadat Saeed" <nat### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:01bf93bf$0db58620$6200a8c0@bharebahwsasa...
| Haven't you seen B-Grade science fiction movies Bob???
Far too many.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluforce9couk> wrote in message
news:38d8be70$1@news.povray.org...
| > that there probably shouldn't be such glowing lights in the vacuum of
| space.
|
| The gaseous debris of a recently destroyed foe?
Which would be only between those two lights and the viewer? Okay.... :-)
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:01:30 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>Except those
>fairly bright green jets and other bright glare places probably need some extra
>glow too. But then maybe those two sources of light are extremely bright by
>comparison.
Exactly. The exhaust glow is much fainter in comparison to some of
those lights. The halation wouldn't be noticeable around those
objects. One more clue that those "headlights" are really so much
brighter is the relatively large white area in their centers. The
light here was so bright, it has lost its color due to overloading the
film/sensor/retina of the viewer. The green exhaust on the other hand,
retains a pale green color even in the brighter areas. This means it
isn't bright enough to cause such desaturation.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:01:46 -0500, Chris Huff
<chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>Anyway, as mentioned by Glen Berry, this sort of thing is usually caused
>by the lens, not the atmosphere.
Actually, this sort of effect can also be easily caused by an
atmosphere as well as a lens, a window pane, scuffed or dirty
sunglasses, camera film, a CCD sensor, or the human retina, to name a
few possibilities. It's just that in a space scene, we tend to assume
there is no "atmosphere" present.
If I understand it correctly, there are indeed pockets of gas and/or
dust in some areas of space. Perhaps these might be dense enough to
add an atmospheric effect to a ship's lights, but I'm really not sure.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <cAnZOMmqWb4Wng=Gvj6fTwQ+GoUo@4ax.com>, Glen Berry
<7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:01:46 -0500, Chris Huff
> <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, as mentioned by Glen Berry, this sort of thing is usually caused
> >by the lens, not the atmosphere.
>
> Actually, this sort of effect can also be easily caused by an
> atmosphere as well as a lens, a window pane, scuffed or dirty
> sunglasses, camera film, a CCD sensor, or the human retina, to name a
> few possibilities. It's just that in a space scene, we tend to assume
> there is no "atmosphere" present.
The only thing I can think of that you missed is window screen. :-)
Basically, any object or substance between the camera and light source,
as well as components of the camera itself. However, I wouldn't expect a
dust cloud to make a lens flare-like shape, it would probably just make
a glow around the light source(unless it was something like magnetized
iron dust in a planetary or solar magnetic field, in which case the
particles might have a similar shape and orientation).
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
