There are always other views of it. 

-- 
From the musical, Camelot. 
vi on emacs, vi!
Or something like that. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 189

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'earth210c.jpg' (8 KB)

Preview of image 'earth210c.jpg'

I looked at this yesterday and thought it looked good but there was
something missing, stars. 

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

 10:22am  up 27 days, 12:44,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Post a reply to this message

Your vegetation is too green. Your ocean looks good, but it is too deep in
the Gulf of Mexico and around the Caribbean. When the Pov group was on
Compuserve we ad an artist upload an animation of a single orbital period
(from the moons' standpoint, anyway). A nice glow for the sun, a few
thousand stars, and you could get much better results then he did.

KOT,
Grim

Post a reply to this message

Steve wrote:
> 
> I looked at this yesterday and thought it looked good but there was
> something missing, stars.

	The universe wasn't built in a day. ;)

-- 
A fact is a terrible thing to waste. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 122

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Your vegetation is too green.

	Saturation issues, agreed. 

> Your ocean looks good, but it is too deep in
> the Gulf of Mexico and around the Caribbean.

	May not be correctable by this method of creating an image_map for the
inner sphere that is just noisy blue. 

> When the Pov group was on
> Compuserve we ad an artist upload an animation of a single orbital period
> (from the moons' standpoint, anyway). A nice glow for the sun, a few
> thousand stars, and you could get much better results then he did.

	You lost me there. Do you mean one rotation of the earth? 

-- 
They just went to communist cell meetings because of their
girlfriends. Try that with a Bund meeting. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 85

Post a reply to this message

One orbit, of the Earth, by the moon. I think the view you started with was
great! Just set the moon in motion, rotate the Earth of course, and put a
sun in there (stars too). As long as, the camera holds its position relative
to the moon (orbits too), Viola! This method would never allow for a full
lunar cycle, or even be accurate by any other scale, but it's better then
trying to make a full cycle. That would be a huge animation, were it smooth
at all.

Now, if you really wanted to get interesting, use NASA images of clusters,
nebulas, etc. and place them somewhere near where they belong. I'll leave
the details to your imagination, but this would be easy to get carried away
with. :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> One orbit, of the Earth, by the moon. I think the view you started with was
> great! Just set the moon in motion, rotate the Earth of course, and put a
> sun in there (stars too). As long as, the camera holds its position relative
> to the moon (orbits too), Viola! This method would never allow for a full
> lunar cycle, or even be accurate by any other scale, but it's better then
> trying to make a full cycle. That would be a huge animation, were it smooth
> at all.

	Huge is correct. smooth would require some 64 animations per day times
28.whatever days. 64 by this methods takes about 4.5 hours for about 5.5
days. I could speed it up by flattening the transparent layers and
presume no criticism of the clouds not moving. 

> Now, if you really wanted to get interesting, use NASA images of clusters,
> nebulas, etc. and place them somewhere near where they belong. I'll leave
> the details to your imagination, but this would be easy to get carried away
> with. :)

	This whole thing started as getting a good image for a flyby animation,
actually a pursuit-by animation before escape. I am running a one day
animation right now and the first thing it showed was I shouldn't be so
free with the scaling unless the full moon is always eclisped. With
correct scaling there isn't enough detail in the earth and moon to have
been worth this effort. 

-- 
Bill Clinton is sterile and Hillary has a daughter. 
Put three and three together for the unfaithful bitch.
     -- The Iron Webmaster, 11

Post a reply to this message

Matt Giwer wrote:
> 
> GrimDude wrote:
> >
> > One orbit, of the Earth, by the moon. I think the view you started with was
> > great! Just set the moon in motion, rotate the Earth of course, and put a
> > sun in there (stars too). As long as, the camera holds its position relative
> > to the moon (orbits too), Viola! This method would never allow for a full
> > lunar cycle, or even be accurate by any other scale, but it's better then
> > trying to make a full cycle. That would be a huge animation, were it smooth
> > at all.
> 
>         Huge is correct. smooth would require some 64 animations per day times
> 28.whatever days. 64 by this methods takes about 4.5 hours for about 5.5
> days. I could speed it up by flattening the transparent layers and
> presume no criticism of the clouds not moving.

	Good news first, I can get the render down to 1m15s by flattening
layers and such. The bad news is that 64 frames at 360/64 degrees
rotation per frame at 24fps is much too jerky. So for a smooth
animation, the time would likely remain a constant. 

-- 
Never put temptation in the way of a politician. 
Politicians view temptation as opportunity.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 269

Post a reply to this message

That's the way it goes, alright. My simple 'flyby' of the Mustang started
out as a 45 minute render, but with motion blur and even loose radiosity the
render goes to 16hrs./frame (highest priority assigned to render, lowest
priority to gui, and render minimized). A smooth flyby requires at least 64
frames, so I won't be using rad, at all.
  Maybe I'll go back to rendering toys...

Grim

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A090622.F8381A81@ij.net>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> 
wrote:

> 	Good news first, I can get the render down to 1m15s by flattening
> layers and such. The bad news is that 64 frames at 360/64 degrees
> rotation per frame at 24fps is much too jerky. So for a smooth
> animation, the time would likely remain a constant.

Using motion blur would probably smooth it out quite a bit. The render 
time would be longer, but still probably less than rendering enough 
frames to get a smooth animation without blur.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message