 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is the first scene I consider "pretty much finished"
for my long-term project: "M-Kosmos".
At 3m13s tracing and 7s parsing, 600 frames will
take quiet a while, but I want to have enough room
for editing later. And I shouldn't be playing on my
PC at the moment (due to studies), so this keeps me
from it. :-)
Well, as is no doubtedly obvious, this scene depicts
some sort of sunrise (with a nice camera-banking and
zoom-out). Nothing that special. Just wanted to share. :-)
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sunrise.jpg' (94 KB)
Preview of image 'sunrise.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3ef8da2e@news.povray.org...
> This is the first scene I consider "pretty much finished"
> for my long-term project: "M-Kosmos".
> At 3m13s tracing and 7s parsing, 600 frames will
> take quiet a while, but I want to have enough room
> for editing later. And I shouldn't be playing on my
> PC at the moment (due to studies), so this keeps me
> from it. :-)
>
> Well, as is no doubtedly obvious, this scene depicts
> some sort of sunrise (with a nice camera-banking and
> zoom-out). Nothing that special. Just wanted to share. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Nikias v2.0
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>
>
thats neat city lighting. does earth really look lit up like that on the
dark side? the suns "aura" or what ever it might be called looks kind of
big. what kind of computer are you rendering things on?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Program ended abnormally on 6/24/03 7:07 PM, Due to a catastrophic Ross
Litscher error:
> Tim Nikias v2.0 <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3ef8da2e@news.povray.org...
>
>>Well, as is no doubtedly obvious, this scene depicts
>>some sort of sunrise (with a nice camera-banking and
>>zoom-out). Nothing that special. Just wanted to share. :-)
>>
Very nice. I think the atmosphere is a bit too thick, but never having been in
space, I could be wrong.
>
> thats neat city lighting. does earth really look lit up like that on the
> dark side?
Yes. I'm pretty sure he used this picture for an image map:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020810.html
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* videotron.ca */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The atmosphere is too thick, it shouldn't exceed a few tens of
kilometers (20-30km, which considering the sale would make a few pixels
of atmosphere). It seems really cloudless. We also should be able to see
a few stars especially in the lower dark part under the sun. And last, I
don't think we have halos like this in space (though I've never been
there), because there is no atmosphere. But I'm sorry for these mean
scientific remarks, I like the graphic quality of the image a lot. :-)
JC
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> This is the first scene I consider "pretty much finished"
> for my long-term project: "M-Kosmos".
> At 3m13s tracing and 7s parsing, 600 frames will
> take quiet a while, but I want to have enough room
> for editing later. And I shouldn't be playing on my
> PC at the moment (due to studies), so this keeps me
> from it. :-)
>
> Well, as is no doubtedly obvious, this scene depicts
> some sort of sunrise (with a nice camera-banking and
> zoom-out). Nothing that special. Just wanted to share. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Because several have said this, I'll be making a general
reply:
Yeah, the atmosphere is a little thick, and yeah, the sun
normally has no atmosphere. I'm going more for an
artistic view, with overexagheration, than a physically
correct and realistic view.
Still, I might experiment a little with at least a little
more realism... :-)
Oh, the PC I'm working on is an Athlon XP+ 2400, with 768
MB DDR-RAM on a W2k system.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in message
news:3EF### [at] videotronca...
> > thats neat city lighting. does earth really look lit up like that on the
> > dark side?
>
> Yes. I'm pretty sure he used this picture for an image map:
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020810.html
Yeah but he's exagerated the brightness, because city lights are much darker
than the sun, so a real camera wouldn't be able to get both things in shot as
clearly as that.
Still it looks fantastic!
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>
> This is the first scene I consider "pretty much finished"
> for my long-term project: "M-Kosmos".
> At 3m13s tracing and 7s parsing, 600 frames will
> take quiet a while, but I want to have enough room
> for editing later.
Pshaw. I don't consider an animation to be taking too long until each
frame takes more than an hour.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MUCH better!
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks! Short and clean answer, eh? :-)
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> MUCH better!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Love it but isn't the "sun a bit blurred? i figure from that distance,
and in a near vacuum of space it would look like it had an "edge" sharp
enough to cut with. but that is just my opinion
"Tim Nikias v2.0" wrote:
> Second attempt at the image. Less atmosphere, but
> a little more glowing for the earth, less brightness
> for the sun.
> Better? Suggestions are appreciated! (perhaps with
> post-processed versions?)
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Nikias v2.0
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions. Yeah, I figured the sun
would be sharper and less soft, but I wanted a
soft look to it. In this case, the sun is just source
for warmth and light, and IMHO a soft sun conveys
this better than a realistic sharp sun.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> Love it but isn't the "sun a bit blurred? i figure from that distance,
> and in a near vacuum of space it would look like it had an "edge" sharp
> enough to cut with. but that is just my opinion
>
> "Tim Nikias v2.0" wrote:
>
> > Second attempt at the image. Less atmosphere, but
> > a little more glowing for the earth, less brightness
> > for the sun.
> > Better? Suggestions are appreciated! (perhaps with
> > post-processed versions?)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias v2.0
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> >
> > [Image]
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Second attempt at the image. Less atmosphere, but
> a little more glowing for the earth, less brightness
> for the sun.
> Better? Suggestions are appreciated! (perhaps with
> post-processed versions?)
I'm sorry, but I find this version is much worse than the previous, for
two reasons:
1. The lights on the dark side of the earth are too bright, it makes the
image less credible.
2. The sun does not look like a sun. Your sun looks cold, like it was
made of wax, or plastic, while it should look really hot and be made of
star plasma (or whatever). And suns never, ever have a shaded surface,
they appear flat because of self-illumination.
I did some experimenting with space scenes some months ago, and found
out that you don't really need a sphere for the sun. A spherical pattern
with an appropriate color_map on a sky_sphere works quite well, if you
use very bright colors. Just translate and rotate it with some care on
the sky_sphere. Layering pigments also helps.
I have attached a small pic of the sun I came up with. It's not perfect
but at least it feels hot, has a color that looks realistic in an
artistic sense, and it does not exhibit shading. My scene is rendered
with radiosity, but uses an additional light_source far away in the same
direction as the sky_sphere sun, to help the lighting of the scene (and
because radiosity does not give you nice scattering media interaction).
Hehe, and it seems the atmosphere-is-too-thick-effect strikes everyone
how tries to make space scenes the first time :-)
--
(defun f(p x)(If(Eq x nil)nil(If(p(Car x))(Cons(Car x)(f p(Cdr x)))(f p
(Cdr x)))))(defun q(x)(Q nil x))(defun Q(a x)(If(Eq x nil)a(Q(Cons(Car
x)(Q a(f(Lt(Car x))(Cdr x))))(f(Gt(Car x))(Cdr x)))))
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'space4.jpg' (9 KB)
Preview of image 'space4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The sun isn't shaded. Its white in the center, gets a
red teint near the edge, and the dissolves into a soft
glow, but perhaps its too much. How about this?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
> I'm sorry, but I find this version is much worse than the previous, for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. The lights on the dark side of the earth are too bright, it makes the
> image less credible.
> 2. The sun does not look like a sun. Your sun looks cold, like it was
> made of wax, or plastic, while it should look really hot and be made of
> star plasma (or whatever). And suns never, ever have a shaded surface,
> they appear flat because of self-illumination.
>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sunrise3.jpg' (106 KB)
Preview of image 'sunrise3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sun looks hotter in this image instead of a bit dull in the previous image.
I like this one better.
JWV
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3efb0a78@news.povray.org...
> The sun isn't shaded. Its white in the center, gets a
> red teint near the edge, and the dissolves into a soft
> glow, but perhaps its too much. How about this?
>
>
> --
> Tim Nikias v2.0
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I find this version is much worse than the previous, for
> > two reasons:
> >
> > 1. The lights on the dark side of the earth are too bright, it makes the
> > image less credible.
> > 2. The sun does not look like a sun. Your sun looks cold, like it was
> > made of wax, or plastic, while it should look really hot and be made of
> > star plasma (or whatever). And suns never, ever have a shaded surface,
> > they appear flat because of self-illumination.
> >
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>The sun isn't shaded. Its white in the center, gets a
>red teint near the edge, and the dissolves into a soft
>glow, but perhaps its too much. How about this?
>
This is a nice warm looking sun. But I still like the glow around the sun
and the thicker atmosphere. It may not be realistic, but it just looks
good.
RG - reality... a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
??? Why did it post here instead of on the thread where I was replying too?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is a nice warm looking sun. But I still like the glow around the sun
> and the thicker atmosphere. It may not be realistic, but it just looks
> good.
I feel the same way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks you two! I'm satisfied as well. I've just
set the moon's rotation a little different, so I've
got to rerender the frames from 150 to 400, but
now I can finally leave it to render all 600 frames...
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> > This is a nice warm looking sun. But I still like the glow around the
sun
> > and the thicker atmosphere. It may not be realistic, but it just looks
> > good.
>
> I feel the same way.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Tim,
this is the best sun so far. A big glow makes the sun look dim.
Instead of an unrealistic glow I suggest realistic protuberances,
corona, solar flares, sun spots, ...:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/Solar.System.Lithograph.Set/Sun/.index.html
Sputnik
--
----------------------------
Frank 'Sputnik' Rothfuß
fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
----------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, well, I'm not after a physically correct view on
sun and earth (as someone pointed out, the night-earth
is way too bright to be visible with the sun in-screen),
but a more artistic view. And thus, a warm sun for a
sunrise is good enough. And the beauty of night on earth
is also nicely visible.
As a side-note: you do know that images of sun-spots etc
wouldn't be able to capture the earth as well, as the lens has
to be fairly darkened to not get overlit at once...
Still, thanks for the suggestions!
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> Hi Tim,
>
> this is the best sun so far. A big glow makes the sun look dim.
> Instead of an unrealistic glow I suggest realistic protuberances,
> corona, solar flares, sun spots, ...:
>
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/Solar.System.Lithograph.Set/Sun/.index.html
>
> Sputnik
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Frank 'Sputnik' Rothfuß
> fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
> ----------------------------
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As a side-note: you do know that images of sun-spots etc
> wouldn't be able to capture the earth as well, as the lens has
> to be fairly darkened to not get overlit at once...
Of course I know, but I thougt you were willing to allow for
some artistic freedom ...
To say it with your own words:
> I'm going more for an
> artistic view, with overexagheration, than a physically
"""""""""""""
> correct and realistic view.
Sputnik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:-) Caught me there!
I just wanted a nice and warm sun, something
which would give a comfortable feeling. Too
much physical reality or too much detail loses
that. IMHO simplicity sometimes has better
artistic story than detailed overexaggeration...
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> > As a side-note: you do know that images of sun-spots etc
> > wouldn't be able to capture the earth as well, as the lens has
> > to be fairly darkened to not get overlit at once...
>
> Of course I know, but I thougt you were willing to allow for
> some artistic freedom ...
>
> To say it with your own words:
>
> > I'm going more for an
> > artistic view, with overexagheration, than a physically
> """""""""""""
> > correct and realistic view.
>
> Sputnik
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
