|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, I can't shut up any longer. :-)
First off, the image is awesome. Your ship is great, your nebulae are
beautiful, and the black hole is trippy-cool.
Now, a personal pet peeve: In space, there is no "ambient" light.
There's no atmospheric scattering of light, so shadows are *black*. Take
a look at a crescent moon, and you'll see what I mean.
Almost everybody gets this wrong, including Hollywood. :-) At the same
time, I think there's some new artistic ground to cover here--you can
create some *really* dramatic images by fixing the shadows.
The big challenge is making the object still be *visible* when half of
it is black, and it is against a black background. I'm still kicking
some ideas around in my head for dealing with this.
You could bend physics a little with the lighting :-) such that both
edges of the craft are highlighted, outlining it and making the shape
visible.
Alternatively, you could take the route of not having space actually be
black. Make the stars a lot more dense, and beef up the nebulae until
the dark parts of the ship are silhouetted against the background. Take
a look at this guy's backgrounds: http://www.crimsondark.com (note that
he gets the shadows wrong, too...)
Finally, you could not go *all* the way, and just darken the shadows as
far as you can without making them actually disappear.
Or, you being The Incredible Tek, ;-) you could just come up with
something way better than anything I can imagine.
Anyway, the image is great as it is. Right now it's up there with
Hollywood. I just feel that you can do one better than Hollywood. :-D
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you were ever dragged out
of a theater for yelling "Cheap rasterized graphics!!!" in the middle of
Toy Story.
Stephan Ahonen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message
news:463f82bf$1@news.povray.org...
> Now, a personal pet peeve: In space, there is no "ambient" light.
There's still light reflected off other objects, planets, other ships, etc
> There's no atmospheric scattering of light, so shadows are *black*. Take
> a look at a crescent moon, and you'll see what I mean.
Actually, even with a crescent moon, the parts unlit by the sun are
relativly bright, from light reflected off the nearly full earth.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070428.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Uh... anyway... The cool black hole effect is achieved with a refractive
> object shaped so that it has no refraction at the edges when viewed from the
> camera's point of view, effectively making it a 2D distortion. I then use
> several such objects at different distances to create the event horizon, the
> "sucking" effect, and the smaller distortion on the ship.
Cool. It looks a little sharper at the edges than I would have expected. I
read that book "Black Holes and Time Warps" or something by Kip Thorne, but
I don't remember exactly how things LOOK as they fall in. It would be an
interesting patch though to actually simulate it. No idea how it's done,
but it looks like raytracing has been applied to both special and general
relativity. A cool gif of a black hole on the page.
http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~tmueller/visual.html
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:463f956c@news.povray.org...
>
> "William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message
> news:463f82bf$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Now, a personal pet peeve: In space, there is no "ambient" light.
>
> There's still light reflected off other objects, planets, other ships, etc
Exactly! I have 0 ambient, it's all just light from the nebulae and bounced
off the ship (2-bounce radiosity).
Also you'll note the sunlight is incredibly bright because the brightness of
the image is adjusted to allow you to see nebulae (which would normally be
nearly black in a scene with such a bright sun, but I'm using a high
exposure so the directly lit surfaces saturate to white and we can see
details in the shadow). I think I've used fairly realistic lighting for a
star that's a bit further away than our sun.
>> There's no atmospheric scattering of light, so shadows are *black*. Take
>> a look at a crescent moon, and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Actually, even with a crescent moon, the parts unlit by the sun are
> relativly bright, from light reflected off the nearly full earth.
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070428.html
Great example :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(with reference to my reply to Gail's post)
Here's a version taken with a lower exposure. I've lowered the exposure
enough to stop the lit side from saturating, so now you can see how much
darker the dark side is. Though it's still not black since there are a lot
of nebulae
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message
news:463f82bf$1@news.povray.org...
> Okay, I can't shut up any longer. :-)
>
> First off, the image is awesome. Your ship is great, your nebulae are
> beautiful, and the black hole is trippy-cool.
>
> Now, a personal pet peeve: In space, there is no "ambient" light.
> There's no atmospheric scattering of light, so shadows are *black*. Take
> a look at a crescent moon, and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Almost everybody gets this wrong, including Hollywood. :-) At the same
> time, I think there's some new artistic ground to cover here--you can
> create some *really* dramatic images by fixing the shadows.
>
> The big challenge is making the object still be *visible* when half of
> it is black, and it is against a black background. I'm still kicking
> some ideas around in my head for dealing with this.
>
> You could bend physics a little with the lighting :-) such that both
> edges of the craft are highlighted, outlining it and making the shape
> visible.
>
> Alternatively, you could take the route of not having space actually be
> black. Make the stars a lot more dense, and beef up the nebulae until
> the dark parts of the ship are silhouetted against the background. Take
> a look at this guy's backgrounds: http://www.crimsondark.com (note that
> he gets the shadows wrong, too...)
>
> Finally, you could not go *all* the way, and just darken the shadows as
> far as you can without making them actually disappear.
>
> Or, you being The Incredible Tek, ;-) you could just come up with
> something way better than anything I can imagine.
>
> Anyway, the image is great as it is. Right now it's up there with
> Hollywood. I just feel that you can do one better than Hollywood. :-D
>
> --
> William Tracy
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> You know you've been raytracing too long when you were ever dragged out
> of a theater for yelling "Cheap rasterized graphics!!!" in the middle of
> Toy Story.
> Stephan Ahonen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'space simple.jpg' (64 KB)
Preview of image 'space simple.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Art Flint nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 7 / 05 / 2007 07:19:
>
>> Makes you wonder what happens to the light that comes from a point
>> between us and the event horizon.
>
> Red shift!
So anything that comes from above the visible ligth range might be
shifted down to a bluish color?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Art Flint nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 7 / 05 / 2007 21:29:
> Alain wrote:
>> Art Flint nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 7 / 05 / 2007 07:19:
>>
>>> Makes you wonder what happens to the light that comes from a point
>>> between us and the event horizon.
>>
>> Red shift!
> So anything that comes from above the visible ligth range might be
> shifted down to a bluish color?
Yes, and possibly more. If blue shift to red, then about all of the UV will
become visible from red to blue, X-rays will degrade to UV A and B and gamma
rays will become UV C and X-rays. If you go closer, then even gamma rays could
degrade into low frequency radio waves...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 7 / 05 / 2007 17:25:
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>
>> Uh... anyway... The cool black hole effect is achieved with a refractive
>> object shaped so that it has no refraction at the edges when viewed from the
>> camera's point of view, effectively making it a 2D distortion. I then use
>> several such objects at different distances to create the event horizon, the
>> "sucking" effect, and the smaller distortion on the ship.
>
> Cool. It looks a little sharper at the edges than I would have expected. I
> read that book "Black Holes and Time Warps" or something by Kip Thorne, but
> I don't remember exactly how things LOOK as they fall in. It would be an
> interesting patch though to actually simulate it. No idea how it's done,
> but it looks like raytracing has been applied to both special and general
> relativity. A cool gif of a black hole on the page.
>
> http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~tmueller/visual.html
>
> - Ricky
>
The visible star may not be faling in, it may be a great distance BEHIND the
black hole, then, it's light gets bent, the closer the light pass by the black
hole, the more it get's bent, leading to the observed distortion.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to
be honest.
Benjamin Franklin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice images, and a good healthy discussion of astrophysics! I like the later
versions of the image better, the lighting looks more believable with the
'overexposed' look.
It might be worth pointing out that there's probably no point in discussing
the finer points of gravitational lensing and relativistic light-shifting
too much; anything which got that close to a real black hole or neutron
star would likely be torn apart by tidal forces, unless it were able to
'hover' over it (which would require a hell of a lot of thrust).
Nice spacecraft - is it just a section, or do you have a whole ship
modelled? Looks a lot like the spine sections on my 'Discovery' model.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's no ship beyond what you can see, the image was just quickly bashed
together. Plus I wrote a macro to do CSG greebles which will probably appear
in some more serious image in the future!
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.4640785a7bdc3175731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Nice images, and a good healthy discussion of astrophysics! I like the
> later
> versions of the image better, the lighting looks more believable with the
> 'overexposed' look.
>
> It might be worth pointing out that there's probably no point in
> discussing
> the finer points of gravitational lensing and relativistic light-shifting
> too much; anything which got that close to a real black hole or neutron
> star would likely be torn apart by tidal forces, unless it were able to
> 'hover' over it (which would require a hell of a lot of thrust).
>
> Nice spacecraft - is it just a section, or do you have a whole ship
> modelled? Looks a lot like the spine sections on my 'Discovery' model.
>
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|