I was taking some digital camera pictures through my telescope recently and
thought that it would be a great thing to try and duplicate in POV-Ray.  The air
turbulence and haze and general telescopic appearance seemed perfect to try and
mimic.
I had taken both night-time (never got one that looked bright enough) and
day-time photos with a 640x480 resolution camera through the eyepiece (yes, the
eyepiece) of a 4" SCT scope of 1200 focal length and 18mm lens, making for a 67
power magnification.
Anyway, these two renders are surprisingly similar to what I could see with my
eyes but not quite what turned out on the camera.  So you can see for yourselves
the attachments are both real and raytraced, you'll just have to believe me when
I say POV-Ray did much closer to the real thing than the photos did.
BTW, the photos were reduced in size by half to get rid of the ugly pixelization
and I post-processed the renders to add some ugliness-- I meant photographic--
look to them  :-)

Bob
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 's5a_telephotos_raytrace.jpg' (23 KB) Download 's5a_telephoto_real.jpg' (5 KB)

Preview of image 's5a_telephotos_raytrace.jpg'

Preview of image 's5a_telephoto_real.jpg'

Wonder how many people are going to see that Subject line thinking they'll get
to see a fantastic render of a space craft moving toward a space station at near
the speed of light on a collision course.  Sorry to disappoint.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

That's closer to what I thought when I read the subject. Is the first image of the
top two the rendered one?

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Wonder how many people are going to see that Subject line thinking they'll get
> to see a fantastic render of a space craft moving toward a space station at near
> the speed of light on a collision course.  Sorry to disappoint.
>
> Bob

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

Couldn't tell if you were really wondering or not so to answer your question:
yes, the first (top) is rendered, both day time and night time scenes are in
fact.  The 2nd (bottom) set of images are the digital camera photos.
Not sure how well people are going to see the very dark background in the night
time render, it's the same as the day time one with the exception that the POV
camera had been lower since it was closer to a flat ground level before I
changed it thinking it wasn't at a more correct hill elevation.
In checking since then I find that I'm at 770 feet here (which I already knew),
Tennessee river (between here and there) is at 550 average, and the Space&Rocket
Center should be at about 700 to 750 feet elevation near as I can tell from a
contour map; this would make the top of the rocket higher than my place here.
So as it turns out there's not much difference in elevations.  The valley here
is shallow and wide.
Thanks for looking at it anyway Sam, even if it wasn't what you had thought it
might be.  ;-)

Bob

"SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> wrote in message news:38B818DD.8D94A11D@aol.com...
| That's closer to what I thought when I read the subject. Is the first image of
the
| top two the rendered one?
|
| Bob Hughes wrote:
|
| > Wonder how many people are going to see that Subject line thinking they'll
get
| > to see a fantastic render of a space craft moving toward a space station at
near
| > the speed of light on a collision course.  Sorry to disappoint.
| >
| > Bob
|
| --
| Samuel Benge
|
| E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom
|
| Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge
|
|

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, the render is better :-)
Wish I had a telescope...

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

Hi Bob,
I did know what to expect from the subject line, as I live aprox 40 miles away from
the Space & Rocket Center, in Tennessee. Its one of my favorite places to visit.
Your render looks remarkably accurate. I hope to get a good telescope one of these
days. :)

Jay Raney

Bob Hughes wrote:

> I was taking some digital camera pictures through my telescope recently and
> thought that it would be a great thing to try and duplicate in POV-Ray.  The air
> turbulence and haze and general telescopic appearance seemed perfect to try and
> mimic.
> I had taken both night-time (never got one that looked bright enough) and
> day-time photos with a 640x480 resolution camera through the eyepiece (yes, the
> eyepiece) of a 4" SCT scope of 1200 focal length and 18mm lens, making for a 67
> power magnification.
> Anyway, these two renders are surprisingly similar to what I could see with my
> eyes but not quite what turned out on the camera.  So you can see for yourselves
> the attachments are both real and raytraced, you'll just have to believe me when
> I say POV-Ray did much closer to the real thing than the photos did.
> BTW, the photos were reduced in size by half to get rid of the ugly pixelization
> and I post-processed the renders to add some ugliness-- I meant photographic--
> look to them  :-)
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>  [Image]
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Your raytraced version certainly is the best one to look at, 
I wouldn't know what the real one was if you hadn't told us. 

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

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

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

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

 11:23pm  up 19:14,  7 users,  load average: 2.16, 2.29, 2.26

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 13:45:14 -0600, Bob Hughes <> wrote:
>Couldn't tell if you were really wondering or not so to answer your question:
>yes, the first (top) is rendered, both day time and night time scenes are in
>fact.  The 2nd (bottom) set of images are the digital camera photos.
>Not sure how well people are going to see the very dark background in the night
>time render, it's the same as the day time one with the exception that the POV
>camera had been lower since it was closer to a flat ground level before I
>changed it thinking it wasn't at a more correct hill elevation.
>In checking since then I find that I'm at 770 feet here (which I already knew),
>Tennessee river (between here and there) is at 550 average, and the Space&Rocket
>Center should be at about 700 to 750 feet elevation near as I can tell from a
>contour map; this would make the top of the rocket higher than my place here.
>So as it turns out there's not much difference in elevations.  The valley here
>is shallow and wide.
>Thanks for looking at it anyway Sam, even if it wasn't what you had thought it
>might be.  ;-)

So with your telescope you can actually watch launches from your 
house?  Awesome.  

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

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

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

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

 11:23pm  up 19:14,  7 users,  load average: 2.16, 2.29, 2.26

Post a reply to this message

Um, no.  No launches here.  Only rocket motor tests nearby at the Marshal Space
Flight Center (several miles to the right).  As a kid I lived at Merritt Island
Florida though, next to Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, and these
things launched from about 12 miles away, but we had to go to a nearby bridge to
see them when on the ground.  Very flat landscape there.

Bob

"Steve" <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
|
| So with your telescope you can actually watch launches from your
| house?  Awesome.

Post a reply to this message

Hey, then you know of the rocket (I think) at the I-65 freeway visitors center
(rest stop) on the southbound side.  I can actually see that one too, it's
almost blocked by a closer hill.  That same type rocket (identical?) is just
like the other one there at S&R Center which I could only see the top part of
since it's a much smaller rocket.  The space shuttle on display there is
completely hidden from view because of it lying down instead of standing up.
This one I rendered was put on display last summer for those who don't know
about it.

Bob

"Jay Raney" <jay### [at] usitnet> wrote in message news:38B7B12B.A45A388A@usit.net...
| Hi Bob,
| I did know what to expect from the subject line, as I live aprox 40 miles away
from
| the Space & Rocket Center, in Tennessee. Its one of my favorite places to
visit.
| Your render looks remarkably accurate. I hope to get a good telescope one of
these
| days. :)
|
| Jay Raney
|
| Bob Hughes wrote:
|
| > I was taking some digital camera pictures through my telescope recently and
| > thought that it would be a great thing to try and duplicate in POV-Ray.  The
air
| > turbulence and haze and general telescopic appearance seemed perfect to try
and
| > mimic.
| > I had taken both night-time (never got one that looked bright enough) and
| > day-time photos with a 640x480 resolution camera through the eyepiece (yes,
the
| > eyepiece) of a 4" SCT scope of 1200 focal length and 18mm lens, making for a
67
| > power magnification.
| > Anyway, these two renders are surprisingly similar to what I could see with
my
| > eyes but not quite what turned out on the camera.  So you can see for
yourselves
| > the attachments are both real and raytraced, you'll just have to believe me
when
| > I say POV-Ray did much closer to the real thing than the photos did.
| > BTW, the photos were reduced in size by half to get rid of the ugly
pixelization
| > and I post-processed the renders to add some ugliness-- I meant
photographic--
| > look to them  :-)
| >
| > Bob
| > --
| > omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
| >
| >  [Image]
| >
| >  [Image]
|

Post a reply to this message