 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a10bc2a@news.povray.org>, "GrimDude"
<gri### [at] netzero com> wrote:
> So, I used a glow for the sun with a radius of 1/2 S.D. in p.u. (109
> pu). Obviously, the realistic scale caused a problem with usefulness
> given resolution restraints (for one), but worse yet the Stars
> post_process method overwrites the glow, as well as the dark side of
> the Earth (during eclipse from camera viewpoint). In other words, it
> draws over the glow and the Earth positions. Uncool!
The stars post process is nearly useless, it was just an experiment and
never really intended to be used in a real scene. Post processes would
be extremely limited when it comes to stars anyway.(reflection,
transparent objects, fog, sky_spheres, etc....)
I suppose it could be useful for creating an image_map to use on a
sky_sphere...but that is about all. I will put this on the list of
things to fix, though...
However, your problems with the stars overwriting the earth sound
strange...the filter I released should only overwrite "infinite" areas,
which don't hit anything nearer than Max_Distance. How far away is your
Earth?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Earth was only 51 Pov units from the camera, but all black (dark side).
Against the background of shining Sun it was visible, but then the post
process blackened everything again. I was really shocked to see it blacken
out the glow. :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I posted two images demonstrating this in p.b.i.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a1139de@news.povray.org>, "GrimDude"
<gri### [at] netzerocom> wrote:
> The Earth was only 51 Pov units from the camera, but all black (dark
> side).
Oh, I thought you meant the stars filter was overwriting the earth
itself, not just the surrounding space.
Ok, it is fixed for the next release. Stars are now added to the
background instead of replacing it, only pixels where a star exists are
affected. You would still be better off with one of the starfield or
galaxy include files, though...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Do you have the masses? The first almanac I looked at didn't have it.
Particularly interested in sun, earth, Jup.
GrimDude wrote:
> I just started playing with this last night. Following the Earth media, and
> Blue Mars threads from p.b.i I started to recreate the orbit animation I
> mentioned (also in p.b.i)and decided to try the stars post_process feature.
>
> I wanted realistic scales, so I did some research (some from memory).
>
> Earth diameter - 8,000 km
> Moon diameter - 2,180 km
> Sun diameter - 872,000 km
> distance to Moon - 400,000 km
> distance to Sun - 93,000,000 km
>
> This results in pov units (for my scene):
>
> Earth diameter - 1 pu
> Moon diam. -.27 pu
> Sun diam -218pu
>
> distance to Moon - 50.004 pu
> distance to Sun - 11,625.865 pu
>
> So, I used a glow for the sun with a radius of 1/2 S.D. in p.u. (109 pu).
> Obviously, the realistic scale caused a problem with usefulness given
> resolution restraints (for one), but worse yet the Stars post_process method
> overwrites the glow, as well as the dark side of the Earth (during eclipse
> from camera viewpoint). In other words, it draws over the glow and the Earth
> positions. Uncool!
>
> So, I am forced to go back to the sky_sphere non-aliased approach. :(
>
> Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The Sun's mass is 333,400 times that of the Earth (estimated).
The Earth's mass is 6.587 x 10^21 tons (5.976 x 10^24 kilograms), or 6
sextillion, 587 quintillion tons.
Sorry, I have no data on Jupiter's mass.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, I just wanted to let you know what I found. :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> I hate to say it, but that is only going to make things worse. :)
Correct, it does make things worse. The astronomical scale of the solar
system is too great to render and look realistic.
If I remember correctly a standard camera lens, about 50mm for 35mm
film which should be roughly the 4/3 aspect, has about a 30 degree
viewing angle. From Earth both the sun and the moon have a 1/2 degree
angular diameter. for a 640 wide image that less than 11 pixels.
http://giwersworld.org/artiii/elevat23.jpg is a to-scale rendering and
that blob is the moon. The blob looks a bit better as rendered rather
than at the jpeg quality used.
On the recent images I have posted I have cut the earth-moon and
earth-sun distances by about ten with other scales equal. On that scale
a lunar eclipse lasts two days but the moon is on the recognizable side.
I'll be posting the result of my way of making a sun in binaries in a
few minutes.
--
You know you are a bigot if you wonder what
Jessie Jackson does for a living.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 162
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
1.9 times 10^28 kg. according to this web page:
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/gravitation/planets/jupiter.html
"GrimDude" <gri### [at] netzerocom> wrote in message
news:3a11bf8e@news.povray.org...
>
> Sorry, I have no data on Jupiter's mass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:42:53 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Do you have the masses? The first almanac I looked at didn't have it.
>Particularly interested in sun, earth, Jup.
Look at
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/nineplanets.html for
lots of infos about the solar system.
hp
--
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Lutz Donnerhacke in dasr.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ |
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
