Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: USS Alexander on January 14, 2004, 03:17:10 pm
-
Wel my little bro made 1 so i thought what the hell:D i still have teach him alot of stuff so...
Here are the 2 pic's
(http://home.planet.nl/~groe3108/Test8.jpg)
(http://home.planet.nl/~groe3108/Test9.jpg)
I renderd the scenes in lightwave using seperate layers, after that i tweakt the render a bit in PS added a bit motion blur enz.....in my opinion i see now that i added a bit to much motion blur but hey i just made them quick:D
-
Cool. Think i prefer the first one, the second one makes the gassy outy bit seem quite distant and minor in comparison.
-
First, skip the motion blur. Stars aren't generally moving fast enough to have blur.
I like the way those came out, though I think the yellow light needs to be a bit more harsh, and the red bits need to be darker right where they meet the yellow.
Is that based on an animateable procedural? If so, you should render about 120frames of it and see how it looks.
-
You got a point about the stars gonna add some seperata motion blur to only the sun.
I think of animating it just have to give it a envelope:D
-
by "stars" I was including the sun itself.
-
mmm just leaved the blur off and it looks better with a bit of motion blur:)but as aid before a bit to much on those renders imo
-
mik ... because you dont like blur dosent mean others have to be like you :)
i personaly love the blur :)
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
mik ... because you dont like blur dosent mean others have to be like you :)
Huh?
Its not that I don't like the blur. The blur is distracting. There is no motion blur for a giant, stationary, slowly rotating object. If we were talking about a neutron star (which that assuredly is not), or a pulsar, sure. Motion blur would be appropriate. However, that's a main-sequence yellow-dwarf star, just like our sun (though, given the red, a bit older). It rotates slowly enough that a stationary observer won't see the motion, and thus there would be no blur. Knowing these facts, the blur jumps out and screams "I'm not supposed to be here". That causes the whole image to look less satisfactory.
-
but it would loose the "cool" factor of CGI :)
-
right now, it doesn't have 'cool' factor. It has 'OMG ITS SO FAEK!' factor.
-
it looked the same in FS2.....
-
Since when did FS2 have motion blur?
Since when did FS2 become the height of CG eye candy?
-
the bosch monologue (binary stars) had same kind of star......and FS2 OWNZORZ!
(http://imagination.t-designs.net/sigs/Random.php) (http://imagination.t-designs.net)
-
Nice suns. I prefer the first one. The second one is a bit more "clearly defined" and I thin that in the context of a sun, thats not diserable.
And since when do people get to put pictures in their sigs?
edit: Oh wait, thats not a sig. You just put that in the post. NIce workaround, I must admit.
-
Um. Okay. Please back away from the crack.
-
But you can't see her crack. She's bent over all wrong :D
Edit : Ash goes and changes the pic the second I say that! :D
-
um... why can't the picture have motion blur even if an observer is stationary? i realise this may be a completely stupid question. but, um, what about relativity? as in, the sun's moving relative to me, therefore there's motion blur? (i know there's a flaw in there somewhere, i just haven't worked it out yet.)
-
Motion blur isn't caused by things moving relative to you, Ice. For example, when you shut a door in your bedroom, you don't get motion blur. Its not moving FAST ENOUGH relative to you. You don't see motion blur when trees sway in the wind, nor do you get motion blur with waves on the beach. You get motion blur when the rich dickhead down the street blows by you on his custom Ducati motorcycle, ignoring the traffic laws.
The sun is massive and turns very, very slowly. It does not turn swiftly enough for your eye, assuming you could look directly at it, to see motion blur. Given the coloring of the sun here, we have a main sequence yellow-dwarf type star, a little older than Sol. Given that main sequence yellow dwarfs share physical characteristics (That's how they get categorized) we know that this star isn't turning fast enough to have motion blur.
Now, lets assume there SHOULD be full scene blurring like there was in the initial pictures in this thread. TO have motion blur the camera itself would have to be in motion. However, we don't have anything else to indicate the camera is in motion, nor a strong enough blur to indicate the direction of that motion. This could be solved by framing the image with the edgese of a canopy, or have the camera tracking an unblurred ship.
-
Motion Blur is caused by a lens staying open and taking in light for a period which an object could have moved position(from the view of the camera, if they are both moving at same speed it would not matter). This is in layman's terms because I have no freaking idea about the actual way to describe it.
So, for the sun to have motion blur, it would have to be moving really fast, or the camera stays open for a long time ;)
-
okay cool, fair enough. if the camera lens stays open too long it'll overexpose anyway, though, won't it? so you won't be able to get blur because it's all black... or white...
-
Exactly. DragonClaw certainly explained it much more succinctly than I did. :D If the aperture stays open long enough for blur, indeed, the film would be overexposed.
-
not bad at all:)
-
....or the camera moves while the camera was shooting.
-
or i'm flying through my lightwave ani scene very fast ;)
All that fuzz because of a little non reaslistic (as intended) render:wtf:
And motion blur is probaly a way to simulate real world lighting effects