Space Sunrise

[Chrury Sanson]

Hey guys! I entered an art competition for my congressional district and (obviously) I used AM to make my entry! The top 3 winners got scholarships to the Art Institute of Atlanta.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't win. Though I have been told that the judges were REALLY looking at it and that it got several "OOh"s and "Aah."s when the staff was hanging it up.

 

No worrys! Now I can hang it up in my room.

 

The Picture

 

A couple notes:

-This is about 2 weeks of work.

-The printed version has twice the resolution and is 24 by 24 inches.

-The shuttle's front windows aren't there as no one can see them in the shot.

 

So....How am I doing?

[John Bigboote]

Your doing good. I know how it feels to lose out on a competition like that...SUX! I tried for my local art-college scholarship when I was in high school...tried really hard, and lost to better talent. Lesson learned...no matter who you are...or think you are- there's ALWAYS someone out there with more talent than you. And talent is relative to experience. The solution...? PERSISTANCE!

 

After losing my scholarship, I could'nt afford to go to that school. So, I went about getting my experience in other ways. I became an apprentice/intern and WORKED my way up...and several years (15) later that same college that I could not get in to asked me to become an instructor, and I turned them down.

 

Your image is cool but here's my 2 bits: Lens flares are 'out'. They are a bi-product of a film camera lens. We are in the digital-image age. Plus, the naked human eye does not see lens flares... about the ONLY place anyone see's lens flares anymore is A) on film on student demos...so, avoid them. ALSO... there are some 'hard-lines' in your image that should not be there, and a total lack of cloud cover. And I never was a big fan of (what I call) 1-pixel stars. Look at some NASA space shots...stars vary in size, brightness, color, and tend to 'clump' together. Lastly, don't try to get it all out of A:M in 1 render. Make several various lighting shots and mix them together in a photo-editor.

 

AND---Now that you have that WONDERFUL scene...why not animate it?

 

GOOD STUFF! Keep it up!

[Chrury Sanson]

Lens flares are OUT?!? When did that happen? Why wasn't I informed about this? great.

 

Seriously though, thanks

 

In the big render, the stars do vary in brightness and size by a smidge but yeah I can see how it could be more realistic. At some point I knew I couldn't get realism into my shot, so I went for the artistic look. and yes .that includes a lack of cloud cover. What I had been trying refused to work. And I was on a time table.

 

And lastly, Unless I can get some sorta mentor to teach me the intricacies of photo-editing, I am going to keep working in ONLY AM. I simply cannot understand the what/how and why to photo editing if you can get it all in one shot. Are you suggesting that you can't? You don't do multiple renders with an animation, correct?

 

Sorry if that sounded insulting. wasn't my intention. Just wondering.

[Stuart Rogers]

Your image is cool but here's my 2 bits: Lens flares are 'out'. They are a bi-product of a film camera lens. We are in the digital-image age. Plus, the naked human eye does not see lens flares... about the ONLY place anyone see's lens flares anymore is A) on film

Only seen on film, eh? So how come some of my digital photos have lens flare? Lens flare is a side effect of the lens, not the film. Now, we're using CGI to synthesize images of real world objects - who's to say that we can't use CGI to synthesize a real world photograph of real world objects? IMO the use of lens flare in CGI is still valid if the artist wants it - but I would thoroughly agree that lens flare should be subtle, an addition to suggest a real photo without being obvious.

ALSO... there are some 'hard-lines' in your image that should not be there,

This was more distracting than any lens flare!

 

Whatever, it's a nice picture - if it got oohs and ahs in the contest, you're definitely doing things right.

[Chrury Sanson]

When you say "hard lines" are you talking about the edge of the planet and the clarity of the landmasses?

[John Bigboote]

When you say "hard lines" are you talking about the edge of the planet and the clarity of the landmasses?

 

 

 

Yes..........Stuart...LF are generated in the lens(thus, the name). As digital cameras get higher res and more sensitive to light, and better lensed we will notice lens flares from digital cameras as well. Generally tho- they are associated with film cameras-(you might notice all the settings in A:M Lens Flare's properties are 'film' based) Thanks, but I think this young feller is looking for help and opinions of his image...not opinions of opinions. If he wants to leave the LF in he sure can, I'm just stating that that is a very 'newbie' thing to do, LF's were overused in the early days of CGI and many people groan when they see them to this day.

 

The 'God-rays' coming from the Sun don't bother me as much as the 'bubbles' lower-right of center do.

 

Chrury...here's a 'markup' indicating the lines we noticed. I don't know where they were introduced but it looks like some intersecting splineage. Stuart can probably tell you better tho.

 

I'm just trying to help. Any thoughts about animating the scene??? Show us when you do! I want to see it.

[Chrury Sanson]

oh THOSE lines. I can see what you're talkin about now. hrmm

 

I might just have to make another render to get this "better look" as well as learn how to get it in the first place. Rats. My finished project just turned into a WIP.

 

One thing that does make me happy is lack of comments about the shuttle. Either you were distracted by the flaring annoyances or I did a good job! The shuttle is where I worked the most BTW.

 

And I currently have no plans to animate this scene. Or add it to an animation. I'm not even sure what I would do in such an animation. Seems to me that it would be both majestic and boring.

[John Bigboote]

Yeah- the shuttle looked good. All I had in mind for the animation was a slight spin on the earth (oh---so---gradual) and the shuttle slowly moving forward, or drifting...the sun could rise a slight bit...the camera could pan a little...etc.

[gschumsky]

I like lens flares...

 

But then being an old film guy, I think they add some realism and depth, and even drama.

 

As long as they're not overdone that is.

[Atomike]

Lens flares will show up in an HD Digital Top-of-the-Line George Lucas camera produced yesterday. I just shot some DV video last month in which I have lens flares. The idea that they're "out" is amusing at best. That's like saying rack-focus shots are out. It's like saying that jib shots are out. It's an addition to make a shot more interesting - a little color to spice up the shot. If adding color to a mostly black and white image ever goes out, I'll highly question the people who decide what is "out".

Don't knock the lens flare, man.

Now the star-wipe.... that's a different story. They're out.

[Chrury Sanson]

UPDATE #1!

 

[attachmentid=17159]

 

I added another material to all but eliminate the hard lines and I added different size and color stars. I'm going to need some help though as this small pic took 15 Min to render.

Any thoughts on how I could do the starfield more effectivly? Right now it's 4 spheres with a cell turbulance material on each. Is there a way to get one material to do the work of all four?

 

Lastly, how can AM do cloud cover?

 

PS: I have no idea where that 'smear' thing above the shuttles nose came from.

PPS: The lens flare stays.

[Chrury Sanson]

Update #2!

[attachmentid=17259]

 

This is just a larger render of the last image. It gives a better view of the new starfield and various details.

 

I'd like at least one opinion on this compared to the first image. Please?

 

I'm stil at a loss on the cloud cover. Should I try particles or some decals? Or something else?

And that grey streak above the shuttle nose has got me baffled. Any ideas?

 

Waiting impatiently(sorry, can't help it)

 

Chrury

[pelonppp]

hi.

god work in the lens flare effect.

i had some sugestion.

 

the clouds of the planet maybe more white

 

and wath is this

[attachmentid=17261]

[Chrury Sanson]

As of yet there are no clouds on the planet. That's the atmosphere material.

 

And I have no idea what that is. I have 1 thought on where it came from and how to fix it but that might not work out. I'll check it tonight.

[Godfrey]

Any thoughts on how I could do the starfield more effectivly? Right now it's 4 spheres with a cell turbulance material on each. Is there a way to get one material to do the work of all four?

 

Actually, if you're going for realism, the bright sun would wash the stars right out; check out some authentic NASA shuttle pics -- no stars! (Of course, the tinfoil-hat-wearers would have you believe that it's because all those photos are faked, and NASA just forgot to Photoshop stars into all those pictures.)

 

(It's ironic, but Hollywood's unrealistic treatment of outer space actually looks more real than reality...)

 

Comparing your image to the NASA pics, I'd suggest making the planet a brighter blue, especially the arc nearest the sun -- maybe even fading the rest down to blackness.

 

Nice job on the Shuttle, BTW.

[Chrury Sanson]

You've got a good point there, Godfrey. But if I took the stars out completely, I think it would a bit empty. Don't you?

 

I found where that strange grey thing came from. The yellow star sphere was acting up.

Here's the difference:

[attachmentid=17280]

[williamgaylord]

I like the look, but technically speaking your ocean waves would be sunamis that would dwarf Mount Everest. Depends on whether you want a realistic look or an artistic fantasy look.

[Chrury Sanson]

Well I am doing a more art style than realism, (note the starfield) but if you look at the edge of the planet, you can see that the material is on the atmosphere instead of the water.