Author Topic: Nebulae  (Read 19908 times)

Offline Stormlord

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
    • Dirk Kipper fresh art and new grafics for your computer
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #225 on: April 15, 2018, 07:12:06 PM »
Thank you so much for sharing the TGC Dennis!
This helps me a lot and this simple clip was what I was asking for in my PM to you :-)

By the way... your Ideas and Images are brilliant and so beautiful!
RESPECT!!!

STORMLORD
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 07:21:42 PM by Stormlord »

Offline Denis Sirenko

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #226 on: April 20, 2018, 12:38:15 PM »
On the contrary, your initial example clip setup has a smallest scale almost 5x the base scale.

Smallest scale - 76 meters, not 6000. Lead-in scale 26000. This means that the smallest scale is not 5x, but 340x smaller than the largest. But, as I said, it does not matter. You can get a small detail (for example, to turn a cloud into one point) if you get the desired fractal for a warper even having a minimum scale 5000.

The warping creates "holes" (in a terrain this would look bad) in this base form, while pushing them, creating build up along the edges of the wholes, creating that small scale debris details.

The reason for the appearance of such holes is not that we have too much difference in the scale of small and large parts. The fact is that you have too high and sharp peaks. This can happen on any scale. Try to adjust the fractal for the warper so that there are not too steep slopes for all octaves.

Here is a very simple example of varying repetition. You won't really see in it the render as the area we're looking at really has no really definition but what the cloud layer is forcing in due to extreme contrasts, but take a look at the last merge shaders preview.

There is clear repetition, but no shape is the same. Adding further warping, translation distances, can improve this method.

Edit: added some test renders with different seeds, and doing another at smaller scale, but will take longer.

I understand, thanks for *.tgd and examples. Honestly, I do not think I can use this method. I have a suspicion that in order to sufficiently pull the part, you need to add a large number of such transformations. Their number should exceed 10-15, and still, if there are enough small details of their duplication will be visible (although, perhaps, changing the shape of a new layer can fix this). All this, my computer just will not survive. While there are doubts in this method.

While I did this:





It's: (Сloud layer "A" + warping) - (Сloud layer "A")
It works fast enough. But this method is also not good in everything and it can be used only as an additional one.

Thank you so much for sharing the TGC Dennis!
This helps me a lot and this simple clip was what I was asking for in my PM to you :-)
By the way... your Ideas and Images are brilliant and so beautiful!
RESPECT!!!

Big thanks, Stormlord! This is a newer version of the file, it's better than the one you asked for because it has fewer vertical or horizontal structures. As I wrote to you in PM, I can not immediately know what I can sharing, and what not. There is a possibility that these nebulae will become an independent product that will cost some money. I posted this file, because I thought it was something I could share for free with everyone.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 12:42:50 PM by Denis Sirenko »

Online WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2359
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #227 on: April 21, 2018, 12:16:13 AM »
The reason for the appearance of such holes is not that we have too much difference in the scale of small and large parts. The fact is that you have too high and sharp peaks. This can happen on any scale. Try to adjust the fractal for the warper so that there are not too steep slopes for all octaves.

As far as I can tell, octaves are directly related to your scales, predominately, you smallest scale. These peaks are not part of large scale PFs, the smallest scale directly relates to peaking.  For example if you check continue peaks, and amp up the maximum peak scale and displacement with a smallest scale of 0.025 and a maximum of 1 with a lead in of 1, you'll notice it will be full of ~+/-0.025 meter peaks.

As for repetition, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve? With expansion you have plainly visible repetition created by the source explosion, and the source explosion is never continual and only creates so much variance. The rest is independent formation of time through much slower forces, some even in different directions from cosmic sources rather than the radial source. And, again, with large scale fractalization, with low roughness, I'm not sure how the shapes could appear very similar after added warping.

Simeis remnant


Veil remnant


Even in the Crab Nebula there is only what looks to be 3-4 main reactions from the initial source. Example main reaction/phases: https://prnt.sc/j82f71

« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 12:21:15 AM by WASasquatch »
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Denis Sirenko

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #228 on: April 25, 2018, 08:19:13 PM »
Veil remnant

Amazing photo, I have never seen this before.

WASasquatch, I'm talking only about the small details. There is no question of medium or large scale. I'm trying to achieve exactly pulling (stretching, blowing by shock wave) of some small cloud's form with the preservation of its internal structure with the help of warping or other techniques.

As far as I can tell, octaves are directly related to your scales, predominately, you smallest scale. These peaks are not part of large scale PFs, the smallest scale directly relates to peaking.  For example if you check continue peaks, and amp up the maximum peak scale and displacement with a smallest scale of 0.025 and a maximum of 1 with a lead in of 1, you'll notice it will be full of ~+/-0.025 meter peaks.

As for our conversation about getting small details. I believe that each of us understands how this happens, but we have some kind of confusion in terminology :)

I would like to share with everyone else a few new renderers of the latest version of our nebula generator. Here are Terragen's colors. Still, Photoshop was used, but I tried to reduce its use to a minimum. For example, to put in order the exposure of some regions, add saturation and a few almost transparent hazy clouds to gently introduce the nebula into black space.

81264-0



And I cut this nebula into parts and arranged them differently.



UPD: Yes, and the stars. The stars are also from Photoshop)

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8305
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #229 on: April 25, 2018, 08:38:08 PM »

Great work!

Offline Dune

  • Terragen Alpha Tester (Win)
  • ***
  • Posts: 14053
    • www.ulco-art.nl
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #230 on: April 26, 2018, 05:20:40 AM »
Beauties again! Thanks for sharing these wonderful renders, Denis.

Offline Stormlord

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
    • Dirk Kipper fresh art and new grafics for your computer
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #231 on: April 26, 2018, 10:57:10 AM »
Excellent work, well done Denis

STORMLORD

Online WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2359
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #232 on: April 26, 2018, 05:31:35 PM »
Veil remnant

Amazing photo, I have never seen this before.

WASasquatch, I'm talking only about the small details. There is no question of medium or large scale. I'm trying to achieve exactly pulling (stretching, blowing by shock wave) of some small cloud's form with the preservation of its internal structure with the help of warping or other techniques.

As far as I can tell, octaves are directly related to your scales, predominately, you smallest scale. These peaks are not part of large scale PFs, the smallest scale directly relates to peaking.  For example if you check continue peaks, and amp up the maximum peak scale and displacement with a smallest scale of 0.025 and a maximum of 1 with a lead in of 1, you'll notice it will be full of ~+/-0.025 meter peaks.

As for our conversation about getting small details. I believe that each of us understands how this happens, but we have some kind of confusion in terminology :)

I would like to share with everyone else a few new renderers of the latest version of our nebula generator. Here are Terragen's colors. Still, Photoshop was used, but I tried to reduce its use to a minimum. For example, to put in order the exposure of some regions, add saturation and a few almost transparent hazy clouds to gently introduce the nebula into black space.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]

And I cut this nebula into parts and arranged them differently.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]

UPD: Yes, and the stars. The stars are also from Photoshop)
wow those are great! Love them! The blues look really nice. Have you tried playing with contrast settings in your render node to see of you can get better falloff results in TG?
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Jo Kariboo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #233 on: April 27, 2018, 01:09:05 AM »
Very nice picture!

Offline pclavett

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 282
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #234 on: April 27, 2018, 01:39:57 AM »
Amazing work on the nebulas !
Love your colours and textures !
Paul

BTW Thanks for sharing ! Appreciated !
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 01:42:12 AM by pclavett »

Offline Denis Sirenko

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #235 on: April 27, 2018, 08:54:45 AM »
Thanks, guys!

...The blues look really nice. Have you tried playing with contrast settings in your render node to see of you can get better falloff results in TG?

I did not play with it in TG, I do it in Photoshop. Honestly, I did not even attach importance to the presence of this setting in TG. Although it would be possible to try to do this, since I want to make a fully procedural generation of the finished result. I think I'll play with this in TG. In general, it is rather strange to see such a setting in TG. I adhere to the idea that if there is not enough contrast (or something else), then you need to achieve the desired effect by adjusting the scene, and not using post-processing (if I correctly understood, this in TG works just like postprocessing and does not participate in the mathematical calculation directly during the rendering). But the cases are different, I agree with this, and it's convenient to have it on hand if the scene settings do not help or are too complicated.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 09:06:07 AM by Denis Sirenko »

Offline Matt

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 3205
  • I'm the crazy one
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #236 on: April 28, 2018, 12:47:02 AM »
I adhere to the idea that if there is not enough contrast (or something else), then you need to achieve the desired effect by adjusting the scene, and not using post-processing

Many people like to do this, but consider the fact that many photographs look the way they do because of the way the film/process/sensor reacts to different levels of incoming light after the universe has summed all the light together. If you're making a texture for a game where the engine has its own post processing then you should output linear EXR and then evaluate how your texture as it appears in game. But if you're making standalone finished pieces then post processing is an important dimension to consider when making your digital art look different from someone else's. If you ignore the importance of post processing you are limiting yourself to just one point along this dimension. Light works in a particular way in the renderer to simulate what the universe does (adds light purely on a linear scale), so some things are only possible with post processing.

Matt
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 12:49:00 AM by Matt »
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Offline Denis Sirenko

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #237 on: April 28, 2018, 08:16:17 AM »
I adhere to the idea that if there is not enough contrast (or something else), then you need to achieve the desired effect by adjusting the scene, and not using post-processing

Many people like to do this, but consider the fact that many photographs look the way they do because of the way the film/process/sensor reacts to different levels of incoming light after the universe has summed all the light together. If you're making a texture for a game where the engine has its own post processing then you should output linear EXR and then evaluate how your texture as it appears in game. But if you're making standalone finished pieces then post processing is an important dimension to consider when making your digital art look different from someone else's. If you ignore the importance of post processing you are limiting yourself to just one point along this dimension. Light works in a particular way in the renderer to simulate what the universe does (adds light purely on a linear scale), so some things are only possible with post processing.

Matt

Matt, thanks for the comment! Perhaps in my report, I did not place enough emphasis on the fact that I do not attach much importance to post-processing inside the Terragen, and not post-processing at all. In Photoshop, I then perform the exposure up and down, increasing or decreasing the contrast and saturation. And the text you quoted may not fully express what I wanted to say. It was supposed to end with something like this ".. before you were convinced of the physical reliability of the scene.". In other words, I prefer to process that photo that was obtained with a working camera, rather than the one that was obtained with a camera having a sensitivity dip somewhere in the middle of the brightness range.

Online WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2359
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #238 on: April 29, 2018, 04:44:43 AM »
I adhere to the idea that if there is not enough contrast (or something else), then you need to achieve the desired effect by adjusting the scene, and not using post-processing

Many people like to do this, but consider the fact that many photographs look the way they do because of the way the film/process/sensor reacts to different levels of incoming light after the universe has summed all the light together. If you're making a texture for a game where the engine has its own post processing then you should output linear EXR and then evaluate how your texture as it appears in game. But if you're making standalone finished pieces then post processing is an important dimension to consider when making your digital art look different from someone else's. If you ignore the importance of post processing you are limiting yourself to just one point along this dimension. Light works in a particular way in the renderer to simulate what the universe does (adds light purely on a linear scale), so some things are only possible with post processing.

Matt

Matt, thanks for the comment! Perhaps in my report, I did not place enough emphasis on the fact that I do not attach much importance to post-processing inside the Terragen, and not post-processing at all. In Photoshop, I then perform the exposure up and down, increasing or decreasing the contrast and saturation. And the text you quoted may not fully express what I wanted to say. It was supposed to end with something like this ".. before you were convinced of the physical reliability of the scene.". In other words, I prefer to process that photo that was obtained with a working camera, rather than the one that was obtained with a camera having a sensitivity dip somewhere in the middle of the brightness range.

Regardless of what approach is better, the results can't be argued with, what you are doing is working rather well, though like Matt said, if this is going to be used in a engine, linear EXR is definitely the way to (at least with modern games). I know older engines would use textures/backdrops but this is becoming more dynamic with the use of high range shaders.

The chromatic aberration effect really adds to it imo. I've always like it.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 05:10:42 AM by WASasquatch »
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Denis Sirenko

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #239 on: April 29, 2018, 07:13:13 AM »
Regardless of what approach is better, the results can't be argued with, what you are doing is working rather well, though like Matt said, if this is going to be used in a engine, linear EXR is definitely the way to (at least with modern games). I know older engines would use textures/backdrops but this is becoming more dynamic with the use of high range shaders.

What two approaches are you talking about? I also like Matt do not deny the importance of post-processing. Simply, I say that post-processing should be POST, that is, when we have already received a realistic model and now we want to achieve artistic expressiveness. But I, as usual, could misunderstand some things, because my English is not perfect. In addition, my position is my general approach, which may have exceptions or even be the basis for a different approach. For example, you can wipe the lens of the camera with sandpaper and take pictures, with a grunge claim - in this case, post processing is included in the main process of creating the image. Although by definition can not be called "post-processing", however, in essence it is it.

Our game engine has some post-processing, but it will not affect the contrast or brightness of the picture. In addition, those images (that I'm sharing here) are not the ones that will go for our background, for example I can not do aberrations or make nebulae so bright.

The chromatic aberration effect really adds to it imo. I've always like it.

Yes thank you! I love aberrations. It's great that someone noticed this ) And here I have a legitimate reason to use them - on all real space images and can be seen quite well.

 

anything