(http://temp.theglasseye.nl/earth2.jpg)
Something I've been playing with because of a thread about planet maps. The original earth texture is 21600 x 10800, but TG2 just told me it couldn't load that, so I downscaled it 50% (10800x5400). Is there a maximum resolution TG2 supports?
Other facts: used a cloud coverage map as a filter for the cloud distribution. used a mask image to put a water surface on the oceans. If you look carefully at Spain you'll see the reflection of the sun in the water there.
Just can't figure out where the line in the atmosphere is coming from. It seems to follow the light/shadow border.
That line is a known bug - I'm not sure if anyone has found a workaround for it. You beat me to this, by the way - I just started playing with an Earth image about half an hour ago ;).
Nice image. We've seen the atmosphere/cloud banding issue before but I don't recall the steps to reproduce it. I presume it occurs without the Earth texturing. If so can you share the .tgd file for diagnoses?
- Oshyan
I cleaned out the file and came to the conclusion it's the altocumulus layer that is causing the problem. Turning off that layer makes the problem go away, but then there's no clouds :P. I've attached the minimal tgd for your reference.
That is a wierd error, and a very nice picture...
The banding appears to be a shading error. It will be fixed in a future release.
- Oshyan
Well, I solved it for now. I had the coverage adjust at +0.05. Setting it to zero removed the band.
(http://temp.theglasseye.nl/earth3.jpg)
Also did some small other tweaks to the atmosphere.
Those are some nice-looking planetary cloud formations. Do you mind sharing some of the settings or the .tgd?
Awesome stuff. Thanks for showing.
Cheers,
frank
They look nice because they're actual formations ;D
I got all the images from here, including the image I used as a mask for the cloud layer:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?categoryID=2364
There is some masking going on in the TGD as you will see. I made the mask myself by using one of the earths images and just selecting the water. Made that white, the land is black.
Space renders are quite fast :P image took around 15 mins to render in quality 0.75
Very generous, 3DGuy. Thanks for the additional input.
Perhaps, with some improvements, this image could be a contender for the TG2 logo. However, I am not sure what licence those NASA images are released under...
I did post a version of this on rendo. In that picture the continents are a better visible:
(http://temp.theglasseye.nl/evening.jpg)
I did this by changing the the tickbox for linear data in the image shader.
That's much better. I was thinking of complaining that everything on Earth looked a little too blue in the previous render, but I have never been to space so I was not sure whether I was right or not...
Realistically I would think it should be darker as in the earlier image. You might be able to offset that and also achieve a cool effect by setting up a luminosity map using the "emissive light" maps of Earth like this one: http://www.pruetts.com/images/earth-at-night-1600x1200.jpg
Also Earth *does* look really blue from space. ;D
http://starryskies.com/articles/2003/08/space.station.jpg
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/space-station-earth-view.jpg
- Oshyan
I was thinking it should be something halfway between the second to last and the last image. Also, I did try to use a similar light image, but it just didn't come out nicely. The lightblobs are too.. blurry I guess. I got the ultra high res lightmap image from here: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?categoryID=2364
And how blue it is depends on your view I guess :)
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/earth/earthafr.jpg
I guess I'll keep playing with it for a bit. I'm still looking for a decent gray scale base relief map of the earth. Now I just faked some height by using the earth texture as a displacement map, but to the keen observer it's obviousy wrong. So if anyone knows where to find one, please let me know.
The trick with earth-orbit imagery is that much of it is post processed for "pleasing" or "expected" results. ;D This is true also of the Mars and other planetary imagery. I think that latter Earth image you posted is one that was adjusted. Although it may be more what one might see with the naked eye as we know that differs from what cameras capture...
- Oshyan
True. I've learned doing CGI that it's not always how close you are to reality, but how believable it is to the viewer :) Those things are not the same thing. Just like you said.. "expected results". I'm playing with the scene right now :P
3DGuy. I am a technical illustrator by training (the old fasioned way, Rotring pens and a 000 brush, more years ago than I care to remember :( ) and our TI lecturer used to have a saying that I have found useful over the years. TIs are all a bunch of technical perfectionists, especially when it comes to producing things like exploded views of engines and the like... we would spend ages faffing around trying to get the "correct angle" of elipse for the end of a shaft etc. Our lecturer would shake his head and say "If it looks right, it is right"
I think that this is something that a lot of CG artists seem to forget. It may be an exact reproduction of the object in question, but if it doesn't look quite "right" then, as a finished piece of artwork, its not right. A bit of artistic licence goes a long long way :)
Mr-Miley, that's exactly what I meant with my 1st line. Basically we're saying the same thing :D
I wholeheartedly agree and since 99% of CG is "faked" (i.e. not simulated realistically), I think this is a general maxim of the industry. The only problem with that is what "looks right" can be subjective. ;) In this case I would not have brought up any particular issues I saw if they looked "right" to me. ;D
- Oshyan
I agree too. Thanks for showing me what colour the Earth is mean to be, Oshyan (I should have already known, considering I live here :D).