Here is the background stars project for you to use in your project. Comes with a switcher group for enviro light and background object (for daytime, though you could also just animate/increase horizon fade. Default camera, and a exposed camera to compliment the exposed enviro light.
Project is setup for speed in mind, so some fidelity over previous versions may be lost.
Request Access: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gJyfIwWRTtqjoN0Io8RSVtJxiYA51N6i/view
Previews of the project below, or 4k sample of pre-final here: https://www.3denv.com/images/2019/12/23/Night-Sky-Test-5-Rawa98d35b06b0267cf.jpg
Thanks for sharing this, WAS. But why is google requesting access permission? Isn't there a simpler way to share?
Btw. I found out why you may have had faster renders than I had initially; depends on the size of the stars. Yesterday I enlarged them to 50.000k (from 100m), and rendertime dropped dramatically.
Quote from: Dune on December 25, 2019, 02:51:23 AMThanks for sharing this, WAS. But why is google requesting access permission? Isn't there a simpler way to share?
Btw. I found out why you may have had faster renders than I had initially; depends on the size of the stars. Yesterday I enlarged them to 50.000k (from 100m), and rendertime dropped dramatically.
Hmm I guess that may sorta make sense. The sampler maybe spending more time trying to figure out what's a star?
I have been using Google request system because I had found some of my work on Warez-BB being shipped with illegal Terragen, and was not happy. My cement shaders and other specifically "licensed" stuff with no license. So figured I'd use the request feature for shares moving forward. I can see who wants download files. I often get 10+ requests a day on various files here I moved to requests. With this I have a paper trail like receipts of I need to contact anyone. I was going to setup a website and shopping system but figured all the fields would be even worse.
As a note, one thing I know probably won't translate well to any sort of animation is probably the galaxy noise multiplication. I made it fairly big hoping it would, but my hopes aren't high. I suppose I could test... Not sure why I don't.
I understand, and it seems a wise decision to do so. I wonder how many requests you'll get.... nice way to test the involvement with TG of (unknown) visitors.
Animating certainly has it's problem as Dorian and I found out; stars flickering like fireworks. So eventually a separately rendered still background will be comped in the animation.
Quote from: Dune on December 26, 2019, 01:37:31 AMI understand, and it seems a wise decision to do so. I wonder how many requests you'll get.... nice way to test the involvement with TG of (unknown) visitors.
Animating certainly has it's problem as Dorian and I found out; stars flickering like fireworks. So eventually a separately rendered still background will be comped in the animation.
Seems 18 people so far. I recognized few emails as members, and a couple seemed like spam so didn't send it. Can't imagine numbers and random letters is a valid persons working email. I wouldn't be able to remember that.
You're probably right, and that is probably a far better method to get it in a animation.
There should be a way to distinguish spam from real, but not this way, I guess. Like people having to write something real.
18 is quite much, given the dead silence here. Too bad these people just grab and never show and contribute.
Probably a spam database I can refer to. See if the email has been reported for spam/phishing or anything.
And yeah I have thought that a lot. I routinely get requests from a lot of people new people. Still curious how mine renders. The dimensions are quite large on stuff so most stars are actual circles (at proper resolution)
So I did a animation at 1/4 Sampling level, and 0.005 pixel threshold, with AA on Cubic B-Spline, which I read is good for particles that "stutter". It honestly doesn't look half bad, but is much to fast to really tell much, and the motion blur was left on. So doing another 30 frame render instead of 10. May need to up the resolution though, we'll see if 720p isn't working.
The mp4 is from ffmpeg and will likely only play on VLC/MPC or if you have K-Lite video codec pack installed for native windows. Slowing it down as far as I can go I notice a few streeks coming in and out but they seem to be following correct path, and the brighter stars seem to be holding position.
Had a drink too much when operating that cam? :P
Spin, twirl, and zoom. Stars look pretty much fine at 720p. :) Minimal twinkle, and only coming from the small fainter stars so looks natural imo. They would be twinkling. Galaxy noise should probably be disabled or enlarged for animation. Doesn't look the best.
I do believe Cubic B-Spline really healps. Doing reading last night, the edge correction of default, or even sharp AA, will cause shape deformation and hard edges to create a lot of change in light. Cubic B-Spline softens the edges and helps mask that effect.
Yes, this convinces me! The problem with the (my) stars Dorian used, was probably because some noise had 4D noise checked.
Quote from: Dune on December 27, 2019, 11:53:57 AMYes, this convinces me! The problem with the (my) stars Dorian used, was probably because some noise had 4D noise checked.
Indeed, I do think we would probably be best compositing the sky still though. Higher MPD and AA settings will only help, and I imagine Cubic B-Spline on terrain may be a little too muddled, especially vegetation.
Request waits
Sorry if it takes me a few hours to get to your requests. I'll have to note this in the future. It seems in an effort to get you to use Google One (or some other account subscription) google is no longer sending request emails live, but all at once at 5:00AM, when I'm asleep for another hour or two. It took me a couple days to catch on to why I wasn't getting barraged with tons of emails at once waking up. Ironically after cancelling Google One before Christmas.
Great results here! I am quite convinced by the animation tests, this looks really clean. How many AA were this rendered at? And how fast was it?
Quote from: KyL on December 30, 2019, 12:31:04 PMGreat results here! I am quite convinced by the animation tests, this looks really clean. How many AA were this rendered at? And how fast was it?
I honestly didn't test AA thoroughly. I just did research on AA and found Cubic B-Spline was best for this, and additionally a small pixel sampling which I translated to pixel noise threshold (???). So I used 1/4 samples as Oshyan suggested with pixel noise threshold at 0.005. Render times were pretty high at about an 1hr or less each. AA was at 7. Though take into account my dedicated server is only using half of it's 24 threads effeciently with the Terragen Linux Node. I can't figure out why. So I get about double render time of my Ryzen 5 2600 when it should be comparable.
I will do another test with lower settings.
I'd imagine for atmospheric shots you'd only need to slightly pan/zoom for most scenarios and comp it in, which would mean you wouldn't need as nearly as many frames as the foreground planet shot.
At that low of a pixel noise threshold it may be getting close to "max samples" for practical purposes. I'd be curious how much difference there is between the two actually. Also note that any flicker would be hard to really see with this relatively quick camera move. Flicker is likely to be worst with slower movement. Still it's a great result and does seem to be pretty stable.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on December 30, 2019, 03:10:30 PMAt that low of a pixel noise threshold it may be getting close to "max samples" for practical purposes. I'd be curious how much difference there is between the two actually. Also note that any flicker would be hard to really see with this relatively quick camera move. Flicker is likely to be worst with slower movement. Still it's a great result and does seem to be pretty stable.
- Oshyan
You should be able to slow down the video and examine the frames. And I don't think what you're saying is true, as inherently the largest difference in samples would happen at a greater distance. A slower pan would just allow you to visually
see this happening easier. You can see there is twinkle in the denser faint stars, which is the small stars PF, which is only at 220000, which I have increased to 350000 in my next test. Normal stars are around 750000 with a min of 500000 and seem fine.
I did a test at 0.6 MPD and 0.6 AA with 0/16 samples and 0.04 pixel threshold (which was more or less what it set automatically minus the trailing numbers which I trimmed. It was like 0.0436210 or something.). This one took 4 hours and 13 minutes. However, like I suspected, it's not stable, and is a fireworks show.
So unfortunately, it does matter having MPD at 1 and having higher AA with tighter sampling. Ironically it seems stars of the same dimensions are more stable with a colour merged around them (the galaxy glow spread).
Well, that's something. I just noticed that the sparse stars were at 70000 instead of 700000 too for scale and lead-in, that doesn't help anything.
Excellent works!
Thanks again for your great generosity! :D
Salut, WAS, je suis bien intéressé par ton ciel et je vais envoyer une demande en attendant la réponse, justement, je cherchais ce genre de ciel pour terragen et unrealengine.
Si, j'ai le droit d'utiliser pour ça ? Et, j'envoie un message sympathique pour le recevoir en partit ? S'il vousp plaît, merci d'avance.
Ca fait longtemps que je suis plus revenus içi, c'est vrai ça me manque un peu de pas refaire d'image içi. ^^
---
Hi, WAS, I am very interested in your sky and I will send a request while waiting for the answer, precisely, I was looking for this kind of sky for terragen and unrealengine.
If I have the right to use for that?
And, I send a friendly message to receive it in part?
Please, thank you in advance. It's been a long time since I came back here, it's true I miss a little not redoing an image here. ^^
Iam sorry if is bad translate, by google translate. ;D
I have sent you the file. You are free to use it however you like, commercially or otherwise (within the scope of Terragen license agreement and terms of use). Enjoy.
Looks awesome WAS!
Hey WAS,
I don't know if the link is still alive, but I've sent a request :)
This Milky Way and starry sky is probably the best I've seen so far
Cheers
Szabolcs
Quote from: szmatefy on June 22, 2023, 02:36:19 AMHey WAS,
I don't know if the link is still alive, but I've sent a request :)
This Milky Way and starry sky is probably the best I've seen so far
Cheers
Szabolcs
I made the link public now.