Page 1 of 1

A glimpse on the new 8k TitanTexture

Posted: 14.01.2007, 01:01
by t00fri
Hi,

I was just curious as to the improvement of resolution from the new Dec 2006 8k Titan texture, recently published by Cyclops

http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=2394

So I cut it out, rescaled it a bit, offset the texture by width/2, colored it orange and compared a small area in the respective Celestia displays with the present default texture. Here is the result. The top image is NEW.

Image

Not bad, not bad, but lots of cleaning up work...

Bye Fridger

Posted: 14.01.2007, 02:00
by ElChristou
Not bad at all!

Posted: 16.01.2007, 21:59
by t00fri
However, there seems to be little point to get started with this tedious task "OFFICIALLY", since the Celestia-default distribution has textures limited to 2k in size and a hires package will take ages before it's ready.

So I will either postpone this or do the 8k Titan texture just for my own pleasure...

Bye Fridger

Posted: 16.01.2007, 22:43
by ElChristou
t00fri wrote:However, there seems to be little point to get started with this tedious task "OFFICIALLY", since the Celestia-default distribution has textures limited to 2k in size and a hires package will take ages before it's ready.


The 2k limit is not the problem, it's just that no one with big config seems to be interested in doing such highres package... :x (too bad I don't have such config... (cannot manipulate easely more than 8k maps))

Posted: 16.01.2007, 22:58
by t00fri
ElChristou wrote:
t00fri wrote:However, there seems to be little point to get started with this tedious task "OFFICIALLY", since the Celestia-default distribution has textures limited to 2k in size and a hires package will take ages before it's ready.

The 2k limit is not the problem, it's just that no one with big config seems to be interested in doing such highres package... :x (too bad I don't have such config... (cannot manipulate easely more than 8k maps))


The reason is quite simple and we already had a glimpse of it: smells of quarrel about whose images will be used after all. This is bound to happen if the hires package will be done as a community effort.

Also it needs plenty of experience with handling reprojection software etc! Not just image manipulation know how and a kingsize config.
.
Bye Fridger

Posted: 16.01.2007, 23:40
by ElChristou
t00fri wrote:...Also it needs plenty of experience with handling reprojection software etc! Not just image manipulation know how and a kingsize config...


Yep... ...and I'm still wanting to learn on this topic... (do you remember?)

Posted: 17.01.2007, 18:23
by rthorvald
t00fri wrote:The reason is quite simple and we already had a glimpse of it: smells of quarrel about whose images will be used after all. This is bound to happen if the hires package will be done as a community effort.


I don??t quite understand this. Surely, a *real* hi-res package should use the same source for graphics as the existing lores one? Or maybe this information don??t exist as hi-res data...

I think this should be turned upside down: the official textures should be produced in as high a resolution as possible, then scaled down. This will also give us a resource base to work with for the future. Doing it the other way will soon become difficult to keep track of.

Of course, this means a lot of work will have to be re-done. But what is the hurry... Not everything needs to be replaced at once. I??d be happy if 1.6 featured just *one* hi-res map. Besides, many objects do not have any hi-res info to work with at all today, so this package would take many years to complete anyway.

This means there will NOT be any discussion as to whose textures to use. It will just be a question of who has the time...

- rthorvald

Posted: 17.01.2007, 19:26
by t00fri
rthorvald wrote:
t00fri wrote:The reason is quite simple and we already had a glimpse of it: smells of quarrel about whose images will be used after all. This is bound to happen if the hires package will be done as a community effort.

I don??t quite understand this. Surely, a *real* hi-res package should use the same source for graphics as the existing lores one? Or maybe this information don??t exist as hi-res data...

I think this should be turned upside down: the official textures should be produced in as high a resolution as possible, then scaled down. This will also give us a resource base to work with for the future. Doing it the other way will soon become difficult to keep track of.

Of course, this means a lot of work will have to be re-done. But what is the hurry... Not everything needs to be replaced at once. I??d be happy if 1.6 featured just *one* hi-res map. Besides, many objects do not have any hi-res info to work with at all today, so this package would take many years to complete anyway.

This means there will NOT be any discussion as to whose textures to use. It will just be a question of who has the time...

- rthorvald


Runar,

at present the maximum size of the default textures is limited to ONLY 2k! So even 4k textures would count as hires! There is virtually no major moon in our system where we don't have >= 4k imaging available.

As to the quarrels, let me just remind you of the recent one associated with the discussion about the surface color of Venus! When I am insisting I usually have some physics arguments in my mind. See e.g. a later summary here:

http://www.celestiaproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10611

I have a long recorded list of such disputes, notably also related to the treatments of LOK=limit of knowledge.

As a further example, take the texture of the Saturn rings.

A number of people have tried to do "better" than the Celestia default. There were hefty disputes, since some texture creators simply did not want to realize that there are two totally disjunct data sets that need to be implemented: the ring transparency measured from Earth via a star's transit across the rings

http://pds-rings.arc.nasa.gov/ringocc/ringocc.html

and the ring albedo that can be reconstructed from Cassini imaging. With lots of effort Grant Hutchison and I have reconstructed the rings from both these data sources .

Of course it is tempting to "create" larger sized ring textures from the more recent Cassini imaging alone. Yet the corresponding transparency is lacking and hence imagination has to replace the lacking data...

As concerns myself, I am not willing to make any compromises ending in the type of chunk textures found in dozens on the Motherlode...Since I am aware that many users wouldn't care for this amount of rigor, I keep going on in 'private' since a long time.

Actually, I personally use few planetary textures (beyond the default ones) that I have not made myself for Celestia according to strict criteria. Only some have been uploaded into the community. The reasons should be obvious: My textures are usually large, I deeply dislike the Motherlode concept and there is no other convenient storage so far. ;-)

Bye Fridger

Posted: 24.01.2007, 09:46
by chris
An 8k Titan map seems like an ideal project for Celestial Matters :)

--Chris

Posted: 24.01.2007, 10:24
by t00fri
chris wrote:An 8k Titan map seems like an ideal project for Celestial Matters :)

--Chris


First this crucial issue

http://www.celestiaproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10611

about the correlation between atmospheres and surface colors has to be solved before it's worth getting into this more seriously.


Bye Fridger

Posted: 17.03.2007, 16:34
by scalbers
Greetings,

Glad to see this recent discussion about Titan textures. I still enjoy using Fridger's 4k texture from a couple of years ago. As pointed out above the new official one has many updated images, though it has more artifacts than Fridger's older one. For me personally, even a 4k texture having Fridger's image blending techniques with the newer data would be really neat to see, particularly with the new image of the north polar sea.

Over on the Unmannedspaceflight.com forum, there is an overlay of the north polar sea image on the official Dec 2006 map.

I suppose one quick and dirty thing I could do is somehow blend regions from Fridger's map of a couple of years ago with the newer map from the previous paragraph? I suppose there are a myriad number of ways to proceed and each might have to choose their opinion of the "best".