What it lacks me in Celesia

General discussion about Celestia that doesn't fit into other forums.
granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years

Post #21by granthutchison » 21.04.2004, 22:07

selden wrote:I think Toki is referring to the halo that Celestia draws (flare.jpg). It's a counter-example to the stated desire for Celestia not to show lens eflects.
But Cormoran is right,whichever direction Toki is reasoning in ... the one lens effect we do need to reproduce (given that we can't crank up the screen brightness to realistic solar levels!) is the flare we get from the lenses of our own eyes when we look at a bright source against a dark background. That's what flare.jpg is trying to do - fool us into thinking we're looking at a brighter object than we really are. Chris has also spoken about other effects that might be used to improve that particular perceptual cue ... like washing out the rest of the screen when very bright sources are in frame.

Grant

Toti
Developer
Posts: 338
Joined: 10.02.2004
With us: 20 years 9 months

Post #22by Toti » 21.04.2004, 22:50

toki wrote:Well, look at sun, there is a big Halo around her, and you looking with no lens!

I always thought that this was a compromise between a retinal-flashing simulation (because of proximity to an intense light source) and the need to actually see the star (so the flare shouldn't blind the viewer completely).

Current common video hardware only allows for integer frame buffers (with some exceptions). In HDR capable cards (floating point color depth frame buffers, 4 channels) retinal overexposition effects would be much more realistic...
..and an "automatic iris" mode will be necessary.

Bye

Cormoran
Posts: 198
Joined: 28.07.2003
With us: 21 years 4 months
Location: Slartibartfast's Shed, London

Post #23by Cormoran » 21.04.2004, 23:03

Thanks Selden, I don't feel quite so dumb now :D

Cormoran
'...Gold planets, Platinum Planets, Soft rubber planets with lots of earthquakes....' The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, Page 634784, Section 5a. Entry: Magrathea

bh
Posts: 1547
Joined: 17.12.2002
With us: 21 years 11 months
Location: Oxford, England

Post #24by bh » 22.04.2004, 00:26

Every star is a light source...it would (in my opinion) be impossible to create dynamic lighting for this reason! If you want a nice effect you're gonna have to photoshop it! Lets see em!

Have I lost the thread on this...if so ...sorry!

Paul
Posts: 152
Joined: 13.02.2002
With us: 22 years 9 months
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post #25by Paul » 23.04.2004, 09:08

Toti wrote:Current common video hardware only allows for integer frame buffers (with some exceptions). In HDR capable cards (floating point color depth frame buffers, 4 channels) retinal overexposition effects would be much more realistic...
..and an "automatic iris" mode will be necessary.


I think that you would need more than a HDR capable card - you would need HDR-equivalent screen technology that can actually present the larger dynamic range to your eyes. I'm certainly looking forward to such a technology... just imagine, a sky that looks truly dark and stars that look truly bright, right there on your screen :-)

Cheers,
Paul

jestr
Posts: 612
Joined: 14.09.2003
With us: 21 years 2 months
Location: Bridgwater,UK

Post #26by jestr » 23.04.2004, 09:15

Do you think we might get a suntan if we spend too long near the sun ?Jestr


Return to “Celestia Users”