Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Stars

  1. #1
    Newbie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Idaho Falls, ID
    Posts
    8

    Stars

    How do you make partigon stars look more like fuzzy points of light instead of... POINTS? Every space scene I've attempted clearly looks fake because of it; like badly-colored confetti spread across black linoleum.

  2. #2
    You could render your partigons as a separate pass, then composite them into your scene later (blurring them in the process).

    Or, if you wanted to do it all in Lightwave, you could add a regular emitter, then apply Hypervoxels to them using sprites. The sprite can be a soft disc graphic that you can make yourself or just mess with the Hypervoxel settings themselves.

  3. #3
    Registered User ShawnStovall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,229
    If you have LW 9 you could use Pixie Dust.
    Triboot-

    XP:Work, play, ect.
    Vista:... I don't know.
    Ubuntu: Developing on Linux also...

    Pentium 4 2.8 GH
    GeForce 7600 256 MB AGP 8x
    Driver:163.75(WinXP)
    1 GB RAM

  4. #4
    NewTek Developer jameswillmott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    3,168
    Pixie Dust works well, if it's a backdrop you want, try a Textured Environment using Crust, 20mm for the scale and coverage of about 0.1 and set colour to white.

  5. #5
    May the sauce be with you starbase1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    5,571
    Hyperstars is an excellent value plugin, and works very well. IOptions of accurate or randon positions.

    For still images I have some free high res backdrops you can grab...
    Nick
    Faith is the opposite of Intelligence.

    Touched by his noodley appendage!
    My Lightwave Graphics & Downloads!!!

  6. #6
    ShortsightedSithAssassin
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,948
    Definitely recommend Hyperstars. If you do space scenes regularly, it's a really cool plug-in. Dead easy to use, too. Check out the examples.

    http://www.ficatech.com/

  7. #7
    Caged but Happy lwaddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Central Valley, CA
    Posts
    947
    Or you could use Digital Confusion or Depth of Field...the way we do it...
    then, pretty much everything 1 kilometer out blurrs the way they should.

    Note: Even space dust and debris look better using this trick.
    "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."
    - Thomas A. Edison

  8. #8
    Registered User Andyjaggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,327
    Using som DOF usually works really well for giving the stars a slightly softer look.

  9. #9
    Super Member avkills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,363
    Just bought Hyperstars and yes it is a lot easier than trying to use single point polygons or Pixie Dust or anything else.

    Best of all it works in all camera modes.

    -mark

  10. #10
    Registered User Andyjaggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,327
    I just checkout out the hyperstar plugin and it does look really cool. Next time I do a space scene I will have to consider buying it.

  11. #11
    Another way that I've used is to place a basic distant light at a far distance and aimed at the camera.

    Turn off affecting all objects, etc.

    Apply a volumetric with a fractal pattern squished on the Z dimension - about 5-10% of the X and Y dimension for starters.

    Tweak the Lucanity, etc. for the needed appearance.

    byte_fx

  12. #12
    Triglycerous Gluteous Dave Jerrard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Burbank
    Posts
    1,061
    With Partigons and SPPs, make them luminous, but 0% diffuse. I'd also make them with Additive Transparency. This way, they work well with stuff like nebulae or anything else they might pass in front of without looking like darker dots.

    Also, to make variations in brightness, don't use Lumnosity - use Particle Size/Line Thickness and make multiple layers or objects for different star magnitudes. Here's an example of a starfield I did several years ago using these techniques and a photo I took of that same area of the sky.






    He Who Thinks These Are Pretty Darned Close.
    Last edited by Dave Jerrard; 10-12-2006 at 10:34 AM. Reason: Do you people have any idea how long I've been waiting on you? Next time, if you're not here in thirty minutes or less, I expect a free dead body... or at least some garlic knots.
    - Any typos are the result of a creative, yet rebellious keyboard.

    ASUS KGPE-D16 MB
    2 AMD Opteron 6272 CPUs
    32GB Kingston KVR1333D3D4R9S RAM
    EVGA|01G-P3-1556-KR GTX550Ti video card

  13. #13
    May the sauce be with you starbase1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    5,571
    As someone who studied astronomy at university, I'm rather impressed!

    The main things I would suggest are:

    1. The fainter stars are too bright, and should be on the limit of visibility

    2. The colours are too strong for naked eye appearance, (though I note the spectral types appear correct!), particularly the blues.

    (Mind you, colour balance of astronomical objects is notoriously subjective).

    How do they look with motion blur?

    I did something very roughly equivalent in Povray many years ago - the other advantage of additive I learned doing that is that it makes multiple stars look a LOT better. Otherwise double stars too close to separate come out too faint. What catalogue did you use?

    Nick.

    (He who would pay for the files if they popped up on Renderosity!)
    Faith is the opposite of Intelligence.

    Touched by his noodley appendage!
    My Lightwave Graphics & Downloads!!!

  14. #14
    Triglycerous Gluteous Dave Jerrard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Burbank
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by starbase1
    As someone who studied astronomy at university, I'm rather impressed!
    Thanks. I'm more of a hobbyist, or backyard astronomer myself.




    1. The fainter stars are too bright, and should be on the limit of visibility
    Well, I didn't have the best source material to go by, and I didn't spend any serious amount of time on this. I whipped up a solution a few years back for a movie (Interceptor Force 2) that had a long space sequence.



    2. The colours are too strong for naked eye appearance, (though I note the spectral types appear correct!), particularly the blues.

    (Mind you, colour balance of astronomical objects is notoriously subjective).
    Yep. When I rendered that image, I was going for the same look I had in the photograph, which was about a 20 second exposure. If I can get that color balance close, then it's easy enough to get the more desaturated look (which I also have a photograph of).


    How do they look with motion blur?
    They're particles, so you really need Particle Blur turned on. They break up like crazy without it. Unfortunately, the method LW uses for this results in an inaccurate brightening of the stars as they streak, where they should actually dim. But since these are objects, it's easy enough to dissolve them to simulate this effect. Maybe the new motion blur will take care of this automatically in the next release.

    What catalogue did you use?
    Ummm. Would you believe ActualStars.lwo? I just took that, split it into multiple layers, one layer per magnitude, and then added a couple layers of random points to fill in for the fainter stars. For certain stars, like those in Orion, I actually went in and applied colors by hand. To finish it off, I added a few nebula panels here & there.

    Now that I do most of my rendering with the new cameras, I need to find another way of doing these. That is, until NewTek gets points and edges to render in the new cameras. So far, I've tried both Pixie Dust and HV Sprites with half decent results, but they do tend to take a bit longer to render.


    (He who would pay for the files if they popped up on Renderosity!)

    He WHo Has These Kicking Around Somewhere...
    Last edited by Dave Jerrard; 10-12-2006 at 03:32 PM. Reason: Gosh, now I'm too proud of you to be mad at you.
    - Any typos are the result of a creative, yet rebellious keyboard.

    ASUS KGPE-D16 MB
    2 AMD Opteron 6272 CPUs
    32GB Kingston KVR1333D3D4R9S RAM
    EVGA|01G-P3-1556-KR GTX550Ti video card

  15. #15
    May the sauce be with you starbase1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    5,571
    I did an LW star field way back in LW5.6 (I think) using a cuple of thousand small lens flares! They blurred OK...

    I also prebviously managed to get the Yale bright star catalogue into LW, and that has spectral types in, whoch should make it possile to colour automatically. Let me know ifyou have another crack at it, I may be able to help.

    Nick
    Faith is the opposite of Intelligence.

    Touched by his noodley appendage!
    My Lightwave Graphics & Downloads!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •