Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Jason S]

  
  
Joey, that map is amazing, almost like
  exploring space :]  
  (mapped on a sphere and looking around in the viewport.. )
  
  I found that showing the selected env sphere's wireframe at low
  opacity helped to more easily see where the cam is pointing at on
  the map, acting like a grid.
  
  Nancy, Perhaps Joey would correct me?, but I would clone over the
  very big stars, I think those also are infinite points like the
  dimmer ones , but just very bright while just looking big from
  (clamped) long exposure. 
  
  
  Wow Infinite points.. as you said were talking about things the
  size of suns lol.. the fact that things go just as far the other
  way around (like zooming in forever), can also be pretty baffling,
  how can infinity be contained in a spot? isn't that contradictory?
  :] 
  
  
  
  On 06/26/14 14:07, Nancy Jacobs wrote:


  
  
  
  
On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:58 AM, "Ponthieux, Joseph G.
(LARC-E1A)[LITES]" <j.ponthi...@nasa.gov>
wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  
If
  you are using the high res map, the jpeg file
  TychoSkymapII.t5_16384x08192.jpg will work just as
  well as the tiff without the file size overhead. Go to
  the image file’s ADJUST tab and set the Exposure to
  something like 2.0. You’ll be absolutely amazed at
  what is lurking in the lower range of the image.
J

 
  

  
  

  
This
should work equally as well whether you use the
Environment shader that Matt suggested or a sphere
object. If you are using a sphere object though you
should set the material to a constant shader for best
results. I find an exposure of about ~1 to ~1.5 lets
these details show up without making the Milky Way  disc
too obvious.

 
  

  
  
  
  Thanks ill try this! I was using the gamma they
  suggest of 1.8, within SI. It seems to look fairly realistic,
  but without many stars showing. I didn't think of changing the
  exposure (except on the HDR version I made).
  
  
  
  

  
You’ll
also want to avoid looking at either of the poles. The
projection they used does not appear to compensate real
well with a typical spherical UV projection
 
  

  
  
  
  I do need to look at the poles, I need a full 360 spatial
view, unrestricted. I thought I would have to use Flexify on it, but so
far it looks good, on the south pole, though I have to check it
more... 
  
  
  
  

  
From
a personal perspective, to see the universe in this way
and with this level of clarity is really amazing. Our
sun is just one of those dots.
 
  

  
  
  
  Yes, isn't it? And the vastness of space...so much space/time
between all those stars as well. and we are circling only one of
them on our tiny little earth...
  I find when you zoom into the image, more and more stars
appear, and you can see the color shifts present. I would like
to see more of them in the render however, so thank you for the
exposure advice. Gamma adj in SI reduces the sense of depth too
much, the whitish haze there doesn't read well.
  
  
  Nancy 
  
  
  
  

  

  --
  Joey
  Ponthieux
  LaRC
  Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
  Mymic
  Technical Services
  NASA
  Langley Research Center
  __
  Opinions
  stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do
  not
  
  represent
  the opinions of NASA or any other party.

 

  

  From:
  softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
  [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
  On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
  Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:17 AM
  To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
       

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:58 AM, "Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]" 
 wrote:

> If you are using the high res map, the jpeg file 
> TychoSkymapII.t5_16384x08192.jpg will work just as well as the tiff without 
> the file size overhead. Go to the image file’s ADJUST tab and set the 
> Exposure to something like 2.0. You’ll be absolutely amazed at what is 
> lurking in the lower range of the image. J
>  
> This should work equally as well whether you use the Environment shader that 
> Matt suggested or a sphere object. If you are using a sphere object though 
> you should set the material to a constant shader for best results. I find an 
> exposure of about ~1 to ~1.5 lets these details show up without making the 
> Milky Way  disc too obvious.
>  

Thanks ill try this! I was using the gamma they suggest of 1.8, within SI. It 
seems to look fairly realistic, but without many stars showing. I didn't think 
of changing the exposure (except on the HDR version I made).


> You’ll also want to avoid looking at either of the poles. The projection they 
> used does not appear to compensate real well with a typical spherical UV 
> projection
>  

I do need to look at the poles, I need a full 360 spatial view, unrestricted. I 
thought I would have to use Flexify on it, but so far it looks good, on the 
south pole, though I have to check it more... 


> From a personal perspective, to see the universe in this way and with this 
> level of clarity is really amazing. Our sun is just one of those dots.
>  

Yes, isn't it? And the vastness of space...so much space/time between all those 
stars as well. and we are circling only one of them on our tiny little earth...
I find when you zoom into the image, more and more stars appear, and you can 
see the color shifts present. I would like to see more of them in the render 
however, so thank you for the exposure advice. Gamma adj in SI reduces the 
sense of depth too much, the whitish haze there doesn't read well.

Nancy 


> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
> Mymic Technical Services
> NASA Langley Research Center
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
> represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
>  
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:17 AM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Re: Ideas for star fields?
>  
> I'm rendering with Redshift. What I've been experimenting with is to take the 
> star field map I'm using for the background, whether Hubble or now Joey 
> Ponthieux's wonderful suggestion of the NASA star field image. It seems to 
> wrap nicely to a sphere, not much shows up in the render, but it's a good 
> base to work with.
> 
> 
>  

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]]

If you are using the high res map, the jpeg file 
TychoSkymapII.t5_16384x08192.jpg will work just as well as the tiff without the 
file size overhead. Go to the image file’s ADJUST tab and set the Exposure to 
something like 2.0. You’ll be absolutely amazed at what is lurking in the lower 
range of the image. ☺

This should work equally as well whether you use the Environment shader that 
Matt suggested or a sphere object. If you are using a sphere object though you 
should set the material to a constant shader for best results. I find an 
exposure of about ~1 to ~1.5 lets these details show up without making the 
Milky Way  disc too obvious.

You’ll also want to avoid looking at either of the poles. The projection they 
used does not appear to compensate real well with a typical spherical UV 
projection

From a personal perspective, to see the universe in this way and with this 
level of clarity is really amazing. Our sun is just one of those dots.

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:17 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Ideas for star fields?

I'm rendering with Redshift. What I've been experimenting with is to take the 
star field map I'm using for the background, whether Hubble or now Joey 
Ponthieux's wonderful suggestion of the NASA star field image. It seems to wrap 
nicely to a sphere, not much shows up in the render, but it's a good base to 
work with.

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Matt Lind]

Looking at your scene I see redundancy in the setup.  You have a small sphere 
with both reflectivity and an environment shader applied to it.  The larger 
sphere is textured.  The reflection displayed on the small sphere does not 
align with the image seen on the larger sphere.  Is this the problem?
 
To correct the problem:
 
- Make the small sphere reflective (of the environment), and delete the 
environment shader from it's render tree.
- Delete the large sphere.  It's not needed.
- edit the current render pass by applying the environment shader to the 
environment (Render > [Render] Render > Pass options... > Pass shaders).  click 
the "add" button in the environment section and choose the 'environment' 
shader.  
- in the scene explorer, press "U" and select the "Environment" property under 
the "Framebuffers" folder icon.  Then press "7" to open the render tree editor.
- connect a create_transform node to the "transform" input of the environment 
shader (Math > Create_Transform).  The create_transform node is only needed if 
you intend on transforming the environment.  It is not needed for transforms 
applied to the small sphere or camera.
 
Draw a region and render the image.
 
Using this setup I do not see any problems with the environment shaders.  The 
reflection on the small sphere matches the environment shader as expected.  
Rotating the small sphere or the camera also produces expected results.   
 
Script illustrating how to set up the scene from scratch: (JScript)
 
CreatePrim("Sphere", "MeshSurface", null, null);
SetValue("sphere.geomapprox.gapproxmosl", 2, null);
SetValue("sphere.geomapprox.gapproxmordrsl", 2, null);
ApplyShader("$XSI_DSPRESETS\\Shaders\\Material\\Constant.Preset", "", null, "", 
siLetLocalMaterialsOverlap);
SetValue("sphere.Material.Constant.notrace", 1, null);
SetValue("sphere.Material.Constant.invertrefl", true, null);
InspectObj("Passes.Default_Pass", "Pass", null, 1, null);
SIAddArrayElement("Passes.Default_Pass.EnvironmentShaderStack");
SIApplyShaderToCnxPoint2("Softimage.sib_environment.1.0", 
"Passes.Default_Pass.Item", null, null);
SIConnectShaderToCnxPoint("Clips.noIcon_pic", 
"Passes.Default_Pass.Environment.tex", false);
 
 
 
Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>>
 
Matt, I had this problem about a year ago, and the create transform node 
alone wouldn't solve the problem I had of matching a sphere object's 
rotation to the environment rotation (so the env reflections, etc, will 
correspond to the sphere background you are seeing). It works when you 
rotate on Y, but when you rotate on x OR Z it strangely rotates opposite 
how it should. (Maybe what you are using it for is a bit different.) 

Here are the steps I had to take for my purposes: 
1. Make a reversed (horizontally) environment texture to use in the  
environment node. This because the environment intrinsically wraps the 
texture inside the sphere, where the object sphere wraps it by default on 
the outside.  

2. Rotate the texture support of the background object sphere 180 degrees 
on Y.  

3. Parent Background sphere to null, so null rotates it.  

4. Use the null's local x,y,z rot to drive x,y,z rot of the 'create  
transform' node that is piped into the environment on the reflective 
object.  

5. For some reason, this rotates the environment texture the opposite  
direction from the object sphere, so add '-' in front of the resulting 
expressions. 

this works in x, y, and z any way you do it. 

I made a simple but useful sample scene to puzzle this out, if anyone is 
interested it is attached. 

Maybe I'm missing something somewhere, but it seems SI is thinking in two 
different universes when it comes to environment and object rotation. 

thanks, 
Nancy 
  

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

I'm rendering with Redshift. What I've been experimenting with is to take the 
star field map I'm using for the background, whether Hubble or now Joey 
Ponthieux's wonderful suggestion of the NASA star field image. It seems to wrap 
nicely to a sphere, not much shows up in the render, but it's a good base to 
work with.

I use the crystalize filter in photoshop, which seems to create larger facets 
out of the star intensities -- flat shapes of color values -- based on averaged 
pixel information (as far as I can tell), to create an HDR image. You can make 
the facets as large or small as you'd like, and it still approximates something 
from the background source image. So, it is like having as many subtly 
different low lights as you'd like.  I downsize the faceted image, turn it into 
32 bit, and use a saved selection to boost the lighter facets up past 1. This 
makes some nice, slightly varied lighting for the GI, not too demanding of the 
renderer. I love image based lighting for GI, it is fairly simple to create 
whatever kind of HDRI you want in PS these days, it's come a long way in that 
area.  But I will also have some local lights in the scene as well.

The lasers will not be forthcoming. ;-)

I still need to get some nebula-type atmospheric stuff going though... To liven 
things up. Maybe work in some Hubble nebulas or better yet, something that will 
actually drift through the scene.
I'm wishing I were more well-versed in ICE...

Nancy

On Jun 25, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Sylvain Lebeau  wrote:

> Interesting... 
> 
> On a renderer point of view, I wonder how importance sampling will cope with 
> all those bright little spots... 
> In the end, it's just a tiny little fill light. I would defenitly use a 
> manual created direct light source with very low intensity to recreate the 
> "Mystery artistic soft light that shows lasers"
> 
> Of course in such situation nearby a nebula, it's totally different.  
> 
> Are you rendering with Arnold?!
> 
> sly
> 
> 
> Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
> V-P/Visual effects supervisor
> 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
> T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 
> 
> VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
> mail to: s...@shedmtl.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 1:58 AM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jason S  wrote:
>> 
>>> Plus mistery soft light from a galaxies that always happens to be somewhere 
>>> around so that there may be light, with dust in space so we can see lazers 
>>> :)
>> 
>> That's what I'm counting on! That "Mystery soft light". Since what I'm doing 
>> can have a  bit of 'artistic license' ;-)... Though I am making it generally 
>> correspond to the starfield light.
>> 
>> After all, one can see in old paintings the 'heavenly light' thing... Where 
>> you don't really question where it comes from too much if it works in the 
>> painting... (ok so I'm a painter first after all... ;-))
>> 
>> Nancy
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Jason S]

  
  

   "Mystery artistic soft light that shows
lasers"
  
  Lol!  :)
  
  On 06/25/14 21:58, Sylvain Lebeau wrote:


  
  Interesting... 
  
  
  On a renderer point of view, I wonder how importance sampling
will cope with all those bright little spots... 
  In the end, it's just a tiny little fill light. I would
defenitly use a manual created direct light source with very low
intensity to recreate the "Mystery artistic soft light that
shows lasers"
  
  
  Of course in such situation nearby a nebula, it's totally
different.  
  
  
  Are you rendering with Arnold?!
  
  
  sly
  
  
  

  

  Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
  V-P/Visual
  effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE
  MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
  T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 
  
VFX
Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
  mail
to: s...@shedmtl.com
  
  
  
  

  


  
On Jun 25, 2014, at 1:58 AM, Nancy Jacobs 
  wrote:


  
  On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jason S 
  wrote:
  
  Plus mistery soft light from a
galaxies that always happens to be somewhere around so
that there may be light, with dust in space so we can
see lazers :)
  
  
  That's what I'm counting on! That "Mystery soft light".
  Since what I'm doing can have a  bit of 'artistic license'
  ;-)... Though I am making it generally correspond to the
  starfield light.
  
  After all, one can see in old paintings the 'heavenly
  light' thing... Where you don't really question where it
  comes from too much if it works in the painting... (ok so
  I'm a painter first after all... ;-))
  
  Nancy
  
  

  


  


  

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Sylvain Lebeau]

Interesting... 

On a renderer point of view, I wonder how importance sampling will cope with 
all those bright little spots... 
In the end, it's just a tiny little fill light. I would defenitly use a manual 
created direct light source with very low intensity to recreate the "Mystery 
artistic soft light that shows lasers"

Of course in such situation nearby a nebula, it's totally different.  

Are you rendering with Arnold?!

sly


Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
V-P/Visual effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 

VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
mail to: s...@shedmtl.com




> On Jun 25, 2014, at 1:58 AM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jason S  wrote:
> 
>> Plus mistery soft light from a galaxies that always happens to be somewhere 
>> around so that there may be light, with dust in space so we can see lazers :)
> 
> That's what I'm counting on! That "Mystery soft light". Since what I'm doing 
> can have a  bit of 'artistic license' ;-)... Though I am making it generally 
> correspond to the starfield light.
> 
> After all, one can see in old paintings the 'heavenly light' thing... Where 
> you don't really question where it comes from too much if it works in the 
> painting... (ok so I'm a painter first after all... ;-))
> 
> Nancy
> 
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jason S  wrote:

> Plus mistery soft light from a galaxies that always happens to be somewhere 
> around so that there may be light, with dust in space so we can see lazers :)

That's what I'm counting on! That "Mystery soft light". Since what I'm doing 
can have a  bit of 'artistic license' ;-)... Though I am making it generally 
correspond to the starfield light.

After all, one can see in old paintings the 'heavenly light' thing... Where you 
don't really question where it comes from too much if it works in the 
painting... (ok so I'm a painter first after all... ;-))

Nancy

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Jason S]

  
  
Plus mistery soft light from a galaxies
  that always happens to be somewhere around so that there may be
  light, with dust in space so we can see lazers :)
  
  On 06/24/14 22:42, Sylvain Lebeau wrote:


  
  also Lighting form a starfield is a bit futile 
  
  
  You got sun.and not much else... It can be played by eyes
easly 
  
  
  
  
  Check out for the After effects plug in then!!
  
  
  sly
  
  
  

  

  Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
  V-P/Visual
  effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE
  MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
  T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 
  

  


VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
  mail
to: s...@shedmtl.com
  
  
  
  

  


  
On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Sylvain Lebeau 
  wrote:


  
  Ohhh but
there is an AFX plug in too!!...



  

  
Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
V-P/Visual effects supervisor
  1410,
RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A
1P8
T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 

  

  
  
  VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing
  Basics
mail to: s...@shedmtl.com




  

  
  

  On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Nancy Jacobs

wrote:
  
  

  
  
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E
ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
  
  


  

  
  

  

  


  


  

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Sylvain Lebeau]

also Lighting form a starfield is a bit futile 

You got sun.and not much else... It can be played by eyes easly 


Check out for the After effects plug in then!!

sly


Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
V-P/Visual effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 





VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
mail to: s...@shedmtl.com




> On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Sylvain Lebeau  wrote:
> 
> Ohhh but there is an AFX plug in too!!...
> 
> 
> Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
> V-P/Visual effects supervisor
> 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
> T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
> mail to: s...@shedmtl.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
>> 
>>> 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Sylvain Lebeau]

Ohhh but there is an AFX plug in too!!...


Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
V-P/Visual effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 





VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
mail to: s...@shedmtl.com




> On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
> 
>> 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Ed Manning]

D'oh!

YEARS I've wasted not knowing this.

And of course now the knowledge has an expiration date.


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:

> You don't need expressions.  The rotation can be corrected with a
> create_transform node:
>
> 1) Render > [Render] Render > Pass Options...
> 2) In the pass PPG, click the Environment's "Add" button and choosing
> "Environment" shader from the popup dialog.  Double click the shader to
> inspect in a PPG.
> - choose your image
> - adjust shader settings as desired.
> 3) Open scene explorer and press "U" to inspect the current pass.
> 4) Select the "Environment" property under the pass root.
> 5) Press "7" to open the rendertree.  You should see the blue
> "Environment" shader connected to the orange current Pass.  Your image clip
> should be connected to the "tex" input of the environment shader.
> 6) From the shader presets, click and drag Processing > Math >
> Create_transform into the rendertree workspace.  Connect its output to the
> "transform" input of the environment shader.
> - adjust transform as desired.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:27 PM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Re: Ideas for star fields?
>
> Good point, if I use expressions to correct the rotation problems re the
> environment map and any SI world null rotation parameters... They have to
> be connected in a strange manner, at least as of 2014. Don't imagine
> they've fixed that...
>
> Thanks,
> Nancy
>
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:
>
> > If you're just going to create a sphere with specks on it, why don't you
> use an environment shader?  That does the same work without having to
> create a sphere, deal with camera rigs, or mess up your ray depth
> computations in the render.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of
> > Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:25 AM
> > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> > Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> >
> > Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field
> sphere position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation
> to remain in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the
> stars out as a pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By
> doing this the "stars" will always maintain an exact distance from the
> camera and since stars are such an incredible distance from us in space the
> illusion is remarkably similar. It will also make the appearance of the
> stars much more predictable as you can set them for what you want and you
> no longer have to worry about that appearance changing other than camera
> orientation.
> >
> > --
> > Joey Ponthieux
> > LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical
> > Services NASA Langley Research Center
> > __________________
> > Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
> represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> >> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G.
> >> (LARC- E1A)[LITES]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM
> >> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> >> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> >>
> >> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are
> >> high res and beautiful but often are only representative of a single
> >> focal point in space. What you want is a "star map" that is a
> >> cylindrical projection suited for your sphere. You will find the maps
> >> you need at this link. In particular the high res Tycho maps are
> probably what you want.
> >>
> >> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
> >>
> >> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center
> >> of your sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars.
> >> You'll see the "

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Jason S]

  
  
No prob :)  Also do early tests (with
  your live psd as a texture in 'texture decal' view in full screen)
  to adjust scaling of stars, 
  so that at the final frame res, they arent much smaller  than 1
  pixel (or not much bigger for that matter)
  (avoiding any flickering, or avoiding having to have high sampling
  to avoid flickering)
  
  
  @LucEric  As far as I can recall, with that env shader it was not
  easy to adjust the proportions of bright vs. dark stars to make
  the procedural stars not look too .. procedural :)
  
  J
  
  On 06/24/14 17:32, Nancy Jacobs wrote:


  
  Thank you Jason for this awesome texturing advice. I've done
a lot in photoshop with tiles and spherical texture maps, so
this is my territory.
  
  
  Some of these procedures i'll have to read over a few times
to really get completely, so I hope you don't mind if I need to
ask a couple questions about them at some point.
  
  
  Thanks!
  Nancy
  
On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:17 AM, Jason S 
wrote:

  
  

  
  In my experience, a textured
sphere  can work pretty good, 

You can tile an image (3-4 times on a sphere)
with a tilable "base star texture" (as uniform as possible)
 large enough to hold enough subtle variations without
perceiving patterns (perhaps 1.5-3x the size of your final
render res), 

If you are using Photoshop, from a say 1or2k rez. small-star
starfield pic, 
(to make a 2-3k final pic)  you can do a 'filter->offset'
by any odd amount, 
and then breakup the seams to make it tilable -- super-easy
specially for stars, 
you can use a speckly brush clone stamp with high opacity
(so no opacity gradient falloffs) 
and a low brush step, (so 1 stamp at every ~20 pixels on
strokes for very random cloning)


So you can make a relatively  'mostly uniform ' star map
density as a base BG, 
( with many-many  dim (almost subpixel) stars, a  a number
of mediums,  and really just a couple of bright ones,   all
with a bit of  cloudy variations )
if there arent enough dimer ones, or to add density or
(uniformize?), 
you can use a big clone stamp with that speckle-y brush, but
in additive (linear dodge) mode at varying opacity
also with that now-tilable pic, you can scale it down 50%
& tile it 4 times in half opacity (linear dodge) for
those  many faint BG stars

Then, with those hubble pics, you can isolate interesting
areas, make the rest transparent, 
and in 3d, add grids in key spots to add localized cloudy
nebula patterns and variations depending on what you're
after 
(with RGB intensity as opacity)

If you really need 360 (up & down) with a spherical
projection, 
you'll probably want to mix-in a copy of that starfield
texture for any stretching at the poles of the sphere.

I used a very speckle-y gradient  (made of "fat noise") with
a white to black radial "fat noise gradient" in the center
as an alpha for the same stars texture, to project
vertically top down (x-z) 

You can also blend the star textures somewhat more than 1 in
3d so that some stars can "bleed" a bit with perhaps an
additive blurred version of just those hot pixels.

That may be enough on it's own, but if you are moving around
(at light speed?) 
you can also add 3D stars, Adams tips seems like an
excellent approach to that :)  .. good luck! :)

Jason


On 06/23/14 17:50, Adam Sale wrote:
  
  
Do you need nebulae, etc? 
  If its just stars, what about using a static point
cloud with spherical / displaced randomized spheres as
shape. Randomize color and transparency per point? 
  This would give you the 3d field you are looking for,
then perhaps some fluids to do neb clouds, simulated
particles for comets, meteors etc.. 
  Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills
together to make a bg cyclo to pull the 3d elements
together? 
  
  
  Adam


  
  On

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Matt Lind]

You don't need expressions.  The rotation can be corrected with a 
create_transform node:

1) Render > [Render] Render > Pass Options...
2) In the pass PPG, click the Environment's "Add" button and choosing 
"Environment" shader from the popup dialog.  Double click the shader to inspect 
in a PPG.
- choose your image
- adjust shader settings as desired.
3) Open scene explorer and press "U" to inspect the current pass.
4) Select the "Environment" property under the pass root.
5) Press "7" to open the rendertree.  You should see the blue "Environment" 
shader connected to the orange current Pass.  Your image clip should be 
connected to the "tex" input of the environment shader.
6) From the shader presets, click and drag Processing > Math > Create_transform 
into the rendertree workspace.  Connect its output to the "transform" input of 
the environment shader.
- adjust transform as desired.


Matt





-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:27 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Ideas for star fields?

Good point, if I use expressions to correct the rotation problems re the 
environment map and any SI world null rotation parameters... They have to be 
connected in a strange manner, at least as of 2014. Don't imagine they've fixed 
that...

Thanks,
Nancy

On Jun 24, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:

> If you're just going to create a sphere with specks on it, why don't you use 
> an environment shader?  That does the same work without having to create a 
> sphere, deal with camera rigs, or mess up your ray depth computations in the 
> render.
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of 
> Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:25 AM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> 
> Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field sphere 
> position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation to remain 
> in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the stars out as 
> a pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By doing this the 
> "stars" will always maintain an exact distance from the camera and since 
> stars are such an incredible distance from us in space the illusion is 
> remarkably similar. It will also make the appearance of the stars much more 
> predictable as you can set them for what you want and you no longer have to 
> worry about that appearance changing other than camera orientation.
> 
> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical 
> Services NASA Langley Research Center 
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent 
> the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage- 
>> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. 
>> (LARC- E1A)[LITES]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM
>> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
>> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
>> 
>> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are 
>> high res and beautiful but often are only representative of a single 
>> focal point in space. What you want is a "star map" that is a 
>> cylindrical projection suited for your sphere. You will find the maps 
>> you need at this link. In particular the high res Tycho maps are probably 
>> what you want.
>> 
>> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
>> 
>> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center 
>> of your sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. 
>> You'll see the "ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There 
>> were three maps historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The 
>> following links contain them but these do not look like the highest res 
>> versions.
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html
>> 
>> 
>> Each was created at different resolutions and star count

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Luc-Eric Rousseau]

There is a legacy "atmosphere" environment shader in Softimage that does
stars, afaik, if you want to boost your Softimage street cred;)

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

Thank you Jason for this awesome texturing advice. I've done a lot in photoshop 
with tiles and spherical texture maps, so this is my territory.

Some of these procedures i'll have to read over a few times to really get 
completely, so I hope you don't mind if I need to ask a couple questions about 
them at some point.

Thanks!
Nancy

On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:17 AM, Jason S  wrote:

> In my experience, a textured sphere  can work pretty good, 
> 
> You can tile an image (3-4 times on a sphere)
> with a tilable "base star texture" (as uniform as possible)
>  large enough to hold enough subtle variations without perceiving patterns 
> (perhaps 1.5-3x the size of your final render res), 
> 
> If you are using Photoshop, from a say 1or2k rez. small-star starfield pic, 
> (to make a 2-3k final pic)  you can do a 'filter->offset' by any odd amount, 
> and then breakup the seams to make it tilable -- super-easy specially for 
> stars, 
> you can use a speckly brush clone stamp with high opacity (so no opacity 
> gradient falloffs) 
> and a low brush step, (so 1 stamp at every ~20 pixels on strokes for very 
> random cloning)
> 
> 
> So you can make a relatively  'mostly uniform ' star map density as a base 
> BG, 
> ( with many-many  dim (almost subpixel) stars, a  a number of mediums,  and 
> really just a couple of bright ones,   all with a bit of  cloudy variations )
> if there arent enough dimer ones, or to add density or (uniformize?), 
> you can use a big clone stamp with that speckle-y brush, but in additive 
> (linear dodge) mode at varying opacity
> also with that now-tilable pic, you can scale it down 50% & tile it 4 times 
> in half opacity (linear dodge) for those  many faint BG stars
> 
> Then, with those hubble pics, you can isolate interesting areas, make the 
> rest transparent, 
> and in 3d, add grids in key spots to add localized cloudy nebula patterns and 
> variations depending on what you're after 
> (with RGB intensity as opacity)
> 
> If you really need 360 (up & down) with a spherical projection, 
> you'll probably want to mix-in a copy of that starfield texture for any 
> stretching at the poles of the sphere.
> 
> I used a very speckle-y gradient  (made of "fat noise") with a white to black 
> radial "fat noise gradient" in the center as an alpha for the same stars 
> texture, to project vertically top down (x-z) 
> 
> You can also blend the star textures somewhat more than 1 in 3d so that some 
> stars can "bleed" a bit with perhaps an additive blurred version of just 
> those hot pixels.
> 
> That may be enough on it's own, but if you are moving around (at light 
> speed?) 
> you can also add 3D stars, Adams tips seems like an excellent approach to 
> that :)  .. good luck! :)
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> On 06/23/14 17:50, Adam Sale wrote:
>> Do you need nebulae, etc? 
>> If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud with spherical / 
>> displaced randomized spheres as shape. Randomize color and transparency per 
>> point? 
>> This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then perhaps some 
>> fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for comets, meteors etc.. 
>> Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together to make a bg 
>> cyclo to pull the 3d elements together? 
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for 
>>> ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a 
>>> sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with 
>>> very high-res Hubble images.
>>> 
>>> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 
>>> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in 
>>> a compositing situation.
>>> 
>>> Soany ideas?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nancy
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

Good point, if I use expressions to correct the rotation problems re the 
environment map and any SI world null rotation parameters... They have to be 
connected in a strange manner, at least as of 2014. Don't imagine they've fixed 
that...

Thanks,
Nancy

On Jun 24, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Matt Lind  wrote:

> If you're just going to create a sphere with specks on it, why don't you use 
> an environment shader?  That does the same work without having to create a 
> sphere, deal with camera rigs, or mess up your ray depth computations in the 
> render.
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, 
> Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:25 AM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> 
> Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field sphere 
> position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation to remain 
> in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the stars out as 
> a pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By doing this the 
> "stars" will always maintain an exact distance from the camera and since 
> stars are such an incredible distance from us in space the illusion is 
> remarkably similar. It will also make the appearance of the stars much more 
> predictable as you can set them for what you want and you no longer have to 
> worry about that appearance changing other than camera orientation.
> 
> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical 
> Services NASA Langley Research Center 
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent 
> the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
>> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-
>> E1A)[LITES]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM
>> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
>> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
>> 
>> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res
>> and beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in
>> space. What you want is a "star map" that is a cylindrical projection suited 
>> for
>> your sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular the
>> high res Tycho maps are probably what you want.
>> 
>> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
>> 
>> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of
>> your sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. You'll see 
>> the
>> "ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps
>> historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them 
>> but
>> these do not look like the highest res versions.
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html
>> 
>> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html
>> 
>> 
>> Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I
>> think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The
>> map is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or 
>> diminished
>> stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to figure out
>> what the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a combination of
>> the maps may be what you want. As you probably have already discovered,
>> you won't be able to let your camera get too close to the texture surface as
>> the stars will become abnormally large and the illusion will be lost.   Its 
>> best if
>> you scale the sphere as large as you can and keep the surface as far from the
>> camera as possible to reach the effect you want.
>> 
>> If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a
>> massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, 
>> size,
>> and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles as
>> well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense of
>> perspective and distance as you fly through them.
>> 
>> --
>> Joey Ponthieux
>> LaRC Information 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

Sounds great but I don't have Nuke... Just After Effects with trapcode 
particular. May be something useful here, but the problem with post comp is 
that I need to create lights for the scene that correspond to the starlight (as 
least somewhat). Resulting in a subtle GI lighting from space... Might still 
work, but I'd probably have to be far more advanced with all this than I am... 
Or maybe I'm just over thinking it.

Thanks!

On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Sylvain Lebeau  wrote:

> Maybe take a look at StarPro plug in for Nuke?
> 
> http://www.maasdigital.com/starpro/
> 
> I never tried it, but at 227$ it's worth to check and you still keep the 
> control in comp. 
> Look at the first video for a little tut on it...
> 
> hope it helps
> 
> sly
> 
> Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
> V-P/Visual effects supervisor
> 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
> T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 
> 
> VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
> mail to: s...@shedmtl.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, 
>> 
>> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for 
>> ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, 
>> around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very 
>> high-res Hubble images. 
>> 
>> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 
>> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in 
>> a compositing situation.
>> 
>> Soany ideas?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nancy
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

Very good resource and advice, thank you Joseph!

On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:13 AM, "Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]" 
 wrote:

> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res 
> and beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in 
> space. What you want is a "star map" that is a cylindrical projection suited 
> for your sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular 
> the high res Tycho maps are probably what you want. 
> 
> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
> 
> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of your 
> sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. You'll see the 
> "ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps 
> historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them 
> but these do not look like the highest res versions.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html
> 
> 
> Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I 
> think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The 
> map is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or 
> diminished stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to 
> figure out what the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a 
> combination of the maps may be what you want. As you probably have already 
> discovered, you won't be able to let your camera get too close to the texture 
> surface as the stars will become abnormally large and the illusion will be 
> lost.   Its best if you scale the sphere as large as you can and keep the 
> surface as far from the camera as possible to reach the effect you want.
> 
> If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a 
> massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, 
> size, and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles 
> as well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense 
> of perspective and distance as you fly through them.
> 
> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
> Mymic Technical Services
> NASA Langley Research Center
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not 
> represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
>> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
>> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:43 PM
>> To: Softimage Listserve
>> Subject: Ideas for star fields?
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for 
>> ideas
>> to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere,
>> around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-
>> res Hubble images.
>> 
>> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360
>> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a
>> compositing situation.
>> 
>> Soany ideas?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nancy
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Sylvain Lebeau]

Maybe take a look at StarPro plug in for Nuke?

http://www.maasdigital.com/starpro/

I never tried it, but at 227$ it's worth to check and you still keep the 
control in comp. 
Look at the first video for a little tut on it...

hope it helps

sly

Sylvain Lebeau // SHED
V-P/Visual effects supervisor
1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8
T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM 

VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics
mail to: s...@shedmtl.com




> On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for 
> ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, 
> around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very 
> high-res Hubble images. 
> 
> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 
> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a 
> compositing situation.
> 
> Soany ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nancy

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Matt Lind]

If you're just going to create a sphere with specks on it, why don't you use an 
environment shader?  That does the same work without having to create a sphere, 
deal with camera rigs, or mess up your ray depth computations in the render.


Matt







-Original Message-
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph 
G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:25 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?

Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field sphere 
position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation to remain 
in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the stars out as a 
pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By doing this the "stars" 
will always maintain an exact distance from the camera and since stars are such 
an incredible distance from us in space the illusion is remarkably similar. It 
will also make the appearance of the stars much more predictable as you can set 
them for what you want and you no longer have to worry about that appearance 
changing other than camera orientation.

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services 
NASA Langley Research Center __
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent 
the opinions of NASA or any other party.


> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-
> E1A)[LITES]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> 
> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res
> and beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in
> space. What you want is a "star map" that is a cylindrical projection suited 
> for
> your sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular the
> high res Tycho maps are probably what you want.
> 
> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
> 
> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of
> your sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. You'll see the
> "ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps
> historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them 
> but
> these do not look like the highest res versions.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html
> 
> 
> Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I
> think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The
> map is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or diminished
> stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to figure out
> what the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a combination of
> the maps may be what you want. As you probably have already discovered,
> you won't be able to let your camera get too close to the texture surface as
> the stars will become abnormally large and the illusion will be lost.   Its 
> best if
> you scale the sphere as large as you can and keep the surface as far from the
> camera as possible to reach the effect you want.
> 
> If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a
> massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, 
> size,
> and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles as
> well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense of
> perspective and distance as you fly through them.
> 
> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
> Mymic Technical Services
> NASA Langley Research Center
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
> represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> > boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:43 PM
> > To: Softimage Listserve
> > Subject: Ideas for star fields?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for
> ideas
> > to create 

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]]

Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field sphere 
position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation to remain 
in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the stars out as a 
pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By doing this the "stars" 
will always maintain an exact distance from the camera and since stars are such 
an incredible distance from us in space the illusion is remarkably similar. It 
will also make the appearance of the stars much more predictable as you can set 
them for what you want and you no longer have to worry about that appearance 
changing other than camera orientation.

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not 
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.


> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-
> E1A)[LITES]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields?
> 
> The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res
> and beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in
> space. What you want is a "star map" that is a cylindrical projection suited 
> for
> your sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular the
> high res Tycho maps are probably what you want.
> 
> http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/
> 
> When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of
> your sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. You'll see the
> "ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps
> historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them 
> but
> these do not look like the highest res versions.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html
> 
> 
> Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I
> think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The
> map is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or diminished
> stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to figure out
> what the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a combination of
> the maps may be what you want. As you probably have already discovered,
> you won't be able to let your camera get too close to the texture surface as
> the stars will become abnormally large and the illusion will be lost.   Its 
> best if
> you scale the sphere as large as you can and keep the surface as far from the
> camera as possible to reach the effect you want.
> 
> If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a
> massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, 
> size,
> and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles as
> well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense of
> perspective and distance as you fly through them.
> 
> --
> Joey Ponthieux
> LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
> Mymic Technical Services
> NASA Langley Research Center
> __
> Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not
> represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> > boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:43 PM
> > To: Softimage Listserve
> > Subject: Ideas for star fields?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for
> ideas
> > to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere,
> > around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-
> > res Hubble images.
> >
> > So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360
> > degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in 
> > a
> > compositing situation.
> >
> > Soany ideas?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nancy

RE: Ideas for star fields?

[Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]]

The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res and 
beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in space. 
What you want is a "star map" that is a cylindrical projection suited for your 
sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular the high 
res Tycho maps are probably what you want. 

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/

When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of your 
sphere of the focal point of a "disc" or "ring"  of stars. You'll see the 
"ring" form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps 
historically,  Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them but 
these do not look like the highest res versions.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html


Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I 
think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The map 
is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or diminished 
stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to figure out what 
the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a combination of the maps 
may be what you want. As you probably have already discovered, you won't be 
able to let your camera get too close to the texture surface as the stars will 
become abnormally large and the illusion will be lost.   Its best if you scale 
the sphere as large as you can and keep the surface as far from the camera as 
possible to reach the effect you want.

If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a 
massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, 
size, and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles 
as well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense of 
perspective and distance as you fly through them.

--
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
__
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not 
represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.

> -Original Message-
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-
> boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:43 PM
> To: Softimage Listserve
> Subject: Ideas for star fields?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas
> to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere,
> around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-
> res Hubble images.
> 
> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360
> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a
> compositing situation.
> 
> Soany ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nancy

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Jason S]

  
  
In my experience, a textured sphere 
  can work pretty good, 
  
  You can tile an image (3-4 times on a sphere)
  with a tilable "base star texture" (as uniform as possible)
   large enough to hold enough subtle variations without perceiving
  patterns (perhaps 1.5-3x the size of your final render res), 
  
  If you are using Photoshop, from a say 1or2k rez. small-star
  starfield pic, 
  (to make a 2-3k final pic)  you can do a 'filter->offset' by
  any odd amount, 
  and then breakup the seams to make it tilable -- super-easy
  specially for stars, 
  you can use a speckly brush clone stamp with high opacity (so no
  opacity gradient falloffs) 
  and a low brush step, (so 1 stamp at every ~20 pixels on strokes
  for very random cloning)
  
  
  So you can make a relatively  'mostly uniform ' star map density
  as a base BG, 
  ( with many-many  dim (almost subpixel) stars, a  a number of
  mediums,  and really just a couple of bright ones,   all with a
  bit of  cloudy variations )
  if there arent enough dimer ones, or to add density or
  (uniformize?), 
  you can use a big clone stamp with that speckle-y brush, but in
  additive (linear dodge) mode at varying opacity
  also with that now-tilable pic, you can scale it down 50% &
  tile it 4 times in half opacity (linear dodge) for those  many
  faint BG stars
  
  Then, with those hubble pics, you can isolate interesting areas,
  make the rest transparent, 
  and in 3d, add grids in key spots to add localized cloudy nebula
  patterns and variations depending on what you're after 
  (with RGB intensity as opacity)
  
  If you really need 360 (up & down) with a spherical
  projection, 
  you'll probably want to mix-in a copy of that starfield texture
  for any stretching at the poles of the sphere.
  
  I used a very speckle-y gradient  (made of "fat noise") with a
  white to black radial "fat noise gradient" in the center as an
  alpha for the same stars texture, to project vertically top down
  (x-z) 
  
  You can also blend the star textures somewhat more than 1 in 3d so
  that some stars can "bleed" a bit with perhaps an additive blurred
  version of just those hot pixels.
  
  That may be enough on it's own, but if you are moving around (at
  light speed?) 
  you can also add 3D stars, Adams tips seems like an excellent
  approach to that :)  .. good luck! :)
  
  Jason
  
  
  On 06/23/14 17:50, Adam Sale wrote:


  Do you need nebulae, etc? 
If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud
  with spherical / displaced randomized spheres as shape.
  Randomize color and transparency per point? 
This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then
  perhaps some fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for
  comets, meteors etc.. 
Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together
  to make a bg cyclo to pull the 3d elements together? 


Adam
  
  

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy
  Jacobs 
  wrote:
  Hello,

I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and
looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble
images wrapped around a sphere, around the scene, but I'm
finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-res Hubble
images.

So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields.
Has to be 360 degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the
capability to deal with that in a compositing situation.

Soany ideas?

Thanks,
Nancy
  


  


  

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Nancy Jacobs]

Thanks Adam, this is a great idea, and something I'm not used to doing, so I 
will have to learn more. Would it be best to do this with ice? Or just basic 
particles?

As for fluidsam I missing somethingdo we have fluids in Softimage these 
days...? Nebula clouds would be perfect, as I need some interest, and something 
to account for more light happening in the scene. Basically, my scene is 
floating about in space...

Anything you can point me to to learn more about these processes? Even just 
topic keywords to explore would help.

Thanks very much!
Nancy

On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Adam Sale  wrote:

> Do you need nebulae, etc? 
> If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud with spherical / 
> displaced randomized spheres as shape. Randomize color and transparency per 
> point? 
> This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then perhaps some 
> fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for comets, meteors etc.. 
> Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together to make a bg cyclo 
> to pull the 3d elements together? 
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for 
>> ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, 
>> around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very 
>> high-res Hubble images.
>> 
>> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 
>> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in 
>> a compositing situation.
>> 
>> Soany ideas?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nancy
> 

Re: Ideas for star fields?

[Adam Sale]

Do you need nebulae, etc?
If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud with spherical /
displaced randomized spheres as shape. Randomize color and transparency per
point?
This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then perhaps some
fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for comets, meteors etc..
Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together to make a bg
cyclo to pull the 3d elements together?

Adam


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for
> ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a
> sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with
> very high-res Hubble images.
>
> So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360
> degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in
> a compositing situation.
>
> Soany ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Nancy
>