Just wondering if any of you have any tips for creating night time sky's in Vue. I find that the density of the stars even at 100% is not even remotely close enough to what I should be seeing.

I've attached an example of something I'm working so demonstrate what I mean, including a second copy of the same image I hand painted over.

Hope you can see what I mean and also agree that there is a problem here.

Kind Regards
James

Vue's stars are seriously lacking
what I do is use a plane or semi-sphere with a procedural star material I made, one day I should post it as a freebie! :)

In most cases in vue percentages can go above 100% :) Even if the slider wont go above 100% you can type in a larger number in the numeric field and it will indeed have the appropriate effect. I havnt tried it for star densities but I'm pretty sure if you type in 1000 you'll get ten times as many stars.

ArtPearl
no that's the ONE thing in Vue that doesn't g over 100% :(

and as said, they look kind of poor quality anyway

Yes, Vue stars are rubbish, IMO. I do something like Silverblade, although that technique has some drawbacks in some circumstances. For example, if you use a planet object, it'll always be behind the star sphere. One solution is to use a sphere mapped as the planet you want, instead of the Vue planetary objects (which are also not very good anyway, so you don't lose much...).

If you use a sphere object, don't forget to set it to "no cast shadows", otherwise it'll block the sunlight from entering. The sphere object must be very big.

I just remembered that eonite posted one of these objects a few months ago, in this forum, as a freebie. Search for posts from him and you'll probably find it, if my mind isn't playing tricks on me. :-)

Quote - ArtPearl
no that's the ONE thing in Vue that doesn't g over 100% :(

and as said, they look kind of poor quality anyway

What made me  think vue would be consistent in its approach... 

Thanks guys.

I did a search for that eonite thread and I see exactly what you mean. The approach has it's downfalls as Rurta points out, but the benefits and the results greatly put Vue's default star generation to shame. Didn't even know that was possible. Very clever.

Rather than using a Sphere for the moon or an Alpha plane, I'm going to just add it in later when I'm doing the post work because it doesn't cast any light onto the objects in my scene.

Thanks for all the help guys.

Regards
James

Attached Link: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/sos/moon/moon_8k_color_brim16.jpg

All you have to do is simply apply a map to a sphere and, optionally, attach the bump channel to the same image. Usually, I place the sun just behind the moon and make the moon material not cast and not receive shadows. The illusion that it's the moon casting light is perfect. Furthermore, the sun's corona also adds the illusion of the halo around the moon.

See link for a 8192 x 4096 map (there's many more on the web).

The image attached is straight from vue, no post work. Hurray, we have proper stars and a moon.

Just a few tweaks and a few little bits here and there and I'll be able to render the final image soon.

Kind Regards
James

Good work! :-)

Maybe you could lower the contrast between the black and white parts of the moon. This could be done in several ways, like for example attaching a brightness/contrast filter node to the image in the function editor or adjusting levels of the moon bitmap in photoshop prior to loading it in Vue.

Another thing: don't forget that the real moon always shows the same face to the Earth but with this method, the image that faces the camera only coincidentaly is that same face that we are all used to. If it's not, the viewer won't immediately realize what's wrong with the moon but he/she will know that there's something wrong, and this will have a negative effect on perceived realism.
So, I would advise that you check reference images and try to rotate the sphere until the image that faces the camera is the familiar one.

Note: I never really did this last part in my own images because the moon was never the focus of my images, it was just another element. But in your image, the moon is the absolute focus and is even in the center of the image. So, some more care should be exercised.

I had the moon rotated into position just from my memory, but just to double check I used a reference photo to verify against. You are right, it needed a tiny little tweak to the right.

Thanks for the advice on the contrast too. I did exactly as you suggested and it looks way better. I also droped the brightness of it a tiny bit to allow more detail through, but not too much because I do like it bright and a little over exposed in this image.

I had only planned on adding a 3 or 4 brighter stars with flare at this point using Alpha Planes, but now looking at the image I'm thinking it's missing something. Do you think I'd be doing damage if I went for something like and Angel flying up from the clouds holding someone by the hand. As if they are leading them to heaven. I'm thinking they could have a white / blue glow to them.

Or it is best left alone as I would be at risk of screwing up the image.

Kind Regards
James

That looks beautiful.

Regarding addition of possible new elements... IMO, that is at the core of the creation process, which is unique to each person. If you ask that to 100 people, you'd get 200 different answers.

I would not put an angel leading someone up to heaven because I'm not the religious type. But I'm sure millions of other people would be delighted to see that in the image.

There's one thing in your composition that is 'asking' for something. In the upper right quadrant there's an area without clouds. That's an assymetry on what is otherwise a very symetric image, so it 'screams' for something, for some additional element.

That 'hole' on the right has another effect, compositionally, which may not be what you intended: it's an escape route for the viewers eyes. The eyes leave the image through that hole, which is not good. The compositions should, generally speaking, invite the viewer to return to the image, not to leave it. So, I would definitely put something there that would point back to the image, something like a comet or something else that has a general feeling of 'pointing'. Could be the wing of an angel with the tip pointing in the moon's direction, for example. Or many other things.

I actually like that missing area! ;)
it stops it being oh, kind of boing "Hole through clouds"  for me
everyone has idfferent tastes! :)

Thanks guys.

The stars with the flares I wanted to add didn't work out. They were to go into that gap on the right, but the second I put them in there they made the problem if your eye being dragged to the right even worse.

So I decided to add a single cloud right at the very edge of the image, just enough to close the frame but not the gap.  I'll leave it at that now because I run the risk of doing too much to what is a simple clean scene.

Thanks a million for all your help. Really guys... Thank you. !!!!

Regards
James

Quote - I actually like that missing area! ;)
it stops it being oh, kind of boing "Hole through clouds"  for me
everyone has idfferent tastes! :)

That is absolutely not my point. My point is the role that the missing area plays in the composition. An image is like an orchestra, in the sense that the elements in an image are like the various instruments in an orchestra, all different but all contributing to the harmony. Liking or not liking the missing area is as important as liking or not liking how one of the instruments in an orchestra is played. It's secondary. It's much more important the role of the instrument for the whole. The overall harmony is much, much more important.

Rutra
for your tastes! Some like classical, some like jazz...they ain't the same. :)
Sorry but using composition as absolutes is ridiculous. **Art is entirely subjective.
**All that matters at the end of the day, is if the artist and the viewer enjoy/are touched by the piece, nothing more, not ever.

Compositional understanding can sure help a lot, but it can also hinder by imposing rote', whihc becomes a weakness.
I doubt we'll agree on this though, hehe :)

Quote - "for your tastes! Some like classical, some like jazz...they ain't the same. :)"

I was not talking about tastes. Handling composition is a technique, just like any other.

Quote - "Sorry but using composition as absolutes is ridiculous. Art is entirely subjective."

I never said art wasn't subjective. Of course it is subjective.
I never said composition 'rules' were absolute. Of course they're not. They're hints to provide more harmony to the piece.

Quote - "All that matters at the end of the day, is if the artist and the viewer enjoy/are touched by the piece, nothing more, not ever."

Of course. I never said anything different. But in order to achieve this goal, there are techniques that one may use. Composition handling techniques are one of them.

Quote - "Compositional understanding can sure help a lot, but it can also hinder by imposing rote', whihc becomes a weakness."

Completely and totally disagree. If you understand composition, this can never be a weakness, as you use it for your purposes. The danger is if you do not understand composition. In this case, you're left to chance and that is a weakness.

Quote - "I doubt we'll agree on this though, hehe :)"

I think we're not even talking the same language here, so we'll never agree, I give you that. :-)

 Nice picture! I personally prefer the version without the halo (The hand painted one in the first post).

Quote -
Sorry but using composition as absolutes is ridiculous. **Art is entirely subjective.
**

*** Although my comments are a response to Silverblade's statement, they are really directed to many many others too. Quite a lot (most?) posted images could be greatly enhanced if their creators applied compositional rules ****

I used to think that rules of composition are contrived and might limit creativity. But many years of trying things 'my own way' lead me to the conclusion that there is a very good reason for their existence. In analogy you might say that a vocabulary and rules of grammar hinder your creativity in verbal expression. But words and rules by themselves dont dictate what you say, they just give you tools to express what you say in a way that other people can get the message. The message you put out is entirely subjective and can be illuminating or pointless.
Not only that, if you know the rules, you can still chose to ignore them sometimes, to make a point. Not just a generic point of 'i'm a rebel, I dont use rules' but something relevant to the image.  You may chose to introduce an area which not harmonious, if that is part of your message/concept.
There are exceptions to rules, but using them wisely is even harder than using the rules themselves.
I suspect if you analyse your own reaction to an image, you'll find that you too 'obey' the rules. If there is a pointy element (a finger, a sword) your eyes instinctively follow it to see where its pointing too. If you position an important element right bang in the middle of the image your brain will look at one side of the divided image and tend to ignore the other. If there is a path you'll follow it to see where it leads. So its a good idea to put something important at the end of the path (what you put there is entirely subjective).
In this case there is a 'path' of no clouds and it is leading...out of the image. If that is what you want your message to be, 'run along, there's nothing to see here' than you ignored the rule for a perfect reason. If you want the viewer to linger in the image find a way to bring the eye back.
I wonder if what you find appealing in having the 'empty space' is that it breaks the symmetry of having clouds all around. I agree with that. but I dont think Artur suggested to complete the circle of clouds, he suggested to put something there which will draw your attention back into the image.
That's where birds/airplanes/comets/branches etc. become useful. They add a bit more interest and their wings/tails/tip-of-branch gently return you into the image.
I honestly understand your rebelian against imposed rules, I've been there.  You want to be independent. Me too. But real independence isnt in rejecting blindly everything the 'other side' says, it comes from evaluating it and chosing the bits which are useful for your cause and leaving those which dont serve you.
Of course, some people (not neccessarily you Silverblade) cant use the rules because they dont know them. Well worth finding out. This knowledge is very close to having a 'make art' button.

Sorry, I'll get off my soap-box now:)