[lghtstrm]

Has anyone tried this? I am trying to render a space station in outer space lit by one high-intensity light source not unlike earth's sun. Can't seem to replicate it using the standard settings. Ideas?

[itsallgoode9]

what was your light setup when doing this?

I have never tried this myself, so this is just speculating. But it would proabaly work best using a SUPER small plane emitter at really high intensity. And also it would need to be quite far away...not as far away as the sun, or anywhere near that...but you would need it far away to get the parallel shadows that the sun makes. You would want no external bounced light, I believe, because in space there isn't anything to give you bounced light.

I don't see any way to achieve the parellel shadows in maxwell without putting your light source super far away which would mean a super super high emitter value. I believe it will either cause extremely long render times or artifacts/errors in Maxwell because it tends to have issues with REALLY out of the realm numbers.

Maybe somebody has done this, but I think it may work better with a biased renderer instead of an unbiased, such as Maxwell.

[lghtstrm]

I have tried this a number of ways. I'm currently using an Image Based environment with Sky Dome for disabled channels so that I can keep the sun. Then I have to go into Physical Sky to position the sun and take everything out of the air. Physical Sky is not the best since it always assumes a horizon... the sun cannot be below you, for example.

[Mihai]

Think for example how they made the space shots in the early Star Wars movies, with a scale model. I don't know how far away they placed the light source but I don't think you need to place it too far away, just make it small enough so the shadows are reasonably sharp.

[lghtstrm]

I'll give it a try and let you know.

[Cadhorn]

I seem to remember Mike Verta doing some really good space renders... and discussing his material/lighting settings. I would search through his posts (MVerta), but there are several thousand. He talks about his techniques here: http://maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26974

One of his posts had some super-sweet space renderings... think it was an imperial destroyer (from star wars) cruising around... oh, here: http://maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16031

[Frances]

Could you use the physical sun and override the skylight with a suitable space-scape image?

[Bubbaloo]

And also it would need to be quite far away...not as far away as the sun

You mean you shouldn't move your emitter 93 million miles away?

I think it may work better with a biased renderer instead of an unbiased, such as Maxwell.

Are you crazy? I have seen some amazing space renders with Maxwell (you know, the light simulator).

[lghtstrm]

I tried the (MVerta) thread and drilled a little. Wow, this guy rocks. Anyway, I am currently experimenting with using the sun and rotating the scene. Nothing to report yet but the idea seems sound.

Hopefully I can post a killer image... in a few weeks...

Thanks to all for your posts!

[msantana]

Hello,

This is right up my alley, and I was going to reply but it seems you already got good advice.

Mike Verta is very good! check out all his threads!

I tried actually his technique but found out that it was very slow.

My attempt is here:

http://maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

His technique is outlined here:

http://maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=


I think that several factors help the shot make it more like outer space. Mike mentions it time and time again. If we did exactly the shots as taken from NASA, they will look dull (with one hard light and no secondary lights) and the collective unconscious has already "accepted" that key lights make space ships or space shots look better, even if they are not physically accurate.

Also, another big problem as he also mentions is scale. This problem is attacked by including some reference that would give you some sense of scale. This is an optical illusion that persists very strongly in "unfamiliar" shots. So if you present someone with something they haven't seen, it seems only natural that they have no idea how big it is or should be. And by including birds/persons, etc. then they have an idea of how massive it is. Another clue is attention to detail. Quite frankly, I think Mike's Star Destroyers look spot on and that scale is not off. I would like to imagine that if you took a picture of a REAL Massive Star Destroyer, it would look like a toy. Haven't you been to a tall building and took pictures of what is down in the city? Smaller buildings look like toys. When a plane is landing the houses and trains below look like toys. But I guess the main problem is that this will be a matter of opinion since there is not a scientific principle that can be tested. (To test it you would have to do a Computer Graphic of something completely new, present it and then build it, photograph it and if everyone agrees both are toys then I think the above point can be proven).

Anyway, those are my two cents and it is nice to see that there are more people trying Maxwell for Space Shots! Please let us know how you progress!

Good hunting!

[itsallgoode9]

Are you crazy? I have seen some amazing space renders with Maxwell (you know, the light simulator).

I just meant from a time/efficiency standpoint, using an unbiased render might potentially be overkill. I wasn't meaning that Maxwell can't do it (quite the opposite) but meant, considering the lighting needs, using a biased renderer would likely be able to get the same look in the end with much less render time.

[lghtstrm]

msantana,

Nice work! I especially like the emitters on the bridge. Did you get the "glow" effect in Maxwell or in post? Did you do the modeling as well? Very nice.

Did you use Maxwell sun or an emitter? If the latter what was your intensity (if I may inquire) and distance?

I'm actually pleased with the results so far from the sky/scene rotate option — except that it screwed up my cameras. I guess at the prompt I should have said "do not change" I thought the question meant that they would track with the model instead of the scene.

[deflix]

For the most part you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. What you need is a direct light (parallel rays) and you cant use the physical sun due to atmospheric and sky conditions built into it. I suggest you use a different engine to maxwell. Maxwell shines best when you can appreciate all the micro detail of light and shade on smaller objects (the polar opposite to a space scene).

As you can see from the image of Hubble below there is a temporal quality to the scene which would be easier to control with an unbiased method.

[Silverblade-T-E]

Alas, the forums seem borked, because the links posted just freak out and only open the main forum page! :/

damn, wanted to try this.

[lghtstrm]

Deflix,

Your points are well taken... But IF I really wanted to exhaust the Maxwell options and rule it out, does anyone have an idea of how bright the emitter would have to be? No amount that I have been able to muster sheds any light at all.

My model is actual size (of course for realism) if I have to shrink it to pump enough power into the emitter then, indeed, Maxwell is out. I have a complete interior to my model with emitters throughout and shrinking it would create havoc on all my existing emitters.