Amara

[ShawnDriscoll]

Rendered in modo.

 

[flykiller]

looks great. the ships don't seem to have that CG/artificial feel, they seem just brand-new.

no stars?

(tried to pm you, but I see no "contact" tab. am I on your ignore list?P

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

looks great. the ships don't seem to have that CG/artificial feel, they seem just brand-new.

no stars?

(tried to pm you, but I see no "contact" tab. am I on your ignore list?P

I gave them the 70's Corgi look.

I see a few stars on my monitor, besides the big one. Just hard to see them when that close to a sun probably.

I turn off forum PMing on these BBS'.

 

[nobby-w]

[ . . . ]
no stars?
[ . . . ]

Here's Amy Shira Teitel on why you can't see stars in the photos taken by the Apollo astronauts. Apropos of nothing at all, this was a twist on the 'fake moon landing' conspiracy theories that went viral enough to get some air time recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ksUQfEzMoM

(Spoiler: it was because the sunlight on the moon is very bright and the film didn't have the dynamic range to pick up the stars without overexposing the stuff they wanted to take pictures of. Plus, at the time I guess they weren't expecting to get bellends trying to say the moon landings were a conspiracy.)

And here's a bonus video clip of Buzz Aldrin losing his patience with a conspiracy theorist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryIstlIGks

 

[Leitz]

I see a couple stars and my wife didn't smack me. From a non artist view I prefer the setting of the second and the color contrast of the first. More stars are okay but I can see the logic of not.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Yep. Having star backgrounds or not is just artistic license is all. I prefer to let the lenses and their exposures/apertures do their thing.

This render used different lighting. Stars are more noticeable.