Starlight tints background skybox - Lighting issues

[Sterling MH]

Uhm. You know, I just ignore you from now on. Bye.

Ah, so you can;t accept being wrong, so you have to tell me you're ignoring me. But to tell me that requires not ignoring me and instead interacting with me.

Not the sharpest tool in the sock drawer, are you?

Toddle on now,dear.

 

[krautbernd]

The space dust particulates could be small enough to diffract the light without being actively visible themselves. Floating around the heliosphere.

Density wouldn't be high enough. Averarge distance (at least in our solar system) between particles repsonsible is measured in kilometers afaik. I don't think you'd obersve any refraction, not in the visible spectrum.

 

[VerticalBlank]

Welcome to my ignore list too. *plonk* as they used to say.

 

[krautbernd]

Nope. you should still get the image. the CCD recorded it and the compression kept the images. The contrast between image elements would be identical, just between two higher numbers.

Try again.

That's not how jpeg compression works. The contrast can't be identical as you're dealing with overexposure. The image can't be reconstructed in your given scenario. Not with any consumer camera anyway.

 

[Sterling MH]

Density wouldn't be high enough.

Wrong. Hitchens razor again.

Tell me, is this for you, who can see the colours of the orion nebula with your naked eye? The surface brightness doesn't get any bigger if you get close to it, it's an extended object.

Averarge distance (at least in our solar system) between particles repsonsible is measured in kilometers afaik.

Nope, its in particles per litre. kilometers is more the distance between rocks in an asteroid belt. Now go look at the ED asteroid belts... See any km gaps?

I don't think you'd obersve any refraction, not in the visible spectrum.

But since your thinking is based on incorrect data, your claims are unsupported conjecture based on errored assumptions.

Mind you, it isn't refraction you'd see. Reflection works just fine. There IS refraction. It's just not necessary. Refraction would cause coloured fringes and is why the rainbow is coloured and tends to a 22.5 degree arc opposite the sun. Geometry. Refraction. Quite an interesting proof of why. Go look it up.

 

[Sterling MH]

Welcome to my ignore list too. *plonk* as they used to say.

Well DO keep us posted with who else you want to tell you're ignoring. You're one of the less edged tools in that sock drawer, too, if not even more floppy than the prior.

 

[nanite2000]

Exactly.

Plus also there is the atmosphere in the cockpit. The scratches on the cockpit canopy. The external lights of the ship. Oh, and condensation (or ice if running cold). Not forgetting the exhaust of the engines to move around.

Like I said, there's dust. Zodiacal light. Black interplanetary space does that. It's NOT our atmosphere.

It’s an interesting premise if that was FDev’s intent.

Just curious - has anyone from Fdev confirmed this was their intent? Can you point me to a source for this?

Also, assuming this is true, why did it take you dozens of condescending and insulting posts before you even mentioned space dust or zodiacal light? It would have saved a lot of confusion and arguments,and prevented a lot of unnecessary bad attitude.

 

[krautbernd]

Wrong. Hitchens razor again.

Tell me, is this for you, who can see the colours of the orion nebula with your naked eye? The surface brightness doesn't get any bigger if you get close to it, it's an extended object.

Diffraction. Diffraction requires a change in velocity. The density of the aprticles isn't high enought to influence velocity.

Nope, its in particles per litre. kilometers is more the distance between rocks in an asteroid belt. Now go look at the ED asteroid belts... See any km gaps?

You don't measure distance in litres.

Mind you, it isn't refraction you'd see. Reflection works just fine. There IS refraction. It's just not necessary. Refraction would cause coloured fringes and is why the rainbow is coloured and tends to a 22.5 degree arc opposite the sun. Geometry. Refraction. Quite an interesting proof of why. Go look it up.

Reflection would mean you'd observe a spherical glow around the star if you also want to ascribe the tint to dust. You don't, in-game. Look up zodiacal lighting.

 

[Sterling MH]

That's not how jpeg compression works

No, that IS how JPG compression works. Your camera will have between 12 and 21 digits per pixel, the number depending on the DAC built on the chip. That is then de-beyered to get a count of red, green and blue for each pixel. This figure is stored in the RAW image. Your camera amay or may not allow you to extract RAW.

THAT turns it into a 12 digit number for R or G or B which is then turned into a triplet RGB. This is then compressed by JPG which turns the possibly 36 bit image into a 32 bit one and then enen lower for compression. That takes a small region and finds the baseline and differences and then stores the baseline and then compresses the differences for imperceptual differences that can be lost.

If you can see the image is differentiated in the short exposure image, the differences are NOT imperceptible differecens that can be lost.

There is also lossless JPG. Which doesn't throw anything away.

THAT is how JPG compression works.

So if your CCD sees 200x as many photons for the entire image exposure, then why are the figures the same number when 200x a low number and 200x a high number are still just as far apart?

Why?

 

[krautbernd]

No, that IS how JPG compression works. Your camera will have between 12 and 21 digits per pixel, the number depending on the DAC built on the chip. That is then de-beyered to get a count of red, green and blue for each pixel. This figure is stored in the RAW image. Your camera amay or may not allow you to extract RAW.

Your request was to reconstruct an original image from an overexposure, using my camera. I can't recontruct the image from an overexposed jpeg for the reasons you just explained. The information is lost upon compression. What is your point? What does this have to do with the tinted background in-game?

 

[Sterling MH]

Diffraction. Diffraction requires a change in velocity.

Nope.

You don't measure distance in litres.

However space is a volume. Prove to everyone how there's only one dimension. Please.

Reflection would mean you'd observe a spherical glow around the star if you also want to ascribe the tint to dust..

Nope it doesn't. For the same reason that we don't see a spherical glow.

And how does the requirement follow? Proof plz. Prove that thereMUST be a spherical glow around the star if those tints are due to dust.

This is all school level geometry to prove. You don't need Quantum mechanics or complex tensorial methods. Just geometry will be able to prove it.

You don't, in-game. Look up zodiacal lighting.

Why? Zodiacal light is not zodiacal lightning. Which not even google knows what THAT is.

 

[Drelthar]

It looks great.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

I'm not tinting anything, thank you very much! [haha]

That said, that red milky way looks especially atrocious over Earth Even an astrophysics dummy like me knows it is WRONG. +1 OP.

 

[Sterling MH]

Your request was to reconstruct an original image from an overexposure,

Well, we can put it that way if you like.

I didn't ASK for that. I asked why pixels were saturated in an identical image that is more than just "a similarly incandescent light source", it's the identical light source. And then why your image of it was not identical.

You then waffle on about how something that doesn't work that way works the way it doesn't, which I corrected.

I can't recontruct the image from an overexposed jpeg

So why is it the eyeball canot be overexposed in your ridiculous alternative to reality????

*I* knew that SATURATION OF SIGNAL occurred, but nowhere in your complaint "but it's just a light source!" nothing-atl-all-like-a-rebuttal did you think or say "because the eyeball is saturated and there's no way to go "there's more light there than over here" because it's "more than maximum light everywhere".

Indeed that was his response to your silly assertion. He used boiling eyes, but if it isn't boiled, magic makes it resist being burned, just doesn't change how the eye sends the signal to the brain, but he still clearly pointed out that, like with your JPG, your eye is oversaturated therefore you will not be able to see any details, just like your overexposed saturated picture would not show any either.

 

[Sterling MH]

I'm not tinting anything, thank you very much! [haha]

That said, that red milky way looks especially atrocious over Earth Even an astrophysics dummy like me knows it is WRONG. +1 OP.

Maybe you need to actually ask NASA or whatever your local space agency is what THEY think. A claim made out of professed ignorance is one that is worth less than nothing. But 0/10 for effort trolling there, dude. Keep it up.

 

[krautbernd]

Nope.

Dispersion! I'm sorry, english isn't my first language. Diffraction still wouldn't occur, given the distances involved.

However space is a volume. Prove to everyone how there's only one dimension. Please.

I'm talking above the average distance between particles, which for the dust causing zodiacal lighting in our solar system is measured in kilometers. I think you can figure out the density that would equate to yourself. You would have to observe a glow for it to visibly tint the galactic background.

 

[Sterling MH]

It’s an interesting premise if that was FDev’s intent.

Just curious - has anyone from Fdev confirmed this was their intent? Can you point me to a source for this?

Can you show me a quote that says it isn't?
You can see the things I mentioned. They're even modelled. Verisimilitude, but modeled nonetheless. Remember, that was to someone who pointed out that the field of view is NOT empty.

It isn't.

Even discarding space dust, which is a thing, no need to ask FD if it exists, we have reality to ask. Go ask it.

So unless you can find FD saying they wanted to fake images in the cockpit, can you stop saying the images are wrong? By definition of those using the galaxy map and prior images as "proof" of what "realistic" is for ED, that realistic has now changed to this one. It is canonically and definitionally realistic for the game.

Discarding that you need to show REAL realistic pictures that show what you expected to see in this game.

Go ahead. Feel free to find some.

 

[krautbernd]

Can you show me a quote that says it isn't?
You can see the things I mentioned. They're even modelled. Verisimilitude, but modeled nonetheless. Remember, that was to someone who pointed out that the field of view is NOT empty.

It isn't.

Even discarding space dust, which is a thing, no need to ask FD if it exists, we have reality to ask. Go ask it.

So unless you can find FD saying they wanted to fake images in the cockpit, can you stop saying the images are wrong? By definition of those using the galaxy map and prior images as "proof" of what "realistic" is for ED, that realistic has now changed to this one. It is canonically and definitionally realistic for the game.

Discarding that you need to show REAL realistic pictures that show what you expected to see in this game.

Go ahead. Feel free to find some.

For crying out loud, it's not space dust, and you don't go around inferring stuff like that. That leads to faulty assumptions. You don't ask people to disprove your assumptions. You provide prove first. And no, zodiacal light would not manifest like that, look it up.

 

[Sterling MH]

Dispersion! .

Nope again. And this one isn't even a claim. Weak. Try harder next time.

Oh, include prove [sic] that diffraction would not occur for the reason you stated. Remember, you have to prove first your own claims. you said so.

I'm talking above the average distance between particles.

Which means they exist in a per-volume volume in REAL SPACE. Average distance between things being, say, 1cm apart, means it is 1 per cubic cm. Which is 1000 per litre.

THIS is something you should have been taught by the time you were 15...

So you claim kms between. That is one per cubic km. Or a billion cubic meters. Or a trillion litres. One per trillion litres.

Intergalactic space has 1 atom per litre, at least if cosmology is correct. if you had them compressed into one hydrogen clump it would be the size of a nanogram dust particle. Your assertion is that dust is only 100 times or thereabouts more dense than intergalactic hydrogen...

Go on, tell me you did the maths. Where else could you have pulled this kms between dust motes from? Care to source it?

 

[rhiz]

Is a shibboleth. A figment of your own desire. it's indiscriminate because it is more than you are happy with. Your opinion, an those who share your opinion, claim it indiscriminate.

AS YOUR OPINION, this is inarguable.

But also irrelevant, since opinions differ and you present this as objective fact when it is no.

It's not "indiscriminate" except by your mores and expectations.
And as demonstrated so ably by kwhatever, for reasons that are entirely self serving. It shouldn't be there, therefore it's fake and if it's fake, it must be indiscriminate colouration. Since the reason for it not supposedly being there are wrong, the entire chain falls down.

It stops being objective fact and just your opinion.

No, it’s indiscriminate because it’s a post-processing pixel shader working on pixels rather than recreation of light and particles interacting in a virtual 3D space. I can’t keep spoon feeding you. Whether or not it's desirable - now that's a matter of subjectivity.