HOME | DD
bloknayrb — Far Out
Published: 2011-03-27 18:17:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 1558; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 62
Redirect to original
Description
Was trying for realism in this piece. At least, more so than usual. I also wanted to try out the 3D tools Photoshop has. I think I did an ok job, so I'm done for now (though if anyone sees anything that needs improvement I'll probably be willing to make changes).Original size is 12000x6000px, making this the first image my desktop has had any slowdown with.
NOTE: This looks pretty bland on darker monitors (not that it is spectacular even on the monitor on which it was created, but trust me, it's better on a brighter monitor). I tried editing the jpg to make it look better on this monitor here at work but it didn't work very well
My apologies to everyone who looked and was bored.LIGHTER VERSION: [link] Should I just replace this with the lighter version?
Related content
Comments: 31
I like the lighter version but that could be because the sun is shining in thru the window right now
I think he's right about the perspective on the rings, what i do is lay it out in 3d - don't have to end up using it for the final - but that way you can choose what kind of camera, FOV, etc and get exact results, then you can duplicate that with PS if you wanted ... if you want it to look like what you'd see in person, i think a human has a FOV of around 60 degrees ... i think, not 100% sure
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I don't have any 3D software (yet) to use for this purpose, so for now I'll say that this is zoomed in from far away
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're interested, Blender and Sketchup are free and not too hard to figure out
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Keep this version. Really love the realism and the texture of the gas giant. What parts where made using the 3d function btw? Have yet to try it out...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The gas giant was made by mapping a gradient to a sphere and then I painted onto rasterized result.
Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great image Bryan!
This version is far more realistic as regards the light and the response of the human eye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More so than the linked lighter version, or more so than my work in general?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More so than the lighted version is what I meant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, that's what I thought, thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
awesome. Love the rings and lighting. I think the lightsource could use some rays or a slight hex flare for some detail. The background stars need some more OOMpH, if you catch my drift.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not sure what you mean by oomph, but those stars were quite a pain at that resolution, the larger stars you see are actually about 10px wide and there are far more at larger resolutions. Buy the print and you'll see
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ahh well now that you mention its a higher resolution, it is NEAR impossible to get good looking stars with a noise filter effect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't use the noise filter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yyeah i know, I was just saying. Have you ever tried doing the noise filter with hi res? its SUCKS
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well it's basically useless, no? I mean, when you scale it down they just become invisible unless you use nearest neighbor, but that messes up all the curved edges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed it does. Scaling them up to just pixelates them also. Splotchy patches of crappy stars
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
love that blue saturn out in the distance, nice touch. looks realistic. Is there achance there is something not fully polished with regards to the main planets edge? maybe a little jagged? could be my monitor..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Probably a combination of the resizing and the fact that photoshop's 3D spheres are pretty low-poly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I get slowdowns when I work only half that big. The only time I've gone further than 6000 pixels wide is when I had to for a commission and it was a nightmare 
I only would have changes the light angle a bit since right now the shadow on the rings is too perfectly in-line and makes the planet look elongated from afar 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be honest, painting at such a huge size is kind of a pain, mostly because Photoshop's max brush size is only 2500
I used to use my laptop to paint but when I got married I splurged and built a desktop, it is amazing.
You mean move the star and change the shadows accordingly, or that I did the shadows wrong in the first place?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol, see - since I'm on a laptop I'd never try using Photoshop's maximum brush size even on a smaller document since it lags so much
Yeah, the shadow seems right in relation to the star, but it's just too "lined up" from an artistic point of view. Maybe the sun moved a bit more right and the shadow skewed to the left would differentiate it from the actual, physical planet more
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, that's fine then. Hm, this looks way too dark on this monitor, I can't see any details at all (at work)... This image is way boring like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Looking good, but the rings should be get bigger when they are closer, rather than smaller
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, they don't change at all. From this distance (based on photos I've seen of Saturn) there is no practical difference in perspective, so the rings don't appear to get farther.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's what I thought for a long time too, but it turns out its an illusion.
Photos of Saturn are often "zoomed in" on it by quite a lot, when taking a photo of anything, zooming in on a far object shows less perspective than zooming out and getting real close to it, so with no perspective showing on these images of Saturn, the rings don't vary much as they go behind the planet.
If you are actually "there" and really close like in this picture here there would likely be more visible perspective and the rings would get thinner as they go behind the planet
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm, I kinda figured that at this distance and scale it would still look the same and only take on more perspective closer. Now I want to find out approximately how close you'd have to get to see a difference...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
After I made that reply I wanted to find out the same thing 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. I thought this was the correct perspective, but now I'm not 100% sure
👍: 0 ⏩: 0