Hi,
This is a real photo of the moon
and this is a rendering of my model of the moon
The texture map is from http://www.oera.net/ and the bump map from the blender texture disc or from a no more working planet image maps page.
The texture and the bump are ok, my question is how to adjust the material properties to get the right look for the moon. The model without textures and current material looks like this:
Any help will be appreciated!
Natural painter.
Since you’re using a photographic texture map, all the details will be correct, so the only things left to look at are the lighting and the color. Since the colors are shades of grey, that really only leaves the lighting.
I took your photograph and your render, blurred both of them, then laid your blurred render on top of the blurred photograph and set the Gimp to subtract yours from the photo. Here’s the result.
As you can see, theres a lot of light at the moon’s rim in the photograph which is not present in the render. So, you need to get a more uniform light on the face of the moon. Try adding lights to the left and right, above and below your camera, pointing at the moon mesh. Cut the intensity of all of them, and try again.
I would try adding a sun lamp to face is right on. Then I would turn down the Nor a little bit. The moon doesn’t look that bumpy for me.
tyr adding a little TraLu
I don’t think Tralu will help here…
The dusty surface of the moon is very rough and even a bit retro-reflective i.e. it scatters more light back into the direction where it came from than “normal” materials…
But i think you can come close with Oren Nayar which simulates rough surfaces. And of course turn off Spec…
I think you guys are missing the big picture here. The photograph of the moon looks flat. I’m not talking about the roughness or the bump, I’m talking about the whole thing. Looks like a disk, not a sphere. Therein lies the problem. naturalpainter has modeled a sphere and Blender is putting in shadows as if it were a sphere. Very logical, but not photorealistic.
The lighting needs to be adjusted so the sphere looks flat. I know this goes against the grain, that everything we do is about creating the illusion of three dimensionality with lighting and bump maps and adjustments to various shader parameters, but in this special case, that’s just not going to help.
As I tried to point out in my earlier post, the render has less light on the rim, and this is where additional light is needed to flatten the render and make it look more like the photograph.
I was not talking about the bump map at all…i was refering to the microscopic properties of the surface, and Lambert’s idealized model just doesn’t fit the moon very well.
Did you ever try the Oren-Nayar diffuse shader?
try to turn down ref and have spec with low hardness?
Or maybe SSS?
Have you tried with AO?
It s because it s lite by the sun. so light it by the sun and put your camera between the moon and the sun (like in reality)
The image on the left is a sphere, with Oren-Neyer shading. The image on the right is the photograph. Oren-Neyer helps, but the moon on the left still looks spherical.
Kept the Oren-Neyer shader, but added the lights mentioned in post #2 to flatten out the image. This worked equally well with Lambert, it’s mainly a matter of adjusting the position and intensity of the lights.
@dagobert: his original image was done with the “real” physical set up. Doesn’t work well, as you can see in the first post. You have to cheat the lighting on this one to make it work.
Hi all, thank you very much for your replies.
Orinoco, there is another thing to consider to make this image realistic. The photo was taken using a telescopic lens, but current blender doesn’t allow yet this kind of lenses (the limit is 250). A telescopic lens reduces to the minimun the perspective effect, that’s another reason the moon looks like a disc. I had been trying with an ortographic lens without satisfactory results yet. Any hint?
Best regards.
Question - do you actually want it to look like a telephoto shot?
And are you doing it “right” side up or astronomical, uncorrected, telescope-side up?
To simulate the telephoto look furthur, maybe you could pump the camera up to 250 and then move it way, way back and jack up the render resolution. Most of the render will be black but it should give you exactly the same effect as a telephoto if you can get far enough away and render large enough. (You’ve all seen the photo books showing how a telephoto picture compares exactly with a blow-up of a non-telephoto picture, right?)
Not sure how to get the render though, if it’s too big a resolution. Maybe preview render window and screen capture?
Say, is there a crop node? I can see one being useful for a number of situations.
Or long shot, maybe the… script?.. plugin?.. built-in function? that somehow creates a 2 point perspective - lens shift, I think it’s called, designed for architectural visualization. At a minimum, you could shift a regular view it so the moon is in the top-right corner and abort the render once it’s past the bottom edge if there’s no crop function.
