a martian oddbox

[ArMaP]

you do realise that bloom is used to describe the radial light scattering that is caused by the sun shining through atmosphere and isn't dependant on there being a lens to capture it, even one attached to the eye ...

No, I do not realise that, and I don't really believe that definition. Do you have a source for it?

secondary rings and circles are the things that are reflections within the camera

We are looking at circles on those photos.

I used lensflare as a catchall for you..
but a lens flare is made up of many components

If you are talking about bloom, light scattering or lens flare, I suggest you use the the right word, otherwise you will only create more confusion.

you misunderstood me because you was unaware of the multifaceted nature of a lensflare

No, I know exactly what a lens flare is. I was not the one using "lens flare" as if it was something else. 

indeed , later when time permits and I'm not recreating a fireworks display
ill recreate lensflare from all of the lenses on the rover.. will be interesting to see how much atmosphere I have to create to get an identical scattering

Recreating? It will be interesting but useless, we are not talking about CGI.

but please don't tell me the look is down to the camera alone .. atmosphere plays an important part

As I said, I doubt it, can you provide a source for that information?

take light pillars we see from the sun and ground light sources..
ice crystals play a part in there creation .. hazy cloud can create help create some massive blooms..

No clouds on those photos.

how can you say the camera is the culprit alone ?

It depends, are we talking about lens flare, bloom, atmospheric scattering, sensor blooming or what?

[ArMaP]

Are we saying that the circular 'barnacles' above are merely a JPEG artifact?

I don't know what you're calling "barnacles", but if they are close to 8 pixels they are likely being affected by JPEG artefacts. Smaller than 8 pixels they can be JPEG artefacts themselves.
Or not, that's the problem with JPEG compression, we can never really know if what we see is what was there or not.

[funbox]

No, I do not realise that, and I don't really believe that definition. Do you have a source for it?

I already did look back

We are looking at circles on those photos.

in places yes

If you are talking about bloom, light scattering or lens flare, I suggest you use the the right word, otherwise you will only create more confusion.

which of the most is predominant within the Martian pictures ?

No, I know exactly what a lens flare is. I was not the one using "lens flare" as if it was something else.

rings and rays.. are they lensflares.. the above circles ?.. which part of the effect are we talking about?

As I said, I doubt it, can you provide a source for that information?

eh you don't think the atmosphere plays a part? lets take my light pillars example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pillar

the blooming effect is used to describe the part of the light sources that I've already given a link to. but here it is again

https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/LightingAndShadows/LightShafts/index.html

No clouds on those photos.

yet still an atmosphere , are you saying, now, that light doesn't react with atmosphere?, whether that atmosphere's visible or not ?

It depends, are we talking about lens flare, bloom, atmospheric scattering, sensor blooming or what?

mainly the most striking features of the pictures *asides from the fake looking ,almost silhouetted dune*

funbox

[ArMaP]

I already did look back

This?

Did you saw that part where they say "This method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world"?

Don't you think the other areas to the left are circles?

which of the most is predominant within the Martian pictures ?

Lens flare.

rings and rays.. are they lensflares.. the above circles ?.. which part of the effect are we talking about?

I don't know, you keep on changing what you're talking about instead of giving clear answers.

eh you don't think the atmosphere plays a part? lets take my light pillars example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pillar

the blooming effect is used to describe the part of the light sources that I've already given a link to. but here it is again

https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/LightingAndShadows/LightShafts/index.html

Bloom, as described on that page, does not reproduce a real effect. Bloom has no relation to light pillars.
And no, I didn't say that atmosphere doesn't play a part, I said nothing about it, don't change what I said into something else.

yet still an atmosphere , are you saying, now, that light doesn't react with atmosphere?, whether that atmosphere's visible or not ?

No, I'm not saying that, stop implying I said things I didn't say.

mainly the most striking features of the pictures *asides from the fake looking ,almost silhouetted dune*

Be clear about what you're talking about, I don't like charades.

[funbox]

Did you saw that part where they say "This method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world"?

indeed , and nor could we . the calculation of atmospheric light scattering, for just one photon amongst the near infinitude of particles in an atmosphere would be impossible , so emulation is a must , you didn't think they were talking about exacts did you , but all of those effects illustrated on the page are effects that happen in reality .. look at them , do they ?

is there any point in me answering the rest ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

indeed , and nor could we . the calculation of atmospheric light scattering, for just one photon amongst the near infinitude of particles in an atmosphere would be impossible , so emulation is a must ,

Emulation is a must? They say it's not an emulation.

I know that English is not my natural language, but I think that they are saying that the process is not a replication of a naturally occurring process, meaning that's not the same as a naturally occurring process like lens flare or atmospheric scattering.

you didn't think they were talking about exacts did you

Exacts is not the same thing as artificial, things can be an approximation of natural processes, simplified either because we don't know all the parameters or to make things faster. Optics is a science, not a guess.

but all of those effects illustrated on the page are effects that happen in reality .. look at them , do they ?

Then what does "This method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world" means?

is there any point in me answering the rest ?

Judging by your previous answers, I suppose not, as we are getting nowhere.

[funbox]

Emulation is a must? They say it's not an emulation.

I know that English is not my natural language, but I think that they are saying that the process is not a replication of a naturally occurring process, meaning that's not the same as a naturally occurring process like lens flare or atmospheric scattering.

Emulating the calculations, and emulating the effects we see in nature.. you do see sun rays and occlusion effects in sunlight , rays through smoke and blooming so big you cannot even see the disc of the sun in nature don't you ?

when you take a photo you get added rings and streaks and rays  as well as the aforementioned

for heavens gate's sake

Exacts is not the same thing as artificial, things can be an approximation of natural processes, simplified either because we don't know all the parameters or to make things faster. Optics is a science, not a guess.

indeed that's why emulation in 3d art is a must, variable overload otherwise

This method is not really emulating anything that happens in the real world

it means that the method that is used does not emulate any other method in the real world to achieve the effect, read the previous paragraphs for method used...

say sunlight calculated from space passing through earths atmosphere and landing on the cup in your modelled hand but intervening hazy clouds make int bloom in scene.. no no no

we emulate the sun  in the local sky and create glow effects or volume lighting effects to make it bloom in the final render many different methods , post production too programmes like aftereffects are also additional tools and methods

there are a multitude of different ways we can achieve or mimic looks of nature, Unreals way is usually quick and good for gaming platforms

Judging by your previous answers, I suppose not, as we are getting nowhere.

a path is laid a stone at a time

funbox

[ArMaP]

it means that the method that is used does not emulate any other method in the real world to achieve the effect, read the previous paragraphs for method used...

I read the whole page.

If the method is not emulating a real world method and we are talking about real world effects, forget the CGI and focus on the real world.

say sunlight calculated from space passing through earths atmosphere and landing on the cup in your modelled hand but intervening hazy clouds make int bloom in scene.. no no no

I'm still waiting for a definition of some light effect resulting from the interaction of the light with the atmosphere...

a path is laid a stone at a time

Yes, but you lay the stones in a different direction every time you lay one stone you may never reach the desired end, and that's what I have seen with your answers. First you said it was a lens flare, then it was "bloom", a CGI method of making pretty images, then you talked about light pillars and implied I said things I didn't say.

That's not the way of having a productive discussion.

[Eighthman]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.60

OK, there are three photos (blown up) on page 5 of an odd rock sitting on top of a larger flat rock. That odd rock seems to have 2 or 3 small circular bits on it, that resemble barnacles (to me). I would like to know what these small circular projections might be.  Perhaps these have been explained in some fashion but it has not been clear to me.

Thank You.

[thorfourwinds]

Typical....crickets.

Take a close look at all the posts after I offered Devon Island as "Mars"...

Arguing minutia again (IMHO, of course).

Debunk that one, ArMaP, and Happy New Year, friends.

[funbox]

so this is venus then

ArMaP says
"Why do you say that? "

I say this because the amount of atmospheric scattering (3d metalanguage *bloom*

the suns disc is lost in it's brightness and the only indicators there are to its position, are the lensflare circles

this massive radial flare that's apparent in the earlier picture's suggests to me that there's more atmosphere or particulates to create atmospheric scattering than Nasa are letting on

simple enough now ?

funbox

[funbox]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.60

OK, there are three photos (blown up) on page 5 of an odd rock sitting on top of a larger flat rock. That odd rock seems to have 2 or 3 small circular bits on it, that resemble barnacles (to me). I would like to know what these small circular projections might be.  Perhaps these have been explained in some fashion but it has not been clear to me.

Thank You.

parts reminded me of Arkens flower



funbox

[ArMaP]

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8636.60

OK, there are three photos (blown up) on page 5 of an odd rock sitting on top of a larger flat rock. That odd rock seems to have 2 or 3 small circular bits on it, that resemble barnacles (to me). I would like to know what these small circular projections might be.  Perhaps these have been explained in some fashion but it has not been clear to me.

At first sight I see only one barnacle-looking thing, but as you can see it occupies a JPEG block.
Because of the way JPEG compression works, sometimes, the edges of a block have the colours slightly changed, so we cannot be sure of what the original object looks like.

[funbox]

At first sight I see only one barnacle-looking thing, but as you can see it occupies a JPEG block.
Because of the way JPEG compression works, sometimes, the edges of a block have the colours slightly changed, so we cannot be sure of what the original object looks like.

have you tried desaturation ?, seeing as the colour is obscuring the view  for you..

or are you saying now that colour interpolation now alters geometric shapes ? is intergral to defining them shapes ?

does this apparent rule apply even if the asserted shapes are confined to an eightblock or not ?

and you say I confuse you ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

Typical....crickets.

Take a close look at all the posts after I offered Devon Island as "Mars"...

I thought I had answered on another thread, but I was mistaken. I will look into this.

Arguing minutia again (IMHO, of course).

Details are important, that's what makes the difference between a toothpick and a match.