• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Self illumination experiment

Redfern

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
I remember some discussions about "self illumination" of starships (and other spaceborn artifacts), its pros and cons, and it got me thinking (always a danderous pasttime). Even without "spotlight" aimed at itself, how much of the structure, if any, might have been illuminated by the various "light sources" present upon the "classic" Enterprise (you know, NCC-1701, no bloody "A", "B", "C" or "D" (I always loved that line)).

So, using TallGuy's Enterprise (thanks for letting me post images with it, TG!), I positioned "point source" lights within the navigation "running" lights (both the dorsal and ventral elements mounted upon the primary saucer, within the dorsal and ventral sensor domes, within the "beacon" mounted atop the shuttle bay and within the bow facing nacelle domes (whatever one wants to call them).

Mind you, I did this within Poser 7, so I cvould not key in values like "candle power" or "lumins" or whatever features the "big boy" suites probably offer. I just played it by ear (or more reasonably, "by eye"), adjusting the intensity and the "fall off" rate until it looked "interesting" to me. I made all the afore mentioned structures 50 percent transparent so the ray-traced point lights could actually shine through. Initially, I had the lights positioned within a few virtual millimeters of the geometry, but I reasoned if I placed the lights within, whatever shadows the surrounding opaque surfaces would cast would hopefully be a tad more accurate.

Here is the result...

Big-E-Lit-J-2.jpg


Keep in mind, I have not employed any additional lights, no infinite lights implying a "nearby" stellar source. Imagine the ship trapped in that "void" create by that space-going amoeba. To my surprise, a fair percentage of the ship is illuminated. The light from the nacelle domes wash over the dorsal surface of the saucer as do the light from the sensor dome and the running lights, enough that we can make out the name and registry. While the outboard regions of the nacelles are pretty well dark, the inboard surfaces catch the light from the shuttle beacon. The forward third of the engineering hull receives light from the nacelle domes and a little from the ventral mounted running lights (the white ones). Those same lights also reveal the ventral surface of the saucer to a certain degree with the ventral sensor dome doing the greater work (obviously not seen at this angle).

Again, this is a simplified experiment compared to what lightWave, 3D studio Max, Maya and other high end suites can achieve, but it does demonstrate something interesting. What, I'm not sure, but something interesting none the less. ;)

Sincerely,

Bill
 
Can you show us the underside as well? Given that the underside is more complex, it'd be neat to see what it is like.
 
^ I second that request!

Thank you for posting that interesting view of the original Enterprise.
 
I'm getting ready for work, so it'll be this evening before I can render any more images and post them.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
How about a low angle shot?

When you started off talking about "self-illumination", before I scrolled down and saw the pic, I thought you were going to apply Refit-style spotlights to the TOS ship.
 
Are you using any linear or inverse falloff for the lights so they give more accurate results? Any radiosity?
I use LW, so can do some tests with "real" type photometric lights and a radiosity set to a couple of bounces if you'd like.
 
Hi Redfern,

It's good to see someone having a crack at this - usually starships use virtual lights placed away from the hull.

My version of Poser (v6) is quitely gathering dust somewhere. But I do remember the render results to be poor compared to C4D v8.2. What render settings are you using? The default settings are two notches above Draft in 6, which I think gives poor shadows or no self-shadowing and doesn't use ray tracing.

I ask because I can't quite understand the shadows around deck 2/bridge. It look like it's coming from the illuminated dome of the bridge. If so it could be because the point source is probably placed too high. Also inverse-square falloff is important.

Looking forward to more images.

Cheers,

S.O.
 
Wow, I didn't expect this much response, and favorable at that!

For both WildStar and Science_Officer, I am using what Poser 7 provides in the way of "fall-off", but to be honest, I can't tell if it's inverse-square or linear. One keys in a numerical value the program calls a "Poser unit", an arbitrary value having no relation to meters or other standards of distance. As I stated in my initial post, I just played with the brightness and the "end distance" until I achieved something "visually interesting".

For Science_Officer specifically, "point source" lights for Poser were not introduced until version 7, so your copy of release 6 still uses just infinite and spot lights along with ambient occlusion and image based lighting. I'm sure Cinema4D handles lighting far, far better than even the latest version of Poser, the so-called Pro 2010 edition.

As for the light emitted by the bridge mounted sensor dome and the shadow is casts in the above render, that was a deliberate choice. Poser, at least v7, does not offer "material lighting" (or whatever is the correct term), that is, establishing a group of polygons to emit ray-traced light. So that's why I positioned a point source light within there as well as the other regions I listed earlier. I purposely positioned each light to reside within the "center of mass" of each polygon group. So I placed the light exactly (well, as close as I could) within the center of that shallow dome, halfway between the top and the bottom. Thus the light IS just above the opaque upper rim of the bridge dome. Of course, this arrangement implies the dome itself is not glowing, but rather some "element" housed within a semi-transparent shell. I just thought that looked "cool". Obviously, I'd get a very different look if I lower that point light just below the upper edge of the opaque polygons. I'll create a render with "retracted" point lights for comparison and post that as well.

Back to WildStar, yeah, if you want to post some experiments (or anyone else for that matter) using a "real" tool like LightWave employing all the "bell and whistles" of illumination, sure, go right ahead. In fact, I was hoping my admittedly "low grade" tests might inspire someone with a high-end suite to do something considerably more "realistic".

Sincerely,

Bill
 
Same angle as before, but with the point light in the sensor dome slightly "retracted"...

Big-E-Lit-J-3.jpg


The underside with the point light within the ventral sensor dome in its original position...

Big-E-Lit-J-5.jpg


...and the same angle with the point light "retracted"...

Big-E-Lit-J-4.jpg


While not consistant, I kinda' like the arrangement that reveals the name and registry upon the dorsal region of the saucer, but I prefer the "retracted" motif for the ventral surface, creating a more interesting shadow. No logic to that I admit.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
A quick test using Lightwave :D

I'd imagine that some of the window ports on the primary hull could be used to illuminate the registry and other interesting parts of the ship. The outside nacelle area with the ship's information would be very difficult to illuminate though...

self-illumination-test_v001-output.jpg
 
Hmmm... that is quite a bit darker...

Blssdwlf's interpretation is just as valid. It's never been established how much "candle power" each of those sources generate.

I suspect each artist will have his or her own ideas as to how much light to use.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
While not consistant, I kinda' like the arrangement that reveals the name and registry upon the dorsal region of the saucer, but I prefer the "retracted" motif for the ventral surface, creating a more interesting shadow. No logic to that I admit.

Sincerely,

Bill

No, I think there is a logic to it. I think retracted is optically more versimilar. Those domes are not high above the ship so one would not expect them to cast much light. I think your preference is correct.

This is much closer to what the E would look like in interstellar space.

Well done.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top