LENS FLARES!!!!

[Matuchkin]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Sorry for this but could you remove or at least severely limit your "Location" attribute? It made your post about 1000% longer than it needed to be, all whitespace.

Yeah, I was planning to remove a few numbers. On it already.

@5thHorseman reload the page.

[Superfluous J]

3 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Yeah, I was planning to remove a few numbers. On it already.

@5thHorseman reload the page.

Better. Now it's only 200-300% too big

[Matuchkin]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

Better. Now it's only 200-300% too big

Big enough.

[tater]

2 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Cassini was much closer to Jupiter when that image was taken.

Look at Jupiter through a telescope, don't make false comparisons please.

Wow, I agree with you, and that's the response? There is no false comparison, the left image (naked eye) is incredibly washed out. That's what it actually looks like, and would look like if, like in KSP, you were zipping around it in a spacecraft, NOT the way it looks on the right, with fake color added (closer to normal video games).

I've looked at rather a lot of things through telescopes, BTW, but never without an atmosphere , which is has a huge impact on seeing. I see color in stars naked eye, and planets, actually. The overall tone of Jupiter in my telescope (eyepiece, not camera) is actually very close to the cassini image on the left, though obviously just as a slightly stripped blur.

Here's Hubble's take from 1991 (natural color):

Edited March 4, 2016 by tater

[sal_vager]

6 hours ago, tater said:

Wow, I agree with you, and that's the response? There is no false comparison, the left image (naked eye) is incredibly washed out. That's what it actually looks like, and would look like if, like in KSP, you were zipping around it in a spacecraft, NOT the way it looks on the right, with fake color added (closer to normal video games).

I've looked at rather a lot of things through telescopes, BTW, but never without an atmosphere , which is has a huge impact on seeing. I see color in stars naked eye, and planets, actually. The overall tone of Jupiter in my telescope (eyepiece, not camera) is actually very close to the cassini image on the left, though obviously just as a slightly stripped blur.

Here's Hubble's take from 1991 (natural color):

Sorry tater, I didn't realize you were in agreement, I retract my false comparison statement.

I was thinking more along the lines of this though, when comparing the images we see from NASA to what we can see with our eyes, even when aided with optical telescopes, there's a big difference in colour like in this image:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't mine, but it's just like what I see in my telescope unless I make a long exposure which is how a lot of the space pics we see are made.

Using a much larger scope helps as well.

This is also one of the things that stargazing sites will tell people interested in entering astronomy, people won't see the colours they expect.

Quote

First of all, do not expect to see celestial objects as they are displayed in most photographs. These images are usually acquired with very long exposures utilizing sensitive CCD cameras and much more sophisticated equipment than what is within the reach of most amateur astronomers. This is not to say beautiful views are not possible to see in moderate amateur equipment. They definitely are possible. Many are thrilled (myself included) at the wonderful vistas enjoyed through amateur telescopes.

It's certainly possible to see these colours, but to see then with the vibrancy of the images we see elsewhere in this thread takes more than just your eyes.

 

Edit.

 

Taking this further we have pictures like this:

Spoiler

Taken in infrared, there's a wealth of beauty in the universe we simply can't see with our eyes.

 

Also this should really be in Suggestions (for more lens flares).

[daniel l.]

39 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Also this should really be in Suggestions (for more lens flares).

True, But the suggestions really gets very little attention. Better just to merge with the general ksp

[Evanitis]

9 hours ago, benjee10 said:

The stock sun flare is utterly obnoxious though. Not only is it ugly as sin but it doesn't behave like a real lens flare should and goes behind planets and ships.

Do you know a non-stock sun flare that doesn't do this? I have a relatively pretty one, but it also stays behind objects. I'm also not a fan of it's hue. It's cyan-blue, but it's reflections stay yellow-red. I'd fix the latter problem myself, though I was always lazy to figure out how to tinker with a .unity3d file.

Spoiler

 

7 hours ago, Sandworm said:

For people's love of flare, take a moment to look into how much effort is put into avoiding such artifacts.  No camera maker is ever proud of seeing the internal mechanisms of their device in the final product.  The fact that we now add simulated flare under the assumption that all cameras must flare all the time has generations of engineers spinning in their graves,

As someone doing video-editing, post-production and compositing... I feel with you. Though we don't add the flare (and similar effects) because we -think- all camera shots should have it. Such artifacts help 'fake', compsed shots to look realistic - and that's our main goal in such situations. It's an easy, and cheap solution. I love when I -don't- have to add these. But when I have problems as wrong light-direction or very mismatching color or exposure with the source material (be it a 3d render or an actual shot), adding a lens flare, some bloom, maybe an extra light can cover an ugly bit.

Now if the customer pays me enough and has a good taste, I try to find a better workaround. But it's usually the opposite: I can't allow myslef to always avoid quick cheap solutions, while random bosses and even directors tend to melt from satisfaction when they see a lens-flare. Common conversation:

"That shot looks dull Evan, do something with it!"
*tinkers with colors, exposure, contrast, motion blur*

"It's getting better, but it's not enough, got any more ideas?"
*adds lens flare, bloom, dark vinyl on the edge*

"Yes, that's beautiful! I'm buying it. Now do the same with a few more shots."
*sigh*

 

[daniel l.]

11 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

Do you know a non-stock sun flare that doesn't do this? I have a relatively pretty one, but it also stays behind objects. I'm also not a fan of it's hue. It's cyan-blue, but it's reflections stay yellow-red. I'd fix the latter problem myself, though I was always lazy to figure out how to tinker with a .unity3d file.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

*Gasp I need that flare in my life! DOWNLOAD PLEASE!

[Evanitis]

24 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

*Gasp I need that flare in my life! DOWNLOAD PLEASE!

It's from the KSPRC Renaissance Compilation. Keep in mind, that it's a -very- resource intensive pack, so if you don't have some supercomputer, installing it will have a serious performance impact (if not downright crashes for eating all your ram).

To install just the sun-flare, add only the KSPRC folder from the archive to your GameData. From that, you can delete the textures and atmospheres folder, and only keep 'Assets', 'Plugins' and the .dll files.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Evanitis

[daniel l.]

Just now, Evanitis said:

It's from the KSPRC Renaissance Compilation. Keep in mind, that it's a -very- resource intensive pack, so if you don't have some supercomputer, installing it will have a serious performance impact (if not downright crashes for eating all your ram).

I only installed the flare from the pack. To do so, add the KSPRC folder from the archive to your GameData. From that, you can delete the textures and atmospheres folder, and only keep 'Assets', 'Plugins' and the .dll files.

Great!  I've been looking for a replacement for that cheap default flare for a long time

[benjee10]

3 hours ago, Evanitis said:

Do you know a non-stock sun flare that doesn't do this? I have a relatively pretty one, but it also stays behind objects. I'm also not a fan of it's hue. It's cyan-blue, but it's reflections stay yellow-red. I'd fix the latter problem myself, though I was always lazy to figure out how to tinker with a .unity3d file.

The scatterer flare works properly except there are a couple of issues with it not drawing in front of fairings. Blackrack is incredibly fast at development though so it may well be fixed by now. Plus you get accurate atmospheres and oceans. It's win-win.

[Evanitis]

@benjee10

I'm using scatterer, but I never noticed it's sun-flare differs from stock. Maybe I should check the most recent version. Or maybe I should switch the KSPRC one off, to see if it's behind that.

EDIT: checked it, and you are right. But I'll stick to my current (incorrectly drawn) one - I like it's very strong effect. Maybe I'll even get myself to correct the hue one day.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Evanitis

[tater]

Seeing is psychological as much as physics. Heck, there are people who see sounds, and hear colors (not that that's typical).

I think that astronauts have not described earth as washed out, though. Next time I see one, I'll ask (I see Sid Gutierrez and Mike Mullane in town very occasionally (the latter lives a few doors down from a friend of mine)). Of course a large issue would be ambient light. In the daytime, you don't see stars at all in space, it's too bright. At night, you cannot see the earth well... because it's dark (minus the city lights), but can see stars. I imagine the principal issue with seeing in space is brightness (and stopping down your iris, as a result). 

[Vermil]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

Seeing is psychological as much as physics. Heck, there are people who see sounds, and hear colors (not that that's typical).

I think that astronauts have not described earth as washed out, though. Next time I see one, I'll ask (I see Sid Gutierrez and Mike Mullane in town very occasionally (the latter lives a few doors down from a friend of mine)). Of course a large issue would be ambient light. In the daytime, you don't see stars at all in space, it's too bright. At night, you cannot see the earth well... because it's dark (minus the city lights), but can see stars. I imagine the principal issue with seeing in space is brightness (and stopping down your iris, as a result). 

They don't describe the earth as washed out because it's not. It's illuminated enough and filling up enough of their field of view to register in the color sensitive cones in the retina.

That people perceive less or no color in darkness is just a matter of how our eyes work. We don't see color with our more foto-sensitive and numerous rods. A camera, otoh, is either color or B&W, it doesn't shift mode because of the state of illumination. A color camera sees colors. It doesn't have so much to do with exposure. It needs enough exposure to register the image, as usual, but that's it.

 

 

[John FX]

On 03/03/2016 at 4:03 AM, razark said:

I also like liver and onions and think cheesecake is a horrid abomination that should not be, so we all have different tastes in what we like.

I like liver and onions *and* cheesecake although not together thereby proving your point that we all have different tastes. The solution for differing tastes when dealing with features in a game is more options and increased modding ability IMHO

[Snark]

So it seems to me that really there are two completely different discussions happening here that are basically at right angles to each other, and most of the confusion is happening because people are conflating the two.

These two discussions are:

1. What the game should do about lens flares. i.e. a practical feature request that belongs in this forum.

2. Whether lens flares are a good or bad thing. This isn't a practical topic, it's a subjective one that really belongs over in the General Discussion forum more than here.

With regard to #1, this seems like a no-brainer to me. The practical option that will satisfy the most players is to make it a configurable option, like camera shake. Give us a slider from "lots" to "none" and then everybody's happy. Extra bonus points if you can add some moddable hooks along the way.

With regard to #2: It really is totally subjective. Some people like them and some people hate them, and nothing anyone says can convince anyone else to change what they like, so it's pointless to argue. It really is like arguing over what flavor of ice cream is best. And not "whether it's better for ice cream to have broken glass in it," either-- saying that is being dismissive of people with perfectly valid likes and dislikes of their own, simply because they happen not to like the same things that you do.

So by all means, let's have the freewheeling "Why I Love/Hate Lens Flares" discussion... but personally, I'd love it if we could separate out such a discussion from the practical "what should the game do to make the most people happy, including me" discussion.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Snark

[Vermil]

Lens flare is a Photoshop effect.

 

 

[bewing]

On 3/3/2016 at 4:27 PM, razark said:

You may like to pretend you've got an arbitrary physical camera hanging around outside all your spacecraft, but I like to view it as though I'm not looking at it through an extra, imperfect lens.  As a wearer of glasses myself, I don't need extra crap added for no reason.

Can we make pointless lens flares an option yet?  I mean, seriously.  Civilization has spent the last many years trying to remove a flaw, just so people can add it back in when it doesn't need to be there?  How about we make it so that the screen just goes blank after a few seconds to imitate the lack of oxygen, too?

See, if you follow this through to its logical conclusion, what you anti-lens-flare people are saying is that if Kerbol is always just displayed as a perfectly round flat white circle (with no decorative touches at all), then this will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the game? I think that's just nuts.

 

[razark]

36 minutes ago, bewing said:

See, if you follow this through to its logical conclusion, what you anti-lens-flare people are saying is that if Kerbol is always just displayed as a perfectly round flat white circle (with no decorative touches at all), then this will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the game? I think that's just nuts.

My choice is: If that's the way it would appear, then that's the way it should appear.

I didn't say it would necessarily look "better", just that it would look the way it would look to a third-person viewpoint that is not a physical camera involving lenses.  It's not a question of aesthetics to me, it's a question of replicating what would be seen.  On another level, I'm also opposed to artificially inserting flaws.

[Vermil]

33 minutes ago, bewing said:

See, if you follow this through to its logical conclusion, what you anti-lens-flare people are saying is that if Kerbol is always just displayed as a perfectly round flat white circle (with no decorative touches at all), then this will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the game? I think that's just nuts.

 

 

I agree, I don't mind the direct, diffuse flare around a light source. Because we always have that even in our eyes. I think it should be there.

I'm much more hostile to a string of clearly defined reflexes in lens elements, illuminated spots, etc. The reason for that is that I have +50,000 photos on my computer, and there's maybe two pictures that have a very slight ghost smudge of a lens flare. And then I typed in "space" in my browsers search field, and chose images. The only pictures returned which had lens flares where the fakes, CGI from movies and games, and paintings by artists.

... - That is lensflares besides the typical diffuse bloom around the intense lightsource, I mean.

[Dreambish]

Pffffffff.....

As a person who immediately turned off the *shudder* camera shake, i really don't see why we wan't another disruption that prevents us from seeing planets, docking targets or our OWN DAMN SHIP.

I feel like these quick visual effects make the game feel tacky and worthless; the subtle effects we have now are far more suitable to a gameplay-based game that doesn't rely on graphics over actual playing experience.

[daniel l.]

I think i've probably misnamed this thread, What i meant by lens flare was sun flare, Because the current one looks like crap

[731destroyer]

Unitys lens flares look potato

[Snikersnee]

Diffraction spikes Only the hubble and other refractor telescopes have them. Cameras with lenses have lens flares, and the stock is subtle yet existent.