Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 1 of 11
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Auto-exposure
Auto-exposure
Do you prefer auto-exposure on or off?
1.I always have it on.[ 13 ][39.39%]
2.I usually have it on.[ 5 ][15.15%]
3.I sometimes turn it on, and sometimes off.[ 2 ][6.06%]
4.I usually have it off.[ 6 ][18.18%]
5.I always have it off.[ 7 ][21.21%]
Answers total: 33
apenpaapDate: Tuesday, 31.07.2012, 16:18 | Message # 1
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Auto-exposure seems like an incomplete thing in SE to me. At the moment, it doesn't really seem to be auto-exposure, but auto-magnitude limit. Because while it does indeed make faint things invisible when bright things are in the screen, this only extends to things that aren't discs (mainly faraway stars and planets), while very bright planets like Venus remain overexposed, and very dim planets like Neptune remain underexposed. The way I see it, bright, nearly white surfaces should look more like they do with real planet brightness off with auto-exposure on, and the opposite goes for dark surfaces.

I was also wondering how many people have auto-exposure on. Personally, as the previous paragraph suggests, I prefer it off because it seems incomplete to me.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 31.07.2012, 16:32 | Message # 2
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
very dim planets like Neptune remain underexposed

This is the reason that I never use real planet brightness. It doesn't make any sense unless the exposure/mag limit is locked to a certain value (which it will never do automatically). It's currently a rather useless feature imo, and detracts from both realism and aesthetics.

In the past I have always used auto-exposure, but recently I have started using it less frequently, so I probably use it only about half the time now. It is more realistic by far, but turning it off just makes everything look so pretty ♥





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
apenpaapDate: Tuesday, 31.07.2012, 22:45 | Message # 3
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I actually like real planet brighness a lot myself, except for auto-exposure having no effect on it. Scroched worlds near their stars may get completely overexposed on their day sides, but the bright light makes for a very beautiful and unique look in their twilight zones. And it prevents cold distant worlds from looking way too bright, like the ice worlds with bright blue Earth skies that seemed to show up all the time in 0.95, and Titans with seas that look like orange juice.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 31.07.2012, 22:52 | Message # 4
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
I dislike it because - especially with autoexposure on - there's no reason that your camera wouldn't adjust to the dimmer lighting. It doesn't make sense to look at a world and having it be nearly-black when there is definitely enough light to resolve it properly, especially when you can see the dim stars and galaxy in the background clearly. As a photographer it just annoys me tongue




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Tuesday, 31.07.2012, 22:52
 
boyan3001Date: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 00:11 | Message # 5
Astronaut
Group: Users
Serbia
Messages: 45
Status: Offline
That's why I proposed this: http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/8-755-1
I think camera settings realism is good point here anyway. Further, engine could get some adv camera motion tools (imitating real camera tools)... It's obvius in this phase that a lot of people show some directing creativity. I think if engine gets that kind of advanced option, YT will be flooded with virtual documentry very quickly biggrin

Btw, I prefer auto-exposure on.





Realno...

Edited by boyan3001 - Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 00:11
 
anonymousgamerDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 10:55 | Message # 6
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
I tweaked my Cinematic Lens Flare to explicitly work with Auto Exposure on. I just us it because it emphasizes the brightness of stars and stuff better, and because it looks weird when it's off.




Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
neutronium76Date: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 11:20 | Message # 7
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
I usually have auto-exposure on. But I would prefer if we could somehow adjust the amount/intensity of this effect. If it can be quantified that is ;). And I reaally like real planet brightness even though it doesn't work very well with auto exposure on as Harb suggested.




PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2
 
n3xtDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 15:35 | Message # 8
Explorer
Group: Users
Netherlands
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
@HarbingerDawn

Quote
This is the reason that I never use real planet brightness. It doesn't make any sense unless the exposure/mag limit is locked to a certain value (which it will never do automatically). It's currently a rather useless feature imo, and detracts from both realism and aesthetics.


Well, I don't rather find it useless... Imagine a planet 100 AU away from a K-type main sequence star, believe me it would recieve barely no proper Sunlight at all... I always have it on even for the darkest planets. It's just the way it is.

And for auto exposure on. I looked to a full Moon last night and the stars around the full Moon become totally obscured by it's reflecting Sunlight... But that's just me how I use SE...

And I increased my Planets/Stars/Galaxies magnitudes to 8.0 as average while stabilizing Star Scale and etc... And messing a bit in main.cfg ---> I'm starting to get the hang of it finally biggrin

Bad night sky is after all a bad night sky, just deal with it... Would be something if we could turn off auto exposure in real hahahaaa... Oh well


Edited by n3xt - Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 15:38
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 15:40 | Message # 9
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (n3xt)
a planet 100 AU away from a K-type main sequence star, believe me it would recieve barely no proper sunlight at all...

At 100 AU from a K V star, the sun would appear several times brighter than the full Moon. From space, if you take a photograph of Earth with an exposure sufficient to reveal the stars, then the Earth is clearly visible under full Moon lighting conditions. So even for a world that dim, turning real planet brightness off would produce a realistic look.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
n3xtDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 15:57 | Message # 10
Explorer
Group: Users
Netherlands
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
@HarbingerDawn

Yeah you have a point...

But yeah keep in mind... the planet from 100 AU away from a K V star it's light has to travel has to travel for roughly 819 minutes (nearly 14 hours) to get there I think in the meantime, it's starlight gets weaker and weaker. Instead of traveling 8 minutes and 19 seconds with freshly released energy.

The Moon's reflected Sun light gets here in less then 1.3 seconds xD

Check the attachments I find there's a huuuge difference between them (not necessarily 100 AU but oh well)
From a little more then 8 AU from a mini yellow giant with 10 solar luminosities. Even though Saturn is slightly further away it doesn't appear that bright...

Or for example a planet being 0.05 pc away (1000 AU) orbiting a K-type MS star would appear pretty dull
But if it orbits R136a1 for example it might still appear as app mag -4.00 or -5.00 from that distance from 10 - 20 AU away from the planet with a phase of 1.0

Attachments: 7358345.jpg(230Kb) · 7705887.jpg(227Kb)


Edited by n3xt - Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 16:17
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 16:16 | Message # 11
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (n3xt)
But yeah keep in mind... the planet from 100 AU away from a K V star it's light has to travel has to travel for roughly 819 minutes (nearly 14 hours) to get there I think in the meantime, it's starlight gets weaker and weaker. Instead of traveling 8 minutes and 19 seconds with freshly released energy.

n3xt, what are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything. Yes, the propagation of light follows the inverse square law, but so what? How long ago the light was emitted is irrelevant. Photons do not change while flying through vacuum. The only thing that matters in this case is the apparent magnitude of the light source.

And yes, there's a huge difference between the two screenshots you posted, but what of it? We already know that turning real planet brightness on makes a difference, this is not new information.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
n3xtDate: Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 16:22 | Message # 12
Explorer
Group: Users
Netherlands
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
@HarbingerDawn

I know the photons are being constantly emitted, just my thoughts...

Thanks for letting me know though.

Yaaay... Space Pilot xD biggrin


Edited by n3xt - Wednesday, 01.08.2012, 16:22
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Auto-exposure
Page 1 of 11
Search: