Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > The Art of Star Trek Online
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,660
I would love to visit Plaides or the Seven Sisters


The "Pillars of creation" (Eagle Nebula)


The hourglass nebula


The Lagoon Nebula


The Cat eye nebula


And can we get closer to a star .... PLEASE!!
Hopefully I'll come back from my break; this break is fun; I play intellectual games.

I hope STO get's better ...
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 269
# 2
04-21-2013, 09:12 PM
Celestial bodies don't pay the bills. Escorts do.
These forums suck. ~Omega X
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,660
# 3
04-23-2013, 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unikon View Post
Celestial bodies don't pay the bills. Escorts do.
yeah ... but you need to into those nebulea with your band new escort


in other words

CONTENT RELEASE
+ C-store release
Hopefully I'll come back from my break; this break is fun; I play intellectual games.

I hope STO get's better ...
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
# 4
04-23-2013, 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unikon View Post
Celestial bodies don't pay the bills. Escorts do.
"Celestial Bodies" sounds like a great name for an escort service.
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,746
# 5
04-23-2013, 08:06 PM
Some of these were on the viewscreens of the Voyager bridge in like every episode.
Play more STO Foundry! (You can thank me later.)

A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM in the SIRIUS SECTOR
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,200
# 6
04-23-2013, 09:18 PM
If they can find a way to throw those backdrops into STO, I'm all for it. A "pillars of creation" backdrop like in First Contact would be awesome.
Please fix the Foundry lag!
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,918
# 7
04-23-2013, 10:41 PM
The main problem I have with putting in the celestial objects seen in iconic images like the all too familiar Pillars of Creation, The Horsehead Nebula, The Hourglass Nebula, etc., is that they're all false color images. They usually assign certain colors to certain elements, or wavelengths which are invisible to the human eye.

The argument I hear in my head when I say that is, "But there are a billion brightly colored nebulae in the game already, what about those?" And while I partially agree, it can be argued that those are invented, and thus, who's to say those, fictitious nebulae, do not give off such visible light.
-The Artist formerly known as Tumerboy



Quote:
Originally Posted by mightybobcnc View Post
Tacofangs, what is your beef with where's Sulu?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,009
# 8
04-23-2013, 11:31 PM
Not exactly Taco. While a lot of images do use compositing to get various effects, in reality, a lot of Nebulae do actually look like their photographs.

Also, remember that "Viewscreen" thread a few months ago? Where we established that veiwscreens aren't really television screens, but more displays for what the sensors are seeing? Of couse the human eye wouldn't be able to see them, but shouldn't the ship be capable of displaying those false-colour images in realtime?
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 9
04-24-2013, 12:39 AM
Astronomers do not use color cameras. For the most part, astronomers and astrophysicists have little use for color images.

If you see a color image of an astronomical object, it was taken using two or more exposures in two or more filters (astronomers almost always use filters that only allow in a certain range of frequencies).

To get a color photograph, you have to choose which filters to use and how to blend them together. Add to that the fact that what we see from Earth is not necessarily what we would see if we were near the stellar object. The interstellar medium leads to what is called reddening and specific types of gasses or dusts between us and the object might further alter which frequencies get through. The worst thing is the atmosphere, which eliminates big chucks of the EM spectrum and lots of wavelengths of light.

What we see in photographs is probably very different than what we would see if we were actually near the object, staring out the window. Things that are in beautiful, bright hues in color composites look like grey or muted colors through a telescope.

Take the U filter, one of the four most commonly used astronomical filters. Most of this wavelength is invisible to the human eye, yet it is often included as visible spectra in Hubble color composite photographs.

Take a look at the Orion nebula with a telescope. It is one of the most colorful objects in the sky, but what you see through the eyepiece is very muted compared to what you see in Hubble CCD images that have been compiled into a color picture.

Last edited by logicalspock; 04-24-2013 at 12:42 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 171
# 10
04-24-2013, 01:24 AM
As I understand it, you also wouldn't probably see much of the Nebula if you are very close or in it. It might look like a bright object from afar (see Orion Nebula) but once in it, all the layers are far too thin-stretched to be overly impressive.

In that regard, most depictions of Nebulae in science fiction are probably very unrealistic (but yeah, it's hard to realize that with all the colorful images produced by astronomers that don't really depict reality).

"Sometimes you have to do things that you hate, so you can survive to fight another day."
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 AM.