NGC 5949

tRetro-Visor wrote:

WHA.... its a perfect replication!!!

tRetro-Visor wrote:

That's spot on!

I can't tell which one is Space Engine and which one is real 

Salvo wrote:

I can't tell which one is Space Engine and which one is real 

the bottom one, but I can see that there would be people who would confuse! latterly the ONLY difference is the texture, the clouds are slightly more detailed in the real one.... and that's pretty much it.
its very impressive!

the photo guy wrote:

the ONLY difference is the texture, the clouds are slightly more detailed in the real one.... and that's pretty much it.

Also the rings, the real ones are quite darker. But that's probably because in SE it's a perfectly flat surface while in reality it obviously has depth (even if it's pretty thin).

Salvo wrote:

the photo guy wrote:

the ONLY difference is the texture, the clouds are slightly more detailed in the real one.... and that's pretty much it.

Also the rings, the real ones are quite darker. But that's probably because in SE it's a perfectly flat surface while in reality it obviously has depth (even if it's pretty thin).

True, but what gets me the most is the shadow, somehow he managed to get that shadow perfect. IDK if it's already in SE or if he had to put that there using SHIFT-F2 if he did then I'm surprised he had the patients to make that shadow perfect!

well, its not that hard to get it right. The issue is exposure in space engine, since small moons appear as small white dots around the rings, but you can remove them by adjusting it

here's how it looks unedited

here a clear presentation on how I do it
Original

Default (No adjustments)

Exposure adjustment

Photoshop touch-ups (Saturation / Blur)


I also tend to have Space Engine and the Image side-by-side and also search information about the photo, like resolution, FOV and Cassini's position and distance to Saturn (This was taken 1.9 AU away from Saturn by Cassini)

I wish some sort of blur feature was available in Space Engine.

Original



Recreation



Fun fact I found out, the moon is actually alot farther away then what this picture represent (at least in space engine)

jbustter wrote:

Original



Recreation



Fun fact I found out, the moon is actually alot farther away then what this picture represent (at least in space engine)

hmm? do you mean the moons orbit in space engine is not 384,400 km? or is that the picture in space engine, the orbit is at some kind of angle as well as the camera angle making some sort of optical illusion making them look the same distance but not?
good replication BTW!

the photo guy wrote:

hmm? do you mean the moons orbit in space engine is not 384,400 km? or is that the picture in space engine, the orbit is at some kind of angle as well as the camera angle making some sort of optical illusion making them look the same distance but not?
good replication BTW!

I only know I had to use an angle to get the planet and the moon to the correct position, I'm not sure if it's accurate to how far the moon really is to earth. Also thank