Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/11/05/relaxing-video-on-awe-inspirin.html
…
4 Likes
My god, it’s actually full of stars.
6 Likes
Perlin noise, as you know, is how Minecraft builds its realistic interesting landscapes.
1 Like
It’s beautiful!
However I don’t think that stars around actually work like this 
There shouldn’t be so many stars around it, and the ones that would be there should form clusters, light up the nebula and have some gravitational connection to the gas and not being spread uniformly around it like in this video.
The stars you see normally the pictures are in the foreground or (less often) in a background and very far away, so you wouldn’t expect them to be moving with the camera like this.
Still, very beautiful!
3 Likes
Sorry, haven’t seen your comment, before commenting myself 
but no… they are not actually full of stars. Not like this at least.
I don’t think the gray specs around the boundaries of the clouds are supposed to be stars, though I’m not sure what they’re meant to be (gas giants perhaps). The stars are clustered in the clouds’ cores throughout the video. This is correct. Star formation in diffuse nebula occurs near the barycenter, sometimes in single stars, but often in what are called open clusters (loosely gravitationally bound stars forming from the same giant molecular cloud). Extremely large nebula can have multiple open clusters grouped near each other in stellar associations and the largest nebula can include multiple such associations.
In any given cluster you would be unable to directly view the stars through the diffuse cloud until it was in the final stages of collapse, so it would look like a cloud lit from within. You’re correct that the very bright stars seen juxtaposed over diffuse nebula are actually between the nebula and the telescope. Supernova remnant nebula have a different structure, but the video appears to be aimed at depicting diffuse nebula.
Basically, you’re not wrong, but I believe you may be misinterpreting the visuals in the animation.
No worries, I enjoy a good pedantic debate as much as the next person. But, My God, it’s core is full of star(s) doesn’t quite riff off the famous line at the end of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as well. 
6 Likes
Fun fact: that line was never actually in the movie, it was retconned in for the sequel book and movie.
2 Likes
Interesting, I didn’t know it was added to the film. It’s been a long time since I read the novel before I saw the movie, but I’m fairly certain the ling was in there.
1 Like
I don’t think the gray specs around the boundaries of the clouds are supposed to be stars, though I’m not sure what they’re meant to be (gas giants perhaps).
Interesting idea, but we both know it is pretty unlikely they aren’t gas giants. What they are is an artistic expression. People expect these “stars”, as the only pictures of nebulae we have ever seen where with the white specs superimposed. I’m surprised that the artist hasn’t added the diffraction spikes 
In any given cluster you would be unable to directly view the stars through the diffuse cloud until it was in the final stages of collapse, so it would look like a cloud lit from within.
There is only that, but often the nebulae are also lit from outside or from behind. As an artistic impression is perfect and I squeal a bit inside every time I watch this video, but let’s not beat around the bush - it’s not, and wasn’t meant to be, scientific.
But, My God, it’s core is full of star(s) doesn’t quite riff off the famous line at the end of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as well.
Now I embarrassed, as that I did not got this reference 
1 Like
You might be right. Of course, if they are gas giants, you’d never see them at that scale anyway, but I don’t necessarily assume some cynical motive on the part of the animator.
Not perfectly, no. But that doesn’t mean the artist didn’t try to incorporate some scientific realism into the video. I don’t see why it needs to be an all or nothing proposition, pure artistic license or accurate simulation. To me it lies somewhere between, and is more realistic that the vast majority of pop-sci depictions of nebula. But I agree there’s probably some artistic license, whatever the specs are meant to represent. Which I’m okay with.
No need to be embarrassed. I actually kind of wondered, but I didn’t want to assume.
1 Like
Of course, if they are gas giants, you’d never see them at that scale anyway, but I don’t necessarily assume some cynical motive on the part of the animator.
The scale is only one aspect. The other is uniformity of lighting irrespectively of the angle means that they have to generate their own light and not only reflect it. White dwarfs would be one candidate, but than the scale comes in, unless we assume they are planetary nebulae, which they don’t look like it’s the case.
Not perfectly, no. But that doesn’t mean the artist didn’t try to incorporate some scientific realism into the video. I don’t see why it needs to be an all or nothing proposition, pure artistic license or accurate simulation. To me it lies somewhere between, and is more realistic that the vast majority of pop-sci depictions of nebula.
well… assuming the artist knew nothing about science of nebulae (which I’m sure is not the case) and studied only the pictures, one would expect exactly something like this. There is no need to assume that they tried to incorporate scientific realism. If one reproduces the look perfectly without knowing the science one would get close enough to the truth. Where it’ll go wrong is the details you can’t deduce from the static picture… hence… the white dots.
But I agree there’s probably some artistic license, whatever the specs are meant to represent. Which I’m okay with.
Me too, of course.
1 Like
As far as i know there’s not a cut that adds it to 2001, but it appears in the opening bits of 2010
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
