|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Dear members of sci.astro.research,
I'm familiar with one of the outcome of Mr. C.R.O'Dell and Wen Zhang on the Orion nebula, a stunning rendering and fly-through of this beautiful object. Somehow though, while I found plenty of information on how the visualization has been done, I've been wondering how the three-dimensional source data has been retrived in the first place. I did search around, and there's plenty of bibliographic references to O'Dell and Zhang paper published on the Astrophysic Journal, but I couldn't actually found any pubblicly browsable full-text version of it. So, unless somebody is kind enough to provide a link to such document, could anybody explain me how such 3d reconstruction is made? Which basically is all about: how do you measure the distance/distribution/ tickness of the volume "behind" each pixel composing a picture of a nebula? Is the parallax method used to determine star distance capable of dealing with fuzzy object like the features of a nebula? Is spectrography involved instead? One more question: has any other nebula been mapped and visualized with similar techniques? Thanks for your help. Manu |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
Dear members of sci.astro.research, I'm familiar with one of the outcome of Mr. C.R.O'Dell and Wen Zhang on the Orion nebula, a stunning rendering and fly-through of this beautiful object. Somehow though, while I found plenty of information on how the visualization has been done, I've been wondering how the three-dimensional source data has been retrived in the first place. I did search around, and there's plenty of bibliographic references to O'Dell and Zhang paper published on the Astrophysic Journal, but I couldn't actually found any pubblicly browsable full-text version of it. So, unless somebody is kind enough to provide a link to such document, could anybody explain me how such 3d reconstruction is made? Which basically is all about: how do you measure the distance/distribution/ tickness of the volume "behind" each pixel composing a picture of a nebula? From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud (not much like the Stromgren spheres we used to learn about...). This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. Bill Keel |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
Dear members of sci.astro.research, I'm familiar with one of the outcome of Mr. C.R.O'Dell and Wen Zhang on the Orion nebula, a stunning rendering and fly-through of this beautiful object. Somehow though, while I found plenty of information on how the visualization has been done, I've been wondering how the three-dimensional source data has been retrived in the first place. I did search around, and there's plenty of bibliographic references to O'Dell and Zhang paper published on the Astrophysic Journal, but I couldn't actually found any pubblicly browsable full-text version of it. So, unless somebody is kind enough to provide a link to such document, could anybody explain me how such 3d reconstruction is made? Which basically is all about: how do you measure the distance/distribution/ tickness of the volume "behind" each pixel composing a picture of a nebula? From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud (not much like the Stromgren spheres we used to learn about...). This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. Bill Keel |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Bill, thanks for your reply.
"William C. Keel" wrote in message ... From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud So, from what I understand what we see not only in the animation but also in pictures of other nebulaes, aren't actually volumes of space, but more like boundaries, thin shells where the solar wind of the central star(s) is colliding and pushing the surrounding gas. Is my interpretation of your words close enough? This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, ....mmm... this doesn't seem enough to determine the three- dimentional structure of the object though. Geometrically speaking, you suggest that the brightness of a single pixel in a picture gives us a distance measurement from the star, which can be rapresented as a sphere around the star. We then have a line connecting the observer to such pixel. The intersection of a line and a sphere can have three results: the line is completely out of the sphere (which we can exclude because we know that that patch of the nebula is on that sphere), the line is tangent to the sphere (which is the only unambiguous case), the line pass trough the sphere, intersecting the sphere in two points, one closer, one further from the observer. My (possibly wrong) guess is that the third case is the most recurring, but another measurement is necessary to discriminate between the two options. What am I missing? most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. Could you please explain this a bit more? I understand from your words that density can be disregarded but I don't quite understand how the thickness is measured. Or how two or more layers can be separated. Does it have to do with the width or the multiple occurrence of the same H II emission lines? It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. I'd like to offer bit of "hope" challenging your belief about this from somebody who's pretty deep in the 3d business: for what I understand of how the animation has been realized (and that's the part I understand fairly well), I believe that currently available commercial softwares and computers are well capable of achieving the same visual quality achieved by the team who did it. Indeed the team used a super-computing center for the rendering, but that had to do with the media used to deliver the animation the audience, a large screen and a level of detail about 20 times the level of detail avalaible on a tv screen. Given the proper 3d data, a skilled 3d artist with the help of 3d softwares like Maya (www.alias.com) or Softimage XSI (www.softimage.com), and a professional workstation (each well under 5000 USD and in reach of even the average professional in the field) can relatively easily produce results that are as accurate ass the data is and as visually stunning as the Orion Nebula animation. Of course the result generated by a single computer in a reasonable amount of time would be good enough only for DVDs and VHS, possibly for High Definition TV, but I doubt most people would want to produce an output good enough for the Hayden Planetarium, anyway. And if the need arise, it takes only relatively few more computers and a reasonable additional amount of work on the 3d artist's side to adjust the 3d scene to the new requirements. I'm honestly hoping I'm sowing some seeds he nebulaes are too beautiful to leave them as flat objects. I wish we'll see more and more 3d visualization of them. Bill, thanks again for your reply. Manu |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Bill, thanks for your reply.
"William C. Keel" wrote in message ... From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud So, from what I understand what we see not only in the animation but also in pictures of other nebulaes, aren't actually volumes of space, but more like boundaries, thin shells where the solar wind of the central star(s) is colliding and pushing the surrounding gas. Is my interpretation of your words close enough? This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, ....mmm... this doesn't seem enough to determine the three- dimentional structure of the object though. Geometrically speaking, you suggest that the brightness of a single pixel in a picture gives us a distance measurement from the star, which can be rapresented as a sphere around the star. We then have a line connecting the observer to such pixel. The intersection of a line and a sphere can have three results: the line is completely out of the sphere (which we can exclude because we know that that patch of the nebula is on that sphere), the line is tangent to the sphere (which is the only unambiguous case), the line pass trough the sphere, intersecting the sphere in two points, one closer, one further from the observer. My (possibly wrong) guess is that the third case is the most recurring, but another measurement is necessary to discriminate between the two options. What am I missing? most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. Could you please explain this a bit more? I understand from your words that density can be disregarded but I don't quite understand how the thickness is measured. Or how two or more layers can be separated. Does it have to do with the width or the multiple occurrence of the same H II emission lines? It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. I'd like to offer bit of "hope" challenging your belief about this from somebody who's pretty deep in the 3d business: for what I understand of how the animation has been realized (and that's the part I understand fairly well), I believe that currently available commercial softwares and computers are well capable of achieving the same visual quality achieved by the team who did it. Indeed the team used a super-computing center for the rendering, but that had to do with the media used to deliver the animation the audience, a large screen and a level of detail about 20 times the level of detail avalaible on a tv screen. Given the proper 3d data, a skilled 3d artist with the help of 3d softwares like Maya (www.alias.com) or Softimage XSI (www.softimage.com), and a professional workstation (each well under 5000 USD and in reach of even the average professional in the field) can relatively easily produce results that are as accurate ass the data is and as visually stunning as the Orion Nebula animation. Of course the result generated by a single computer in a reasonable amount of time would be good enough only for DVDs and VHS, possibly for High Definition TV, but I doubt most people would want to produce an output good enough for the Hayden Planetarium, anyway. And if the need arise, it takes only relatively few more computers and a reasonable additional amount of work on the 3d artist's side to adjust the 3d scene to the new requirements. I'm honestly hoping I'm sowing some seeds he nebulaes are too beautiful to leave them as flat objects. I wish we'll see more and more 3d visualization of them. Bill, thanks again for your reply. Manu |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
Bill, thanks for your reply. "William C. Keel" wrote in message ... From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud So, from what I understand what we see not only in the animation but also in pictures of other nebulaes, aren't actually volumes of space, but more like boundaries, thin shells where the solar wind of the central star(s) is colliding and pushing the surrounding gas. Is my interpretation of your words close enough? Pretty much. With the usual weasel words like "most", "dominated by", it seems we can consider many H II regions (not planetary nebulae, for example) as emitting from the thin layer where the UV radiation from the ionizing star is just now ionizing the dense molecular cloud that formed the star. This is a more dynamic situation than we used to consider, one of a statis balance between ionization and recombination throughout the volume of a spherical nebula... This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, ...mmm... this doesn't seem enough to determine the three- dimentional structure of the object though. Geometrically speaking, you suggest that the brightness of a single pixel in a picture gives us a distance measurement from the star, which can be rapresented as a sphere around the star. We then have a line connecting the observer to such pixel. The intersection of a line and a sphere can have three results: the line is completely out of the sphere (which we can exclude because we know that that patch of the nebula is on that sphere), the line is tangent to the sphere (which is the only unambiguous case), the line pass trough the sphere, intersecting the sphere in two points, one closer, one further from the observer. My (possibly wrong) guess is that the third case is the most recurring, but another measurement is necessary to discriminate between the two options. What am I missing? We already have two components of the 3D separation between a given spot of nebula and the star, knowing that the spot lies along the vector between us and its apparent position, so the distance from the star specifies which of two positions it must occupy. For usual Milky Way clouds, the star and nebula are optically obscured unless they lie on the front side of the cloud. For the M42 animation, they could actually resolve a thin foreground veil from Doppler shifts of absorption lines. most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. Could you please explain this a bit more? I understand from your words that density can be disregarded but I don't quite understand how the thickness is measured. Or how two or more layers can be separated. Does it have to do with the width or the multiple occurrence of the same H II emission lines? The first-order point is that in getting the distance from the star, the thickness of the emitting layer is small enough not to matter. At a guess, they may have taken a representative calculated value and used that to "fuzz" the layer. It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. I'd like to offer bit of "hope" challenging your belief about this from somebody who's pretty deep in the 3d business: for what I understand of how the animation has been realized (and that's the part I understand fairly well), I believe that currently available commercial softwares and computers are well capable of achieving the same visual quality achieved by the team who did it. Indeed the team used a super-computing center for the rendering, but that had to do with the media used to deliver the animation the audience, a large screen and a level of detail about 20 times the level of detail avalaible on a tv screen. Given the proper 3d data, a skilled 3d artist with the help of 3d softwares like Maya (www.alias.com) or Softimage XSI (www.softimage.com), and a professional workstation (each well under 5000 USD and in reach of even the average professional in the field) can relatively easily produce results that are as accurate ass the data is and as visually stunning as the Orion Nebula animation. Of course the result generated by a single computer in a reasonable amount of time would be good enough only for DVDs and VHS, possibly for High Definition TV, but I doubt most people would want to produce an output good enough for the Hayden Planetarium, anyway. And if the need arise, it takes only relatively few more computers and a reasonable additional amount of work on the 3d artist's side to adjust the 3d scene to the new requirements. I'm honestly hoping I'm sowing some seeds he nebulaes are too beautiful to leave them as flat objects. I wish we'll see more and more 3d visualization of them. Hmm, $5000 software isn't routinely in the reach of a professional in _my_ field - we gripe about IDL for rather less. Still, this is good news, not just for easthetic reasons but because there are interesting bits of interpretation that sometimes jump out when we can actually rotate 3D visualizations. I was oding this with low-resolution versions of flat galaxy models for comparison with data some years ago, and that was helpful enough already. Bill Keel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Three-dimensional volumetric model of nebulaes
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
Bill, thanks for your reply. "William C. Keel" wrote in message ... From O"Dell's talk at the last AAS meeting, a key point is the recognition that much (most?) of the hydrogen line emission arises in a thin skin where the ionization front is eating into the surrounding molecular cloud So, from what I understand what we see not only in the animation but also in pictures of other nebulaes, aren't actually volumes of space, but more like boundaries, thin shells where the solar wind of the central star(s) is colliding and pushing the surrounding gas. Is my interpretation of your words close enough? Pretty much. With the usual weasel words like "most", "dominated by", it seems we can consider many H II regions (not planetary nebulae, for example) as emitting from the thin layer where the UV radiation from the ionizing star is just now ionizing the dense molecular cloud that formed the star. This is a more dynamic situation than we used to consider, one of a statis balance between ionization and recombination throughout the volume of a spherical nebula... This implies that the surface brightness of a piece of this layer depends on its distance from the ionizing star, ...mmm... this doesn't seem enough to determine the three- dimentional structure of the object though. Geometrically speaking, you suggest that the brightness of a single pixel in a picture gives us a distance measurement from the star, which can be rapresented as a sphere around the star. We then have a line connecting the observer to such pixel. The intersection of a line and a sphere can have three results: the line is completely out of the sphere (which we can exclude because we know that that patch of the nebula is on that sphere), the line is tangent to the sphere (which is the only unambiguous case), the line pass trough the sphere, intersecting the sphere in two points, one closer, one further from the observer. My (possibly wrong) guess is that the third case is the most recurring, but another measurement is necessary to discriminate between the two options. What am I missing? We already have two components of the 3D separation between a given spot of nebula and the star, knowing that the spot lies along the vector between us and its apparent position, so the distance from the star specifies which of two positions it must occupy. For usual Milky Way clouds, the star and nebula are optically obscured unless they lie on the front side of the cloud. For the M42 animation, they could actually resolve a thin foreground veil from Doppler shifts of absorption lines. most other things such as density cancelling when we see the integration through the layer's thickness. Could you please explain this a bit more? I understand from your words that density can be disregarded but I don't quite understand how the thickness is measured. Or how two or more layers can be separated. Does it have to do with the width or the multiple occurrence of the same H II emission lines? The first-order point is that in getting the distance from the star, the thickness of the emitting layer is small enough not to matter. At a guess, they may have taken a representative calculated value and used that to "fuzz" the layer. It is this relation that allowed them to do a local 3D reconstruction. This is possible for many other H II regions with similar data, although many more people can do the reconstruction than the high-visual-quality animations at this point. I'd like to offer bit of "hope" challenging your belief about this from somebody who's pretty deep in the 3d business: for what I understand of how the animation has been realized (and that's the part I understand fairly well), I believe that currently available commercial softwares and computers are well capable of achieving the same visual quality achieved by the team who did it. Indeed the team used a super-computing center for the rendering, but that had to do with the media used to deliver the animation the audience, a large screen and a level of detail about 20 times the level of detail avalaible on a tv screen. Given the proper 3d data, a skilled 3d artist with the help of 3d softwares like Maya (www.alias.com) or Softimage XSI (www.softimage.com), and a professional workstation (each well under 5000 USD and in reach of even the average professional in the field) can relatively easily produce results that are as accurate ass the data is and as visually stunning as the Orion Nebula animation. Of course the result generated by a single computer in a reasonable amount of time would be good enough only for DVDs and VHS, possibly for High Definition TV, but I doubt most people would want to produce an output good enough for the Hayden Planetarium, anyway. And if the need arise, it takes only relatively few more computers and a reasonable additional amount of work on the 3d artist's side to adjust the 3d scene to the new requirements. I'm honestly hoping I'm sowing some seeds he nebulaes are too beautiful to leave them as flat objects. I wish we'll see more and more 3d visualization of them. Hmm, $5000 software isn't routinely in the reach of a professional in _my_ field - we gripe about IDL for rather less. Still, this is good news, not just for easthetic reasons but because there are interesting bits of interpretation that sometimes jump out when we can actually rotate 3D visualizations. I was oding this with low-resolution versions of flat galaxy models for comparison with data some years ago, and that was helpful enough already. Bill Keel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Popping The Big Bang | Jim Greenfield | Astronomy Misc | 701 | July 8th 07 05:40 PM |
P10 Doppler,11.5 hours or a few seconds? | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 74 | July 2nd 04 02:58 PM |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
DDRDE model of 4D space (curved 3D space w/ invertibility) | Scandere | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 15th 04 12:57 AM |
Neutrino Oscillations | greywolf42 | Astronomy Misc | 59 | October 10th 03 08:23 PM |