Ittiz

Hey, I did the photo-montage and I added it to the article. I know, that I don't have that much text to the photo as there is to the first. I just think, that it gives readers a view that comes closer to reality than the airbrush-work that is already in. In the same article on the German site, both photos coexist quite well together, since neither of it has that much text. I doubt, that anyone reads the picture's subline anyway, since it is too long and it doesn't show the exact locations of the geological sites on Mars... I think, if anyone wants to know anything about Mars' geography he would rather read the Mars-article. I think this one should be about (Science-)Fiction and give the readers an impression of a possible future rather than a detailed guide of things that are not (yet) real...

Hi Daein,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:MarsTransition.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 14, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-11-14. Yes I know the vertical layout was featured, but the horizontal one works better for POTD purposes. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, Ittiz, your illustration is amazing! Thanks for contributing it, and I hope you continue to contribute!  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ittiz, that's a really cool picture you made, you are obviously a talented artist. Can you also tell us what Martians look like? :) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.128.148 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's good that people like this image. I have seen it in a lot of places and people seem to have a fascination with it. Although I always thought this was actually not one of my better images. So six months ago I started to create a more detailed and realistic one to replace it. Unfortunately fate intervened when the computer I was using to create my images went to the big cyber-cafe in the sky. I finally have the money to replace my old machine, but I no longer have the spare time! But with a little luck you'll see more contributions from me. Ittiz (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last September I was working on the improved version for this image, but alas my laptop was stolen and it's gone. I also lost all my image editing clips and tools so it may take a while before I can do more. Ittiz (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your images of a terraformed Mars and Venus are absolutely stunning! I am taken back by them! Just an FYI, there is a new MMOLG called Blue Mars (follow the links to the site) which purports to be set on a terraformed Mars. I have only myself discovered this new platform, it is akin to Second Life.

However, I have been told that the geography of the game world might not necessarily depict the planet.

My handle there is Drachenfire. Great works!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Drachenfyre,

  thanks, but I don't have the time for games these days. When I do have some free time I make these images. Ittiz (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ian Bell (programmer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Bell (programmer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

First off, I agree with the praise for your images. They are truly stunning and it's visible that there is a lot of detail and effort in them.

I have a suggestion for another image and I'm sure you'd make an excellent job of it, but you may not be interested because it doesn't involve terraforming. You could consider depicting the results of Project Atlantropa. The total-drainage version would probably be more interesting than the 200 metre drop version but it's up to you. I would certainly be interested in seeing what the results would look like (for example how visibly the climate zones would be affected).

Transparent 6lue (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

See the Atlantropa page Ittiz (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came across your terraformed Moon photo series of changes and I wanted to mention to you that I believe you have lost some realism in the process of improving the image.
It seems to me that since there is so much sand on the moon that you would have to have something more like the earlier versions with large beach areas.
The tides on the Moon would be larger than the tides on the Earth and that coupled with all the dust and sand would make for large expanses of beach.
Also I was wondering if you would be will to disclose the software that you used and detail the process
so that some of us who are also interested could spend the time, since you mention that you no longer have the time.
Please reply here.
24.78.170.218 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

24.78.163.237 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since one side of the Moon always points towards the Earth the Sun would be the only source for tides on the moon so they may not be more intense, but you may be right. I'll have to do the math. Thanks for pointing that out I didn't even consider tides.

My newest images are made in Photoshop with the Flexify2 plugin. How I do it is very complex and explaining it would take longer than making new images :P. However I have described some of the techniques I use here:[1] and if you sift through the comments here:[2] I describe a few more of the techniques.

Ittiz (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

A rather belated comment on tides. At Earth, the solar tidal force is slightly less than half the amplitude of lunar tidal force. On the moon, the lunar tide doesn't exist, and since the Earth doesn't move very much in the sky, the solar tide is the main tide. Since the moon has 1/6 the gravity, the tides would be effectively six times stronger, but since it has 1/3.6 times the diameter, the tides would be reduced by a factor of 3.6. Multiply all these together, and the amplitude of the solar tide on the moon is slightly less than the lunar tide on the Earth. So to a quick approximation, tides look similar on the Earth and moon. They will be much slower, though, and hence won't have the resonance with the basin that you see on Earth.

(There's also going to be a slight tide due to the Earth, from the fact that the distance varies from apogee to perigee by about 5%.)Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FFE.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you don't mind me asking, what software did you use to create the images? 71.70.205.6 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Photoshop, various versions Ittiz (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ittiz,

Could you clarify the origins of File:IceAgeEarth.jpg? You cite a journal article, but the image isn't actually from that article is it? So which aspects of the image did you take from that source? In addition, it appears to be a modified version of one of the space-based Earth photos. Can you specify which photo your new version was based on? NASA photos are free to use but we should still acknowledge them if they are the source of the original image before modifications.

Thank you.

Dragons flight (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dragons flight, I'm flattered that you think my ice age Earth pics is an altered version of a NASA image... it's not. All my images are made from elevation data (usually real but some times fictitious if I'm playing around). I then use my own knowledge (from God only knows all the sources) or if I have to go digging for data on a particular image a source that I cite in order to build an image. If I recall correctly I got the elevation data for this image came from the US Navy, but unfortunately I often use data that isn't a primary source so the original source often doesn't get cited from the source I used and hence I don't always know where it came from. As for the climate data with this particular image I cherry picked the data source to match the aspects that I wanted to portray in the image. However there are definitely areas I deviated, like you pointed out, to match my own personal/artistic interpretation of how things probably were. Ironically for most of my images of other real worlds I do use NASA data (usually the elevation data) this is one of the few I didn't. Most of my images are way old and out of date these days (especially this one) but I don't have the time to update them sadly.

Ittiz (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Glad to see my art inspiring so many people even after all these years. I've been meaning to replace it with a better one. Which, if you take a look on my wiki page, you can see I'm capable of doing. However sadly my computer is not. Something that I hope to rectify soon.

Ittiz (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you have any sources for your ammonia world image?

While I'd be happy to concede if there's research on the subject proving me wrong, the two main points you provide to justify the appearance are that alkali earth metals would dissolve into the oceans to produce solvated electrons, giving them a bronze color, and that nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere would make it brownish.

However, alkali earth metals are also incredibly reactive, and as such would react to displace less reactive metals in rocks (such as iron compounds), react with the proposed nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, react with any water present (given the ubiquity of water in the universe, it seems impossible that there wouldn't be enough to react with any and all native alkali earth metals), and probably even react with the ammonia itself (to form amides, as happens when sodium is dissolved - in theory, the reaction between the electron and ammonia molecule should be the same). The nitrogen oxide-rich atmosphere also seems dubious, since nitrogen oxides are oxidisers, and ammonia is a reducing agent; the two would react in short order to form nitrogen gas and water.

I'm no chemist, and I can't discount the possibility of there being processes unknown to me that could produce the copious amounts of highly reactive species required to turn ammonia oceans bronze, nor can I discount photochemistry in the upper atmosphere or other processes, combined with the extreme cold, allowing for the presence of large amounts of nitrogen oxides in conjunction with the ammonia-rich atmosphere and oceans. But that said, this would go against most of what I do know of chemistry.

Thanks, ThePinkPanzer 1 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)ThePinkPanzer 1Reply

I agree with ThePinkPanzer, the non-carbon-based life chemistry stuff in that one goes a bit past some of the other hypothetical renderings (which dealt with the relatively familiar "make that planet habitable for humans"), and definitely goes into territory where it really needs to be sourced, otherwise it is a nice picture and all, but of no use in an encyclopedia that is based on verifiability.

Also, do you have any source for the black vegetation? That really needs sourcing as well.

Those other images are bloody awesome though. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should log in here more often. Ammonia with large amounts of solvated electrons has bronze metallic color: [3]. As for the nitrogen oxide rich atmosphere it would obviously be maintained by life processes. Yes, it's complete conjecture similar to the oxygen in our atmosphere. This is why it's an "artist's impression."

Ittiz (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Solvated electrons are extremely reactive; they will react with ammonia, water, and probably nitrogen oxides (Solvated electron - Wikipedia). Ammonia will reduce things like iron oxide to liberate water, and oxygen is in general more common than nitrogen in the universe; you're likely to have lots of water around. On the other hand, you're also not likely to have any solvated electrons in your ammonia to begin with, since the elements that dissolve in ammonia to form solvated electrons are extremely reactive themselves and do not occur in native metal form anywhere in nature.

At ~1ppm levels (and room temperature - this is important), NO₂ might still be dark enough to be quite noticeable; a 1cm path length in a vial of 100% NO₂ is the same number of molecules as 10km path length at 1ppm NO₂ (based on methane, which is similarly destroyed by reacting with a major component of the atmosphere). But NO₂ dimerises to (colorless) N₂O₄ at low temperatures, which means if you're at the temperatures where liquid ammonia becomes possible, you're also too cold for NO₂ to be tinting your atmosphere. ThePinkPanzer 1 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply