definitely count 1 as mass and 0 as not!

regarding the inside/outside counting, i think you can considerably improve the accuracy of this estimate, especially for small circles, if you consider sub-pixel converage. that is, if you have a set pixel which overlaps the circle boundary, consider the fractional area of the overlap instead of just 0 or 1. i worked out and simplified the equations for this some years ago using stokes' theorem, for drawing anti-aliased (or "blurred" as it is known on these forums

) circles, and it was quite fast as you only need to compute it on the boundary.
of course, you can approximate this analytical answer to any degree of accuracy desired by simply increasing the resolution of your source image, which has the added benefit of giving a truer estimate of the actual "mass of the fractal". beyond this you can actually plot the fractal in a sub-pixel-correct manner and consider that weight in addition to the area-weighting above...
edit: sorry, i meant green's theorem; stokes' theorem is the next one up.