Welcome to Fractal Forums

A Seahorse Odyssey XXII

(http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/10/511_26_02_12_3_12_35.jpeg)

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=10461

The minibrot in all its glory, surrounded by alternating layers of spirals, angled arms, and columns.

lovely!

I have an affinity for minibrots, though they are frustratingly slow to reveal.

Thanks!


Tell me about it. This image represented over a week's computer time, what with 100x oversampling (i.e., 100 computed points per image pixel) and an iteration maximum of 100,000,000.

Of course, the journey doesn't stop here. There's a reason the minibrot is off center in this image ...

Are you planning to do an animation by interpolating the key frames?

No, not with this one. The images I've generated are not spaced regularly as to logarithm of magnification.

In theory it could still be done, but it probably wouldn't be very good quality without inserting a couple more keyframes between each adjacent pair of images in this series, and I'd have to write a whole new chunk of software to cope with irregularly-spaced keyframe magnification logarithms. Moreover, I'd have to enter all the magnifications by hand into some file for it to chew on.

It looks very good, and very interesting, but 100 times anti-aliasing and 100 million iterations, isn't that a bit over the top? Of course, more is always better if you've got nothing else to render, but I would go with less anti-aliasing and a larger image instead, for more details to be seen.

Not really. Much less AA and the seahorse cores look noisy, as well as the areas near the minibrot, and fewer max iterations and there are problems near some minibrots with inaccuracies, particularly in the "pinches" where buds attach.


Gallery images are limited to fit within 1200x1200. (Any chance of making that 1280x1280? Just so 1280x720, a common HD video frame size, becomes supported?)

Sorry, I thought you were using 100 times anti-aliasing in both height and width, like 100×100, but if I had read more carefully I would have known you used 100 calculated pixels per pixel and not 10000.

The point of diminishing returns seems to be around 100. 10,000 would be massive overkill. :)

great image, about image resolution, this resolution is because any size bigger crashes the server when creating the thumbnails, i need a server update this year, a bit of webspace, and a bit of RAM ... but this will take some time....

Thanks!


Even the proportionately-tiny increase from 1200 to 1280 is enough to cause that?

ok ok, i adjust the setting, lets see what happens....