Title: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Fractal_Artist on March 14, 2009, 01:34:06 AM I make fractals that appear 3D when they aren't (or vice versa). How should they be treated? Should I upload only those that are truly 2D or 3D to their respective gallery pages? Now, what should be done with the ones that use those red/blue glasses? Without the colored glasses they aren't 3D looking. But with them you can have a cardboard (glasses) trippy time :0)
Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on March 14, 2009, 02:46:06 AM I make fractals that appear 3D when they aren't (or vice versa). How should they be treated? If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc... Should I upload only those that are truly 2D or 3D to their respective gallery pages? The obvious answer is: Yes. ;) Now, what should be done with the ones that use those red/blue glasses? Without the colored glasses they aren't 3D looking. Are they 3-D objects from a rendering application, or are they 2-D images with shifted colors ?? Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Fractal_Artist on March 14, 2009, 04:04:43 AM I make fractals that appear 3D when they aren't (or vice versa). How should they be treated? If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc... Should I upload only those that are truly 2D or 3D to their respective gallery pages? The obvious answer is: Yes. ;) Now, what should be done with the ones that use those red/blue glasses? Without the colored glasses they aren't 3D looking. Are they 3-D objects from a rendering application, or are they 2-D images with shifted colors ?? 2D with red/blue colors. The shift isn't terrible enough that you'd get a headache looking at them. Plus they are not the kind that look like two off center versions of themselves in red and blue. Here are two 3D looking examples for you. http://www.allfractup.com/Fractal_Catalog/General_Use/Lost001a/FRAC1026.html http://www.allfractup.com/Fractal_Catalog/General_Use/Lost001a/FRAC1028.html Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: titia on April 02, 2009, 12:41:57 PM Nahee...: "...If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc..."
If it is put that way my images are in the wrong category... Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Fractal_Artist on April 03, 2009, 06:19:56 PM Nahee...: "...If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc..." If it is put that way my images are in the wrong category... Titia, Your fractals are cool! Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: The_Fractalist on April 03, 2009, 06:35:41 PM If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc... That sounds quite logical and correct in my way of thinking as well. If the application can save (or export) a rendered object in one of the many 3D file formats: OBJ, POV, DXF, WRL, STL, PLY, etc... then it is a true 3D image. Otherwise it is just a regular 2D image. Should I upload only those that are truly 2D or 3D to their respective gallery pages? The obvious answer is: Yes. ;) :) ;) :D ;D :laugh: :laugh: Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: David Makin on April 03, 2009, 09:48:04 PM That sounds quite logical and correct in my way of thinking as well. If the application can save (or export) a rendered object in one of the many 3D file formats: OBJ, POV, DXF, WRL, STL, PLY, etc... then it is a true 3D image. Otherwise it is just a regular 2D image. I think that's too restrictive - for example there are "true 3D" formulas in Ultra Fractal but at the moment no way to export to full-3D mesh formats, only to render 2D views of the 3D objects (usually using ray-tracing algorithms) - there are probably other fractal programs that do the same. Examples: http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Sierpinski-Temple-detail-73751988 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Alien-Artefact-70174510 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Inside-the-Sierpinski-Temple-2-79825788 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Superstructure-71451328 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Sleeping-Giant-91916901 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Aztek-Gold-76383286 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Apprentice-Piece-29678693 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/The-Field-Generator-29768077 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Julibrot-1-29450653 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Halls-of-Asgard-30593093 More here: http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/gallery/#_browse/scraps Also see the 3D stuff that Jos Leys has done using Ultra Fractal: http://www.josleys.com/ Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on April 03, 2009, 10:43:31 PM I think that's too restrictive - I am sure you would. Anything to get UF images anywhere you can. :tease2: - for example there are "true 3D" formulas in Ultra Fractal but at the moment no way to export to full-3D mesh formats, only to render 2D views... As long a UF cannot render a true 3-D object, then it just like any other graphic application doing 2-D images. If I take a photograph of a table and chairs (which are real 3-D objects), does that mean my photograph is now a 3-D image ?? I do not think so!!! :evil1: If I use pencil and paper to draw an object showing multiple sides, then use shading to enhance the image and make it look more real (or super-real, as in surreal), is that now a 3-D image ?? Again, I do not think so!!! - there are probably other fractal programs that do the same. There are many which are capable of using 3-D math and producing an image. But unless they can actually create the 3-D mesh and save it, then I would not consider them true 3-D applications. And if they are not true 3-D applications, then their images are not so. Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: David Makin on April 04, 2009, 03:28:01 AM Since the competition concerned requires the submission of 2D renders of "true 3D" fractal images I see no reason why such images produced wth Ultra Fractal, or Chaos Pro or Fractint or Chaoscope or indeed Fractal Explorer or any other fractal software (if they have any 3D formulas) should not be considered for entry - why should it be necessary to produce a 3D mesh if it's not the 3D mesh itself that's being judged ?
The 3D renders using Ultra Fractal or ChaosPro are true 3D in that a view can be rendered from any angle - as I said they are ray-traced not rendered in some way that restricts to a particular view. Effectively such 3D formulas turn the software they're available for into true 3D fractal rendering engines with no need for export - that's just an extra and always results in massive loss of fractal detail - for example an "obj" file for say the "complete" menger sponge to produce pixel level detail at a final 2D render resolution of say 8000*6000 would simply not be feasible - it would require many gigabytes - whereas one can render it quite easily even at that size from any view in a dedicated fractal program. Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: titia on April 04, 2009, 10:37:01 AM ... I agree with Nahee, so I removed my images from the 3d gallery. I hope I didn't mess it up now...
Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: HPDZ on April 06, 2009, 11:42:10 PM Hmm...interesting how something that seems so clear to the intuition can be so hard to pin down with a precise definition.
I would think that to qualify for the 3D category, the image should be the result of modeling a physical third dimension that is mathematically relevant to the underlying equations. That is, I would suggest that the 3D category be defined more by the operations used to create the image rather than by the perception it creates in our brain. Otherwise you could take any pattern that vaguely converges to some perceived horizon line or vanishing point and say it's 3D. For example, there are some cool animations of zooming into the cusp of the Mandelbrot set, for example, that will trick your eye into thinking it's watching a 3D wall zip by. Even a simple spiral, or a set of radially convergent lines, can, if you try to believe this as you look at it, be perceived as a 3-dimensional tunnel-like thing. Rendering a Mandelbrot set by taking the iteration count and converting it to a color is 2D. Rendering that same thing by taking the iteration count and converting it to a height, then applying shading, lighting, hidden surface removal, etc. makes it 3D. Taking a 2D image and layering it into a 3D scene, or texturing it onto a 3D object, to me, should not qualify as a 3D fractal image. That's what I meant about about "mathematically relevant." Gosh, the more I think about this the harder it gets. I hate it when that happens. It's starting to sound like law... Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: David Makin on April 07, 2009, 12:11:04 AM Hmm...interesting how something that seems so clear to the intuition can be so hard to pin down with a precise definition. I would think that to qualify for the 3D category, the image should be the result of modeling a physical third dimension that is mathematically relevant to the underlying equations. That is, I would suggest that the 3D category be defined more by the operations used to create the image rather than by the perception it creates in our brain. Otherwise you could take any pattern that vaguely converges to some perceived horizon line or vanishing point and say it's 3D. For example, there are some cool animations of zooming into the cusp of the Mandelbrot set, for example, that will trick your eye into thinking it's watching a 3D wall zip by. Evan a simple spiral, or a set of radially convergent lines, can, if you try to believe this as you look at it, be perceived as a 3-dimensional tunnel-like thing. Rendering a Mandelbrot set by taking the iteration count and converting it to a color is 2D. Rendering that same thing by taking the iteration count and converting it to a height, then applying shading, lighting, hidden surface removal, etc. makes it 3D. Taking a 2D image and layering it into a 3D scene, or texturing it onto a 3D object, to me, should not qualify as a 3D fractal image. That's what I meant about about "mathematically relevant." Gosh, the more I think about this the harder it gets. I hate it when that happens. It's starting to sound like law... Care to guess how many times the UF list has descended into mails sounding like law when the issue of "are fractals art" and "how fractal does it need to be to be called fractal art" :D - oh and "when can I claim a tweaked fractal as my own work". (My answers: yes, if *you* think so (on an image by image basis) ; if it includes a fractal (not because it was created using "fractal" software) ; only when you have permission to do so from the original artist). I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with your definition of a "true 3D" fractal - it's true 3D if it's mathematically 3D (or higher) such that true 3D lighting can be applied. Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: David Makin on April 07, 2009, 12:41:12 AM <snip> I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with your definition of a "true 3D" fractal - it's true 3D if it's mathematically 3D (or higher) such that true 3D lighting can be applied. Actually that definition still leaves a particular category of fractal images in limbo between 2D and 3D - namely those using "slope" formulas - where only the lighting is true 3D, the fractal itself is really only 2D but a 3rd dimension is created by using the gradient of the colouring. Examples: http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Flora-1-99721210 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Arcane-Ritual-97876533 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Set-in-Stone-93901533 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Stonewort-93418315 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Imperial-Spiral-93199818 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/The-Constellation-92700829 http://makinmagic.deviantart.com/art/Orbital-Waves-84449978 I guess they should be designated "2D" but I can see why some folks may object to that :) I think this covers it: "It's true 3D if it's mathematically 3D (or higher) such that true 3D lighting can be applied and the object could be rendered from any 3D viewpoint." Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: David Makin on April 07, 2009, 01:17:16 AM Just in case anyone's interested in how I did the "slope" examples - here's a sample UPR (for Ultra Fractal 5):
Code: Fractal1 {Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: Duncan C on April 24, 2009, 04:52:02 AM If they are not truly 3-D images then they should not go into a 3-D gallery. A true 3-D image is one that comes from a rendering application that is capable of producing 3-D objects, objects which can be easily rotated and viewed from any angle. Such applications are POV-Ray, XenoDream, QuaSZ, etc... That sounds quite logical and correct in my way of thinking as well. If the application can save (or export) a rendered object in one of the many 3D file formats: OBJ, POV, DXF, WRL, STL, PLY, etc... then it is a true 3D image. Otherwise it is just a regular 2D image. Should I upload only those that are truly 2D or 3D to their respective gallery pages? The obvious answer is: Yes. ;) :) ;) :D ;D :laugh: :laugh: I agree with others that the 3D category should be limited to fractals that are rendered as true 3D objects, with x, y, and z dimensions. However, not all apps that do 3D rendering support exporting in 3D file formats. My app, FractalWorks, for example, does 3D rendering where you can tilt and rotate the fractals in 3D, change the direction and properties of the lighting and the specularity of the fractal surface, etc. However, I have not written the code to save into 3D file formats like OBJ, POV, etc. I looked into it briefly, and it seemed like an awful lot of work. The spec for the file format I looked at was very confusing at first glance. Hardly anybody asks for it, so it hasn't been a priority. I can generate anaglyph images or stereo views for stereograms. Those require true 3D projection to do properly. Duncan C P.S. FractalWorks (http://web.mac.com/dchampney/Site/FractalWorks.html) is a free, high performance fractal renderer for Macintosh computers. Title: Re: illusion of extra dimension(s) Post by: cKleinhuis on April 24, 2009, 04:25:23 PM i just want to note, that 3d images are not always bound to a special file format, especially iterated function systems can never really be saved as a surface, because they would ideally converge against an surface, but this surface can never be described as smooth surface .... so, i think it leaves to me to decide which images can enter the 3d section ... by now i have let the decision to the user if the user thinks the image can compete in the 3d section, i let him .... the idea with 3d and 2d section is that 3d programms let you enter properties that make no sense in pure 2d images, this is why i told margit to treat her beveled images as 3d because they feature a "light" source... i hope it gets a bit clearer .... |