Title: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 04, 2009, 04:50:14 AM Hello,
On YouTube you can find lots of videos of deep zooms into the mandelbrot set. When I open Ultra Fractal and start zooming, at some point it is going to take over half an hour to render a 640×480 image. The magnification is only 6.1367913E127 which does not seem to be extremely high according to the YouTube videos. I use the Mandelbrot (built in) fractal. My processor is a 4-core 2,66 GHz. All cores are used when rendering. Either I am doing something completely wrong, or those YouTubers must have like supercomputers to render their animations. Half an hour of 10,64 GHz of processing power for only one frame! :hmh: Any suggestions? Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 04, 2009, 12:30:07 PM I think you just need to be patient.
Note that before now I have done disk renders that take up to a month - in fact that was just a static image at 8000*6000. I quite often do animations that take up to a week to render and all but the shortest ones I've done take at least a day. Also UF isn't specifically designed for optimum deep-zooming, I think there is other software that may be better equipped for the task - in fact I'm just guessing but I think some of the deep-zoomers may be using their own private software :) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: lkmitch on August 04, 2009, 10:06:38 PM Dave's right--patience is key when deep zooming. I haven't looked at any of the zoom animations on YouTube, so this may be a moot point--the number of iterations is probably more important than the zoom level in assessing how long a render will take. That is, I've done regular zoom (magnification of a few billion) renders that took days because they used a few billion iterations. Conversely, one can do a deep zoom in a day if there are relatively few iterations (zooming in to a feature on the spike, for example). But, essentially, you're asking for a lot of computations from your rig. As Dave says, UF is not (to my knowledge) optimized for deep zooming--I think we trade that for formula flexibility. So, be patient.
Kerry Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 13, 2009, 04:15:11 PM I think you just need to be patient. Note that before now I have done disk renders that take up to a month - in fact that was just a static image at 8000*6000. I quite often do animations that take up to a week to render and all but the shortest ones I've done take at least a day. Also UF isn't specifically designed for optimum deep-zooming, I think there is other software that may be better equipped for the task - in fact I'm just guessing but I think some of the deep-zoomers may be using their own private software :) Dave's right--patience is key when deep zooming. I haven't looked at any of the zoom animations on YouTube, so this may be a moot point--the number of iterations is probably more important than the zoom level in assessing how long a render will take. That is, I've done regular zoom (magnification of a few billion) renders that took days because they used a few billion iterations. Conversely, one can do a deep zoom in a day if there are relatively few iterations (zooming in to a feature on the spike, for example). But, essentially, you're asking for a lot of computations from your rig. As Dave says, UF is not (to my knowledge) optimized for deep zooming--I think we trade that for formula flexibility. So, be patient. Kerry Sorry for my late reaction Yes, the iterations are certainly very important, but even then... I'm used to wait a month for animations to be rendered, but this would take much and much longer. That is to get a really, really deep zoom of course. Is there any free software that you'd advise me to use instead of Ultra fractal? Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 14, 2009, 03:43:55 AM Is there any free software that you'd advise me to use instead of Ultra fractal? I can't really help there, I generally avoid zooming further than is possible with normal double precision - usually sticking to <*1e14. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 15, 2009, 04:51:39 AM Thank you for at least trying to help. FractalExtreme seems to render animations really fast, but the trial has got its limitations... and of course I want to make the deepest zoom ever without paying anything for the software. ;D
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: bib on August 16, 2009, 11:33:06 AM Hi there :)
Just like Dinkydau, I find that arbitrary precision is too long in Ultrafractal.... so no deep zoom videos! But, I have already calculated several days that I don't want to lose (the remainder of the calculation would take months...) So does anyone know if it's possible to interrupt a render that is taking too long, without losing all the long hours (days...) already calculated? Is there anyway for example to tranform a .urj file direclty into an .avi ? Thanks bib Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: JackOfTraDeZ on August 20, 2009, 07:44:11 AM whimper snivel whine! my current animation to E+112 is 15 months ongoing now, estimated another 6 to complete. the frames take about a day each. patience my friend - good things come to those who wait. besides, 4 systems with 24/7 fractal displays makes a nice permanent lightshow in my living room, especially at night...
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 20, 2009, 08:40:15 AM Omg, how does that take 1 day per frame? Are you talking about the mandelbrot set? I am currently rendering an image at 1.8047813E1100 which takes only 5 hours.
But yes, I guess patience is the key, 10 times more patience than what I was used to, and what the people around me call me crazy for. Edit: Does anybody know how many processors or processor cores Ultra Fractal supports? Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 20, 2009, 12:03:23 PM Edit: Does anybody know how many processors or processor cores Ultra Fractal supports? Quite a lot - I believe as many as the OS will support :) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: bib on August 20, 2009, 03:55:40 PM Regarding the number of supported cores by UF, its not crystal clear. In preview mode, my 8 logical cores are at 100%, but when rendering, some fractals use 100% CPU, especially deep. Zooms, and some others use less than 10%, even multilayer images. Does anyone have a clue?
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 20, 2009, 05:13:54 PM Have you tried changing both "min threads" and "max threads" ?
e.g. if you have 8 cores and a 5 layer fractal then I would set min to 8 and max to 40. To be honest I've never checked what happens with respect to full use of the CPU/FPU either when rendering inside UF or to disk. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: bib on August 20, 2009, 07:19:51 PM Yes. Min threads is 8, max is 32 and I hardly use more than 3 layers by image. It seems to depend on the formula. For example deep zooms on simple formulae and your MMF-4D are using full CPU, and in general, Herman fractals are using about 20% when rendering to disk.
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 20, 2009, 09:32:01 PM Have you tried changing both "min threads" and "max threads" ? e.g. if you have 8 cores and a 5 layer fractal then I would set min to 8 and max to 40. To be honest I've never checked what happens with respect to full use of the CPU/FPU either when rendering inside UF or to disk. In other words, the minimal value is the amount of cores, the maximum is the amoun of cores times the amount of layers? Edit: Does anybody know how many processors or processor cores Ultra Fractal supports? Quite a lot - I believe as many as the OS will support :) So if I have 1024 cores (extreme numer for example) and set the minimal threads to 1024, it uses all 1024? If you don't know that doesn't really matter, I'm just interested. If it supports 16 cores that would be enough I think for the time coming. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 21, 2009, 01:17:05 AM Have you tried changing both "min threads" and "max threads" ? e.g. if you have 8 cores and a 5 layer fractal then I would set min to 8 and max to 40. To be honest I've never checked what happens with respect to full use of the CPU/FPU either when rendering inside UF or to disk. In other words, the minimal value is the amount of cores, the maximum is the amoun of cores times the amount of layers? Edit: Does anybody know how many processors or processor cores Ultra Fractal supports? Quite a lot - I believe as many as the OS will support :) So if I have 1024 cores (extreme numer for example) and set the minimal threads to 1024, it uses all 1024? If you don't know that doesn't really matter, I'm just interested. If it supports 16 cores that would be enough I think for the time coming. Serves me right for not checking - it seems that the maximum you can set either min or max threads to is 32 - unless that limit is based on detection of how many "cores" (plus hyperthreading) are available or specifically on my system in which case the limit for 2 cores or 1 hyperthreaded or for my system is 32. I don't actually know the details of Frederik's diisk rendering algorithm but I *think* it renders in sections, each section essentially the same way rendering within UF renders a full image i.e. when a thread has done it's part of the current section it does part of the section initially allocated to threads that haven't finished yet. Even if rendering just one layer if you have min threads set to 32 then it will use 32 threads (by splitting the area) as 32 cores if you have them :) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 21, 2009, 01:47:11 AM Yes. Min threads is 8, max is 32 and I hardly use more than 3 layers by image. It seems to depend on the formula. For example deep zooms on simple formulae and your MMF-4D are using full CPU, and in general, Herman fractals are using about 20% when rendering to disk. Can you post an example UPR ? i.e. that exhibits <100% CPU use when disk rendered ? Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 21, 2009, 02:04:39 AM Does that mean Ultra fractal supports 32 cores?
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 21, 2009, 02:14:19 AM Does that mean Ultra fractal supports 32 cores? Quote from the manual: ------------ If you have a processor with HyperThreading, Ultra Fractal will recognize it as a dual processor and split up its calculations accordingly. In most cases, this will result in a modest speed improvement. Otherwise, you can force Ultra Fractal to use just one processor. Open the Options dialog and go to the Fractal tab. In the Advanced calculation options area, the Minimum number of threads option sets the minimum number of threads that Ultra Fractal will use for a single fractal window. If this is set to 1, calculations will not be subdivided. Typically, this should be set to the number of processors in your computer. Ultra Fractal will typically use one thread per layer. If the number of layers is low, extra threads will be added (subdividing one or more layers) to reach the minimum number of threads setting, which ensures that all processors are used. However, if there are many layers, this would create a large number of threads, which would saturate the system. The Maximum number of threads option limits the number of threads for a fractal window, making sure that complex fractals will not start an unlimited number of threads. By default, this is set to four times the number of processors in your computer. If you would like more layers to be calculated simultaneously, you can increase this setting. ------------ So I'd guess UF supports up to 32 full cores or 16 hyperthreaded but I'm not sure if the situation is exactly the same for the sections being rendered in a disk render as with a full image within UF. I'd also wonder what would happen if you set min threads to 32 on a system with 32 hyperthreaded cores - is it smart enough to use one thread per core or would it use 16 cores with 2 threads each. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 21, 2009, 02:21:10 AM Yes I'd guess that as well. Thank you!
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: JackOfTraDeZ on August 21, 2009, 02:29:21 AM Someone said: "I am currently rendering an image at 1.8047813E1100 which takes only 5 hours".
An image at that depth with fractint would take weeks to do at least; I would not even attempt it, and I'm no "fractal wussie" ! I have UF and it can import PAR files like the ones for my deep Mandelbrot zooms, but it consistently renders them much SLOWER than fractint, even though it's windows and a faster machine. That is why I never played much with UF for my animations. WHY is this? Do I have to tweak settings or something? Doing something wrong ?? Can you send me or post this PAR and let me run it on my fastest machine with UF, see what time I get. Thanx Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 21, 2009, 03:31:21 AM Well I must say that only a few thousands of iterations are used for that.
Here are some parameters: E1103 { ::iJtJAin2tbZQvNuNQU47Bw/HE89N7MkcI50Cfpot36petALUtVSEWb5AZF0N/77HlymWgero 92msI2rInHn59ezI+wc/xl+zf3u766WGXOPcY/PpqE339HjnWe6QOJdPNM+4TLHSVp7c/rDz 3OodPM3fZ4Qybxdce404ytD7/xxpP/6p+X++6HDC/T897ubNkV8P2/8y41pD7/h+jf+x5rvM daf31n7POu86BVkd3dp/5nHnecb3DTLDzH+gev/v+nfrBk/fwPfDovB0/vAVTaxE3tSWCZJL atEDuahSKWr8nYWLeh1tiEXByksGkYKLJJXyeyMXLaoqqXFPaRpWCWOqhQycxBY6KLROMrmC gbaFoYsECmyZoWxBPOINJkMJrUIZqmFCcseOXzq5BeiU0YuYVNkI88GQ5YSsaNGNlDwjiErK JelMITZGcLRMhiq1QORdJSISJVMHkriprAxhVECRCegygyPHdPDjYSgyTqhaSqRNSNZKfQRt eKWJ488kvxREi4qrpG/EqFvBJT1ILJhULahYh8LlyhcsUVpYxYM5hShFUN7hNgKsjahiXlkJ kTuXgfA9GfD3afkhVSLVc0lEHZp4hoVqlcmaOtJ/oIBvAGeGKqQq2kMk/CsKCslVUCI6YcNj jFTh6Rr0KqaRdzWBqqVPUrWVyBj9ZZ+1rQXQykgwD5iYpcu41APloN+Owh0JVI+NgK5q5JOM Li6zGyc6V8kZHbVRakng9MDo+apieTOLYEQbLxk+VVjtoknSKrAKVUA2BCJliiuSVlaMjlIp BFNwzkE84YFDQEvcdFIZt69sF1q1MeYh912gWKqQRZRIFzakXc0qenXPBZBFQk8Gs6bqG7g4 D0Tg2lrFepUKDnmIuM6DOpGNt2vUC0o4Z3whFR41UjSLbABNmzJgCTB2Va8gUDNrSgfb2Hwt gSLRcHhKkC4q5QQobDXfcrXTbmDcvSr/icKhH2CkLgqWoVgiN10B8EYPAEyaCCKsq0S1q2NO CGs26AxcRDJTNwwRGRiZOCklCUPSOt2OgmBwsJSomY0sG6bcEUdNTfKCDh2SNMtNRtRt8c2f sGcmtQdh5NIwQ0s1oK6GadfbzjcJ26y4sxExHEdCiuZlqNmFar6JOXEJ8p8HvlWOfVoHNCJv CUiRBEF5EOOUAGNlhog9jUSIoUr4eY8nRHM7gKjeDpRdGuADafbULZOj7gwZVivSfYT/lc0s WdSbOtgAFnH9EhK+7UbqqCbLtns5sx6QDM5Bm415RMIGuEOGSAXQ7/h43GBZkoasBal54YsJ 1NxiblGqKGehBOkkN+EjBjSxjADxQxMSdaNDYwPozgE6IhGJBscTnKbZE6cChICWN6JSfOsg 2sgEYSxIZQGJmz0G4xeFt9BvsIgFY4DIvbkd3l+HnOY37MDKETr3/b3dPcd+yLn7XvL2l+vM 2uMGWDp75h5jPNc8zH4GcP+U3DjnHmaXGc/vu0Pdqf+09v8wl9tw4GczveY/P3fb5XYphz77 e+T3W6nXOIfEg+0v3Pe+6Lc1y75yfjT3GPNsdT05+pbPwBOddaY3dsl/5SnHnG6n3d3jz9nG 5kWX92lrX5WrvOcrb+6S/61N/AMTtbkz/L8dEyujXPfd+QjWY457rwuWv356iYp/rFiybPtN WmR3vvS013BrNzJ3A4tFxq81oq0O/1HXTv9UjXDwIbqutbA/3z/prvtd597HHMb3d/pi9FaC } Of course this does not look like somthing special. My goal is to zoom in deep enough to end up seeing a mandelbrot set. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: JackOfTraDeZ on August 21, 2009, 06:55:17 AM I copied your post and saved it to a text file and named it "test.par", then navigated to it with UF 4.02 version.
That took only 1 hr 45 min to render at 640x480 on my Alienware Athlon64, my fastest system. I think it was using only 1 core, looking at task manager display. I was amazed, then I saw the iteration count was less than 3000. You will never see a mini-brot at that depth with so low iterations. You need at least a million, and don't keep zooming into the "center" of the image; go off to one of the large standing waves where 4 points intersect. From my experience, you are a long way to go. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: bib on August 21, 2009, 07:50:55 PM Yes. Min threads is 8, max is 32 and I hardly use more than 3 layers by image. It seems to depend on the formula. For example deep zooms on simple formulae and your MMF-4D are using full CPU, and in general, Herman fractals are using about 20% when rendering to disk. Can you post an example UPR ? i.e. that exhibits <100% CPU use when disk rendered ? Yes, this one for example: HermanZoomAuxEntournures { ::08WYMjn2tr1SLuRSS47G8/Bh8ZVKjIfPDCML0wcwrPs9ecATZpq7uWrWVTJp12zv+9LzseES tZwePLhBrqUmRGfR8FPyg+h+6tnq3/bv9NLWcq90+mNL/jm+nrPs4v66eeR95vto5wpuz9HO 33cc5iv2u70TbcG1inaaf8pTbMB1i91fvp/4GOJkH6rfu54GShPlH2EJs8HeBLIUp8KybN6g N6sp1vtvZX7pjbWW3fs5QzvHWz0aWpi/+nb/Meis5nW+23kPlsiut+lTtdH2s8DpXtgWuo7l 6ttn++ml4cf/7U3ff+/Jn3GZe8JvKG4kkWs45m+HbeubHg7T1972ngC23H/o4phdj1/c9Lv0 e4xyZDzRT/mlq1lDSVBtz7VBl2ocOryvO9KlPGUByTxgx78QaWNeus+/MJoojjug2yRbw4CB ccedZvBYwAo5AU3Y0FNKjlsv/daTwaCDnZa7ZB9rJDbMGckQGJRW0oArNO2qDsyOJELEvGYw oZnHvRrf/78xom8XLDNgbRjMMOqY0YNXLHfkwX8OCfUWLsLRrzbc3/xrlVWQETejJYCeCf9V yiNwoDlO6tshToDI17vUzKaUW9+VlGp0w2aHEXWQDaIMzalXbtWKehgYs7AhfKGBATiwC7A9 D0IrNigA2G8e+CRoYCEVy5ABymFRAesrM35dX4R/Mig0OWXYrUgogzGhiZ51rybLLILzGNQm 3l3RAeddeH6Qw7M4XBROfMIcC0KrDLArkpIOoisLCS7Zw7wBxmyBwuE1lCGYfCJpzOnTVMsJ jVwphaHNacmRl2rKQTbNlzLRrRAE5UBweNImygIrY0OFVLEF8aRnWDNwp8+iGp0TCCHNkry4 8QSIIx5zuavB/jLJHqfE5Wc5wbGR5WryNlERF8W393bspHAZhwRjzRXpjzB52q8xCiNQW4Oi mjdtwRUBtfOSkrMRQcU686GjtMVKESPEHEvjMzhKmqgKqh74OJlHaAj0VBTWMTUXN8fRriMZ BdHpEcSqKC4r1uhXPwzAKiVwQZSJxJJ9J6qs6irhtSWiHZ2h5WwH+w9cwWBaoJK83EwACZSK oJOYjUxkmA2KjQ07IhP9D+kPlBP+OSP5juL7kqP8YqYVJJ8KyZqYOZkGdBxIsHUY2wvi8Vc0 4nN8F2qHaJ4SzW+VRTl1QT2bwsIO5wGt0BHEUQLMyDJrCVIgLKNwWVFiTkBxEMVRYrEGPKoG Nbl8wpNC8gQchpbFZdVqy5icUFzGnryhwrENUD1mHMfDJ0zrxX515SQCO+xT9Nn2+EKYWKXO b4EcVBJVwMnsM5zo88glRS8IpdQaAkIvg7SmVXY4FjcFJQFwkEB90Vsijfp5rjkClooro2po EooSmwbn1GRpEZdAZCdZmZZCzpQgB7jSmvTgJprTJTkJ9UP01/8591/WJv03az9ekiLzQMqk CE5kkN9wKl6Sn+LN9bfqZ7X209wDLeodfzhU7ZLrfqr68DPvM1pXP6h6P+XoZnP9PrXu4lP9 y2n6a32sJHullxn2+Sq7nCvRteIrntkBO9hWHre/7YwFzVFSrIVNwT5HmK3kXb2vA9fazltP 8V8zGyZzMomVhxfI1FDQpTXi7m/NHSLqRNsA8kYNOjWNUzL9zF2s3bESzi2QgHswAjEhwSnD LK8DUoUIA6LgMpItUVDAbNqgEubFpH1tRoBhosGDUDv3i6mC5VEYm7xJ9zUhyaKDHJkVBFvh 441FNaaL5PsD8WkXGcTFKHSSZm+EFWuiZKxpLdb4uax0rXLosa+vZZjQT2YktZFpuUU58feU G3lqDiiYgN6dBQGIAtkOO7+TfCBsUd6soUJeRU1Pe3iNW8aXtbUwQz/M7WsxSJNZmJ1abJOG A5+7rsrDX01CtOlFH+eP8ZwwlTvqjFNy4HaZkiaHaFBtTShIn3Da/JVDE9fk6WOF8aV286zR SIUAVHHTClfFCnhTPFLut7w/58j1na2coLFa29VkMgx3eqt898r31s/U9GCsIXJe9z1t77Of azKCP8Y7/t5MCgr3vfxuuDNJ5+Xfq9Q7pNojY8AKM0+CuA3hu3+m2DHb31UubYf9hjPkPjDI PAk3r/ptn/cTfX3JRql7PVfYHuSV15t7nyvc/zYRPtcGCrVXqppKp4VP2XvrF7JfKHzbaz3b Omeqv7Ud5Kgr4hchrsu5E+rQH+5cQ6ENEmiooRgUUJyrU6MMFGZDzpGWZnDzXZUz1BybbqZX q0/X62d2h88rsykxOZJrVp8Rpns2cjkW5tLXso9wumvBo4L1i1irLGoZYwGRp5UbVjJHx1te fWJmTwFB89UKFUq/iwMmggF1rLNnNgJtJpXlYhMwSLQ2uxKmHhRSdytnMAjFb7231vBdShrh 6CCUZKNSTRR9Y048Ms8+ZYxKeGWalZoW8Is4kGOCL2IyIzK3MsySZGWJ9s0h2EsiOBs0kAVa L9aUZtpcIGBqy8r09DksuMVcEWZT3EucBBuK9dqmxlO35/AuwFLF4KnufEXugAXG3o5ZCXsj F4K6F4CdB8Kche6Zv1KpgsyUimcqLimcyoJvWGNNhsh4Ar5qopBctKKjsMyILJsQS1rh1qkI FsQKKAGpetDD59jWp7ClUH8XsAWSW4qooxXtR05Rxd5mBViwOCqkpYqrgg42YykFwOnRTpp8 inKIRUJkfCR5e8vERpbPD5hMvlJdJzJi0+FYqmmDGn8q/gBm9Pq3+lH77OfY3v6MzuNDsbzA 72MwuNDsbzA72MwuNDsbzA72MwuNDsbzA72MwuNDs0PtrBLLfXKXJrk1Jy3GciMuRnYoSu5k V3lh7yf9xp9v7bzZmKp3GNJVK5A1uj/Znn2YzExLv//F3UWAt89qLQbcMYsfOgPlMZMGnlDT LNyt5xxkfaq22QpQxEzYjInulu8vljhr4zqhy4i64BvYeMyOQ1sW08pyNUvbaiZpp3NiB0Vq AEsoUP6ORgicoXpLopRkxWZxILPr5D3rHN8j7VIgh2McZcrwBwsY+LsVY/NOeGI6hbVJnlka GI4mdzARLph5RkNBEcH3xJwMNVMn0Doj0rAS6aFecjRBU+/nKBj5Vek8oYn8I/YS1FcKteo3 ihx86+bYRz+CctqLGyXoABvYqRC1nFtWzGRMOB6VZgsTzJKICKYRlPSO1oS6wRIYyzFrAgxR DZY5IaSj1+KQg7RhW5V/SDK6/VZXI2N= } Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 21, 2009, 07:53:58 PM I copied your post and saved it to a text file and named it "test.par", then navigated to it with UF 4.02 version. That took only 1 hr 45 min to render at 640x480 on my Alienware Athlon64, my fastest system. I think it was using only 1 core, looking at task manager display. I was amazed, then I saw the iteration count was less than 3000. You will never see a mini-brot at that depth with so low iterations. You need at least a million, and don't keep zooming into the "center" of the image; go off to one of the large standing waves where 4 points intersect. From my experience, you are a long way to go. Yes the preview takes less time to render. But as I said, only a few thousands of iterations were used. I must say I have no idea of how many iterations I will need to render the mandelbrot set below, as I have no idea how long it will take until I get there, but I do think 1 million will not be necessary. "don't keep zooming into the "center" of the image" That was my plan actually, I wanted a mandelbrot set as deep as possible. (not in theory but in reality of course (http://nl.board.bigpoint.com/seafight/images/smilies/tongue.gif)) `From my experience, you are a long way to go.` Certainly, I´ve been zooming like forever. I started zooming into one of the centers at E640. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 22, 2009, 12:29:59 AM Yes, this one for example: For that UPR on my P4HT with min threads set to 2 and max to 32 CPU use on either "core" never drops below 97% either within UF or when rendering to disk - I'll try it on my Core2Duo laptop next time I fire it up :) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 22, 2009, 02:02:51 AM Well I must say that only a few thousands of iterations are used for that. Here are some parameters: E1103 { <snip> Of course this does not look like somthing special. My goal is to zoom in deep enough to end up seeing a mandelbrot set. Boy do I need a new computer - I tried pasting that one (on this P4HT) and was promptly given an ETA of >30 hours :) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 22, 2009, 02:46:18 AM I have no idea of what you could be doing wrong. How many iterations are used? How many GHz are you using?
That took only 1 hr 45 min to render at 640x480 on my Alienware Athlon64, my fastest system. I think it was using only 1 core, looking at task manager display. That is actually amazingly fast. I need little over 1 hour for the preview using 3 cores. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: fractalwizz on August 26, 2009, 01:17:49 AM Dinkydau, boy have I been looking for someone as enthused in deep zooms as i am.
i don't think we've met before. i make deep zoom animations and publish them on utube yes, deep zooms take forever - i have a separate computer that is rendering a deep zoom into a special area at a magnification of e+243 so far, 6 months have passed Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 26, 2009, 01:41:05 AM I am one of your subscribers, my name is KesavaAVP. :)
Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: David Makin on August 28, 2009, 02:44:15 AM I have no idea of what you could be doing wrong. How many iterations are used? How many GHz are you using? I am not doing anything wrong :) It's just that my PC is only a 3GHz P4HT that overheats so probably only actually runs at about 2GHz under load so the ETA of 30hrs could well just be "correct". I tried the E1103 UPR on my 2GHz core2Duo and the ETA on there was just over 9hrs which seems consistent. I also checked the Herman zoom UPR on my core2Duo with much the same result as on my P4HT - both cores were used to over 95% inside UF and when disk rendering without AA - with AA on "normal" the behaviour was the same except at a couple of points CPU/FPU use dropped briefly to around 70%. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: JackOfTraDeZ on August 28, 2009, 04:41:02 AM fractalwizz - loox like you the only one else I know that will spend months on an animation! good man!
when you say E+243, I assume you mean the same as I do with fractint. I can not go that deep at all - images would take several days to render. how long do yours take and what is your iteration count? (my current zoom to E+112 is now at E+104 and it has taken 14 months on 4 systems 24/7; looks like about 5 months to go. but I will post it on youtube and UFVP at E+104 until it is finished) Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 28, 2009, 03:41:57 PM fractalwizz - loox like you the only one else I know that will spend months on an animation! good man! Hey, don't you underestimate me (http://nl.board.bigpoint.com/seafight/images/smilies/biggrin.gif). I'm now finishing an animation that took almost 2 months. I think I will post it in the movie showcase today. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on September 22, 2009, 12:05:04 AM I copied your post and saved it to a text file and named it "test.par", then navigated to it with UF 4.02 version. That took only 1 hr 45 min to render at 640x480 on my Alienware Athlon64, my fastest system. I think it was using only 1 core, looking at task manager display. I was amazed, then I saw the iteration count was less than 3000. You will never see a mini-brot at that depth with so low iterations. You need at least a million, and don't keep zooming into the "center" of the image; go off to one of the large standing waves where 4 points intersect. From my experience, you are a long way to go. My computer is rendering the minibrot now and it's 2 months remaining. I used only 500 000 iterations, which I think is enough. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Squish on October 11, 2009, 12:06:45 PM I recently started saying, "I need more RAM, I need more RAM" and people said "well what the hell do you need so much RAM for?" and I said "Well, my PC is running 24/7 rendering fractals pics and zooms," as if it's something special that requires bigger better computers to do because it takes up so much time.
THEN I realized, you know what? What would ever be good enough?? You could render a fractal to infinite detail, size, or video frame rate, etc. If I had access to computers fifty trillion times faster than the fastest on Earth, I would be making the exact same complaints. I figured, if I could just render a fractal to infinite precision in seconds, there'd be no point to the learning process and methods to get to a final image/video we feel good about. Then I realized I think the same thing with everywhere else I apply fractals, and as an artist in general. (It's an artistic axiom that the creative mind always wants to do more than it's capable of translating through any given artistic medium). I'll think up a simple fractal story like 27 pages in 3D (like a 3D tic-tac-toe cube of pages that can be permutated into different reading orders, or a fractal triangle of 3 depths), and then in a few days it's a 4096-paged story of some sort, then I'm depressed I don't have the software to design a library of trillions of books organized into pixels of a detailed Mandelbrot set! It never ends. So now I just grab some popcorn and watch my netbook in anticipation of the next pixel, and screw over the lady at Best Buy who told me not to do anything but Abacus and Angband with it. The Comcast commercial comes to mind with the turtles who like to watch the "loading" percentage bar go up on a slow internet connection. Now that's the optimistic way of approaching fractal zooms! Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: fractalwizz on October 13, 2009, 05:14:15 PM Quote when you say E+243, I assume you mean the same as I do with fractint. I can not go that deep at all - images would take several days to render. how long do yours take and what is your iteration count? At the moment, I am using UF5 for my animations - 640 by 480 without anti-aliasing - about 500k iterations on the endframe I might just bail on it cause my new zoom software's almost done. For a while now, I(like HPDZ) have been developing software to make deep zooms render faster. I just got it completed and it renders most images at depths deeper than e+30 faster than Fractint. Almost by 20% time reduction. Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: JackOfTraDeZ on October 14, 2009, 05:02:19 AM you write your own software? and its better than fractint!? you gotta be pretty good - specially if you still in high school.
what are you using - VC++ ? ASM ?? Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: fractalwizz on October 14, 2009, 01:16:56 PM VC++
it took a while :sleepy: Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on November 16, 2009, 10:56:12 PM My computer is rendering the minibrot now and it's 2 months remaining. I used only 500 000 iterations, which I think is enough. Hmm, I gotta say, it does look like the estimated time of 2 months was a little off again. It's now at 23,36%. With all those other renders that I want to do (I haven't stopped making animations and fractals), give it 10 months more. :o Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on June 29, 2010, 05:31:09 PM Here's part 1 out of 4. Click to enlarge.
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff342/formule/E1383_262A200049-1.jpg) (http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff342/formule/E1383_262A200049.jpg) You see those very very thin lines coming out of the mandelbrot set? Those are actually the same sort of things as there are 4 of in the picture below! The deeper you zoom, the longer those "protuberances" are when approaching a minibrot. (http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff342/formule/E1165.png) The other 3 parts of this deep minibrot are coming "soon", I hope. The magnification is again 9.8097322E1383. That means: 98097322000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ! Title: Re: Deep zooms Post by: Dinkydau on August 30, 2010, 05:02:58 AM finally, done For the full image, click this link: http://www.deviantart.com/download/177347085/deep_mandelbrot_zoom_by_dinkydauset-d2xl5vx.png (http://www.deviantart.com/download/177347085/deep_mandelbrot_zoom_by_dinkydauset-d2xl5vx.png) |