Welcome to Fractal Forums

Hi,
    Here's a sample Mandelbox fractal image I created using a raytracer I wrote.  It's a less precise (less cluttered) version of my "Deus Ex Machina" image.  If you want to see a video I made of this area, look at my posting in the movie section (I would put a link in this post, but I don't know what the rules are concerning embedding videos in an images section).  Look below for link to video.

Mark

(http://nocache-nocookies.digitalgott.com/gallery/17/11815_26_03_15_1_20_52.jpeg)

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDZWsCERmxc

I just created another version of the first part of the above video.  This one is 16:9 1080p and has more detail and more frames.  The quality suffers a bit due to YouTube's compression (I uploaded 3.7 GB lossless compressed and YouTube spits back about 25 Meg video (720p version, though).  And it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube gives better quality to popular users, since I see in a few frames of my video that YouTube reduced the quality for no reason - the section was relatively static, so why the loss of quality?).  Even though it's 1080p, I recommend using the 720p setting.  Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YALeGWgIq4M

I like the style of coloring.

Thanks!  I created the coloring by applying an HSV range (varying the hue) over the 3d space.  And since bright/light colors were easier to see, I chose the yellow and orange-ish part of the HSV range (which has the side benefit of kinda looking like gold).  And also choosing to make it look metallic.

feel free to include a video of yours in the post

Thanks!  I edited my post to include my video.

nice one, although camera pathes are a bit rough, the rendering seems to be just fine without jaggy over/understepping

it looks you do it in realtime? moar pixels and 16:9 format i recommend for the fractals to bring out the full details

I wish it was realtime  :)  I agree, higher resolution would be nice (and anti-aliasing).  Before I rendered it, I considered that, but I didn't want to increase the render time.  As far as 16:9 goes, I guess I just stuck with 4:3 because that's what my other videos are.  But I am open to change (for example, my earlier videos were done with Windows Movie Maker (on XP), so they couldn't be HD, but then I moved to VirtualDub (for HD)).

In my post in the video section, I mention the camera paths problem.  I wrote a 3d spline viewer so I could get a better idea of what the resulting camera paths were.  Once I did that, I realized I would have been better off using uniform b-splines or Kochanek-Bartels (I used Catmull Rom because they seem very popular) but since uniform b-splines don't guarantee going through control points, I might end up going through walls, so to speak.  The Catmull Rom paths ended up reminding me of transient responses from my electrical engineering days (overshooting position and then quickly getting to the right position).  I tried to think of it as someone holding a video camera while flying in a spaceship - the ship might be making smooth movements, but the camera operator might jerk and overshoot (except maybe in the case of anti-shake cameras).  That made me feel a bit better about the disappointing camera movements :)

I created another version (link above) with 16:9 1080p.  Even though it's 1080p, I recommend using the 720p setting.