Title: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 07, 2015, 01:18:39 PM
Friendly greetings \o/
I decided to rewrite buddha++.
Nicer UI, flexible framework for different formula.
The thing is, how to call it ? ::)
Is there a name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Bonus question : any name idea for the software ?
thx !
I decided to rewrite buddha++.
Nicer UI, flexible framework for different formula.
The thing is, how to call it ? ::)
Is there a name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Bonus question : any name idea for the software ?
thx !
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: cKleinhuis on May 07, 2015, 01:27:14 PM
"butterbrot" :D
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: kram1032 on May 07, 2015, 01:45:58 PM
orbit trails?
Bread trails?
Breadcrumbs.
or how about Almond crumbs? :D
Bread trails?
Breadcrumbs.
or how about Almond crumbs? :D
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: lycium on May 07, 2015, 01:47:50 PM
Is there a name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
IFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function_system)(it's just an IFS randomly choosing roots of z^2 + c)
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: cKleinhuis on May 07, 2015, 02:02:42 PM
i consider it as a special form of ifs as well, although the name ifs for that dot counting is wrong in the first place as well ;) not wrong, but i mean ifs is a general name for "iterated function systems"
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: kram1032 on May 07, 2015, 02:22:34 PM
Yeah, an iterated function system is a rather general notion. Buddhabrot style renders concern a certain... well... rendering style of IFS. The MSet and the JSets all are IFS.
Depending on your definition of "Function", it's not hard to argue that L-Systems also are IFS. As such IFS is one of the most general - perhaps also the most fundamental - methods of generating fractals. (And Multifractals. And Nonfractals. And indeed pretty much anything.)
Though perhaps "IFS Flames" is pretty accurate? Those are basically orbit plots like the Buddhabrot, right? - while the standard coloring method is an escape time algorithm.
Depending on your definition of "Function", it's not hard to argue that L-Systems also are IFS. As such IFS is one of the most general - perhaps also the most fundamental - methods of generating fractals. (And Multifractals. And Nonfractals. And indeed pretty much anything.)
Though perhaps "IFS Flames" is pretty accurate? Those are basically orbit plots like the Buddhabrot, right? - while the standard coloring method is an escape time algorithm.
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: 3dickulus on May 07, 2015, 03:02:02 PM
"2BFrac" or "BBFrac" as it's a buddhabrot-like fractal rendering program ?
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: cKleinhuis on May 07, 2015, 03:10:42 PM
if you ask me ... i would indeed go for "ifsOrbitPlotter" or something ...
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: Chillheimer on May 07, 2015, 03:24:27 PM
Friendly greetings \o/
Bonus question : any name idea for the software ?
thx !
Bonus question : any name idea for the software ?
thx !
I personally would focus much more on the buddha aspect instead of the mundane bread.. ;)
after all the pictures are stunning, what happens there is stunning, the resemblance is stunning.
so it deserves a lees technical name.. BuddhaPlot?
(and nope I'm not buddhist or even close to religios ;)
Anyways, looking forward to your update
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: lycium on May 07, 2015, 03:55:42 PM
Yeah, an iterated function system is a rather general notion.
If you check the linked Wikipedia article, it's actually much more specific than the name might imply.Buddhabrot style renders concern a certain... well... rendering style of IFS.
Not really, it's pretty standard IFS rendering - build up a histogram and log-display / tonemap it. Literally the only difference is that "Buddhabrot" has two transforms, one for each root of z^2 + c, so it's pure IFS.The MSet and the JSets all are IFS.
The formulae don't actually prescribe any particular rendering method, and the road forks in two here: escape time methods (the normal Mandelbrot / Julia rendering method) and IFS. The former is a simple evaluation as function of (x, y) on image, whereas the latter is completely different and you have incoherent access all over the image, plus you can't skip computation of what's outside without bias.So I wouldn't consider them too similar... at least, the distinction becomes extremely clear when actually implementing the algorithms ;)
Depending on your definition of "Function", it's not hard to argue that L-Systems also are IFS.
Again, you really should check the defn of IFS, especially since you're a mathematician :) In IFS you're making a histogram of point orbits under a contractive operator, in L-system you are mostly doing string replacement without any necessary notion of geometry.Though perhaps "IFS Flames" is pretty accurate?
The very worst terminology in fractals is that of flam3: "variation", "xaos", "symmetry", "sheep", ... Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: Sockratease on May 07, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
...Bonus question : any name idea for the software ?
thx !
thx !
How about Buddybrot? For the Buddhabrot and his Buddies?
In fact, Bhuddies could be the generic name you are seeking! :clown:
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 07, 2015, 04:14:00 PM
How about Buddybrot? For the Buddhabrot and his Buddies?
In fact, Bhuddies could be the generic name you are seeking! :clown:
In fact, Bhuddies could be the generic name you are seeking! :clown:
i like this ! :D
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 07, 2015, 05:29:08 PM
Thx buddy !
http://i.imgur.com/lvVxexA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lvVxexA.jpg
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: cKleinhuis on May 07, 2015, 05:46:15 PM
very good ;)
@ker are you plan to implement those nasty features to use only orbits that have a certain distance to the sets? and hybrids ... and moaaar formulas?!
@ker are you plan to implement those nasty features to use only orbits that have a certain distance to the sets? and hybrids ... and moaaar formulas?!
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: kram1032 on May 07, 2015, 06:37:00 PM
The way it is stated in that Wkipedia article, an iterated function system is a set of functions that map the space you work in (for instance 
) to a smaller region of itself. I feel like that's a bit inaccurate in that, in this definition, there isn't even a mention of iteration.
As it is written it sounds like an IFS is simply a (finite) set of (contractive) functions.
Such sets provedly have a unique, nonempty, compact fixed Set.
I.e. there is a specially finite set of points, associated with a given IFS which, if you apply any function of the IFS to that set, the resulting point will again land inside the same set.
For the Buddhabrot, if I understand correctly, the corresponding associated set simply is all the points that are still visible in the anti-Buddhabrot as the number of iterations
which, if I'm not mistaken, simply is the MSet.
However that set isn't the IFS itself. It's just the unique associated set.
The IFS simply is the collection of function.
For the Buddhabrot said set simply is:
f1: x->x^2-y^2+c1
f2: y->2xy+c2
This is actually a Julia Set with fixed constants.
So if we are being super technical, the MSet's generating functions are not an IFS because the corresponding set is not finite nor even countable: they define a family of two functions in one real parameter each. Furthermore one of the two involved functions is nowhere contractive. (Though the article mentions that this condition can and in practice will be relaxed.)
Also, the family of functions in the MSet do not interact with each other so more accurately one might say that the generating function of the MSet represents an entire family of IFS with two real parameters.
None of this is actually related to how the IFS looks like or is constructed. - the IFS itself, as stated, does not look one way or another. if you want to construct the associated set, though, one way to do it is in the classic way of iterating (randomly or combinatorially to a finite order) across the set of functions. - that's in fact not how to get a Julia Set either. The two functions are always applied in parallel rather than in arbitrary order (btw how would that look like?)
One way out of this is to take the two functions and interpret them together as a single function in
but then it's hardly a function system (though granted sets with one element are still sets), just a function, but the associated sets would simply be the given Julia Sets corresponding to c=c1+c2 i.
Those same sets should be constructable in an escape time manner (the set is only the region inside the usually black blobs, not the colorful thing around it) or an orbit map (anti-style) in both cases taking the iteration count to infinity.
So given that, based on the articles's definition (which, again, somehow doesn't even include iteration), no, neither the MSet nor Buddhabrot are IFS. They are particular renderings of a family of sets that are associated with an IFS with a single function over as element.
Finally if you, for instance, take your space to be that of collections of connected line segments and your functions to be ones that map one such collection to another, you essentially recover L-Systems.
As it is written it sounds like an IFS is simply a (finite) set of (contractive) functions.
Such sets provedly have a unique, nonempty, compact fixed Set.
I.e. there is a specially finite set of points, associated with a given IFS which, if you apply any function of the IFS to that set, the resulting point will again land inside the same set.
For the Buddhabrot, if I understand correctly, the corresponding associated set simply is all the points that are still visible in the anti-Buddhabrot as the number of iterations
However that set isn't the IFS itself. It's just the unique associated set.
The IFS simply is the collection of function.
For the Buddhabrot said set simply is:
f1: x->x^2-y^2+c1
f2: y->2xy+c2
This is actually a Julia Set with fixed constants.
So if we are being super technical, the MSet's generating functions are not an IFS because the corresponding set is not finite nor even countable: they define a family of two functions in one real parameter each. Furthermore one of the two involved functions is nowhere contractive. (Though the article mentions that this condition can and in practice will be relaxed.)
Also, the family of functions in the MSet do not interact with each other so more accurately one might say that the generating function of the MSet represents an entire family of IFS with two real parameters.
None of this is actually related to how the IFS looks like or is constructed. - the IFS itself, as stated, does not look one way or another. if you want to construct the associated set, though, one way to do it is in the classic way of iterating (randomly or combinatorially to a finite order) across the set of functions. - that's in fact not how to get a Julia Set either. The two functions are always applied in parallel rather than in arbitrary order (btw how would that look like?)
One way out of this is to take the two functions and interpret them together as a single function in
Those same sets should be constructable in an escape time manner (the set is only the region inside the usually black blobs, not the colorful thing around it) or an orbit map (anti-style) in both cases taking the iteration count to infinity.
So given that, based on the articles's definition (which, again, somehow doesn't even include iteration), no, neither the MSet nor Buddhabrot are IFS. They are particular renderings of a family of sets that are associated with an IFS with a single function over
Finally if you, for instance, take your space to be that of collections of connected line segments and your functions to be ones that map one such collection to another, you essentially recover L-Systems.
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 07, 2015, 07:11:26 PM
very good ;)
@ker are you plan to implement those nasty features to use only orbits that have a certain distance to the sets? and hybrids ... and moaaar formulas?!
@ker are you plan to implement those nasty features to use only orbits that have a certain distance to the sets? and hybrids ... and moaaar formulas?!
I have big plan and not enough C++ skillz0r :)
Right now i'm focusing on the GUI, something flexible enough to allow different formula (and parameters).
But i'm not planning something like ultrafractal that allow to write buddybrot formula in the application (i wish i could!).
It may take a few months to get something usefull (not years, i hope so).
http://i.imgur.com/6qA03Fn.jpg
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 07, 2015, 07:47:03 PM
I have a question for you !
(http://i.imgur.com/IziKvFe.jpg)
Would you like to have the non-fractal-specific param here at the bottom (red area) or to the usual left ?
The parameters will be stuff like : luminosity, contrast, gamma, a few info perhaps.
It doesn't need much space so it would be better at the bottom (imho) to maximize the image area.
But usual UI put it on the left or the right.
So i don't know :(
I wish i could have only the rendering in the main window but it would be a nightmare to tweak the rendering if you can't see it while tweaking.
Of course you could be ok to have everything on the screen (and just a small area for the rendering), but i'm not ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/IziKvFe.jpg)
Would you like to have the non-fractal-specific param here at the bottom (red area) or to the usual left ?
The parameters will be stuff like : luminosity, contrast, gamma, a few info perhaps.
It doesn't need much space so it would be better at the bottom (imho) to maximize the image area.
But usual UI put it on the left or the right.
So i don't know :(
I wish i could have only the rendering in the main window but it would be a nightmare to tweak the rendering if you can't see it while tweaking.
Of course you could be ok to have everything on the screen (and just a small area for the rendering), but i'm not ;D
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: Sockratease on May 07, 2015, 10:42:53 PM
Thx buddy !
http://i.imgur.com/lvVxexA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lvVxexA.jpg
:toast:
Glad you liked the idea!
I have a question for you !
(http://i.imgur.com/IziKvFe.jpg)
Would you like to have the non-fractal-specific param here at the bottom (red area) or to the usual left ?
The parameters will be stuff like : luminosity, contrast, gamma, a few info perhaps.
It doesn't need much space so it would be better at the bottom (imho) to maximize the image area.
But usual UI put it on the left or the right.
So i don't know :(
I wish i could have only the rendering in the main window but it would be a nightmare to tweak the rendering if you can't see it while tweaking.
Of course you could be ok to have everything on the screen (and just a small area for the rendering), but i'm not ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/IziKvFe.jpg)
Would you like to have the non-fractal-specific param here at the bottom (red area) or to the usual left ?
The parameters will be stuff like : luminosity, contrast, gamma, a few info perhaps.
It doesn't need much space so it would be better at the bottom (imho) to maximize the image area.
But usual UI put it on the left or the right.
So i don't know :(
I wish i could have only the rendering in the main window but it would be a nightmare to tweak the rendering if you can't see it while tweaking.
Of course you could be ok to have everything on the screen (and just a small area for the rendering), but i'm not ;D
I agree that maximizing the image area is the way to go. If you decide to put it on the left, the best idea is "floating" windows that can be moved, resized, docked, undocked, or closed and opened at will. That way everybody can set things up to their own liking O0
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: 3dickulus on May 08, 2015, 12:29:26 AM
floating tools bars and/or dockable windows are a must so that if you are lucky enough to have 2 monitors all of the control stuff can be on one and you can render full screen comfortably on the other, for a single screen they could iconify to the red area or no red area iconify to floating tool bar, show/hide with a hot key or like video players, show/hide on mouse activity when fullscreen.
edit:BuddyBrot sounds great too!
edit:BuddyBrot sounds great too!
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 08, 2015, 11:43:51 AM
Thx for the feebback.
I have 2 main option :
- Detachable "everything" (fully flexible UI where you can move stuff all around).
- Or an optional "external" rendering window.
I'm sure Qt can make the first option possible but ... i'll choose the 2nd option. much easier and just as good :)
I have 2 main option :
- Detachable "everything" (fully flexible UI where you can move stuff all around).
- Or an optional "external" rendering window.
I'm sure Qt can make the first option possible but ... i'll choose the 2nd option. much easier and just as good :)
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 08, 2015, 02:32:10 PM
tadaaaaa !
(http://i.imgur.com/O30duMZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/O30duMZ.jpg)
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: lycium on May 08, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
I know this isn't super constructive, but if you saved those screenshots as PNG they'd be 1/4 the size of JPEG and pixel-perfect ;)
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: DarkBeam on May 08, 2015, 07:18:33 PM
Plus, where you hid the fractal!
:alien:
:alien:
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 09, 2015, 12:39:24 PM
Plus, where you hid the fractal!
:alien:
:alien:
Busy writing the UI, nothing else for now :p
Code:
/*
* Here is how it works :
* -> MainWindow
* -> Menubar
* -> File
* -> Save as...
* -> Exit
* -> View
* -> detach render view
* -> About
* -> about
* -> Statusbar
* -> centralWidget
* -> mainTab
* -> mainWidget
* -> mainScreen
* -> TODO (this is where we draw the fractal)
* -> mainB
* -> luminosityBox
* -> luminositySlider
* -> contrastBox
* -> contrastSlider
* -> gammaBox
* -> gammaSlider
* -> paramWidget
* -> TODO
* -> logWidget
* -> Just a textbox
*/
Yes a realise that centralWidget have only 1 child so far. So why not make mainTab the central widget ? Meh, not sure, i feel like i may need a widget outside tabs in the future.
(eg : a left/right panel)
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on May 29, 2015, 11:15:47 AM
I'm still alive and the project is alive too.
My new job is keeping me super busy :(
My new job is keeping me super busy :(
Title: Re: a standard name for buddhabrot-like fractal ?
Post by: ker2x on June 02, 2015, 10:28:03 AM
https://github.com/ker2x/Buddybrot ;D