Welcome to Fractal Forums

My first video with Mandelbulb 3D. This is a "simple" Sierpinsky animation with 5400 frames in 1080*768 rendered in 18 hours on my core i7

Watch in HD and fullscreen and enjoy :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/UExGx9rKEXY&hl=en_US&fs=1&

really nice :)

The best part was between 0:00 and 3:01 :)

Awesome. It looks like a neverending boiling structure.

Thanks for the comments :)

It still does not match the quality and variety of Buddhi's K-IFS videos, but it's just a beginning :D

I have added Tchaikowsky's Swan lake as the soundtrack and it really gave me goose bumps, so turn up the volume and watch it again :):)

GREAT! That made it, like, a million times better :D
Now do you think you could change the parameters based on the music? That would be super awesome! If the fractal moves with the music :D

I have not studied that possibility indetail. Although I recognize it can give much better results, I think this is also too much time consuming to set up. Maybe for next year's contest ;)

Really enjoyed watching this video, and wished that it had not ended so abruptly!!!  All the variations of shapes were quite interesting!!!  :)

And the background music you recently added was a good choice.  The only problem is that the "action" does not match the music.  It would have been nice to make the animation fit the music, so that when there was a crescendo, the object would be large and looming within the view, and softer music would be for the smaller and or further away object.

I seriously wish that people would choose the music first, then make the animation match up with it.  Or learn to write their own music to match the videos they create.  Otherwise, they might as well leave the music out, for it becomes distracting when they do not mesh.
 

Thanks fot the comments. Of course, synchronising the music would give much better results. But it would also require significant work (from my point of view) : probably to learn new software, measuring and identifying the "beat" (not necessarily regular in classical music), calculating the number of frames between each keyframe, testing, testing...

Starting with the music and adding the visuals would certainly be the best way, but this is not how I "play" fractals : I just navigate and modify parameters until I find a good idea, then I expand it to add more keyframes. Also in this particular case, as it was my first video using Jesse's program, it was a kind of test and I did not intend to produce a very polished piece of work (in fact I never do!)

I could also write my own music (I did some of electronic/dance music in the past and still have got some machines) but again, this is a matter of time. So, as I just said before, maybe for next year's contest I will prepare something ;)...

Just a quick note on the shapes : in the beginning, almost all the rotation parameter values in keyframes are 0,45, 90, 180. That creates a sort of symmetry in the chaos, even if you understand that varying 1 parameter from 0 to 45 and another one from 0 to 90 does of course create dissymetry, there are always simple ratios between the components of the rotation. And I would say that in all the first part of the animation, the shapes are quite similar because of this. Maybe you noticed that at the end there are more curious/organic shapes. These are obtained by setting more random rotations parameters, and keeping some subbtle rotations, for example 1 to 10 degrees instead of 0 for one given parameter. This concept of small variation giving interesting shapes is also illustrated to some extent in Josleys' latest article : http://www.fractalforums.com/3d-fractal-generation/kaleido-ifs-article-a-fractal-soccer-ball/msg18469/#msg18469

Ohhh... I definitely understand how much extra work would be involved!!!  But as long as the video did not pulse, jerk or dance around, then the actual "beat" would not really be that critical.  It then comes down to volume and tempo matching the action:
  •  If there is a crescendo, then one would expect the animation to grow with the music.  (Or the opposite for diminuendo.)
  •  If the music is allegro, then the action should be cheerful or brisk, as in lively.
  •  If it is adagio, then the movements of the animation would be at ease; performed more slowly.
  •  If the music is forte, then the animation might be more dynamic (as in color, size, and/or action).

The overall speed of a piece of music (tempo), along with the volume at which it is played at, have always been some of the crucial elements when movies are produced.  And when they do not match, then it becomes distracting to the viewer.


I can understand this as well, since my first attempt with Jesse's software back in March was definitely not a "polished piece", nor was it meant to be:
    http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?topic=3056.0 (http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?topic=3056.0)

But while testing that particular version of Mandelbulb3D (http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?board=168.0), without using any keyframes at all, I started thinking about how I wanted the basic video to be made to match the music.  (It was strictly a test run;  still working on the full-length HD version in my spare time.)


Appreciate the notes on how you went about transforming the various shapes.  Always nice to have a detailed account of the work involved.    :)
 

Well done bib... I've missed your animations! :)

Parts of it reminds me of clouds forming.

Beautful! :dink: