I have to comment on a somewhat off-topic post made by foxglove in another thread regarding a deep zoom to E214:
Nice!
Universe #3X
Deepest fractal zoom ever made.
Ever? really? maybe by him. But it is only e89.
First, to answer FractalWizz, this is indeed on Vimeo, on the Teamfresh channel.
As for what constitutes "deepest" -- that is complicated.
It's kind of like what's the "tallest" building. It depends on how you measure it. Do you count just any structure, including those that are not inhabitable? Do you include spires? How about antennas? Do you differentiate free-standing structures from those requiring guy-wires? Do you count the underground component of the structure? How about underwater structures like oil platforms?
"Deepest" is not a precisely defined attribute by itself becuase there are some variables here:
1. What resolution? A 640x480 video is quite a different thing from a 320x240 or a 1280x720.
2. What frame rate? 10 fps is much easier than 30 fps.
3. Were shortcuts used? Some fractal software provides various "guessing" algorithms that don't quite capture all the detail in a fractal, but do a decent job approximating it.
4. Is key-frame interpolation used? The Universe#3X video was rendered without any key frame interpolation. I don't know about Teamfresh's e214 video, but I suspect it used interpolation. This technique can reduce the rendering time by a factor of 10 easily, sometimes more. I have nothing against it as such, but it does make things a lot easier.
(see
http://www.hpdz.net/TechInfo_Animation.htm#Frame_Interpolation for more on this).
Then there's the most important thing:
5. IS IT INTERESTING!!??I've made some zooms to e100 or more that are kind of boring -- but mercifully short (see
www.hpdz.net and look for E100 and Centanimus -- my daughter loves E100 and calls it "noodles"). The filamentous areas near (-2,0) and (0,+/-1) are very easy to render but basically very dull. I think my Prima Luce does OK in this area but teeters right on the edge of being boring. It is saved by the background colors changing as they do.
Then there's the zoom to E1003 or something like that by phaumann on YouTube that I'm sure we've all seen that I swear would outperform most sleeping pills in controlled trials for insomina if you projected it on a large screen in a dark room...It's a great technical accomplishment, but what is its artistic merit?
Deeper isn't always better ... it's the structures that are revealed by going deeper that make deeper worth the effort.
That said, this e214 animation, in my opinion, is OK but not great. I think it zooms in way too much up front for no reason other than just to go deep. The same structures could have been visualized without zooming so deeply, and it gets kind of boring waiting for something new to emerge.
So let's not focus so much on the number after the E. Technically and artistically, there's a huge amount to do and see from E20-E100.