Logo by Trifox - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Visit us on facebook
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. December 08, 2021, 11:24:40 AM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Dragon I  (Read 1030 times)
Description: Julia set
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« on: February 06, 2009, 03:27:28 AM »



A quadratic Julia set with both basins of attraction colored by smoothed iterations.

Freely redistributable and usable subject to the Creative Commons Attribution license, version 3.0.

Detailed statistics:
Name: Dragon
Date: February 4, 2009
Fractal: Julia set
Location: c = -0.7875 + 0.0875i
Depth: Shallow
Min Iterations: 1
Max Iterations: 894
Layers: 2
Anti-aliasing: 3x3, threshold 0.10, depth 1
Preparation time: 5 minutes
Calculation time: 30 seconds (2GHz dual-core Athlon XP)

Some technical info on the interior coloring:

Dissatisfied with the performance, for this and other images, of the existing algorithms for smoothed iterations in convergent basins, I did something especially simple.

I noted that approach to an attracting (but not superattracting) fixed point tends to spiral in in a very regular way once it gets close -- the difference from the attractor point tending to multiply by a near-constant complex number smaller in magnitude than 1:


Here, the large black dot is the attractor and the small black dots and small blue dots are two orbits. The larger and paler red circle is the target disk; the point at its center, marked with a black X, is not exactly at the attractor but is some point close to the attractor discovered by forward iterating the critical point and waiting for the cycle detector to trip.

If one colors simply by iterations, both points get a 3, since the third iteration lands inside the disk. This gives sharp bands, with the disk itself as the centermost one.

It occurred to me, however, that besides how many steps it took to hit the disk, one could also use the proportion of the distance out from the center of the disk that the point landed. If it landed near the center, it got very close to the attractor in only three iterations; if it landed near the edge, it took "nearly" four iterations. So my first naive refinement made the fractional part of the iteration the ratio of the distance from the X to the disk radius.

This didn't work very well -- the resulting "smoothed iteration" values would creep up from 2.8 say to 3.0 and then jump to 3.8. The exact point of the jump, here .8, also depended on the Julia seed in a non-obvious way. Then I considered: most of the points close to the center of the disk are not reached in a single jump from outside the disk. The disk's own image under the mapping is a smaller disk (darker red) within it, and points that lie outside the larger disk land, in one iteration, outside the smaller disk. So it is not how far out the point landed from the X to the edge of the disk; it is how far from the inner disk's edge to the outer disk's edge that counts.

In the diagram, the blue point's third iteration lands close to the inner disk but the black point does not; the black point's next iteration lands close to the outside of the inner disk, but inside it. If the blue point had been a little closer to the attractor, its third iteration would have landed just inside the inner disk instead of just outside, and its second iteration would have been just inside the outer disk. That blue point should only be a 2.1 or so, not a 2.8.

But how is the inner disk's radius to be determined? I considered two extra iterations of the black point. One lands just inside the inner disk; one lands even closer to the attractor (points 4 and 5 in the diagram). The ratio of the distances spanned by these successive jumps should be close to the ratio of the disk radii. And this lets the inner disk radius be determined from the outer one by the same ratio. Call this ratio the "x-factor" for that particular attractor. (It is related to the derivative of the map at the fixed point.)

This worked much better: all of the iteration values from 3.0001 to 3.9999 now occurred. However, they were not distributed as one would wish; the iteration dropped rapidly from nearly 4 to only 3.2 or so within a few pixels of the outer edge of the iteration-3 band and then from 3.2 to 3 more slowly over the bulk of the band's width.

The next insight was to consider where 3.5 should really occur between 3 and 4. The 4-band was about an x-factor wider than the 3-band, so if we split the bands in two, the half-width bands should get wider in steps of the square root of the x-factor. In particular, the band between the outer and inner target disks should be divided up similarly, with .5 being not halfway between but sqrt(x) between.

Generalizing this to any proportion, it becomes any power -- a fractional part of .5 should occur at x.5 of the way out, a fractional part of .3 at x.3; basically, the linear distance's base x logarithm had to be used for the fractional part instead of just the linear distance.

This worked beautifully in the basins of fixed points! It failed if the fixed point was superattracting (but there the standard smoothed iterations algorithm works beautifully) and it failed if the attractor was a cycle of period 2 or greater.

Fixing cycles was slightly tricky. First, only successive points that approached the same point within the attractor could be used to determine the inner-disk radius. So instead of just taking the next two iterations, I modified the code to iterate until it landed within the target disk again and note that as the "second" iteration, then do it again until it landed within the target disk a third time and note that as the "third" iteration. For a period-two attractor like the one in Dragon I, the points skip back and forth between two spirals converging on the two points of the attractor. Imagine the diagram above, but with a second copy elsewhere without the red disks and with points 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and so on, and the orbit going from point 1 to 1.5 to 2 to 2.5 and so on. In this case, every second point lands back within the outer disk, instead of every point.

With this modification, however, there was still distinct banding of the basins. I debugged by drawing a grey gradient for the fractional part, and saw that the fractional part was banding as it should, going from 1 down to 0, 1 down to 0 repeatedly as one approached the attractor. The fractional part was being calculated correctly. It had to be the integer part that was causing the problem, and indeed it was: if it just missed the red disk on iteration 2, for instance, it would land within the target radius of the other point in the 2-cycle (far from the X) on iteration 3 and only land inside the red disk on iteration 4. More generally, only once every period of the attractor did it get a chance to get "caught" in the red disk. So the integer part had to be not simply the number of iterations, but the floor of the number of iterations divided by the cycle period.

The same logic that calculated the successive points for the x-factor calculation could calculate the period by counting iterations between successive landings within the target disk. With this final modification in place, and a detection of superattractors to fall back on the older smoothed-iteration algorithm in that case (in practise, the x factor being over one thousand indicates that it's "close enough for government business" and the superattractor version gives good results, and below that the new algorithm gives good results), I got perfectly smooth gradients inside Julia set basins of every period, and also inside the buds of Mandelbrots.

Forthcoming in the next few days will be more images with stunning smooth-colored basins, Mandelbrot components, and similarly, based on the same mathematics described above.

I will probably also start grouping several images together in some posts to avoid crowding out other people's posts in the forum too much.
Logged

cKleinhuis
Administrator
Fractal Senior
*******
Posts: 7044


formerly known as 'Trifox'


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2009, 03:57:23 PM »

this is a nice method, but only suitable for julia mandelbrot ?
Logged

---

divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2009, 08:53:41 PM »

In theory it works on any convergent basin in the complex plane. The assumptions might break down for some real/real maps though.

I've tested it on a number of complex maps besides the quadratic one, with good results. I've also implemented the superattractor-convergence method to figure out the correct power parameter on its own from the rate of convergence. The log of the distance from the attractor (or the origin, if at infinity) multiplies by approximately the power for each iteration, and the ratio of these logarithms for two successive iterates will therefore approximate the power.

The bailout needs to be high enough for all of this stuff to work though. Both because the ratios being calculated, in every case, are more exact the longer it spirals in (or out) before calculating them, and because the X moves closer to the big black dot. (The imprecision of the X makes all of the disks and curves-of-constant-smoothed-iteration off-center by a bit; the bands of integer-iteration get pinched to one side. If the imprecision is big enough, they intersect, and one gets seams in the "smoothed" iterations. I got that with an image I calculated recently, wondered if something broke, then tried raising the bailout and thereby fixed it. smiley

(The one bailout number gets used in three ways: for divergent basins, as the escape radius; for convergent basins, as the reciprocal of the trap disk radius; and for locating attractors, as the reciprocal of the threshold for periodicity detection. (A point is iterated until the nth iterate is closer to the floor(n/2) iterate than some threshold distance. This is done for the critical points for Julia (dynamic plane) images, once per image to locate the attractors, and for every point for Mandelbrot (parameter space) images. Needless to say this slows down Mandelbrot images a fair bit -- every inside point gets iterated twice, once until periodicity is detected and once more to actually calculate the smoothed iterations. An optimization here would be to save the orbit, but at double precision, that's 16 megabytes (for a million pairs of doubles) for a million iterations and quickly gets into the gigabytes if the precision goes up. Saving the orbit up to a lower iteration cutoff seems like a viable compromise, though it mainly saves time on the pixels that need it least, the ones that iterate only a few thousand times or less. The next-generation smarter algorithm will do better, though -- it will remember what happened for the last point in Mandelbrot images, and in particular the periods of any attractors found. Then look for those particular periods in the next point. The common case is that the same periods occur. The rare case will hit the maximum iterations without being trapped, and then fall back on the standard periodicity detection. When there's only one period p to look for it can save every pth iterate. Saving only the most recent N iterations also comes to mind. Usually, the first one that landed within the trap distance of the attractor will be in there when the cycle detection trips.)
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
IFS Dragon Scales Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) zeldabob888 1 964 Last post November 11, 2006, 03:49:14 AM
by matera
Dragon Egg Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) zeldabob888 2 1124 Last post November 26, 2006, 04:41:06 AM
by Zoom
Dragon's Treasure Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) wolfepaw 0 535 Last post October 09, 2008, 08:17:31 PM
by wolfepaw
The Dragon Seal Mandelbulb3D Gallery Weber 0 467 Last post January 28, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
by Weber
Enter the Dragon. Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) Caleidoscope 2 465 Last post March 13, 2016, 01:31:18 AM
by 1Bryan1

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.008s, 2q)