Philip Moriarty on the mandelbrot set

[TheRedshiftRider]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/gB-BP9HWiMo&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/gB-BP9HWiMo&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

A rather old video. With the basics of how the mandelbrot set is generated. And a bit on how it relates to other things.

I like the passionate way he talks about the mandelbrot set.

[cKleinhuis]

great, thank you for linking

[quaz0r]

oh dr moriarty   
its always quite charming to see noobs presenting about the mandelbrot set. 
they raise the maxiters from 100 to 1000 and they are like OMG do you even understand how many calculations are happening right now!?
and they zoom in 2 or 3 times and they are like bro do you even understand how mind-bogglingly deep we are right now!?
and of course the obligatory not-enough-maxiters where half the image is black (pretty much every single mandelbrot image ever posted, outside of fractalforums)
speaking of maxiters, is dr moriarty's "number of points" his maxiters?   

[cKleinhuis]

lol, right, and i am quite disappointing that no one is referring to my "what happens in the mandelbrot calculation" they always explain it for the single point, but this does not show how i myself and me visualised the transformation, hrhrhr need to self promote this because this is what should at least be reviewed from some more than just 160 viewers

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ce0lms78nt4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/ce0lms78nt4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[cKleinhuis]

hehe and as referenced in the bottom comment, the mandelbrot song just because

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ES-yKOYaXq0&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/ES-yKOYaXq0&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[TheRedshiftRider]

oh dr moriarty   
its always quite charming to see noobs presenting about the mandelbrot set. 
they raise the maxiters from 100 to 1000 and they are like OMG do you even understand how many calculations are happening right now!?
and they zoom in 2 or 3 times and they are like bro do you even understand how mind-bogglingly deep we are right now!?
and of course the obligatory not-enough-maxiters where half the image is black (pretty much every single mandelbrot image ever posted, outside of fractalforums)
speaking of maxiters, is dr moriarty's "number of points" his maxiters?   

Yes it is amusing to watch.

I am curious what his reaction would be if we let him use a perturbation based renderer. Julia morphing would be amazing for him.

[lycium]

I am curious what his reaction would be if we let him use a perturbation based renderer.

"That's an interesting approach, but how can it be made to automatically and reliably produce equal-quality images as the normal way?"

[TheRedshiftRider]

"That's an interesting approach, but how can it be made to automatically and reliably produce equal-quality images as the normal way?"

That was in 2012. Nowadays it is much better. That is of course if you know how to do it.

[lycium]

I too look forward to the day we can simply say "the perturbation method is better", but for now it is solving a different problem / rendering different images (with no way to tell when you're looking at glitches or not).

It's possible Knighty will get there (I have complete faith in his mathemagics), but the principle of apples to apples comparisons should not be forgotten

[TheRedshiftRider]

I too look forward to the day we can simply say "the perturbation method is better".

We already can. It is better than classic rendering, in my opinion. But it requires practice.

I am happy Knighty and the others are having a look at it. But perturbation is good as it is.

[lycium]

So much for apples to apples... oh well

[cKleinhuis]

lycium, i know you think it is totally different, pertubation theory is an approximation, that is correct, glitches can easily be detected visually alone, for once, why not write a small program that calculates the 50 million iters per pixel by "hand" using a big numbers library, i wonder how long that would take to calculate, perhaps the comparation image would be rendering a year or so (at least with ultrafractal ) for comparison just the "inner" pixels need to be compared, when using exact same areas and iteration set up the 2 images should be exactly the same, or with some differencies the farther one is away from a reference point

nevertheless the results are mandelbrots (an apple) it is not that pertubation makes a pear out of an apple, it just grows the apple in the laboratory but at the end it is an apple my five pence on the "we cannot advertise pertubation theory because we dont know if its correct"

[lycium]

my five pence on the "we cannot advertise pertubation theory because we dont know if its correct"

Please don't straw man, I wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim

As you agreed, I'm only saying it's an approximation, and well, saying something like "glitches can easily be detected visually alone" in the face of experience/evidence here on FF where people often miss glitches (besides the more general point that machines are made to automate, and requiring human checking is a fundamental step backwards) seems like a much stronger claim.

All I'm advocating is scientific rigour.

In any case, in my opinion the point isn't really worth discussing deeply anyway, since anyone could post an image saying it's a zoom to E49576495764957 and it's difficult to truly know if it is or not, since there is nothing new going on in these ultra deep zooms that doesn't happen earlier.

[TheRedshiftRider]

Please don't straw man, I wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim

As you agreed, I'm only saying it's an approximation, and well, saying something like "glitches can easily be detected visually alone" in the face of experience/evidence here on FF where people often miss glitches (besides the more general point that machines are made to automate, and requiring human checking is a fundamental step backwards) seems like a much stronger claim.

All I'm advocating is scientific rigour.

In any case, in my opinion the point isn't really worth discussing deeply anyway, since anyone could post an image saying it's a zoom to E49576495764957 and it's difficult to truly know if it is or not, since there is nothing new going on in these ultra deep zooms that doesn't happen earlier.

In some way you did.

Anyway.. It will never be possible to completely automate things and you will always need a person to act if the machine can't detect something. Evaluation is crucial if you want to improve something.

Remember, At this moment Knighty and the others are evaluating to improve the programs.


Edit: come on Lycium, don't hide your text.

[lycium]

In some way you did.

Please explain, how did I say you can't advertise perturbation methods?

Anyway.. It will never be possible to completely automate things and you will always need a person to act if the machine can't detect something.

Circular argument here: you can't completely automate if the machine can't detect something authomatically, therefore you can never completely automate.

The original algorithm doesn't need checking, which is the goal, which is why Knighty and others are working on it. The UltraFractal author claimed to have a bulletproof method at the 2014 Fractal Symposium, and explained to us how it works, but I haven't seen any results yet (and it's obviously not something I can share).

Remember, At this moment Knighty and the others are evaluating to improve the programs.

Thanks for the reminder, it's almost as if I didn't say this in my 2nd post

Edit: come on Lycium, don't hide your text.

Scared of the Mandel-mob...