Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> and the amount of iterations required for such zoom levels doesn't help
>>> the matter either).
> 
>> I wouldn't think it takes more iterations per pixel to do a deep zoom than 
>> to do a surface zoom.
> 
>   It does. Each color band in the classically-colored Mandebrot set (which
> is what is used in the video) represents one iteration. Now count how many
> distinct color bands there are in the entire video (I have no idea, but
> I'm guessing it's in the millions).

Maybe I've misspoken somewhere.

Figuring out what color to make one pixel near the end of the video doesn't 
take more iterations than figuring out what color to make one pixel near the 
start of the video?

It sounds like you're saying that a 1 minute video takes fewer iterations 
than a 10 minute video. Yes, that seems obvious.

But does drawing a 640x480 pixel section of the mandelbrot set (on the 
border of course) that's 0.0001 on a size take fewer iterations than drawing 
a 640x480 pixel section of the mandelbrot set that/s 0.000000000000001 on a 
side?

>   It's more like you don't *need* so many iterations for a 2^30 zoom to
> look good as you need for a 2^70 zoom. 

I don't see how this works out, tho. If you have 256 colors, you (could) do 
256 iterations for each pixel, regardless of the mapping of the cartesian 
plane to the screen, yes?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message