On 11/17/2010 9:31 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> If so, do you
>> know if it's possible to bridge iterations perfectly, or are there always going
>> to be slight inconsistencies? I've gotten *pretty* close, but sometimes there
>> are still visible artifacts. I had to adjust the size function to (x*x+y*y)-2048
>> in order to get the best results. The coloring function reflects that
>> adjustment:
>> log(log(iters)/log(x*x+y*y))/log(2)/(i-1)-(i-1)/iters+512/(i-1)/iters
>>
>> Rather ugly, I'd say, but it's the best I have come up with :\
>
> Euuuuhhhh, I do not understand the previous block.
>
> But it might be an interesting idea to have a type based on log(iter).
> Thanks for that.

I don't really understand it either; I snagged it from the fractal 
forums and adjusted it to fit my function. It's nearly perfect, but not 
enough for certain things...

>>
>> Also, what kind of system are you using to navigate the fractal? Are you taking
>> parameters from other programs? What I'm doing now is placing a numbered, static
>> grid over the entire image and alternating between scale and translate
>> statements (using the grid as a reference), but there must be an easier way.
>
> I tried Xaos&  Xfractint, but I suck at finding / displaying the actual
> coordinates, so I end up finding an easy to spot area of interest then
> using increasing zoom within povray.

I've been using ChaosPro, but haven't tried to see if the coordinates 
between it and my own functions match up or not.

It would be nice if POV allowed one to write their own fractal formulae 
as a new fractal type. Or better yet, use complex numbers as native data 
types. I'm currently struggling with imaginary numbers, so perhaps such 
functionality would be a detriment to my own growth :/

Post a reply to this message