 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you very much. It helps indeed. First in understanding the isosurface and
second in understandig the mandelbulb computations. I wondered about a setting
by Tor Olav Kristensen in his code he gave here some years ago. Now I see that
this was an approach to estimate the distance to the mandelbulb, but different
from yours at first sight. But I must admit that my knowledge about stuff like
complex analysis and it extrapolation into 3-Space is a bit limited nowadays. If
I take his Mandelbulb function as a pigment function and compare it with yours,
differences are obvious. Since I like to play around with things, I will render
all three versions (Tor's, yours and my dichotomous one) and compare the
results.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thank you very much. It helps indeed. First in understanding the isosurface and
> second in understandig the mandelbulb computations. I wondered about a setting
> by Tor Olav Kristensen in his code he gave here some years ago. Now I see that
> this was an approach to estimate the distance to the mandelbulb, but different
> from yours at first sight. But I must admit that my knowledge about stuff like
> complex analysis and it extrapolation into 3-Space is a bit limited nowadays.
I don't pretend at all to have derived the distance equation, or even
understand how/why it works (or even have coded it correctly). But I did
get stuck in a similar situation to you when writing my GPU-based
isosurface renderer, and found the solution so thought I'd share. It
seems to work ok (see attached) so I stuck with it without
investigating/optimising further.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'download.png' (275 KB)
Preview of image 'download.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-11-2015 18:34, MichaelJF wrote:
> ... Since I like to play around with things, I will render
> all three versions (Tor's, yours and my dichotomous one) and compare the
> results.
>
Don't forget to show us :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking at your very nice result and inspecting your code I think that you have
implemented the formula properly.
And I learned that one can post images to this group. Despite the fact that the
web front end states "You may not post attachments to this newsgroups". How did
you achieve this, Thunderbird?
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 10-11-2015 18:34, MichaelJF wrote:
> > ... Since I like to play around with things, I will render
> > all three versions (Tor's, yours and my dichotomous one) and compare the
> > results.
> >
>
> Don't forget to show us :-)
>
> --
> Thomas
I will post the three images ASAP. But they will be more technical and will
illustrate the resulting mandelbulb and a visualisation of the mandelbulb
function as a pigment function to understand the distance approximation better.
With the winner in render speed of my own small contest here, I will restart my
search for a nice place from May this year. I got stuck than since I found no
time to solve the riddles Tor Olav gave me with his code. But now I have a
better understanding, thanks Scott.
I imagine something like a cave where I can place some people exploring the
mandelbulb maybe sitting in a rowing boat, having a stalactite like texture to
the thing. And may be a falling drop. I hope I get this until mid of december.
My realisation of the mandelbulb is still a(n) (iso)surface;-)
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Looking at your very nice result and inspecting your code I think that you have
> implemented the formula properly.
>
> And I learned that one can post images to this group. Despite the fact that the
> web front end states "You may not post attachments to this newsgroups". How did
> you achieve this, Thunderbird?
Recalling my Usenet days, it's an honor system; and while news.povray.org is not
part of Usenet, the network protocol is identical. Newsreaders do not enforce
newsgroup policies. However, the Web interface is hosted on the server, and can
take enforcement options not available to newsreaders.
Perhaps Scott is unaware of the protocols of antiquity. Unless the newsgroup
has the word "binaries" in its name, one is expected not to post binaries to
that newsgroup, at the risk of being flamed or retromoderated. But flames are
rare in this community, and I can recall only two instances of retromoderation
in the 12 years I have been here.
On news.povray.org, there is an exception to this rule: povray.off-topic. Since
the Web interface permits binary attachments, I must assume that this exception
has official sanction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 12/11/2015 06:01, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> "MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Looking at your very nice result and inspecting your code I think that you have
>> implemented the formula properly.
>>
>> And I learned that one can post images to this group. Despite the fact that the
>> web front end states "You may not post attachments to this newsgroups". How did
>> you achieve this, Thunderbird?
>
> Recalling my Usenet days, it's an honor system; and while news.povray.org is not
> part of Usenet, the network protocol is identical. Newsreaders do not enforce
> newsgroup policies. However, the Web interface is hosted on the server, and can
> take enforcement options not available to newsreaders.
>
> Perhaps Scott is unaware of the protocols of antiquity. Unless the newsgroup
> has the word "binaries" in its name, one is expected not to post binaries to
> that newsgroup, at the risk of being flamed or retromoderated. But flames are
> rare in this community, and I can recall only two instances of retromoderation
> in the 12 years I have been here.
>
> On news.povray.org, there is an exception to this rule: povray.off-topic. Since
> the Web interface permits binary attachments, I must assume that this exception
> has official sanction.
The conservation of povray.off-topic is different from other groups:
things will disappear in off-topic.
The problem with attachments anywhere is the storage (disk) of them.
It was also a problem of bandwidth and money: when paying by the minute
for a 28.8k baud modem connections, you might be pissed off, despite
reading non-binary groups only for that purpose, by a serie of large
(like 500kb) attachments which consume your line for 10 minutes each.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And I learned that one can post images to this group. Despite the fact that the
>> web front end states "You may not post attachments to this newsgroups". How did
>> you achieve this, Thunderbird?
Yes Thunderbird, and before that Outlook Express. I don't ever remember
using the web interface before to post anything.
> Recalling my Usenet days, it's an honor system; and while news.povray.org is not
> part of Usenet, the network protocol is identical. Newsreaders do not enforce
> newsgroup policies. However, the Web interface is hosted on the server, and can
> take enforcement options not available to newsreaders.
>
> Perhaps Scott is unaware of the protocols of antiquity. Unless the newsgroup
> has the word "binaries" in its name, one is expected not to post binaries to
> that newsgroup, at the risk of being flamed or retromoderated. But flames are
> rare in this community, and I can recall only two instances of retromoderation
> in the 12 years I have been here.
Honestly I had completely forgotten, if it was a POV generated image I
would have certainly posted it in the images group, but as it wasn't I
didn't think twice about just attaching it to my reply here. If I get
around to improving the lighting and focal blur a bit more I'll post up
some more images in the binary group.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>
> The conservation of povray.off-topic is different from other groups:
> things will disappear in off-topic.
>
> The problem with attachments anywhere is the storage (disk) of them.
> It was also a problem of bandwidth and money: when paying by the minute
> for a 28.8k baud modem connections, you might be pissed off, despite
> reading non-binary groups only for that purpose, by a serie of large
> (like 500kb) attachments which consume your line for 10 minutes each.
Yes I remember waiting minutes to look at an image only. It's long ago but there
are still big differences in bandwidth between the cities and rural regions even
in Germany - and as I learned some months ago here even in the US. I have no
idea what bandwidth is provided in less developed countries. So I will not break
this old rules and post my images to p.b.i.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Honestly I had completely forgotten, if it was a POV generated image I
> would have certainly posted it in the images group, but as it wasn't I
> didn't think twice about just attaching it to my reply here.
I post all of my POV-relevant images to p.b.i, regardless of source. If it's a
photo, I tag it as an awsome[sic] Rolex, otherwise I just name the source.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
