 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And I mean *really* deep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU
Years ago I asked here the question: "If you zoom enough into the
Mandelbrot set, will you finally find the Truth?"
If you watch that fullscreen from start to finish, with sounds on,
maybe you will.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 1:31 PM, Warp wrote:
> And I mean *really* deep:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU
>
> Years ago I asked here the question: "If you zoom enough into the
> Mandelbrot set, will you finally find the Truth?"
>
> If you watch that fullscreen from start to finish, with sounds on,
> maybe you will.
>
That is deep!
I can't say I appreciate or like the music.
Thanks for posting, I like the 3D version. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldot com> wrote:
> I can't say I appreciate or like the music.
It's not a question of liking it. It's a question of feeling it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 8:14 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> I can't say I appreciate or like the music.
>
> It's not a question of liking it. It's a question of feeling it.
>
That's as deep as the zoom ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Years ago I asked here the question: "If you zoom enough into the
> Mandelbrot set, will you finally find the Truth?"
Very cool. Altho I'm not quite sure what his comment about the speed of
light is supposed to mean. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I find it interesting that at the beginning of the movie, it zooms into
largely repetitive areas of the fractal (fringe areas where very similar
features are repeated over and over next to each other), and then for
the last two thirds, it zooms into one specific point of interest.
During the second part, you can see wheels with spokes, and the number
of spokes increases, slowly at first and then very quickly until the end
(which I won't "spoil" for those who haven't watched it). It's as though
bypassing all the repetitions in the first part is "winding up"
complexity that has to be "unwound" by zooming very deep into the
concentric circles in the second part. There's probably a mathematical
explanation for this.
- Slime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/10/2010 01:31 PM, Warp wrote:
> And I mean *really* deep:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU
That is really, really deep. Everything a look at now appear to be
receding away from me.
It's also very pink. I don't know what this was rendered with, but it
seems to have a 256-colour limit, meaning that the colours repeat a hell
of a lot. I did a zoom not unlike this using POV-Ray. Obviously the AA
is all over the place, but it does mean I have unlimited colours, and I
can map them as I see fit.
The location chosen is very, *very* repetitive. I mean, really, if you
watch the first minute or two of the video, you've now seen everything
there is to see for the entire 10 minute marathon.
Ditto for the music, actually. It's just a drum beat with some
occasional accompaniment. I like trance music, but this is the kind of
thing I'd routinely skip over. There's just too much drum and not enough
notes. I also find it kind of interesting that I'm gazing at pristine
mathematical perfection while listening to distorted gurgling electronic
grunge.
Of course, what I'd really like to do some day is do a long fractal zoom
(or more likely a succession of them), and spend time tweaking all the
colours to the exact details of the fractal, and build some sort of
soundscape that complements each feature of it. Sadly, I am drastically
incapable of synthesizing such a transcendental fusion...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 31/10/2010 01:31 PM, Warp wrote:
>> And I mean *really* deep:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU
>
> That is really, really deep. Everything a look at now appear to be
> receding away from me.
>
> It's also very pink. I don't know what this was rendered with, but it
> seems to have a 256-colour limit,
That's what I thought too. It reminded me of the old FractInt, which,
by default, saved to .GIF so it was limited to 256 colors as well.
*Googles*
Holy crap! FractInt is still maintained! There goes today's hope of
doing actual work.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/11/2010 12:31 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Holy crap! FractInt is still maintained! There goes today's hope of
> doing actual work.
What, you didn't know that? ;-)
I used FractInt to produce all my stuff on Zazzle. Still, I keep meaning
to put together a "real" fractal renderer one of these days. One that
can handle 48 megapixel images without having to render them as
two-dozen GIF images rendered in a framebuffer that has to fit inside
"conventional memory" (!!) and then stitching them together into a giant
50MB GIF file. It's really slow...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's also very pink. I don't know what this was rendered with, but it
> seems to have a 256-colour limit, meaning that the colours repeat a hell
> of a lot. I did a zoom not unlike this using POV-Ray. Obviously the AA
> is all over the place, but it does mean I have unlimited colours, and I
> can map them as I see fit.
Naturally POV-Ray won't cut it for such a deep zoom because it will
start glitching out at about 2^50 zoom factor (because 'double' only
has 53 mantissa bits). You need a software with multiple-precision
floating point numbers (or such a library, if you want to write the
program yourself). Of course rendering such deep zooms with such a
library will be slooooow (because software floating point is very slow,
and the amount of iterations required for such zoom levels doesn't help
the matter either).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
