> But maybe I should have coded for more frames
> (or less change from frame to frame ?) so 
> that that it would wriggle(?) slower. 

Do you want me to rerender with twice as many frames?  It'd be half the 
resolution, to keep the .mpg size down, but it should be easy enough to 
do.

> Thanks for the comments.
> And thank you very much Jamie for rendering !

Nae problem.

> (I estimated that my 100 MHz PC would need 
> more than one day for 72 320x240 frames.)

I rerendered at 320x240, and I think it took about an hour and a half on 
my new box.
 
> I planned for another version with smooth 
> looping (by sampling the noise in circular 
> motions instead linear as in this animation).
> But unfortunately I haven't found time for 
> that yet.

No problem, just email me the source when you get it done.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message