 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nice! Beeing a fractal lover me I must love it...
Thank you. (= I thought that Attractors were chaotic and not fractal. Perhaps
someone could explain this to me...
> Did a Rossler fractal my self a couple of days ago, inspired of your Lorenz
> attractor. Your's turned out a bit better than mine... Why is that?!? =)
> Might be the 50000 spheres vs my 10000 spheres.
That's one possibility. Another is probably the way your calculations are made.
Can I have a look at your source?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I don't know much about the attractors, but it looks good :-)
care to teach a newbie?
TonyB wrote:
>
> Hello. I added a Rossler Attractor to my Lorenz Attractor code. It's
> kinda cool how it has all worked out. I don't understand the formulas, I
> just put 'em in. Here's the Rossler with 50,000 spheres (too many, I
> think). ~3/2 hour to render. Oh, yeah. It's a PNG.
>
> --
> Anthony L. Bennett
> http://welcome.to/TonyB
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
//Spider -- [ spi### [at] bahnhof se ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
And the meek'll inherit what they damn well please
Get ahead, go figure, go ahead and pull the trigger
Everything under the gun
--"Sisters Of Mercy" -- "Under The Gun"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick (Kitty5)" wrote:
>
> This is much better, just one question ,why the hell a PNG? That damn file
> format makes one image look different in nearly every program i view it
> with.
Get a _real_ newsreader (not Microblows-crap) and you'll see the pics.
> Why not render to a TGA and post JPG's like evryone else!
TGA's are huge and a waste of space. JPG's could be small, but has
qualityloss. PNG's are perfect and has no qualityloss.
--
// Rikard Bosnjakovic - http://a214.ryd.student.liu.se/ - ICQ: 1158217
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That
way, if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away - and barefoot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > This is much better, just one question ,why the hell a PNG? That damn
file
> > format makes one image look different in nearly every program i view it
> > with.
>
> Get a _real_ newsreader (not Microblows-crap) and you'll see the pics.
Yes but as I mentioned, PNG's are not displaed the same on every program,
MSIE based programs display them MUCH larger and brighter, Paint shop pro
makes the image look much darker, the list goes on and on!
This is supposed to be a key factor in digital artwork, whats the point in
spending hours creating the image if it's going to be displayed with
different gamma setting on every program that displays it!!
you have to target your work to the aduience, and if they are all using the
same software as yourself, then no problem, but that is NEVER the case,
people will decide on there software by either finincial or emmotional
reasons.
a compresseed TGA for rendering purposes will never grow that large from
most scenes (up to 1024x768) and compress well with ZIP or RAR for storage.
(same for windows BMP for that matter)
JPEG compression is the standard for displaying images over the internet,
don't forget you can adjust the compression so it suits the image better!
Instead of commenting on my choice of software, maybe you should buy a new
hard drive, if storage space is a critical as you make it seem, its a
surprise that your machine even runs a an effective speed, remember that
thing called - swap file?
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick (Kitty5)" wrote:
> a compresseed TGA for rendering purposes will never grow that large from
> most scenes (up to 1024x768) and compress well with ZIP or RAR for storage.
> (same for windows BMP for that matter)
People want to see the pictures directly in their browsers w/o fiddling
around with third-party programs to decompress files first and then
watch them.
> surprise that your machine even runs a an effective speed, remember that
> thing called - swap file?
Never used on this machine.
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 130908160 123035648 7872512 46366720 22708224 38465536
Swap: 53669888 0 53669888
--
// Rikard Bosnjakovic - http://a214.ryd.student.liu.se/ - ICQ: 1158217
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That
way, if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away - and barefoot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually I use JPEG to store even all the final images on my HD. As soon as I'm
finished a final rendering I convert the TGA to a JPEG and get rid of the TGA.
In most cases I use a compression of 1% which hardly has an effect on the image
quality while reducing a 1MEG file down to say 200-300k. Of coarse for posting
on the internet I compress then even more sometimes up to 60% depending on the
image.
"Rick (Kitty5)" wrote:
> > > This is much better, just one question ,why the hell a PNG? That damn
> file
> > > format makes one image look different in nearly every program i view it
> > > with.
> >
> > Get a _real_ newsreader (not Microblows-crap) and you'll see the pics.
>
> Yes but as I mentioned, PNG's are not displaed the same on every program,
> MSIE based programs display them MUCH larger and brighter, Paint shop pro
> makes the image look much darker, the list goes on and on!
>
> This is supposed to be a key factor in digital artwork, whats the point in
> spending hours creating the image if it's going to be displayed with
> different gamma setting on every program that displays it!!
>
> you have to target your work to the aduience, and if they are all using the
> same software as yourself, then no problem, but that is NEVER the case,
> people will decide on there software by either finincial or emmotional
> reasons.
>
> a compresseed TGA for rendering purposes will never grow that large from
> most scenes (up to 1024x768) and compress well with ZIP or RAR for storage.
> (same for windows BMP for that matter)
>
> JPEG compression is the standard for displaying images over the internet,
> don't forget you can adjust the compression so it suits the image better!
>
> Instead of commenting on my choice of software, maybe you should buy a new
> hard drive, if storage space is a critical as you make it seem, its a
> surprise that your machine even runs a an effective speed, remember that
> thing called - swap file?
>
> Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote in message <373156FC.D39A2ABE@home.com>...
>In most cases I use a compression of 1% which hardly has an effect on the
image
>quality while reducing a 1MEG file down to say 200-300k. Of coarse for
posting
HA HA HA, that's a joke if ever I heard one!!!
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>> Nice! Beeing a fractal lover me I must love it...
>Thank you. (= I thought that Attractors were chaotic and not fractal.
Perhaps
>someone could explain this to me...
That's right... I must have been a bit tired when I wrote the reply...
Attractors are often described together with fractals because they are both
a sort of deterministic chaos.
BTW, did you know that the Lorenz attractor started out as a simple model of
movement in the earths atmosphere?
>> Did a Rossler fractal my self a couple of days ago, inspired of your
Lorenz
>> attractor. Your's turned out a bit better than mine... Why is that?!? =)
>> Might be the 50000 spheres vs my 10000 spheres.
>
>That's one possibility. Another is probably the way your calculations are
made.
>Can I have a look at your source?
I can post the source later today (sitting in school right now) but it's not
that much diffrence from your result. A few more spheres (about 40000 more
or so :), smaler jumps and better textures should do it...
/Anders
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's so funny? :-(
Lance Birch wrote:
> Thomas Lake wrote in message <373156FC.D39A2ABE@home.com>...
> >In most cases I use a compression of 1% which hardly has an effect on the
> image
> >quality while reducing a 1MEG file down to say 200-300k. Of coarse for
> posting
>
> HA HA HA, that's a joke if ever I heard one!!!
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
> For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
> Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> TonyB wrote:
> >> Nice! Beeing a fractal lover me I must love it...
> >Thank you. (= I thought that Attractors were chaotic and not fractal.
> Perhaps
> >someone could explain this to me...
>
> That's right... I must have been a bit tired when I wrote the reply...
> Attractors are often described together with fractals because they are both
> a sort of deterministic chaos.
> BTW, did you know that the Lorenz attractor started out as a simple model of
> movement in the earths atmosphere?
Yeah. The page I found this information at had a lot of interesting trivia about
chaos and it's birth. I guess you could call this stuff legends, but they are
based on fact. I notice that most of the best stuff in the scientific world is
found by accident or as a spin-off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
