 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rossler.png' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'rossler.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Why not render to a TGA and post JPG's like evryone else!
Rick
TonyB <ben### [at] panama phoenixnet> wrote in message
news:37301756.FF575702@panama.phoenix.net...
> 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
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice! Beeing a fractal lover me I must love it...
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.
/Anders
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
>
>
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.
I've never experienced that problem. I rather like the excellent lossless
compression of a PNG.
> Why not render to a TGA and post JPG's like evryone else!
Because TGAs use up more HD space than PNGs. I render to the images folder and
then convert to JPG, normally, but this time I was in a hurry to go to school.
Sorry for any inconveniences experienced.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] bahnhofse ]-[ 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!!!
Why would it be a joke? 1% compression means 99% left for quality.
--
// 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your choice of the spelling of c-o-a-r-s-e? :)
heh, funny to me considering you are discussing JPEG's. :)
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My point is that JPEG isn't a very good format for storing final images...
it takes away the subtle definitions that are provided by lossless formats,
even on 100% quality.
I wouldn't even consider storing my final images in JPEG, especially not
after such long rendering times...
--
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
Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote in message <37329A3A.403EA88D@hack.org>...
>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!!!
>
>Why would it be a joke? 1% compression means 99% left for quality.
>
>--
>// 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
If those are your main concerns, then that reasoning stands to favor PNG over
TGA or JPG. Depending on the system, TGA/JPG's look different and you have no
hope of even guessing how the artist originally intended them. PNG at least
stores the info.
Perhaps at the moment some versions give you bad display because they have
problems. At least these can be corrected.
With other formats, the gamma issue is still around (especially on the PC)
Some programs do gamma correction when displaying, and some do not. So even
with JPG, those problems occur.
Also, one used to be able to say 'Mac gamma' and 'PC gamma' and in each case
be speaking of just one thing. This is no longer true. Just as Mac's had to
come to grip with the fact that all monitors did not have 72 pixels per inch,
so to we need to deal with the gamma issue, and not just try to ignore it.
> 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!
For the last few years, PNG has been the format, and the W3C has recommended
it. Opera has handled them well for quite a while.
Now, I will say that for this newsgroup often JPG will suit the image fine. In
this case, however, given the large expanses of flat color ( the black
especially ), and the subtle details in the actual image, I would say that PNG
is a good choice for this one. Even on 16-bit display and using 100% quality,
the JPG version looses much of the clarity of the image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If those are your main concerns, then that reasoning stands to favor PNG
over
> TGA or JPG. Depending on the system, TGA/JPG's look different and you have
no
> hope of even guessing how the artist originally intended them. PNG at
least
> stores the info.
However this causes us to rely on the original author setting the gamma
correct on his system, or having a decent monitor in the first place.
> For the last few years, PNG has been the format, and the W3C has
recommended
> it. Opera has handled them well for quite a while.
The WC3 recommend everything, there is virtully no file format that they
have not. And as to Opera, how many people use that? from my own site, which
has 20,000 pages shown every month (not sure about unique visitors at this
time) 90% use eith MSIE or Netscape, more tend to use IE at the moment, the
rest is made up of unknowns, webTV, Amiga and Opera reaings in at about 1-2%
>
> Now, I will say that for this newsgroup often JPG will suit the image
fine. In
> this case, however, given the large expanses of flat color ( the black
> especially ), and the subtle details in the actual image, I would say that
PNG
> is a good choice for this one. Even on 16-bit display and using 100%
quality,
> the JPG version looses much of the clarity of the image.
As i have said I use a standard raster format for storage, and compress it
myself, Jpegs are only good for the web.
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Now, I will say that for this newsgroup often JPG will suit the image
> > fine. In this case, however, given the large expanses of flat color
> > ( the black especially ), and the subtle details in the actual image,
> > I would say that PNG is a good choice for this one. Even on 16-bit
> > display and using 100% quality, the JPG version looses much of the
> > clarity of the image.
I have no opinion on the subject and don't want to jump into the
middle of this but... I just came across the PNG home page and offer
the link to any and all who so chooses to visit the site. Perhaps
a short browse through the material will offer the added advantage of
a more informed opinion on the subject or it might clear up a few
misinformed or misguided notions on the subject. Perhaps not but I am
a giving person and offer this link freely and expect nothing in return
for having given it. Learn it, teach it, use it wisely, and then shall
you truly live long and prosper.
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/png/index.html
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> > > Now, I will say that for this newsgroup often JPG will suit the image
> > > fine. In this case, however, given the large expanses of flat color
> > > ( the black especially ), and the subtle details in the actual image,
> > > I would say that PNG is a good choice for this one. Even on 16-bit
> > > display and using 100% quality, the JPG version looses much of the
> > > clarity of the image.
>
> I have no opinion on the subject and don't want to jump into the
> middle of this but... I just came across the PNG home page and offer
> the link to any and all who so chooses to visit the site. Perhaps
> a short browse through the material will offer the added advantage of
> a more informed opinion on the subject or it might clear up a few
> misinformed or misguided notions on the subject. Perhaps not but I am
> a giving person and offer this link freely and expect nothing in return
> for having given it. Learn it, teach it, use it wisely, and then shall
> you truly live long and prosper.
>
> ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/png/index.html
>
One minor update ;-)
I'd suggest using http instead (it works now)
http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/png/index.html
> >
>
> One minor update ;-)
>
> I'd suggest using http instead (it works now)
>
> http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/
Strange ! With Netscape I go straight to the html page with no problems
when I click on the link I provided. Are you using something different
than Netscape as your communications package on the net ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm using IE5, and it found it too.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>
> > > ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/png/index.html
> > >
> >
> > One minor update ;-)
> >
> > I'd suggest using http instead (it works now)
> >
> > http://www.cdrom.com/pub/png/
>
> Strange ! With Netscape I go straight to the html page with no problems
> when I click on the link I provided. Are you using something different
> than Netscape as your communications package on the net ?
Ahh, yes grashopper, but there is more than appears to the eye. :-)
If you use the ftp access to hit the web site, you get none of the HTTP
header info. No last modified dates, MIME types, etc.
With FTP, the MIME type is guessed by the browser by looking up the known
extensions in it's list of helper apps. And there is no chance of it being
told the charset, last-expires, last-mod, etc. Or of doing smart client
negotiation for asset types...
But, when using HTTP to access the pages, the browser can get all that
info, and does not have to do any of the guessing. Always a safer thing to
do.
So, that's why I suggested doing HTTP instead of FTP. (Does that all make
sense now?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
