ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/v01.n370

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-18 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (fractint-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractint-digest V1 #370
Reply-To: fractint-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractint-digest       Friday, February 19 1999       Volume 01 : Number 370




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:28:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor


> Wathcing the discussion about the relative virtues of Ultra Fractal etc, I
> am surprised no one has mentioned a rather important difference to my way of
> seeing things. 'Layering' being one of its main features means that the end
> result you are looking at is often not actually a fractal anymore. It is a
> fractal pattern manipulated by image editing tools. Sometimes this can be
> used to reveal more clearly the actual structure of the fractal, but I think
> that unless this is done deliberately, artistic concerns will tend to take
> over, and the stucture will be somewhat distorted, if not totally messed up.

I think that layering, transformations, etc. are all mathematical
techniques that are used to generate more complex fractal images.  I do
see your point from a more "purist" standpoint.  In fact, I made this
kind of argument a while back when the discussion was about whether or
not an anti-aliased Fractint image was still considered a 256 color
image.

On that particular subject, the consensus seemed to be that even though
anti-aliasing rendered the image in more than 256 colors, the resulting
image was still essentially a 256 color image for the purpose of
categorization since that was how the original image was created.

The addition capabilities of layering specifically, but
transformations, etc. in general, seem to merely be extensions of that
line of reasoning.

I suppose it may boil down to the individual's philosophy when they are
creating images.  I go for what pleases me visually.  How that is
achieved is not important to me.  If one wants purer images, then one
might not use combinations of layers, or transformations, that
manipulate the "pure" image from any given formula.

> Is not half the attraction of fractals the beauty of their nature, and the
> insights into the structure of reality that they can give us??? (I do
> realise that not all images generated with Fractint are 'True Fractals' for
> a number of reasons including computational quirks, but even so these are
> interesting for themselves too, and not 'merely' esthetic manipulations by
> the 'artist'.)

What insight into reality do the Mandelbrot Set or Julia Sets really
give?

Sure, there are formulas that can mimick things we find in nature such
as mountains, trees, plants, etc.  But what reality is there in any
given minibrot?

I think the beauty of fractals, at least for me, is the visual impact.
I rarely see, or interpret, any relation to reality in any given image.
Though, I suppose I do try to do this in a sense by trying to give a
name to a particular image.

Others, I'm sure, will see things differently.  Which, I think, is part
of what makes fractals so interesting.

[...]



Ken...




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:39:26 -0600
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

Narada,

 - 'Layering' being one of its main features means that the end result
 - you are looking at is often not actually a fractal anymore.

That depends entirely on the person creating the image. In fact, I would
suggest that almost all of the images I have created with Ultra Fractal do
in fact keep the fractal nature, since despite being multiple layers, they
are the same location and fractal in each layer. Thus the difference is in
the combined coloring algorithm.

As I've demonstrated by posting a parameter and formula file to this list
that does layering and true color in FractInt, this is not a technique that
only Ultra Fractal can use. This is a general technique. And what of many
PHC fractals, that combine two fractals nearly at whim? These are just as
un-fractal as you fear layering can be.

Do we really want to get into a discussion of "what is a fractal"? This
very nearly came up during the last contest, during the extensive
"discussions" about post-processing. FractInt's formula parser is flexible
enough to accomplish just about anything, if you are willing to work at it,
so don't pin your definition on that. :-)

 - Is not half the attraction of fractals the beauty of their nature,
 - and the insights into the structure of reality that they can give
 - us???

Yes, but another part of the attraction is that the shape can be molded,
adapted without having *complete* control over every pixel. As you point
out, not every FractInt image is a "pure" fractal--that is up to the person
at the computer. To me, using mathematical equations as my brushes is what
makes the difference. That some of those equations might be simple--and
lacking in obvious fractal detail--is not so important if the concept I
wish to convey is adequately expressed. I may use techniques some would
consider post-processing, but usually it is algorithmic in nature, rather
than by-hand touch-ups.

The rest of your philosophical inquiry would no doubt be well-received on
the philofractal list. :-) Not that I am suggesting you shouldn't post
here, just pointing out that there are others who are pondering the
metaphysical implications of fractals and who may actually be talking about
these very things. (I don't know for sure because I don't subscribe to that
list.)

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  Fractalus Galleries & Info:
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/

Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or
in a newsgroup.  Thank you.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:48:29 -0700 (MST)
From: Kerry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, narada wrote:

> Is not half the attraction of fractals the beauty of their nature, and the
> insights into the structure of reality that they can give us??? (I do
> realise that not all images generated with Fractint are 'True Fractals' for
> a number of reasons including computational quirks, but even so these are
> interesting for themselves too, and not 'merely' esthetic manipulations by
> the 'artist'.)

Nothing that we can create/render on our computer systems is a "true
fractal".  They all suffer from discretization of continuous shapes and
all use false color.  There is no "real" color to the Mandelbrot set, and
rendering at 1024 x 768 or 1600 x 1200 is still literally nothing at all
compared to the infinite detail of the set.  However, like a good
engineer, I will admit that we can get "close enough".  Just because we
can't compute pi exactly doesn't keep us from using circles.

More pragmatically, as Damien mentioned, there are many coloring
techniques that don't change the structure.  In fact, many of the schemes
that I use and develop are successful because they highlight structures
that aren't normally seen when using only an escape-time coloring.  Even
that is artificial--the only true distinction is whether the orbit *ever*
diverges, not if it diverges beyond a radius of 2 in 17 iterations.

Anyway, I think there is plenty of room for purists to use alternative
coloring schemes without feeling that they're "selling out" to pure
aesthetics.

Kerry

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
[e-mail]    http://www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:58:13 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

In a message dated 2/18/99 6:32:48 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

>  what reality is there in any
>  given minibrot?

To me the self-similarity principle represents something crucial about the
universe-at-large -- wherever we go, there we are :) -- different shapes,
different sizes, warped or symmetrical, varying environments -- but the Force
(for lack of a better word, thank you Star Wars!) is.....well, it just is.
There, here, in the center of the image and all over the place around the
edges -- visibility limited only by zooming power. Soppy, I know, but
meaningful.......

Dama

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:50:58 -0600
From: "Nature Leseul" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

<<Sure, there are formulas that can mimick things we find in nature such
as mountains, trees, plants, etc.  But what reality is there in any
given minibrot?>>

  _Chaos_ (I don't know the author offhand; I'll look it up if someone wants
to know) mentions an instance where the atoms in a substance on the
threshold between solid and liquid formed a perfect M-set. :-P

!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i
!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!
i!i!                             Nature Leseul
i!i!
i!i! "I wil play you some Mozart, if you like, which wil onlyi!i!
i!i!  make you weep, but my Don Juan, Christine, burns,  i!i!
i!i!  and yet he is not struck by fire from Heaven... You    i!i!
i!i!  see, Christine, there is some music that is so terriblei!i!
i!i!  that it consumes all who approach it."                      i!i!
!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i
!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:08:43 +1100
From: "narada" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Re:Metaphor

My understanding re colouring schemes generally, (Im sure there are
exceptions) is that although the boundary at which the color changes is
determined by the artist, each boundary represents a contour of some sort. I
think of the fractal itself as a quasi 3 dimensional structure which is
modeled by a 2 dimensional map on which the 'depth' is indicated by selected
contours.

Is this not so?

If so then most of the colouring options in fractint merely change the
particular contour, or change the nature of what that boundary represents in
mathematical terms. This is very different from mixing formulas or other
images together.

As a separate question: has anyone considered that each formula that will
generate a fractal is part of the set of all possible formulas that generate
fractals, and that the structure of this set may itself be fractaline?

Best Wishes All Ways
N


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:13:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

In a message dated 2/18/99 8:55:35 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

>   _Chaos_ (I don't know the author offhand; I'll look it up if someone wants
>  to know) mentions an instance where the atoms in a substance on the
>  threshold between solid and liquid formed a perfect M-set.

I would very much like to have that reference. TIA,
Dama

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:31:23 -0800
From: "Leon Duych" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re:Metaphor

Each point can be thought of as having a rate of decelleration/accelleration
towards/from a boundary.  For graphic purposes it is convenient (and
beautiful!) to color-code these rates.  The choice of color-code is as
thoughroughly SIGNIFICANT as it is ARBITRARY (the arbitrary part being where
the "artist" steps in).

- -----Original Message-----
From: narada <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 7:55 PM
Subject: (fractint) Re:Metaphor


>My understanding re colouring schemes generally, (Im sure there are
>exceptions) is that although the boundary at which the color changes is
>determined by the artist, each boundary represents a contour of some sort.
I
>think of the fractal itself as a quasi 3 dimensional structure which is
>modeled by a 2 dimensional map on which the 'depth' is indicated by
selected
>contours.
>
>Is this not so?
>
>If so then most of the colouring options in fractint merely change the
>particular contour, or change the nature of what that boundary represents
in
>mathematical terms. This is very different from mixing formulas or other
>images together.
>
>As a separate question: has anyone considered that each formula that will
>generate a fractal is part of the set of all possible formulas that
generate
>fractals, and that the structure of this set may itself be fractaline?
>
>Best Wishes All Ways
>N
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
>Post Message:   [e-mail]
>Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
>Administrator:  [e-mail]
>Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:46:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Michael Traynor)
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

Ken writes:

>I suppose it may boil down to the individual's philosophy when they are
>creating images.  I go for what pleases me visually.  How that is
>achieved is not important to me.  If one wants purer images, then one
>might not use combinations of layers, or transformations, that
>manipulate the "pure" image from any given formula.
>What insight into reality do the Mandelbrot Set or Julia Sets really
>give?
...
>I think the beauty of fractals, at least for me, is the visual impact.
>I rarely see, or interpret, any relation to reality in any given image.
>Though, I suppose I do try to do this in a sense by trying to give a
>name to a particular image.

I find in some fractals the experience of awe that I get under a starlit
sky or in the presence of an ice storm.  Being led down into infinity
in a spiral of increasing complexity beyond what one can truly understand, but
that can be felt by taking part of the journey is something that I don't
find in most after processed images.  Much post processing distances the
viewer from the mathematical processes that embody the infinite.  Of
course, the computer and its screen are proxies too, but are necessary.
The more you layer on the more distance there is.  An unprocessed image is
closer to the 'real' thing than a processed one is, as standing under a
starlit sky is compared to any photo.

All that said, I like UF and will register it, but the layering and
other effects touch something different in me than the less polished, but
more direct fractint images do.

Incidently, I find fairly frequently that I prefer some of the individual
layers more interesting than the full UF image.  Must be that
unreconstructed fractinter in me.

- --
Mike Traynor

People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
    Abraham Lincoln

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:49:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Ian Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

>   _Chaos_ (I don't know the author offhand; I'll look it up if someone wants
> to know) mentions an instance where the atoms in a substance on the
> threshold between solid and liquid formed a perfect M-set. :-P
>

_Chaos_ is by James Gleick. It's a nice book, although I don't think very
much in it would be new to people on this list; it's a popularization. I
don't recall the reference, though. Were the atoms themselves actually in
an M-set pattern, and not merely some mathematical description of their
states? That would surprise me a bit, too.


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:56:34 -0800
From: "Leon Duych" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) re: "Select Video Mode"

Hi Folks!

Just installed a lovely, spanking new 32MG AGP Number Nine "Revolution IV"
graphics card which can do everything but wipe your butt.

But:
For hi-res Fractint "Select Video Mode" choices all hell breaks loose.
Since Number Nine technology-based choices are not represented in the
"Select Video Mode" list, I'm wondering if someone out there has knowledge
of any compatible setting(s).

Leon Duych
[e-mail]





- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 20:27:27 +1100
From: "narada" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

> - 'Layering' being one of its main features means that the end result
> - you are looking at is often not actually a fractal anymore.
>
>That depends entirely on the person creating the image. In fact, I would
>suggest that almost all of the images I have created with Ultra Fractal do
>in fact keep the fractal nature, since despite being multiple layers, they
>are the same location and fractal in each layer. Thus the difference is in
>the combined coloring algorithm.

Yes, as I said, if one tries one can keep the purity of the structure and
even reveal it better with the right techniques, however few of the works I
have seen on the web seem to consider this. I must add that I have been
impressed by
the glossy finish that is achieved and the shear beauty of the effects, and
will continue to explore it myself. I was just surprised that no one had
mentioned this consideration. See my post above regards 'structure' (is that
the right word) and colouring, of iterated algorythm produced patterns.

>As I've demonstrated by posting a parameter and formula file to this list
>that does layering and true color in FractInt, this is not a technique that
>only Ultra Fractal can use. This is a general technique. And what of many
>PHC fractals, that combine two fractals nearly at whim? These are just as
>un-fractal as you fear layering can be.


Indeed. Id be interested to see your examples though.

>Do we really want to get into a discussion of "what is a fractal"? This
>very nearly came up during the last contest, during the extensive
>"discussions" about post-processing. FractInt's formula parser is flexible
>enough to accomplish just about anything, if you are willing to work at it,
>so don't pin your definition on that. :-)

Indeed
...
>The rest of your philosophical inquiry would no doubt be well-received on
>the philofractal list. :-) Not that I am suggesting you shouldn't post
>here, just pointing out that there are others who are pondering the
>metaphysical implications of fractals and who may actually be talking about
>these very things. (I don't know for sure because I don't subscribe to that
>list.)


Dumb question but where do I find this list?



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:40:34 +1030
From: "Wayne Kiely" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Fractint Thanks (long)

Tim and the rest of the Fractint contributors...

I, too, must add to the streams of thanks to you all.

I have been a Fractint user for years now, but only joined the mailing list reasonably recently and
have since found out how much I don't know about using the program!

I will admit to the initial learning curve for the program being a bit on the steep side, but I find
that to be the case with all 'fully fledged' software.  With any well developed fractal generator
the new user is bound to be a little overwhelmed due to the great variety of possible variations
available.  Nothing can change this.

My dilemma is that I am not fantastic at maths and I am not (yet at least) conversant with formula
writing to produce the wonderful images that Sylvie, Les and others turn out regularly.  I am
working on it, but it will take time and I don't have enough of it to get there quickly.

This is where UF, and possibly others, come into play.  I have only had the program for two days
now, but already I feel it affords me the POSSIBILITY of being able to produce the types of images
to which I aspire WITHOUT the corresponding time input.  (Thanks Frederik - you'll be getting my
$35.)  This is basically what Ray Montgomery was saying.

Having just said the above, Fractint has saved me years of my life too!  After reading some articles
by Pickover I tried to emulate his images using Basic in a few of its variations.  I can hear all of
the REAL programmers out there groaning, but it's all I had and my programming skills are about on
par with my maths, so not much point forking out for C++ or whatever.  I didn't get to his images,
but I produced fractals.  Firstly black and white only, but later I got to colour.

Trouble is, then I wanted to show people my work.  So I shelved out a fortune to Canon to get their
Laser Printer technical manuals, and wrote the routines to print raster graphics.  Having done all
that I then wanted to move on to colour printing too, but it all got too hard for a non programmer.
Then I discovered Fractint, and instead of spending my time writing bad Basic code I could produce
fractals by the thousands and even print them with no hassle.  What a relief!  Thanks again.

However I, too, feel that Fractint is approaching a crossroads.  It is where I was at years ago
trying to to do things with basic, only of course my efforts were trivial compared to the Fractint
programmers achievements.  GUI interfaces have been around long enough for even the DOS die-hards to
be a little familiar with by now, so that shouldn't put too many people off (but please keep the
keyboard shortcuts in there for those, like me, that prefer the keys to the mouse).  Surely it's
time to be able to write, copy, paste the formula; rename, move or even delete files etc. all from
the one package.  I know that this does not necessarily imply the Fractint has to go GUI, but
personally I don't see that it has much choice.

I agree entirely with your viewpoint on open source code.  Fractint is a testament to what can be
achieved by choosing this road.  This detracts in no way from Frederik's decision to charge a
nominal fee for his huge personal effort with UF.

Having benefited so much from all of your efforts, I feel it is time to help repay the debt and
assist Fractint to 'move on'.  Trouble is, as stated above, the maths, the programming skills and
the time are all lacking.

Perhaps if you let us all play for a year or two with Version 20, but you tell us what you'll use to
write the next version,  then when we tire of fractaling, those that are so inclined can start
honing their programming skills in the right direction and assist with some of the easy stuff.

Again, unending thanks and if I can assist, I will.

Wayne







- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:24:23 -0500
From: "Morgen H Bell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

Narada wrote:

Wathcing the discussion about the relative virtues of Ultra Fractal etc, I
am surprised no one has mentioned a rather important difference to my way of
seeing things. 'Layering' being one of its main features means that the end
result you are looking at is often not actually a fractal anymore. It is a
fractal pattern manipulated by image editing tools. Sometimes this can be
used to reveal more clearly the actual structure of the fractal, but I think
that unless this is done deliberately, artistic concerns will tend to take
over, and the stucture will be somewhat distorted, if not totally messed up.

(...I've trimmed the rest)

    This makes sense to me.  I downloaded UF a couple of days ago, and I
can't decide what I think of it.  It feels like cheating, somehow.  It's too
easy to add lots of elaborate trimmings to a perfectly good fractal...it's a
little like putting cake frosting on a loaf of bread.
                                                    Morgen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:57:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint- Metaphor

Morgan,

> Narada wrote:
>
> Wathcing the discussion about the relative virtues of Ultra Fractal etc, I
> am surprised no one has mentioned a rather important difference to my way of
> seeing things. 'Layering' being one of its main features means that the end
> result you are looking at is often not actually a fractal anymore. It is a
> fractal pattern manipulated by image editing tools. Sometimes this can be
> used to reveal more clearly the actual structure of the fractal, but I think
> that unless this is done deliberately, artistic concerns will tend to take
> over, and the stucture will be somewhat distorted, if not totally messed up.
>
> (...I've trimmed the rest)
>
>     This makes sense to me.  I downloaded UF a couple of days ago, and I
> can't decide what I think of it.  It feels like cheating, somehow.  It's too
> easy to add lots of elaborate trimmings to a perfectly good fractal...it's a
> little like putting cake frosting on a loaf of bread.

I have to admit to being puzzled by this assessment.  What do you mean
by cheating and why would UF be cheating?  As Damien has pointed out,
things such as true color and layering can be done with Fractint, albeit
with more effort maybe.  So, what would make UF cheating when compared
to Fractint?

Most, not all certainly, but most of the images that people put on their
web sites are very visually (at least to me) pleasing images.  While
many are not exactly to my personal likes, I can see the effort that was
made to make the images as good as possible.  Are these images a
different class (for lack of a better word) from those that you like to
create?

Many of the FotD images, for example, I find are interesting from the
standpoint of the shapes and designs that they create.  However, I don't
find many of them visually pleasing.  That isn't a criticism, it's just
my reaction.


Ken...




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:36:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Muth <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Test -- am I still getting through?

I've attempted to post several messages to the Fractint list
within the past 24 hours.  None of my messages have been
returned to me from the list, though other messages are coming
through as usual.  This is just a test to see if it was just a
fluke or if a problem exists.

Jim Muth
[e-mail]


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:28:09 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (fractint) Two pars on a theme

These were found at about the same time as I found the Visitor image. Both
seem to have the same sense of mechanical objects under extreme stress.

Bill Decker

vault-of-faith     { ;  (c) Bill Decker Jan 31, 1999 t=  0:01:27.39
                     ;  on P150 800x600
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=0bill.frm
  formulaname=bills-rotate3 function=cabs/acos/sinh passes=1
  center-mag=-3.17349/-0.288918/0.09138941/1/-90 params=2/3/-1/1/1/100
  logmode=fly potential=255/100/0 rseed=-2436
  colors=000XbM<26>BPBAOAAOAAOA<20>6D65C56C5<2>BD6CE6DF6EG7GH8<13>__I``J``\
  J<27>k`ek_ejZd<25>T8PS6OS6O<32>hQThRTiSTiTTjUU<30>yxxzzzzzy<29>llWkkUkkU\
  <17>YbN
  }

flawed-lens        { ;  (c) Bill Decker Jan 31, 1999 t=  0:01:21.02
                     ;  on P150 800x600
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=0bill.frm
  formulaname=bills-rotate3 function=cabs/tan/cosh passes=1
  center-mag=-0.0931703/-5.35e-006/0.06165639/1/-90
  params=2/3/-1/-1/1/100 logmode=fly potential=255/100/0 rseed=-2436
  colors=000aeP<32>BPBAOAAOAAOA<18>6E66E66D65C56C58C5<2>CE6DF6EG7GH8<13>__\
  I``J``J<25>j`ck`dk`ek_ejZdiYc<24>T8PS6OS6O<31>gPThQThRTiSTiTT<31>yxxzzzz\
  zy<29>llWkkUkkU<11>beP
  }

FRM:bills-rotate3 {
  a = real(p1), b = imag(p1)
  c = real(p2), d = imag(p2)
  e = real(p3), f = imag(p3)
  w = pixel
  x = pixel
  y = pixel
  z = pixel
  :
  w = fn1(x+y)^a + w
  x = fn2(y+w)^b + x
  y = fn3(w+x)^c + y
  z = (w^2 - (x^2) * (y^2))*d + z*e
  |z| < f
}



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:34:28 -0600
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Metaphor

Narada,

 - My understanding re colouring schemes generally, (Im sure there are
 - exceptions) is that although the boundary at which the color changes
 - is determined by the artist, each boundary represents a contour of
 - some sort.

Clarification: some coloring algorithms are discrete, and produce regions
of flat color (like iteration coloring). Many other algorithms are
continuous and produce totally smooth gradations in color (in software that
supports it). Algorithms in this category are decomposition, continuous
potential, various statistical methods, etc. In these algorithms there may
not be "boundaries" where the colors change, except those imposed by your
fractal software's inability to render smooth color. It's important to note
the difference between the limitation of the software (since at some point,
all shading is discrete) and the algorithm (which, if it's discrete, has a
fixed upper limit on how much it can be smoothed).

 - I think of the fractal itself as a quasi 3 dimensional structure
 - which is modeled by a 2 dimensional map on which the 'depth' is
 - indicated by selected contours.
 -
 - Is this not so?

In essence you are thinking of a 2D fractal, where the coloring algorithm
(in your case, you're probably thinking of iteration coloring) produces a
height value, thus creating a 3D surface--much as you would see from the 3D
transform in FractInt. This is certainly one way of looking at it.

 - If so then most of the colouring options in fractint merely change the
 - particular contour, or change the nature of what that boundary
 - represents in mathematical terms. This is very different from mixing
 - formulas or other images together.

Of course it is--but if FractInt is your only guide, then you really don't
understand just what sort of coloring options Ultra Fractal provides.
FractInt's selection of coloring algorithms is fairly limited; that's why I
wrote my coloring formula collection in the first place, so that I could
experiment with new ways of coloring the old fractals.

You can see copious examples of Mandelbrot and Nova (and a few other)
fractals with new coloring algorithms, created in *FractInt*, in galleries
5-14 of my web site. A few of these were done by compositing several
FractInt images together, but each image in the composite is the same
fractal, with only a slightly different coloring algorithm (or different
parameters to the same coloring algorithm) applied. Most of the rest are a
single image, with no compositing. I want to emphasize that most of these
are classical fractal shapes, but with new algorithms.

The images I have produced with Ultra Fractal have a much wider range of
coloring algorithms. I cannot emphasize enough, if FractInt is all your
experience, I can see where you might think that layering means slapping
any two fractals together. Yes, you can do this with Ultra Fractal, but in
my opinion the best fractal images do not. Instead, they select from the
wide variety of coloring algorithms and use them to reinforce elements of
the fractal structure. I submit for your consideration these images:

    http://www.fractalus.com/lure.jpg
    http://www.fractalus.com/spade.jpg

(These are new.) Both of these images are composed of more than one layer,
yet the fractal in each layer is the same. The combination of different
coloring algorithms produces a final result which is much richer than any
of the single layers alone. Had I only the coloring methods from FractInt
to work with, layering would be nearly useless, but my options in UF are
vastly expanded!

 - Yes, as I said, if one tries one can keep the purity of the structure
 - and even reveal it better with the right techniques, however few of
 - the works I have seen on the web seem to consider this.

Care to name names? :-) As I think of most of the really good images posted
to the Ultra Fractal mailing list, surprisingly few of them take the
liberties with layering that you find so distressing. In fact, that so many
great images have been posted there offers an excellent opportunity to pick
those images apart and see how they work.

 - >As I've demonstrated by posting a parameter and formula file to this
 - >list that does layering and true color in FractInt, this is not a
 - >technique that only Ultra Fractal can use.
 -
 - Indeed. Id be interested to see your examples though.

Well, I posted them to this list very recently. The first batch can be
found in Les St. Clair's parameter archive for last month; the latest was a
conversion of the image "Rich", which you can see in its original Ultra
Fractal version here:

    http://www.fractalus.com/gallery15/pic03.htm

Les's parameter collection is here:

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Les_StClair/fml.htm

He was even nice enough to use one of my images (Gummi) as one of the index
images for January.

 - Dumb question but where do I find this list?

To subscribe, send a message containing "subscribe philofractal" to
[e-mail] and you will be added to the list.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  Fractalus Galleries & Info:
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/

Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or
in a newsgroup.  Thank you.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:13:48 -0600
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re:Metaphor

Leon,

 - Each point can be thought of as having a rate of
 - decelleration/accelleration towards/from a boundary.  For graphic
 - purposes it is convenient (and beautiful!) to color-code these rates.

That is what the iteration-count algorithm approximates. More precise
values (that are continuous) can be obtained from Linas Vepstas' formula.
Even so, this conceptualization is only appropriate for this algorithm (the
main one in FractInt). When your coloring options expand, other ways of
looking at the iteration process are helpful.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  Fractalus Galleries & Info:
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/

Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or
in a newsgroup.  Thank you.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

End of fractint-digest V1 #370
******************************