ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/v01.n383

Internet Message Format | 1999-04-18 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (fractint-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractint-digest V1 #383
Reply-To: fractint-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractint-digest         Monday, April 19 1999         Volume 01 : Number 383




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

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:27:44 -0700
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

At 05:49 PM 4/16/99 , you wrote:
>OK.....I know I've asked this before, but you know how fast stuff changes in
>the
>puter world.
>
>1.  I need recommendations for a printer.  I'd like to be able to do my
>images in an
>11x17 or so format and want reasonable quality at a reasonable price.

There are two printers that I would recommend looking at, 1) HP 1020,
2) Epson Stylus Photo EX.  Both will do 11x17 output.

The HP 1020 is the same class of printer as the HP890 (which I have).
The current version is the HP895.  This printer will give excellent results
on Photo grade papers, though you will have to experiment to find out
what paper you like the best.  This will be the same regardless of the
printer you choose.  It is a four color printer that uses layering (combining
of ink drops of different colors to simulate continuous tone).

The Epson Stylus Photo EX is the Epson wide carriage photo quality printer.
There may be a new version, but I'm not sure.  It is a six color printer.  IMO,
it will do slightly better than the HP when it comes to printing photos of
people
because of the additional colors, it prints flesh tones more accurately.  For
fractals, I'm not sure which would be better.  I don't think you would really
care unless you placed prints from each side by side.

The best thing to do is to find a way to get a sample print from the same
image, using the same graphics program to print, and compare the results.
Of course, paper will make a difference on each printer as well.  But then,
you
have to deal with ink fading issues with ink jets.  Again, different papers
will
give different results, plus there are coatings that can be sprayed on the
prints
to make them less resistant to fading.

I don't think you could go wrong with either printer, as both are excellent.  I
probably would have chosen the Epson Photo EX had it been out when I made
my purchase.  I rated the HP slightly higher than the Epson 800 at the time
because the HP did better on plain paper (I needed a general purpose printer
as well as one to print photos).

Of course, to get the best results, you should get a photographic print made
from your image.  This is more expensive, but for special images is probably
worth the effort.

>2.  In order to prepare my Fractint images for printing, I guess I need to
>generate
>them using something or other.  I forgot what the program I needed was
>called.  Also,
>are there tutorials for dummies like me to use it??

Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photo Paint, Photoshop, etc. can all be used to print
your image.  You have to consider issues such as sharpening (actually most
recommend the unsharp mask) before printing.  I would recommend that you
take a look at the web site "A Few Scanning Tips" by Wayne Fulton at
http://www.scantips.com.

I hope this helps.  If you have more specific questions about printing,
specifically
with the HP, don't hesitate to ask.


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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:12:07 GMT
From: "Jack Baker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: Source Code

The actual "fractal engine" seperated from everything else so that
whatever could be done to the program....


> So why could the source code not be shredded into manageable pieces
> for that purpose?

How do you mean shredded into manageable pieces?

Adam



- --------------------------------------------------------------
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"


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 99 10:33:51
From: [e-mail] (Dr I D Entwistle)
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

On Fri 16 Apr 99 (20:27:44), [e-mail] wrote:
> At 05:49 PM 4/16/99 , you wrote:
> >OK.....I know I've asked this before, but you know how fast stuff
> changes in
> >the
> >puter world.
> >
> >1.  I need recommendations for a printer.  I'd like to be able to do
> my
> >images in an
> >11x17 or so format and want reasonable quality at a reasonable price.
>
>
> There are two printers that I would recommend looking at, 1) HP 1020,
> 2) Epson Stylus Photo EX.  Both will do 11x17 output.
>
> The HP 1020 is the same class of printer as the HP890 (which I have).
> The current version is the HP895.  This printer will give excellent
> results
> on Photo grade papers, though you will have to experiment to find out
> what paper you like the best.  This will be the same regardless of the
> printer you choose.  It is a four color printer that uses layering
> (combining of ink drops of different colors to simulate continuous
> tone).
>
> The Epson Stylus Photo EX is the Epson wide carriage photo quality
> printer. There may be a new version, but I'm not sure.  It is a six
> color printer.  IMO, it will do slightly better than the HP when it
> comes to printing photos of
> people
> because of the additional colors, it prints flesh tones more
> accurately.  For fractals, I'm not sure which would be better.  I don't
> think you would really care unless you placed prints from each side by
> side.
>
   The Photo EX seems to have been replaced by the later Epson Stylus Photo
1200 which has  the newer Ultra micro dot technology(variable dot size) used on
 the latest versions of the Epson A4 printers such as the Stylus 750.It is not
any more expensive and clearly has a better spec than the Photo EX.
Ian Entwistle

- --
See fractal Galleries at http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/ian.ent





- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:42:52 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

Angela,

I'm sure you'll get a lot of recommendations for printers and the truth is
they all seem to have evolved to the point where any choice you make will
probably be good.  I've been using an ALPS dye-sublimation printer, Model
1300.  It prints at 600 dpi at photographic quality level, but only up 8-1/2
X 11.  It costs $400.  They now have a new model that prints 8-1/2 X 13" and
2400 DPI that costs $600.  I mailed Linda a print of one of her pictures and
she was pretty pleased with the results.  You don't get any of the dots you
get with ink-jet printers and I believe the inks are more fade-resistant.

http://www.alpsusa.com/cgibin/var/alpsusa/index.html

To create high-resolution images for printing, you don't need a special
program.  Fractint will do it for you.  Here's the basic idea.
1. Let's say my printer goes up to 600 DPI (both height and width).
2. Let's say I want to print  7-1/2" X 10" (to allow for the space around the
picture on the paper).
3. Looking at the width (because 10 is an easy number to multiply by),  I
want 10 inches at 600 dots per inch.  So I want to create a fractal that's at
6000 resolution wide.
4. I generate the fractal in Fractint at 1,024 X 768 (That's Shift-F3 I
think).
5. I press B to save the par.  At the bottom of the screen that comes up,
there are the multiple X and Y fields for multiple part images.  You've
probably ignored these up until now.
6.  1,024 goes into 6000 approximately 6 times, so I type in 6 in both the X
and Y fields. This means that I will generate the fractal in 6 x 6 segements
of the 1,024 x 768 resolution each (this can take quite a while!).
7. Exit from fractint.  If you have Windows 95, you'll want to restart your
computer in DOS mode for the next step.
8. At the DOS prompt, go to you Fractint directory.
9. Type Makemig and hit enter.  The 36 pieces will begin generating.
10. When that is done, you need to assemble the pieces.  Type
       Simplgif  fractmig.gif   xxxxx.gif   and hit enter.   xxxxx is any
name you want to give your image.
11.  When done,  go back to Windows.  Open a graphic program like PaintShop
Pro.  Print your picture from there.

Some folks like to anti-alias their pictures.  I won't go into that issue
here (it's huge and volatile).  If you do want to anti-alias,  create your
picture 2-1/2 times bigger than the above formula and then bring it back down
to the desired size using your graphics program.

Whew!  I hope this helps.
Bill
http://members.aol.com/billatny/fractopi.htm

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Michael Traynor)
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

>To create high-resolution images for printing, you don't need a special
>program.  Fractint will do it for you.  Here's the basic idea.

To add to what Bill says, you should also use the one pass drawing method.
I have found that sometimes the guessing methods don't guess the same for
pixels on the border.  I would think tesseral would be OK, but if you are
going to all this trouble, might as well be sure and use a non-guessing
method.  It is funny, but a single pixel difference can really stand out
even in a 6kx4.5k image.

Also, depending on the size images you want, you can easily do up disk
video modes for any size you like so you can get the exact image you want
instead of approximating 1000 with 1024, for instance.


- --
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:18:29 -0700
From: "Angela Wilczynski" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

Thanks to all for the help!!

I was thinking of Simplegif when I asked my question, I just couldn't remember the
name. Thanks too for the printer recommendations.  I was thinking about an Epson as
they seemed to be reasonably priced in the catalogue I got.

Angela aka wizzle

Dr I D Entwistle wrote:
>
> On Fri 16 Apr 99 (20:27:44), [e-mail] wrote:
> > At 05:49 PM 4/16/99 , you wrote:
> > >OK.....I know I've asked this before, but you know how fast stuff
> > changes in
> > >the
> > >puter world.
> > >
> > >1.  I need recommendations for a printer.  I'd like to be able to do
> > my
> > >images in an
> > >11x17 or so format and want reasonable quality at a reasonable price.
> >
> >
> > There are two printers that I would recommend looking at, 1) HP 1020,
> > 2) Epson Stylus Photo EX.  Both will do 11x17 output.
> >
> > The HP 1020 is the same class of printer as the HP890 (which I have).
> > The current version is the HP895.  This printer will give excellent
> > results
> > on Photo grade papers, though you will have to experiment to find out
> > what paper you like the best.  This will be the same regardless of the
> > printer you choose.  It is a four color printer that uses layering
> > (combining of ink drops of different colors to simulate continuous
> > tone).
> >
> > The Epson Stylus Photo EX is the Epson wide carriage photo quality
> > printer. There may be a new version, but I'm not sure.  It is a six
> > color printer.  IMO, it will do slightly better than the HP when it
> > comes to printing photos of
> > people
> > because of the additional colors, it prints flesh tones more
> > accurately.  For fractals, I'm not sure which would be better.  I don't
> > think you would really care unless you placed prints from each side by
> > side.
> >
>    The Photo EX seems to have been replaced by the later Epson Stylus Photo
> 1200 which has  the newer Ultra micro dot technology(variable dot size) used on
>  the latest versions of the Epson A4 printers such as the Stylus 750.It is not
> any more expensive and clearly has a better spec than the Photo EX.
> Ian Entwistle
>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:28:59 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (fractint) Fractals and sea shells

Patrick Lourde
[e-mail]


At first, thanks to Angela W. for her help to get started with fractint.
I' m a beginner with Fractint but  I interest myself in fractals since two
years and I'm also a sea shells collectors since many years.
It appears to me that some species of my seashells (conus textile, conus
ammiralis, cymbola vespertilio, oliva...) got patterns which are based on the
geometrical triangle of Sierpinski.
Perhaps someone can tell me if there is another seashells which use fractals
geometry for their patterns?
I know that, since Benoit Mandelbrot who introduce the notion of fractal
geometry, we find a lot of example in the Nature using fractal
organisation/concept, but I ask myself why the Nature seems to have a real
predilection with fractals shapes?
I' m wondering if there is somebody who can answer to my questions in this
discussion List.  :-)
thanks

Patrick


Ps: I suppose you notice my English is not great so excuse me if it is a hard
work for you to read every messages I sed via 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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:03:48 +0700
From: "Rob Fargher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:42:52 EDT, [e-mail] wrote:



>1. Let's say my printer goes up to 600 DPI (both height and width).
>2. Let's say I want to print  7-1/2" X 10" (to allow for the space around the
>picture on the paper).
>3. Looking at the width (because 10 is an easy number to multiply by),  I
>want 10 inches at 600 dots per inch.  So I want to create a fractal that's at
>6000 resolution wide.

  Whoa!! No, you don't.  At best, you want to create a fractal that's 200 dpi!  Printer dpi,
screen dpi and scanning dpi are all different things; the use of dpi to describe them all is
misleading.

  If you are using a CMYK inkjet printer, you are creating the colour by mixing the 3
primary colours, cyan, magenta and yellow.  This roughly (and it is only rough) translates
into 3 printer dots equaling 1 screen dot.

  If you have a 600 screen dpi image, you have a monstrously big file.  Not only that, but
when you go to print it, your printer driver is throwing away tremendous amounts of
information to reduce it down to the printable 200 dpi on a 600 dpi printer.  This means
the printer driver is making the decisions about colour, etc, not you!

  Instead, create your fractal as Bill suggests but at 200 dpi, not 600 dpi. Believe it or
not, you'll get better printing results.


>11.  When done,  go back to Windows.  Open a graphic program like PaintShop
>Pro.  Print your picture from there.

  Here's where you should be making the printing decisions.  Import your 200 dpi fractal
into your image editing program and tell it to print your file at the desired image size.

  Somebody else mentioned using sharpening or the better Unsharp Mask (in
PhotoShop or the GIMP).  If you do so, make sure you only do it on a copy of your
image.  Inappropriate sharpening can really ruin a good image.  Works wonders on
scanned images, though. :-)

Cheers,
Rob



- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:29:09 -0700
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

Bill,

>I'm sure you'll get a lot of recommendations for printers and the truth is
>they all seem to have evolved to the point where any choice you make will
>probably be good.  I've been using an ALPS dye-sublimation printer, Model
>1300.  It prints at 600 dpi at photographic quality level, but only up 8-1/2
>X 11.  It costs $400.  They now have a new model that prints 8-1/2 X 13" and
>2400 DPI that costs $600.  I mailed Linda a print of one of her pictures and
>she was pretty pleased with the results.  You don't get any of the dots you
>get with ink-jet printers and I believe the inks are more fade-resistant.

I think the ALPS do a very good job.  My major complaint with them is that
they are painfully slow.  However, as with all tools, if it serves your
purposes,
that's the most important thing.

>To create high-resolution images for printing, you don't need a special
>program.  Fractint will do it for you.  Here's the basic idea.
>1. Let's say my printer goes up to 600 DPI (both height and width).
>2. Let's say I want to print  7-1/2" X 10" (to allow for the space around the
>picture on the paper).
>3. Looking at the width (because 10 is an easy number to multiply by),  I
>want 10 inches at 600 dots per inch.  So I want to create a fractal that's at
>6000 resolution wide.

This doesn't agree with my experience, and what I've read.  As a general rule,
you are only going to need approximately 200 DPI for your final output.  IOW,
if you are going to print an 8x10 image, you want a 1600 by 2000 image that
you print.

See http://www.scantips.com for the gory details.


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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:11:47 -0400
From: "Phil DiGiorgi" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint video board

> The Viper 550 is what I got. As you said, support for 1600x1200 for
> Fractint is great. Thanks for the advice!
>
> I am now (finally!) a member of the 1600x1200 club.

Congratulations, Tim!   Good choice :)

After checking around, it appears that Diamond does not have a refresh utility
for DOS.   However, you could try UniRefresh, available at
http://www.angelfire.com/ab/unirefresh/ .    It's freeware, and I'm told it
works well with the Riva TNT chip.   (I haven't tried it out yet.)

Good luck!

Phil D.


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:17:00 -0700
From: Ken Taiyo Takusagawa <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) tiling and arbitrary precision

Fractint 19.6:

The "X multiples" and "Y multiples" (saving a .PAR to be generated in tiled
pieces from the "b" screen) doesn't seem to work in arbitrary precision
mode (which is where one would like to use the feature the most).  Has this
"feature" been noted?

- --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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 15:59:45 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) tiling and arbitrary precision

Ken wrote:

> The "X multiples" and "Y multiples" (saving a .PAR to be generated in tiled
> pieces from the "b" screen) doesn't seem to work in arbitrary precision
> mode (which is where one would like to use the feature the most).  Has this
> "feature" been noted?

I'll check, but I think you are correct. However this may be moot,
since the next version eliminates the 2048 pixel limitation.



- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 16:14:06 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractint video board

Ken wrote:

> After checking around, it appears that Diamond does not have a refresh utility
> for DOS.   However, you could try UniRefresh, available at
> http://www.angelfire.com/ab/unirefresh/ .    It's freeware, and I'm told it
> works well with the Riva TNT chip.   (I haven't tried it out yet.)

This took 2 minutes to set up, and absolutely works like a charm.
Geesh - the commercial people look stupid when a freeware author
writes a very nice simple piece of software like this.

I HIGHLY recommend this for all Fractint users who have video
equipment with no way to set the refresh. If your equipment allows,
set the refresh above 70 hz to avoid headaches. With my Diamond
Viper 550 and Optiquest V95, this little utility allowed me to
increase the vertical refresh at 1600x1200 fro 60 Hz (flicker galore
with my sensitive eyes) to 75 Hz (rock solid).

Thanks Phil!!!

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 17:37:38 -0700
From: "Mike and Linda Allison" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

Hi, Wiz!

I got an Epson 1520 last fall, and I couldn't be happier!  I use the
17x22 sheets of Epson Photo Quality Glossy Paper, and the Advanced "ICM"
setting, and set the print quality for "fine 720 dpi."  The image will
go a little larger than 13"x19," and the quality is incredible!  I do
recommend that you use the Epson paper.  Results weren't as good when I
used Kodak or HP paper.

I can't recommend it enough.

Your other question:  making large prints.  See
http://www.geocities.com/~gumbycat/lesson4.html

Linda


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 22:58:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

In a message dated 4/17/99 1:34:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [e-mail]
writes:

<<
 This doesn't agree with my experience, and what I've read.  As a general
rule,
 you are only going to need approximately 200 DPI for your final output.  IOW,
 if you are going to print an 8x10 image, you want a 1600 by 2000 image that
 you print.

 See http://www.scantips.com for the gory details.


 Ken...
  >>

Thank you Rob and Ken.  Looks like I've learned something new.  I'll try
generating and printing a picture using this new info and make the
comparison.  Should save me a lot of generating time and disk storage as well!

Bill

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 21:07:02 -0700
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) 2 Questions

Linda,

>I got an Epson 1520 last fall, and I couldn't be happier!  I use the
>17x22 sheets of Epson Photo Quality Glossy Paper, and the Advanced "ICM"
>setting, and set the print quality for "fine 720 dpi."  The image will
>go a little larger than 13"x19," and the quality is incredible!  I do
>recommend that you use the Epson paper.  Results weren't as good when I
>used Kodak or HP paper.

Different paper will give different results on different printers.  For my
HP, I find
that I prefer the Kodak paper, though the HP Deluxe Photo paper runs a close
second.

>I can't recommend it enough.

Glad your happy with it.  I now find myself wishing I had a printer capable of
the larger prints.  But, my budget wouldn't allow it at the time.  Looks
like I'll
be able to get a killer printer when my budget does allow it.

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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:33:34 +1200
From: "Morgan L. Owens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Fractals and sea shells

At 12:28 17/04/99 EDT, Patrick wrote:
>
>It appears to me that some species of my seashells (conus textile, conus
>ammiralis, cymbola vespertilio, oliva...) got patterns which are based on
the
>geometrical triangle of Sierpinski.
>
Since you're just starting with Fractint, and since you're interested in
seashell patterns, you might be interested in Fractint's "Cellular" type
(v19.6 include a sample parameter file). It builds up its images in much
the same way that a seashell does, by extending its edge, and some of the
results are strikingly similar.

>organisation/concept, but I ask myself why the Nature seems to have a real
>predilection with fractals shapes?
>
My guess is that using fractals allows Nature to produce plenty of
complexity with a minimum of effort.


Morgan L. Owens



- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:31:51 -0400
From: Barry N Merenoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Re: Fractals and sea shells

Fractals also allow a maximum surface area to fit in a minimum volume.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:35:13 -0400
From: Barry N Merenoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Re: 2 Questions

Why wouldn't that be 346 dpi (600/Sqrt[3])? Wouldn't the fact that each
pixel is three dots mean that the information per AREA (hence the square
root) is divided by three?

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:02:42 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (fractint) Unirfsh.zip...

I download UNIRFSH.ZIP. After unzipping, when I hit setup.exe I got a message
that my computer had VESA VBE 1.2 and I needed VESA VBE 3.0. Can anyone tell
me where to get the 3.0 version?

TIA

- --Bob Carr--

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 10:38:27 +0700
From: "Rob Fargher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: 2 Questions

On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:35:13 -0400, Barry N Merenoff wrote:

>Why wouldn't that be 346 dpi (600/Sqrt[3])? Wouldn't the fact that each
>pixel is three dots mean that the information per AREA (hence the square
>root) is divided by three?

  No, it has to do with printer technology.  Unless you're printing line art, i.e. 1 bit colour,
the image is printed as a half-tone.  It's the relationship between image resolution and
printer resolution in half-toning that is the rough 2:1 relationship.

  Ken made reference to the excellent www.scantips.com site.  I can second his
recommendation strongly.  It is a great resource for both scanning and printing.

Cheers,
Rob



- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:36:57 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: 2 Questions

Rob & Ken,

I generated a picture at the 2000 x 1500 (approx) resolution as you
suggested.  I printed it out and compared it to the same picture I had
generated the 6000 x 4500 resolution.  The difference is fairly small, but
there is no doubt that the HIGHER reolution picture printed out with less
pixelation.  It definitely is smoother at every level of detail.

I don't know if the formula would be different because I am not using an
inkjet printer.  Perhaps the dye-sublimation printer technology affects this.
 I'll have to read further.

Bill

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:20:33 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Unirfsh.zip...

> I download UNIRFSH.ZIP. After unzipping, when I hit setup.exe I got a message
> that my computer had VESA VBE 1.2 and I needed VESA VBE 3.0. Can anyone tell
> me where to get the 3.0 version?

This means your *board* is VESA 1.2, and apparently the software
only works with newer boards that have VESA 3.0..

Since your board is an older one, it is more likely to have its own
means of controlling the vertical refresh. You should check the
documentation. What board is it?

Bob, refresh is only an issue if the screen's flicker is bothersome to
you, or you get headaches looking at the screen. If neither of these
is true, you don't need to worry about it.

There's another way if you really need to do this. The Scitech Disk
Doctor can bring you up to VESA 3.0.

Tim


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:37 0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (fractint) RE: Dye subs

Hi Bill,

> Perhaps the dye-sublimation printer technology affects this.

That would be right, dye sub printers do actually mix varying amounts
of the primary pigments to give pixels of many shades as opposed to
'pixels' made from dithered dots like the inkjets do.

Cheers,
         Robin.






- --------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 17:18:00 -0700
From: Ken Taiyo Takusagawa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) tiling and arbitrary precision

Not completely moot.  Since tiling is also very useful for spreading out
the computation of an image over several computers.

- -ken

At 03:59 PM 4/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>
>> The "X multiples" and "Y multiples" (saving a .PAR to be generated in tiled
>> pieces from the "b" screen) doesn't seem to work in arbitrary precision
>> mode (which is where one would like to use the feature the most).  Has this
>> "feature" been noted?
>
>I'll check, but I think you are correct. However this may be moot,
>since the next version eliminates the 2048 pixel limitation.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>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: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 21:45:38 -0700
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: 2 Questions

Bill,

>I generated a picture at the 2000 x 1500 (approx) resolution as you
>suggested.  I printed it out and compared it to the same picture I had
>generated the 6000 x 4500 resolution.  The difference is fairly small, but
>there is no doubt that the HIGHER reolution picture printed out with less
>pixelation.  It definitely is smoother at every level of detail.

It is possible that you would see this.  I'd be interested in knowing what
resolution you ceased to detect any difference.  My guess would be
around the 300 DPI range.  If you decide to experiment, please report
your results.  The 200 DPI number is a ballpark number that for most
cases is all that is needed.  Many images can require less than that.

>I don't know if the formula would be different because I am not using an
>inkjet printer.  Perhaps the dye-sublimation printer technology affects this.
> I'll have to read further.

This is certainly possible.  However, I wouldn't expect the difference to
be extensive.  Given what I understand about photographic output and
printer output, I would expect about 300 DPI to be about the most that
would be needed to get the maximum detail out of the print media.

If my understanding is correct, a dye-sub printer is continuous tone, where
as the inkjet printers are not.  IOW, the dye-sub can print any given dot any
desired color, where the inkjet printers must use different techniques to
simulate the continuous tone.  Thus, one enters the resolution wars by
the printer manufacturers.


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: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:10:21 GMT
From: "Andrew Coppin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Source Code

Okay, so Java is just too slow. I had thought as much. I'm told that
Java has a feature to link in native C code, so you could just use
Java for the front end... but why?

I certainly think Fractint should be written in some sort of OOP
language. Java IS a real pain to use; it was just a thought. I think
I might try to put together a fractal generator with Smalltalk...
maybe. It seems that such things can't be compiled into native code.
I'd write the thing in C++, except that 1: I *HATE* C syntax (what on
earth is strcmp()? You might just as well use the internal machine
address; this name is meaningless!). 2: I've never used C++. 3: I
don't have a C++ compiler anyhow!

There's so much that could benifit from OOP. The most odviouse thing
is the fractal formulas; the source code already uses
sort-of-simulated polymorphism. But you could use it in tonnes of
places. It's not just a case of having one class for the entire
engine and another for the interface (if you find yourself doing
this, you're not OOP!).

P. S. Have you seen the latest version of POV-Ray? It has a 4D Julia
set option, compleat with variable functions!!! Check out
http://www.povray.org/ immediatly!

- ---------------------------------
Nam et ipsa scientia potestus est!
(Sir Francis Bacon)
Andrew Orphi Coppin
DMU MK.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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 #383
******************************