From: owner-fractint-digest@lists.xmission.com (fractint-digest) To: fractint-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: fractint-digest V1 #253 Reply-To: fractint-digest Sender: owner-fractint-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-fractint-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk fractint-digest Thursday, July 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 253 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:14:48 -0500 From: "Lee Newsted" Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal That sounds like a good idea, but how would a formula be judged? Neatness? :) nuke. - ---------- > From: Angela Wilczynski > To: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal > Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 10:00 AM > > > ...1. Formula contest (haven't figured out the rules yet)... > Angela aka wizzle > - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:25:57 -0500 From: "Lee Newsted" Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal uh, I think I saw the belly of it flying over... no, I missed it completely... nuke - ---------- > From: Kragen > To: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal > Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 10:10 AM > > On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Angela Wilczynski wrote: > > Kerry... > > > > That definetly sounds like a fun challenge to me .....I think.....not sure > > what you mean about julia lakes and dust. > > > > Kerry Mitchell wrote: > > > > > > render the same 3 fractals (a Mandelbrot zoom, one Julia with a "lake" and > > > one Julia dust). This would show methods that work better for interior > > Julia sets from points inside the Mandelbrot set have a single > continuous "lake", much like the Mandelbrot lake, with a nonzero area. > Julia sets from points outside the Mandelbrot set contain only single > isolated points, known as a Cantor dust. > > btw: someone told me Cantor dusts have aleph-one points in them. It > seems to me that they should be aleph-null, because if you're > constructing a Cantor dust in the traditional way (take an interval, > cut out the middle and take the intervals on the ends, repeat) the only > points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries of the > intervals you take, and you first encounter each one of them at some > integer-numbered subdivision step, and you encounter only an integer > number of points at each subdivision step, so each point in the > eventual Cantor dust has some ordinal number at which it becomes a > boundary of an interval. > > Am I missing something? > > Kragen > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List > Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" > Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net > Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:29:28 -0400 (EDT) From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen) Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Lee Newsted wrote: > uh, > I think I saw the belly of it flying over... > no, I missed it completely... > > > > Julia sets from points inside the Mandelbrot set have a single > > continuous "lake", much like the Mandelbrot lake, with a nonzero area. > > Julia sets from points outside the Mandelbrot set contain only single > > isolated points, known as a Cantor dust. This should be pretty easy to see: set inside=0, outside=1, and look at several Julia sets. Look at a bunch from points inside the Mandelbrot set, and a bunch from points outside. (Preferably not too far outside. The Julia sets of points too far outside are empty.) You should be able to see the difference. > > btw: someone told me Cantor dusts have aleph-one points in them. It > > seems to me that they should be aleph-null, because if you're > > constructing a Cantor dust in the traditional way (take an interval, > > cut out the middle and take the intervals on the ends, repeat) the only > > points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries of the > > intervals you take, and you first encounter each one of them at some > > integer-numbered subdivision step, and you encounter only an integer > > number of points at each subdivision step, so each point in the > > eventual Cantor dust has some ordinal number at which it becomes a > > boundary of an interval. This is probably only interesting if you know what I'm talking about. :) Try a web search for aleph cantor infinit*. Kragen - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 10:45:30 -0500 From: "Damien M. Jones" Subject: (fractint) Re: New Contest I think it would be a terrible shame to exclude users of other fractal software from the next contest. Because the last contest was restricted to a specific formula, it was pretty much required that it be FractInt-only... but it would be nice to accept entries created with anything. (Especially since that lets Mac users participate, too.) I like Angela's idea of categories. I have space to host the entries. Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs) \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby) - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:14:40 -0500 From: "Lee Newsted" Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: New Contest Officer thinking! - ---------- > From: Damien M. Jones > To: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Subject: (fractint) Re: New Contest > Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 10:45 AM > > I think it would be a terrible shame to exclude users of other fractal > software from the next contest. Because the last contest was restricted to > a specific formula, it was pretty much required that it be FractInt-only... > but it would be nice to accept entries created with anything. (Especially > since that lets Mac users participate, too.) > > I like Angela's idea of categories. > > I have space to host the entries. > > Damien M. Jones \\ > dmj@fractalus.com \\ http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs) > \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby) > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List > Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" > Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net > Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:44:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian Kaplan Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal Kragen wrote: > btw: someone told me Cantor dusts have aleph-one points in them. It > seems to me that they should be aleph-null, because if you're > constructing a Cantor dust in the traditional way (take an interval, > cut out the middle and take the intervals on the ends, repeat) the only > points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries of the > intervals you take, and you first encounter each one of them at some > integer-numbered subdivision step, and you encounter only an integer > number of points at each subdivision step, so each point in the > eventual Cantor dust has some ordinal number at which it becomes a > boundary of an interval. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by "the only points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries." I mean, you construct the dust by removing the middle thirds of the intervals... oh, perhaps I do follow. While I can't quite think of what's wrong with this argument, do you accept the argument that Cantor dusts have a finite area? If you take the limit of the area of the black boxes as n (number of iterations) goes to infinity, you get a finite number. That means that, in a sense, you could recombine all the points in the dust to form a square, and a square certainly has aleph-1 points in it. Think of the Cantor dust in one dimension (on a line.) On the nth iteration, you create 2^n new boundary points, right? so that seems countable. But then in two dimensions, you create 2^n boundary _lines_. Ah, maybe that's it. Your boundary points are actually lines, each of which itself has aleph-1 points on it. Maybe? - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:59:56 +0100 From: "Geoff Stanton" Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal > btw: someone told me Cantor dusts have aleph-one points in them. It > seems to me that they should be aleph-null, because if you're > constructing a Cantor dust in the traditional way (take an interval, > cut out the middle and take the intervals on the ends, repeat) the only > points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries of the > intervals you take, and you first encounter each one of them at some > integer-numbered subdivision step, and you encounter only an integer > number of points at each subdivision step, so each point in the > eventual Cantor dust has some ordinal number at which it becomes a > boundary of an interval. > > Am I missing something? > > Kragen Strange! I always thought Cantor dusts had aleph-one points but your argument is persuasive. The number of end points after n steps is equal to (n+2)^2. At the limit n=aleph-null the number of points equal (aleph-null+2)^2 which is of course equal to aleph-null. Thank you for your insight. Cheers Geoff - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:12:54 +0100 From: "Geoff Stanton" Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal I (stupidly) wrote >Strange! I always thought Cantor dusts had aleph-one points but your >argument is persuasive. >The number of end points after n steps is equal to (n+2)^2. At the >limit n=aleph-null the number of points >equal (aleph-null+2)^2 which is of course equal to aleph-null. >Thank you for your insight. >Cheers >Geoff I of course meant(2^n) and (2^aleph-null)=aleph-null sorry Geoff - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:47:50 -0500 From: "Lee Newsted" Subject: [none] O.K. It seems like we have at least minimal interest, and some pretty good ideas for rules. I say "Let's do it!" How about we start sending in ideas an get this thing rolling! nuke. Any volunteers for self-nominations or regular nominations for "rule emperor"? - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:38:01 -0500 From: "Brian Baske" Subject: RE: (fractint) Lost Fractal By definition (Aleph-null)^2 = Aleph-one. You are not scaling Aleph-null by a finite number, you are squaring it. For a set of n elements, there are n^2 subsets. The number of subsets of Aleph-null is Aleph-one (the 'continuum' infinity (used for counting all line segments, partitions, etc of a line - or counting polygons, surfaces, etc in a real plane) as opposed to the 'enumerable' infinity (counts real numbers/rationals, etc). From another point of view, the number of steps to produce Cantor dust is enumerable, but the number of points in the dust is Aleph-one (not one-to-one with the rationals). Brian Baske - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fractint@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-fractint@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Stanton Sent: Thursday, July 09, 1998 12:00 PM To: fractint@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal > btw: someone told me Cantor dusts have aleph-one points in them. It > seems to me that they should be aleph-null, because if you're > constructing a Cantor dust in the traditional way (take an interval, > cut out the middle and take the intervals on the ends, repeat) the only > points that remain in the dust are the points at the boundaries of the > intervals you take, and you first encounter each one of them at some > integer-numbered subdivision step, and you encounter only an integer > number of points at each subdivision step, so each point in the > eventual Cantor dust has some ordinal number at which it becomes a > boundary of an interval. > > Am I missing something? > > Kragen Strange! I always thought Cantor dusts had aleph-one points but your argument is persuasive. The number of end points after n steps is equal to (n+2)^2. At the limit n=aleph-null the number of points equal (aleph-null+2)^2 which is of course equal to aleph-null. Thank you for your insight. Cheers Geoff - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:41:23 -0500 From: "Damien M. Jones" Subject: (fractint) Re: New Contest I hesitate to mention this because it may be misconstrued, but if those interested in a contest are serious about including non-FractInt material, I submit that this may not be the list for it. I know several talented fractal artists who do not read this list because they don't use FractInt. The Fractal-Art list may be a better place (and it's primarily that suggestion that makes me hesitant to bring this up). Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs) \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby) - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:49:23 -0500 From: "Brian Baske" Subject: (fractint) Aleph-null correction Last message, typographical error - 'real numbers/rationals' should read 'natural numbers/rationals' ie the 'counting numbers' "as opposed to the 'enumerable' infinity (counts real numbers/rationals, etc)." Brian Baske - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:06:38 -0400 (EDT) From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen) Subject: RE: (fractint) Lost Fractal On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Brian Baske wrote: > By definition (Aleph-null)^2 = Aleph-one. You are not scaling Aleph-null by > a finite number, you are squaring it. aleph-null^2 != aleph-one. A table with aleph-null rows and aleph-null columns obviously still has aleph-null elements, because they can be numbered like so: 1 3 6 10 . . . 2 5 9 14 . . . 4 8 13 19 . . . 7 12 18 . . . . . . . . . . > For a set of n elements, there are n^2 subsets. 2^n subsets, you mean. 2^n is also the number of n-digit binary numbers. There are clearly aleph-one binary numbers with aleph-null digits, just as there are aleph-one decimal numbers with aleph-null digits, based on Cantor's diagonalization proof. > The number of subsets of > Aleph-null is Aleph-one (the 'continuum' infinity (used for counting all > line segments, partitions, etc of a line - or counting polygons, surfaces, > etc in a real plane) as opposed to the 'enumerable' infinity (counts real > numbers/rationals, etc). > > From another point of view, the number of steps to produce Cantor dust is > enumerable, but the number of points in the dust is Aleph-one (not > one-to-one with the rationals). Hmm. Well, this makes sense, since the number of points is indeed 2^(number of subdivisions). Suppose I try to make Cantor dust by a different process: instead of subdividing *every* interval on each step, suppose I only subdivide the *largest* interval, by removing a subinterval from the middle of it, dividing the remainder into two subintervals. Then, the number of endpoints becomes only 2*n, if n is the number of times I subdivide (plus one), since I'm adding 2 endpoints at every step. It seems that repeating this process aleph-null times should produce the same structure that the usual Cantor-dust process produces, but if so, it clearly only has aleph-null endpoints. Am I completely mad here? I must have missed something in my assumptions. Another interesting thing: What is the topological dimension of Cantor dust? The sci.fractals FAQ says: A set has topological dimension 0 if every point has arbitrarily small neighborhoods whose boundaries do not intersect the set. This is true of Cantor dust -- for any point in the set, you can find a neighborhood whose boundaries are outside the set, and for any such neighborhood, you can find a smaller one. (Right? This *is* what the definition above is calling for, right?) It would seem that Cantor dust is a bona fide fractal, then. If we do the usual thing of taking out the middle third of the interval at each subdivision step, then by increasing the scale by three, we increase the size by two. (Right?) So the fractal dimension should be log 2 / log 3, or about 0.6309. Kragen - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 16:14:48 -0400 From: Barry Bluestein Subject: Re: (fractint)inkjet, thermal wax,color laser? Goodness, gracious, man. How much does this all cost? It sounds fiendishly expensive. Do you own such equipment or is this something that a local print shop would have? What steps would you take to get from the Fractint GIF file to the Kodak or Cymbolic devices that you refer to? Jon Noring wrote: > asked: > > > I suspect some one on the list has done prints of fractals. I'd be very > >interested to hear opinions as to the best method. Some one has suggested to > >me to explore the possibility as they would like to have a few prints, and i'd > >like to give them the best possible image on paper. > > There are essentially two general categories of making prints of fractal > art: ink, and photographic. Ink includes lithographic prints, and ink-jet. > Photographic involves producing a positive or negative transparency using a > Kodak LVT or a Cymbolic Sciences LightJet 2000 and then using photographic > enlarging onto photographic print paper. > > For small runs, I much highly prefer the photographic approach as that > produces a much higher resolution image and *much* broader color gamut. > Unfortunately, inks have limited color gamut, and it is difficult with inks > to accurately reproduce many of the brighter RGB colors fractal artists > often use. In addition, if one uses Ilfochrome or Fuji reversal papers, > the archival life of photographic prints greatly exceeds that of any dye- > based inks (the jury is out on pigment-based inks). The advantage of ink > prints, though, is greater flexibility with regards to the paper itself, as > well as greater familiarity by the public for art on paper rather than on > polyester substrate. > > Once you see a properly made Cibachrome or Fuji super glossy print printed > from an 8x10" Kodak LVT transparency, you'll never want to go back to any > ink-type system -- they are spectacular. Maybe Lee Skinner can comment > since he has first-hand knowledge of this. > > For more information, refer to the Fractal-Art mailing list archives. Damien > Jones can tell you how to access them. (Of course, you *need* to subscribe > to the Fractal-Art mailing list). > > Good luck. > > Jon Noring > "Mr. Kodak LVT/Cibachrome" > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > OmniMedia Digital Publishing | Web: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia > 9671 S. 1600 West St. | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com > South Jordan, UT 84095 | Phone: 801-253-4037 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List > Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com > Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" > Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net > Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" - -- Barry Bluestein - President The Lapis Group - Information Technology Consultants 11629 Deborah DR, Suite 1000, Potomac, MD 20854 301-299-0083 - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:11:06 EDT From: Subject: (fractint) 6 pars(August) Here's a few images I made using Sylvie Gallets August formula.....Enjoy~ Jim ********************************************************************* aug7903 { ; 0:01:08.55 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=3.93213/2.13163e-014/0.06639285/1/90 params=30/-1.3 float=y maxiter=25 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.2/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000pfk<6>TKaTMaRM_PMX<14>zaW<14>444<12>`W`<13>BGC9EA6C73A4070<11>\ FAYHB`IBcKCfKBg<5>J6mI5nK8l<2>QEi632<8>zWK<13>aR8_Q7_SAZUD<13>3ID0HC0GC<\ 12>023002223<12>cZGfaIibI<5>wmIzoHznH<6>ucLuaLraM<13>8R`<14>JRoFOp<17>Wb\ qWbqYbq<13>zoowlntim } aug7904 { ; 0:01:54.25 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=1.30784/2.4869e-014/0.2721018/1/90 params=30/-1.3 float=y maxiter=25 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.2/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000ie_<9>baXaaX``W`_W<9>jfekgfkgfkgf<11>niiojjnjgmidlha<7>f_UeZTd\ ZT<13>MWWWZZfba<7>zjo<4>ncjkbijbi<12>OSXMRWMQU<13>L80<2>UG0YJ0`L0dO0gR0<\ 2>rZ0<11>400A00<2>000<15>0pp<9>0LL0HH2II<12>TZVW`WW`W<12>a`Xb_Ya_X<5>aXS\ `WRZUQ<3>PMK<13>m_Qo`Ro`R<13>oeWoeWoeWoeWneX<11>je_ } aug7906 { ; 0:01:30.90 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=-1.77124/5.32907e-015/0.147929/1/90 params=-10/-1.3 float=y maxiter=25 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.5/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000bZT<11>MWWWZZfba<7>zjo<4>ncjkbijbi<12>OSXMRWMQU<13>L80<2>UG0YJ\ 0`L0dO0gR0<2>rZ0<11>400A00<2>000<15>0pp<9>0LL0HH2II<12>TZVW`WW`W<12>a`Xb\ _Ya_X<5>aXS`WRZUQ<3>PMK<13>m_Qo`Ro`R<13>oeWoeWoeWoeWneX<9>ke_ke_je_ie_<9\ >baXaaX``W`_W<9>jfekgfkgfkgf<11>niiojjnjgmidlha<7>f_UeZTdZTcZT } aug7907 { ; 0:01:36.84 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=-1.77124/5.32907e-015/0.147929/1/90 params=-15/3.1416 float=y maxiter=25 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.5/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000uhkwimzjo<4>ncjkbijbi<12>OSXMRWMQU<13>L80<2>UG0YJ0`L0dO0gR0<2>\ rZ0<11>400A00<2>000<15>0pp<9>0LL0HH2II<12>TZVW`WW`W<12>a`Xb_Ya_X<5>aXS`W\ RZUQ<3>PMK<13>m_Qo`Ro`R<13>oeWoeWoeWoeWneX<9>ke_ke_je_ie_<9>baXaaX``W`_W\ <9>jfekgfkgfkgf<11>niiojjnjgmidlha<7>f_UeZTdZT<13>MWWWZZfba<4>rgj } aug7909 { ; 0:01:32.00 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=-3.86464/7.10543e-015/0.04792899/1/90 params=10/3.1416 float=y maxiter=300 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.9/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000oeW<13>ke_ke_je_ie_<9>baXaaX``W`_W<9>jfekgfkgfkgf<11>niiojjnjg\ midlha<7>f_UeZTdZT<13>MWWWZZfba<7>zjo<4>ncjkbijbi<12>OSXMRWMQU<13>L80<2>\ UG0YJ0`L0dO0gR0<2>rZ0<11>400A00<2>000<15>0pp<9>0LL0HH2II<12>TZVW`WW`W<12\ >a`Xb_Ya_X<5>aXS`WRZUQ<3>PMK<13>m_Qo`Ro`R<12>odV } aug7910 { ; 0:01:34.58 75mhz 800x600 ; 7/09/98 image(c) JamesWeaver reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_a.frm formulaname=August passes=t center-mag=-6.23715/7.10543e-015/0.04792899/1/90 params=50/0.1 float=y maxiter=300 inside=bof60 invert=1/0.9/0 decomp=256 periodicity=0 colors=000obT<6>oeWoeWoeWoeWneX<9>ke_ke_je_ie_<9>baXaaX``W`_W<9>jfekgfkg\ fkgf<11>niiojjnjgmidlha<7>f_UeZTdZT<13>MWWWZZfba<7>zjo<4>ncjkbijbi<12>OS\ XMRWMQU<13>L80<2>UG0YJ0`L0dO0gR0<2>rZ0<11>400A00<2>000<15>0pp<9>0LL0HH2I\ I<12>TZVW`WW`W<12>a`Xb_Ya_X<5>aXS`WRZUQ<3>PMK<13>m_Qo`Ro`R<5>obT } - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 15:02:02 -0700 From: kathy roth Subject: (fractint) PARS Here is a par based on the Carr2821 formula- it needs to be run at high res. like all PHC formulas. As usual I couldn't decide on the colors- the par draws kind of slowly but the colors substitute quickly. another_god1 { ; 6-98 kathy roth reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=fungus.frm formulaname=carr2821 center-mag=0.028551/0.0200404/1.03687/1/90 params=200/1/100/1 outside=real periodicity=0 colors=000OdX<7>_zn<6>LO3<8>px9<5>KM\ GFGIBBM<14>WWz<7>J9J<15>zWz<7>J09<15\ >z0W<7>J90<15>zW0<7>JJ0<15>zz0<7>9\ 9J<15>WWz<7>0J9<15>0zW<7>0JJ<14>0xx0zz\ 2tt<6>JE9<15>yjU<7>BJF<6>MaV } another_god2 { ; droz map colors=000000A3M<3>L8XOAZSC`<10>z\ Wz<15>000A00<10>c00<16>A00000000UDG<8>k\ kk<21>RDL<11>ziF<13>K8C413000<2>BB8E\ FAIIDLLG<10>zyn<15>UMH00000000053M55\ Q<21>5Zm<12>000b`c<5>nru<15>OI5<6>eY\ Jg_LiaNkcPneR<4>zpa<4>jdWgaVcZT`WSYU\ R<6>AAK000 } another_god3 { ; had to do it in plaid ; Kerry Mitchell map colors=23223i6Be23a6BYAJaERYMfY\ IZaIYiMeeQYiUeeQmaUuYQnUUnQUZIQfMMZIIZMMf\ QIZUERQAJU23U6BQ23M6BIAJMERIEJAA\ JE23E6BA236A32EB6I32MB6IJAMREQJAUREUB6Q3\ 2Y32aB6YJAaREeJAiREiB6e32m32qB6u32y26u\ AAy2EqIEmJAmQIqIMuAIy2MuAQy2UqIUmQ\ QiYUeeQiYMeZIafMYZIYnQamUYuYamaYeeaYi\ eeeiYiiYaeeYmQYqIauAYy2auAey2iqIimQ\ emQmqIquAmy2quAuy2yq2ymAui2yeAuiIqeQm\ aIqYQmYAua2yU2yQAuUIqQQmMIqIQmIAuM2\ yE2yAAu62y23u6Bq23mAJmEIqERiAJe6Bi23\ e6Ba23YAJYERaIZYMfaIZeMYiQeeUYiUmaQn\ YUvUQnQUfMQZIMfMIZIIZQMfUERUAJQ6BU23\ Q6BM23IAJIERMEREAJA6BE23A6B6632AB6E3\ 2M32IB6IREMJAQREUJAQB6U32a32YB6YREaJA\ eREiJAeB6i32mB6q32y22uA6y2AuAEqIAmQ\ EmQMqIIy2IuAMy2QuAUqIQmQUeeUiYQiYIe\ eMaZIYfMamQYuUamYYmaYYiaeeeYiiYeeeaiY\ YmQaqIYy2YuAay2euAiqIemQimIqqImy2mu\ Aqy2uu2yqAum2ye2yiAuiQmeIqaQmYIqaAuY2\ yQ2yUAuUQmQIqMQmIIqMAuI2yEAuA2y22y\ 6Au23q6BmAIqEQmEReAJi } another_god4 { colors=000VYV<6>kmnfggSRNXWU<3>D9\ 2<3>LG4OI5QK7<12>vlYxn_yo`zpa<14>OI5000\ <27>000<7>KKQNNTQQXTT_VWa<3>dfkginh\ jn<2>kmn<13>OI5<11>pgTriVulYxn_zpa<4>\ jdWgaVcZT`WSYUR<3>KJNHGMGFL<10>7246\ 02702<20>Q08R09S09T0AU0A<6>`0Da0Db2D<\ 14>zVF<10>hAEaI9<6>xTF<8>H3AC099\ 08<6>KBDMDEMFF<2>MMILPKNRMQTPSWS } frm:carr2821 { ; Modified Sylvie Gallet frm. [101324,3444],1996 ; Converted to if.else by Sylvie Gallet and George Martin 3/97 ; passes=1 needs to be used with this PHC formula. pixinv = 0.1/pixel p9 = 0.9*pixinv imagp1 = imag(p1) imagp2 = imag(p2) IF (whitesq) z = zorig = pixel - conj(pixinv) c = pixel - flip(pixinv) - conj(0.01*pixinv) - p9 mz = |z| ELSE c = flip(pixinv) + conj(0.01*pixinv) - pixel - p9 z = zorig = conj(pixinv) - pixel mz = |z| ENDIF bailout = 16 iter = 0 : IF (iter==p1) z = mz = 0 c = 1.5*zorig^1.2 - p9 ELSEIF (iter==imagp1) z = mz = 0 c = 2.25*conj(zorig) - p9 ELSEIF (iter==p2) z = mz = 0 c = 3.375*flip(zorig) - p9 ELSEIF (iter==imagp2) z = mz = 0 c = 5.0625*flip(zorig) - p9 ENDIF z = mz*0.2 + z*z + c mz = |z| iter = iter + 1 mz <= bailout } - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:54:37 EDT From: Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: New Contest In a message dated 98-07-09 14:44:57 EDT, you write: << I hesitate to mention this because it may be misconstrued, but if those interested in a contest are serious about including non-FractInt material, I submit that this may not be the list for it. I know several talented fractal artists who do not read this list because they don't use FractInt. The Fractal-Art list may be a better place (and it's primarily that suggestion that makes me hesitant to bring this up). >> What about other software that can use Fracting formulae but generate true color images? Ron Barnett - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 17:37:26 -0500 From: "Damien M. Jones" Subject: Re: (fractint) New Contest Ron, - What about other software that can use Fracting formulae but generate true - color images? My point was, I'd prefer the next contest be open to *all* fractal artists, not just those that use FractInt or FractInt formulas. Yes, there are a few programs that will read FractInt formulas and parameters, and render in true color; there are also programs which aren't even remotely capable of reading FractInt data files. And that's just on the PC; there isn't (yet) a fully functional Mac port of FractInt, so any Mac user wishing to participate would be completely eliminated. But hey, these are just my preferences. If the group decides to focus on FractInt again, I'm not going to go sulk in a corner or something. :-) I was just trying to be considerate of those who don't use FractInt and thus don't participate on this list. Here are my suggestions regarding rules. First, any image from any fractal program using any parameters would be accepted. The only condition be that the image not be post-processed in another program later. (Unless we want to have a category for post-processed fractals?) Reducing image size for purposes of anti-aliasing would not be considered post-processing. Each participant could submit up to three images; parameter files (for whatever software used to produce the image) would be encouraged but not required. Images would be judged by the public, via an e-mail voting system. Selections for "best color", "best shape", "best minibrot", "oddest fractal", "best overall", and any other categories we might come up with... I'd like to see lots of categories, thus lots of potential winners. The names of contest entrants and the parameter files (if provided) would be withheld until the contest is over, to prevent rip-offs and/or biased judging. Obviously some artists' work would be recognizable as such, but this is probably the best that can be done. As I said, I have space to host the contest site. I've not heard any other volunteers in this area. The previous contest site checks in at about 20M; this one would be similar. Thoughts? Damien M. Jones \\ dmj@fractalus.com \\ http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs) \\ http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby) - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:40:09 -0700 (MST) From: Kerry Mitchell Subject: Re: (fractint) Lost Fractal A Julia "lake" is a large, solid, internal area, similar to the Mandelbrot "lake". It's for the points that get caught in periodic or chaotic orbits, and is the kind of Julia set you get when you take a point from inside the Mandelbrot set. A "dust" is a collection of distinct points that don't touch each other. That's the kind of Julia you get when you use a point outside of the Mandelbrot set for c. Using c=(-0.1,1) in a Julia set will give you a dust. Using c=(-1,0) will give you a Julia with "lakes". Using c=(0,1) will give you a dendrite Julia (c is exactly on the boundary of the Mandelbrot set). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry Mitchell lkmitch@primenet.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:00:17 -0700 (MST) From: Kerry Mitchell Subject: Re: (fractint) New Contest On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Damien M. Jones wrote: > Here are my suggestions regarding rules. First, any image from any fractal > program using any parameters would be accepted. The only condition be that > the image not be post-processed in another program later. (Unless we want > to have a category for post-processed fractals?) Reducing image size for > purposes of anti-aliasing would not be considered post-processing. Each > participant could submit up to three images; parameter files (for whatever > software used to produce the image) would be encouraged but not required. I suggest limiting the entries somewhat; allowing any image from any fractal program sounds just too big (to my aleph_negative-one brain). I've already posted my suggestions and rationale, so I won't do that again. I also question the prohibition against post-processing. There are many post-processing operations that can be done that are still within the general spirit of fractaling, and some Fractint formulas are approaching painting; I see fractalizing as a holstic endeavor (apply this formula with these colors to every point on the screen), as opposed to painting/retouching (tweak this pixel here, that line there). If the image operations are applied in a similar, whole-image-at-once fashion, I don't see that as being a problem. For example, I often compute 2 fractals, call them A and B. They both have the same computational parameters, but maybe one is an escape-time image and one is a decomposition image. Then, (A+B), (A-B), (A*B) are all "fractal" images, just that they were finished with an image processing program. Long story short--I think the motivation is more important than the tools. > Images would be judged by the public, via an e-mail voting system. > Selections for "best color", "best shape", "best minibrot", "oddest > fractal", "best overall", and any other categories we might come up with... > I'd like to see lots of categories, thus lots of potential winners. Agreed. > The names of contest entrants and the parameter files (if provided) would > be withheld until the contest is over, to prevent rip-offs and/or biased > judging. Obviously some artists' work would be recognizable as such, but > this is probably the best that can be done. Sounds good. > As I said, I have space to host the contest site. I've not heard any other > volunteers in this area. The previous contest site checks in at about 20M; > this one would be similar. I don't have the site-space to host it, but I volunteer to help administer the contest. Kerry - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry Mitchell lkmitch@primenet.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List Post Message: fractint@lists.xmission.com Get Commands: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "help" Administrator: twegner@phoenix.net Unsubscribe: majordomo@lists.xmission.com "unsubscribe fractint" ------------------------------ End of fractint-digest V1 #253 ******************************