Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!rose!ccplumb From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: PD Fractal Programs? Message-ID: <1991Jan27.074838.10517@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <1991Jan11.233512.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> <18834185.ARN09718@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au> <188483a4.ARN09773@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 07:48:38 GMT Lines: 27 > In article , Hannu Napari writes: > >> Maximum of 1024 iterations is far too little. ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!prolix!Dac wrote: >Picky picky. :-). > >I find that 1024 is just too slow (and that's on a 30Mhz 68030/68882). > >Just how deep into the Mandelbrot set are you going anyway? Past a certain >point, it's all self referential and derivative anyway! Anything at 256 >iterations is cool enough for moi! Wimp. It is a fact of life that, however much processing speed you have, you're always going to start generating pictures that take over 20 minutes. Of course, the last Mandelbrot demo I wrote was for a 28-processor transputer system, so I had it in places where 15,000 iterations was too fuzzy; I had to go to 17,000. At 513x513 resolution, this wrapped the flops counter past 2^32. I had to switch to a floating point flops accumulator! (Actually, I counted z^2+c iterations and scaled the number of seconds to produce statistics. But 16,000 times a quarter of a million is 4 billion: wrap!) Really, there are some great spots I couldn't find with lower iteration levels around n=5,000. -- -Colin