I have watched this so many times and I'm just wondering, what controls how often the cardoid shape presents itself? How did you know to end at this final zoom? Or did you zoom continuously and chose to cut the clip there.
@A9SecondSleeper I spent time looking for an interesting final location and then created the animation. The mathematical complexities of the Mandelbrot are enormous, far beyond the self-similarity (recurring patterns such as the cardioid) characteristic!
@nosro1 Wow so you first zoomed in to 2.5E194, then panned around until you found your final stop? That sounds slower than mapquest! (or at least pretty hard on your what-must-be-monstrous computer)
@A9SecondSleeper Not quite. Starting with no zoom, I zoom manually into interesting areas. After a while, one gets a feel for where to zoom to find interesting patterns. Perhaps 90% of my fishing expeditions results in nothing interesting that I wish to expand into an animation.
If you are that dedicated, I would recommend focusing more on artistic quality than pure quantity and looking for more interesting structures to pass on the way. Also, in the age of quad-core CPUs is it really necessary to use such a limited color palette? It resembles 256 color VGA from the 90's
Actually I'm using Fractal Extreme for a current render into a nice section and the problem is the color scaling... at high magification levels rapid changes in color appear as only slight changes in the unmagnified section. It doesn;t scale with the zoom... each color is a different iteration so at high zoom.. it's having to parse 100's of thousands of iterations... each smaller than the last.
This was rendered as, literally, 7500 individual JPEG images. The images were then strung together into a movie. So it didn't matter if this was done while zooming in or zooming out. Brute force was needed to get this done in less than a year!
3 quad-core computers: two Intel Q6600 and one Intel Q6700. 30 frames per second. Check out the blog link in the description if you would like more information.
Coordinates are a matter of exploration - I zoomed and searched around for something for almost two months!
There are many "arbitrary precision" math libraries to deal with the huge number of decimal places that are far beyond the native ability of 64-bit processors. Essentially, these libraries use the equivalent of the paper-and-pencil techniques that we all learned in grade school math class.
Let's see... If you'd have used frame interpolation, you'd of only had to render 646 of those 8100 some-odd frames. Use some additional resources for antialiasing and nobody would know the difference.
8100 frames / 646 zooms = 12.53
You said you used quad core processors, which are very likely 64bit capable, but there is no 64-bit ultrafractal available. That's ashame, really, because running 64 bits is up to 4 times as efficient.
3 months / 12.53 / 4 = 1.79 days or 1 day 19 hours complete
A lot of assumptions are required there. For one, antialiasing requires rendering at a higher resolution (e.g. redendering at 2560 x 1920 in order to do 4x antialiasing down to 640x480).
Also, the assumption of 4 times efficiency with 64 bit would be correct if we were talking about floating point calculations, but with arbitrary-precision math engines, floating point arithmetic becomes irrelevant! That is why the original FractInt (16 bit DOS application) is still computationally competitive!
Still, though, I tried out Ultrafractal on my 32-bit core-duo laptop, Ultrafractal spent like over two minutes trying to render a certain 640x480 frame, and I copied the coordinates into Fractal Extreme, then zoomed into the same spot, and the image rendered within a few seconds. And that is with 32 bit software running on a 32 bit machine.
$35 for fractal extreme vs $129 for much slower Ultra fractal 5; I'm going with Fractal extreme to do my deep zoom movies...
Careful copy and pasting! Ultrafractal expresses zooms in straight magnification numbers, but Fractal Extreme uses "zoom levels". Thus, a Fractal Extreme zoom level of 100 is similar to an UltraFractal zoom level of E30. You also have to ensure that the iteration counts are the same.
"The Animation Edition contains everything from Standard, plus animation and network features: create fractal movies and calculate fractals using multiple networked computers." multiple netwoked computers mmmm not just a lan but has anyone done this with a few hundred quad cores over the internet?!!! how mad would that be?!
That's precisely what makes all this so infinitely mind-boggling ---- here we are viewing with vivid, crystal clarity precise form and detail that is many orders of magnitude smaller than the sub-atomic quantum threshhold! It's utterly irrational and incomprehensible, yet there it is in magnificent clear and vivid detail right before our eyes!
Absolutely incredible! I was stunned! 3 quad cores running continuous for 3 months! What is that -- 10 billion calculations per second? For three months! ! ! Final mag 10 to the minus 194th power! ! ! What does that mean --- a trillion, trillion times smaller than a proton??? It'll take me days to get over this!
The ratio of quantum effects (sub-atomic) to the size of the known universe is approximately E61. Therefore E194 is a number that has no relationship to any reality we know of.
Thanks for the comments. I hope this is taken for what it is - a friendly challenge from a fellow enthusiast. I use Ultra Fractal 4.04. It has the ability to split a single image across multiple computing cores for faster rendering. For all its faults, it is still my favorite combination of flexibility and ease of use.
I am looking forward to eventually seeing 10E1000, so let's get going!
Pretty f'n good! Now you join HPDZ as the 2nd person in cyberspace to beat me! I dunno if I should be cool with it or just P.O.'d! I guess it had to happen eventually :(
I'v always been a Brian Eno fan - all the way back to Oblivion Express.
What software did you use and did you actually use the quad core (rendering 4 images at once)?
Thanks for the video response (the first to any of my videos!).
This is truly deep! I think this definitely takes the record for the deepest no-nonsense animation so far. It's into a filamentous area (which easier computationally), but one I've not seen anyone else do before. Very nice.
What software are you using?
I wish I had three quad-core systems to dedicate to this kind of thing...!
what is mandelbrot??!?!?!?!?
triniswagg12 7 months ago
Mesmerizing but ultimately frustrating. Every time I try to watch this from beginning to end, I zone out and find myself asleep.
rpresser 8 months ago
Wow! This is the best Mandelbrot animation I've seen. Nicely done.
mandolinic 1 year ago
where do i get the program 2 do this i want 2 look free for my self ?
SYLERTUKO 1 year ago
I have watched this so many times and I'm just wondering, what controls how often the cardoid shape presents itself? How did you know to end at this final zoom? Or did you zoom continuously and chose to cut the clip there.
A9SecondSleeper 1 year ago
@A9SecondSleeper I spent time looking for an interesting final location and then created the animation. The mathematical complexities of the Mandelbrot are enormous, far beyond the self-similarity (recurring patterns such as the cardioid) characteristic!
nosro1 1 year ago
@nosro1 Wow so you first zoomed in to 2.5E194, then panned around until you found your final stop? That sounds slower than mapquest! (or at least pretty hard on your what-must-be-monstrous computer)
A9SecondSleeper 1 year ago
@A9SecondSleeper Not quite. Starting with no zoom, I zoom manually into interesting areas. After a while, one gets a feel for where to zoom to find interesting patterns. Perhaps 90% of my fishing expeditions results in nothing interesting that I wish to expand into an animation.
nosro1 1 year ago
Goa would have been more fitting music, I think.
GBart 1 year ago
looks good but would someojne explain in detail what the hell is this?
photon101203 2 years ago
One tiny equation gives rise to this infinite complexity. Check out "Mandelbrot Set" on Wikipedia.
nosro1 2 years ago
this is pure amazingness!!!!!!
pizzasauces69 2 years ago
I've run out of things to say about these phenomal videos . . . I'm just glad I'm alive to enjoy them!
LynnColorado 2 years ago
If you are that dedicated, I would recommend focusing more on artistic quality than pure quantity and looking for more interesting structures to pass on the way. Also, in the age of quad-core CPUs is it really necessary to use such a limited color palette? It resembles 256 color VGA from the 90's
AluminumStudios 2 years ago 2
Actually I'm using Fractal Extreme for a current render into a nice section and the problem is the color scaling... at high magification levels rapid changes in color appear as only slight changes in the unmagnified section. It doesn;t scale with the zoom... each color is a different iteration so at high zoom.. it's having to parse 100's of thousands of iterations... each smaller than the last.
Kittani1977 2 years ago
Technically very nice, but the colors were quite bad, and the position was not so interesting either.
Still good, overall.
Kinokarte 2 years ago
WOW!!! Thanks, Grazie, Danke, Merci, etc.
dblairosj 2 years ago
Ok, ill be the first to ask a non scientific question^^
What is the theme song called and where can i get it?
Great vid.
Greetings from Germany
Dynamitrios 2 years ago
wow! this is wicked! would love to see this in high defininition!!
fractalzooms 2 years ago
what a noble use of computers. MEGATHANX!
did you first zoom in and then render it while zooming out or some technique to make the rendering process go faster?
RoboticusMusic 2 years ago
This was rendered as, literally, 7500 individual JPEG images. The images were then strung together into a movie. So it didn't matter if this was done while zooming in or zooming out. Brute force was needed to get this done in less than a year!
nosro1 2 years ago
Never knew there's a Swastika in the Mandelbrot set. (3:04)
foo0815 2 years ago
I don't think reality even goes to this resolution.
AliasUndercover 2 years ago
Brilliant Job!
cooltotell 2 years ago
Best I've seen yet!!! I'd give more than 5 stars if possible!
Thanks!
mf0rz 2 years ago
Wow... Impressive!
What is the machine spec to create this?
And what is the FPS?
SweeHua81 2 years ago
3 quad-core computers: two Intel Q6600 and one Intel Q6700. 30 frames per second. Check out the blog link in the description if you would like more information.
nosro1 2 years ago
Holy shit, that was impressive! How did you decide on which coordinates to zoom? I love it how you find some self similarity down there!
Also, how did you handle numerical stability at that level of zoom? Maybe I should check out those geeky details :)
finalman242 2 years ago
Coordinates are a matter of exploration - I zoomed and searched around for something for almost two months!
There are many "arbitrary precision" math libraries to deal with the huge number of decimal places that are far beyond the native ability of 64-bit processors. Essentially, these libraries use the equivalent of the paper-and-pencil techniques that we all learned in grade school math class.
nosro1 2 years ago
OK, Thanks. Just one more question though, how many iterations did you need to make that final frame render properly?
Also, enjoy your video reply!
finalman242 2 years ago
The maximum number of iterations ended up at approximately 700,000.
nosro1 2 years ago
what's the shape at 0:01? I see this a lot.
samuelmichaud 2 years ago
Google "Mandelbrot Set"
nosro1 2 years ago
Great Zoom Vid, btw, added to my favorites :D
stardust4ever 2 years ago
You deserve the honesty of non-interpolated frames! :)
nosro1 2 years ago
Let's see... If you'd have used frame interpolation, you'd of only had to render 646 of those 8100 some-odd frames. Use some additional resources for antialiasing and nobody would know the difference.
8100 frames / 646 zooms = 12.53
You said you used quad core processors, which are very likely 64bit capable, but there is no 64-bit ultrafractal available. That's ashame, really, because running 64 bits is up to 4 times as efficient.
3 months / 12.53 / 4 = 1.79 days or 1 day 19 hours complete
stardust4ever 2 years ago
Compared to 3 months, that's a lot of wasted CPU resources!!!
stardust4ever 2 years ago
A lot of assumptions are required there. For one, antialiasing requires rendering at a higher resolution (e.g. redendering at 2560 x 1920 in order to do 4x antialiasing down to 640x480).
Also, the assumption of 4 times efficiency with 64 bit would be correct if we were talking about floating point calculations, but with arbitrary-precision math engines, floating point arithmetic becomes irrelevant! That is why the original FractInt (16 bit DOS application) is still computationally competitive!
nosro1 2 years ago
Still, though, I tried out Ultrafractal on my 32-bit core-duo laptop, Ultrafractal spent like over two minutes trying to render a certain 640x480 frame, and I copied the coordinates into Fractal Extreme, then zoomed into the same spot, and the image rendered within a few seconds. And that is with 32 bit software running on a 32 bit machine.
$35 for fractal extreme vs $129 for much slower Ultra fractal 5; I'm going with Fractal extreme to do my deep zoom movies...
stardust4ever 2 years ago
Careful copy and pasting! Ultrafractal expresses zooms in straight magnification numbers, but Fractal Extreme uses "zoom levels". Thus, a Fractal Extreme zoom level of 100 is similar to an UltraFractal zoom level of E30. You also have to ensure that the iteration counts are the same.
nosro1 2 years ago
"The Animation Edition contains everything from Standard, plus animation and network features: create fractal movies and calculate fractals using multiple networked computers." multiple netwoked computers mmmm not just a lan but has anyone done this with a few hundred quad cores over the internet?!!! how mad would that be?!
stoneybridger 2 years ago
That's precisely what makes all this so infinitely mind-boggling ---- here we are viewing with vivid, crystal clarity precise form and detail that is many orders of magnitude smaller than the sub-atomic quantum threshhold! It's utterly irrational and incomprehensible, yet there it is in magnificent clear and vivid detail right before our eyes!
b7gilberti 3 years ago
Absolutely incredible! I was stunned! 3 quad cores running continuous for 3 months! What is that -- 10 billion calculations per second? For three months! ! ! Final mag 10 to the minus 194th power! ! ! What does that mean --- a trillion, trillion times smaller than a proton??? It'll take me days to get over this!
b7gilberti 3 years ago
The ratio of quantum effects (sub-atomic) to the size of the known universe is approximately E61. Therefore E194 is a number that has no relationship to any reality we know of.
nosro1 3 years ago
That's wierd.
pianorunner 3 years ago
Hi.
Great image. Thx.
Can you give some informations :
- period of cardioid on last image
- time of computations of all images ( or last image)
Waiting for new zooms
Adam Majewski
adammaj1 3 years ago
FractAlkemist and DeepZoomNet -
Thanks for the comments. I hope this is taken for what it is - a friendly challenge from a fellow enthusiast. I use Ultra Fractal 4.04. It has the ability to split a single image across multiple computing cores for faster rendering. For all its faults, it is still my favorite combination of flexibility and ease of use.
I am looking forward to eventually seeing 10E1000, so let's get going!
nosro1 3 years ago
Pretty f'n good! Now you join HPDZ as the 2nd person in cyberspace to beat me! I dunno if I should be cool with it or just P.O.'d! I guess it had to happen eventually :(
I'v always been a Brian Eno fan - all the way back to Oblivion Express.
What software did you use and did you actually use the quad core (rendering 4 images at once)?
FractAlkemist 3 years ago
Thanks for the video response (the first to any of my videos!).
This is truly deep! I think this definitely takes the record for the deepest no-nonsense animation so far. It's into a filamentous area (which easier computationally), but one I've not seen anyone else do before. Very nice.
What software are you using?
I wish I had three quad-core systems to dedicate to this kind of thing...!
Now I have a challenge....
DeepZoomNet 3 years ago
Not forgotten...just got absorbed in something else...a few months more...
DeepZoomNet 3 years ago