On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, <JackOfTradeZ@comcast.net> wrote:
.
Thats an awesome image at e+129; the PAR info says it only took 8 minutes ?!?!
Is FRACTON better than FractInt or is the current MAC platform better than WinDoZe/DOS ?
I was thinking of doing a zoom animation also, it is an interesting fractal. But I would expect many months to do it based on previous experience.
The time is correct for one non anti-aliased frame at e+129 on my fastest 8 core computer. I actually did a test on my older and slower computer that I usually use for long rendering jobs and it took 16 hours to do 40 tiny 320 x 240 non aa frames. The times went up as you zoomed deeper to the central minibrot and it was obvious there would need to be hundreds of larger anti-aliased frames. When I calculated the time is was at least many weeks. If you do more anti-aliasing I am sure you are correct that it could take months. I still wanted to do a deep zoom animation so I found a much faster fractal and I posted it in a separate thread. When I wrote Fracton I mainly wanted a program that could draw FractInt fractals on the Mac. I tried to add as many of FractInt's supported fractal types as I could figure out. Since I was starting from scratch, I included some things that weren't practical when FractInt was written (like a GUI, 24 bit color, anti-aliasing, and multi-processor support). FractInt still draws many more types of fractals than Fracton but I am trying to catch up. Also, replicating the same image coloring as FractInt has proven to be much more difficult than I imagined. As for the Mac vs PC question, I guess it comes down to your personal preference. At the lowest level, they use mostly the same CPU chips and the price differential isn't as great as it once was. -- Mike Frazier www.fracton.org