. Yeah he's a bit behind the curve; I made the first "universe" viddie to E+27 over 10 years ago. It took 3 years to render my deepest zoom to E+112. I don't think it's practical to try E+1600 or more with fractint. On youtube and elsewhere on the web there are zooms claiming to be in the E+(thousands) range; but I think they use "trickery" to do it. .
In what way is it not practical? Is it a math limitation of the program? Could we zoom straight to E+1600 plus with hope that we'd actually hit anything? How long is a render at this magnification and would it preclude multiple tries? Are these fake? E+4004 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsRbcv18VcWJVtfAtbKV1Vw He gives the coordinates of the final scene http://vk.com/wall197307589_75 On 4/20/2015 2:26 PM, JackOfTradeZ@comcast.net wrote:
.
Yeah he's a bit behind the curve; I made the first "universe" viddie to E+27 over 10 years ago.
It took 3 years to render my deepest zoom to E+112.
I don't think it's practical to try E+1600 or more with fractint.
On youtube and elsewhere on the web there are zooms claiming to be in the E+(thousands) range; but I think they use "trickery" to do it.
.
Roger Kaufman asked :
In what way is it not practical? Is it a math limitation of the program? Could we zoom straight to E+1600 plus with hope that we'd actually hit anything? How long is a render at this magnification and would it preclude multiple tries?
The impractical part of a fractint super deep zoom is finding the end point. Very tedious to zoom in frame by frame and find a non-boring non-trivial place to zoom into. But once found, I should think it would not be hard to generate a batch file that would create a sequence of images zooming to that point. You couldn't do E+4004 of course; Fractint is limited to E+1600, more or less. Might take a while to generate, but wouldn't be hard. There are others on this list which much more practical experience with deep zooming than I have. Tim
participants (3)
-
JackOfTradeZ＠comcast.net -
Roger Kaufman -
Timothy Wegner