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> <NAPO.91Jan12233534@elektra.hut.fi> <188483a4.ARN09773@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 07:48:38 GMT
Lines: 27

> In article <NAPO.91Jan12233534@elektra.hut.fi>, 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
