| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| Digital Art / Fractal Art | ©2007-2013 `ClaireJones |
), but I think I will put it into the main gallery first.
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
40 FRACTALS: The very best of 2007
Have a happy new year!
-Ariane
Newbie question: what do you mean by saying "the quality isn't where it should be"? To me it looks fine.
Eh, Julians are notorious for being difficult to get good quality renders (there are a lot of transforms, combined with the use of the Blur variation). You get a lot of fuzzy and/or speckled parts.
Ah, I see. I didn't click the download link. I recently also rendered a fractal and was surprised that it also had this kind of grain in some parts, even at render quality 4000. Is it because the "particles" aren't dense enough at some locations?
Then again you always could fix something like that in Photoshop, but I guess that's not an option for you as you want to keep your fractals pure and un-edited, right?
Ah yes, the joys of rendering. To put it in perspective, I generally render a 1280x1024 Julian with a quality at 10,000, usually closer to 15,000 (and it takes forever to render). I generally render everything else at about 6000-8000. And you had it mostly right. The particle issue is generally exacerbated by the gamma setting, where too much light is hitting less dense areas of the fractal. In Julians specifically, not only are certain areas being affected by gamma, which needs to be high, but also the commonly used Blur variations enlarge the particles, which furthers the problem. This why most Julians are very dark yet have gobs of "hot spots".
It's fun trying to get the perfect render.
Render time was 2 days, 17 hours and 44 minutes, almost 66 hours.
Regarding render quality: yeah, it's quite difficult to achieve a flawless render. If you look at my latest deviation, that for example is a fractal I'm really not satisfied with the result (and it's not even a very complex one).
First, I rendered it with a render quality (RQ) of 4000. Very much grain in the corners. Today I rendered it again, with RQ 128000 (yes, 128 thousand
So, currently I'm rendering the same fractal again on the computer at my company. Guess with what RQ? 512000, haha!
The settings I used for all three renders were 1600 x 1200 pixel, Filter Radius 0.8, Oversample 2.
Rendertimes (CPU is an Intel Dual Core with 1.8 or 2.0 GHz, afaik):
RQ 4000 -> 30 minutes
RQ 128000 -> 16 hours
RQ 512000 -> approx. 64 hours
When I come back to my workplace on Monday morning the render should be finished.
The same fractal with the same settings and a RQ of 512000 would need about 250 hours to render on my computer at home (AMD Athlon 1.4 GHz).
featured in the NEWS ARTICLE~
It's 'Fractal Friday'- 6/1/07
[link]
WAY TO GO!!! ~ It's amazing!
Hugs,
Anj