🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 30, 2:16 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between
> landscape photography and fractal images:http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>

It is indeed intriguing. I think it also goes deeper. We have a
"landscape" of possible fractals once we fix the algorithm, and we
move around by changing some parameters. if we have n parameters, it
is an n-dimensional landscape. So our aim is to find the set of
parameters which produces the fractal we wish (eg which looks like a
tree, or which expresses "pain" in some sense, or whatever). We do
this either by aimlessly wandering about the landscape until we find
what we want, or by "walking around"  by looking near to where we are,
or other techniques.

But generalise this a bit: any problem we try to solve (in a general
sense; it could be an attempt to write a poem) will be solved in the
same way, ie by wandering around some space of possibilities
(analogous to changing the parameters of the fractal algorithm) until
we get what we want. Doing science (eg trying to explain something) is
done this way: I know some facts, and have various ways of putting
them together; so I try various things (the "wandering around the
landscape") until I get what I want (an explanation). So is writing
poetry, in some sense: I try to express something (say); I have words,
phrases etc which carry meaning, emotions, and which rhyme, don't
rhyme, and so on, and I want to put them together in some way to
achieve my goal. It's all the same, for sufficiently general
definitions of "landscape" and "walk".

The main difference between different people, it seems to me, is how
they search around this space. Sometimes, looking just near you isn't
enough (because you have to go in a nonobvious direction to get to the
"solution"), and people who have the ability to find these nonobvious
directions do things others can't (think of Einstein, Bach etc).

Of course it is possible to generalise these definitions ("space",
"search") so much that what one says is true but useless; this is a
constant danger to all philosophers, I guess ;)

On Apr 30, 4:12 am, achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> directions do things others can't (think of Einstein, Bach etc).

Maybe Beethoven fits better there. Bach is more like Newton. But never
mind...

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
news:46351945$0$21475$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between 
> landscape photography and fractal images:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne

Interesting Wayne--I've been doing fractal exploration for a number of years 
and my feelings are quite similar. I've written a number of formulae and 
coloring algorithms for Ultra Fractal and a few other proggies, and as I go 
exploring Mandelbrot or Julia sets I feel much like I do when I am out with 
my camera looking for juicy frames.

Of course with the classic Mandelbrot there are repeating self-similarities 
which are not present in nature, but as soon as that is modified by applying 
various functions things change quite a bit. Finding pleasing symmetries 
amidst the chaos is quite pleasing, isn't it? And, of course, there is 
something weirdly satisfying about realizing that there is no end to the 
detail, no matter what magnification one uses. This certainly mimics the 
natural world.

I'm not trolling for views, but if you are interested in my fractals (and 
some photos) have a look at:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=113004

More to the point, browse the fractal galleries there in general...

Toby 

Toby wrote:
> Of course with the classic Mandelbrot there are repeating
> self-similarities which are not present in nature,

Actually, I disagree. There are many self-similarities in nature.
Look at e.g. streams that become rivers that become creeks that become a 
brook that becomes a streamlet.

Same with valleys which have offsprings which in turn have even smaller side 
valleys which in turn ....

Or coast lines. A statement like "country x has y miles of cost line" is 
meaningless. Did they really measure around each headland and cape into each 
tiny bay? Did they measure around each rocky outcrop? Did they measure 
around each rock laying on the beach? Did they measure around each grain of 
sand? I think this is typical fractal nature.

And of course the prime example snow flakes, although that probably doesn't 
qualify as landscape photography ;-)

jue

On Apr 30, 4:49 am, "Jürgen Exner" <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Toby wrote:
> > Of course with the classic Mandelbrot there are repeating
> > self-similarities which are not present in nature,
>
> Actually, I disagree. There are many self-similarities in nature.
> Look at e.g. streams that become rivers that become creeks that become a
> brook that becomes a streamlet.

In fact, turbulent flows (ie most flows in nature, streams etc) are
self-similar (eddies of various sizes coexist), frustrating our
attempts to understand it in a deep way (for some definition of
"deep"). Other examples of this type of self-similarity abound.
Someone even got a Nobel prize in 1982 for exploiting this self-
similarity in a particular field of physics.

>
> Same with valleys which have offsprings which in turn have even smaller side
> valleys which in turn ....
>
> Or coast lines. A statement like "country x has y miles of cost line" is
> meaningless. Did they really measure around each headland and cape into each
> tiny bay? Did they measure around each rocky outcrop? Did they measure
> around each rock laying on the beach? Did they measure around each grain of
> sand? I think this is typical fractal nature.

Well coastlines are a prototypical example. Mandelbrot goes on about
this in his book.

>
> And of course the prime example snow flakes, although that probably doesn't
> qualify as landscape photography ;-)

However those are usually symmetrical, not self-similar on different
scales. Still very nice, of course :)

I like this line of thinking.

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2:16 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <w...@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
>> My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between
>> landscape photography and fractal images:http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>>
> 
> It is indeed intriguing. I think it also goes deeper. We have a
> "landscape" of possible fractals once we fix the algorithm, and we
> move around by changing some parameters. if we have n parameters, it
> is an n-dimensional landscape. So our aim is to find the set of
> parameters which produces the fractal we wish (eg which looks like a
> tree, or which expresses "pain" in some sense, or whatever). We do
> this either by aimlessly wandering about the landscape until we find
> what we want, or by "walking around"  by looking near to where we are,
> or other techniques.
> 
> But generalise this a bit: any problem we try to solve (in a general
> sense; it could be an attempt to write a poem) will be solved in the
> same way, ie by wandering around some space of possibilities
> (analogous to changing the parameters of the fractal algorithm) until
> we get what we want. Doing science (eg trying to explain something) is
> done this way: I know some facts, and have various ways of putting
> them together; so I try various things (the "wandering around the
> landscape") until I get what I want (an explanation). So is writing
> poetry, in some sense: I try to express something (say); I have words,
> phrases etc which carry meaning, emotions, and which rhyme, don't
> rhyme, and so on, and I want to put them together in some way to
> achieve my goal. It's all the same, for sufficiently general
> definitions of "landscape" and "walk".
> 
> The main difference between different people, it seems to me, is how
> they search around this space. Sometimes, looking just near you isn't
> enough (because you have to go in a nonobvious direction to get to the
> "solution"), and people who have the ability to find these nonobvious
> directions do things others can't (think of Einstein, Bach etc).
> 
> Of course it is possible to generalise these definitions ("space",
> "search") so much that what one says is true but useless; this is a
> constant danger to all philosophers, I guess ;)
> 

Toby, you have some wonderful fractal work there. Most impressive.

As I see others have pointed out, I also disagree with you only on the 
lack of self-similarity in the landscape. I see much that is 
self-similar, from mountain ranges to the edge of rocks to the mentioned 
by others water flows, etc.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Toby wrote:
> "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message 
> news:46351945$0$21475$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between 
>> landscape photography and fractal images:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
> 
> Interesting Wayne--I've been doing fractal exploration for a number of years 
> and my feelings are quite similar. I've written a number of formulae and 
> coloring algorithms for Ultra Fractal and a few other proggies, and as I go 
> exploring Mandelbrot or Julia sets I feel much like I do when I am out with 
> my camera looking for juicy frames.
> 
> Of course with the classic Mandelbrot there are repeating self-similarities 
> which are not present in nature, but as soon as that is modified by applying 
> various functions things change quite a bit. Finding pleasing symmetries 
> amidst the chaos is quite pleasing, isn't it? And, of course, there is 
> something weirdly satisfying about realizing that there is no end to the 
> detail, no matter what magnification one uses. This certainly mimics the 
> natural world.
> 
> I'm not trolling for views, but if you are interested in my fractals (and 
> some photos) have a look at:
> 
> http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=113004
> 
> More to the point, browse the fractal galleries there in general...
> 
> Toby 
> 
> 

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> I like this line of thinking.
> 

So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.

We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating 
some imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow 
on a Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern 
Mac with Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size 
was limited to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is 
capable of big, big output files.

David

On 2007-04-29 15:16:33 -0700, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> said:

> My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between 
> landscape photography and fractal images:
> http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne

The interesting thing is unpredictability. One might generate a 
fractal, for example, that models the exact behavior of the stock 
market for all of its history, but the model will still be unable to 
predict the future. The same goes for the weather. It is possible to 
create a fractal algorithm that predicts the past, but not one that 
predicts the future. A fractal may describe the current appearance of a 
range of mountains but it will be incapable of predicting what the 
mountains will look like in 10,000 years.

The problem is resolution, of course. Very tiny differences accumulate 
and amount to huge variations, often in a very short time. You reach a 
point where the very act of observing can change the future.

Thus, a fractal can mimic reality, but it can never duplicate it. There 
are fractal generators that allow a photographer to upsize an image and 
maintain an appearance of reality, but it is not the same image that 
would be obtained by a higher resolution photograph. The effect of 
higher resolution is unpredictable.

A brush stroke on a painting can be seen as a part of a fractal image. 
The single brush stroke does not seem to resemble any part of the 
subject of the painting, but the combined brush strokes may create a 
realist masterwork.

A photograph can never look exactly like reality because of its fractal 
limitations. It can never capture enough information to exactly 
duplicate the subject. If it did, it would be the subject, one in 
identity with it.
-- 
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
news:rq6dnYg4No1MJqjbRVnyjQA@bt.com...
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> I like this line of thinking.
>>
>
> So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
> landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
> analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
> can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
>
> We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating some 
> imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow on a 
> Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern Mac with 
> Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size was limited 
> to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is capable of big, 
> big output files.
>
> David

Look into Vue.  They have something called EcoSystem materials which can 
generate vast fields of whatever 3D objects you'd like, if you make your 
own, or if you use the presets, with fields of flowers and grasses, trees, 
rocks, small villages, farmland, and more.  There are two images I created 
in Vue on the front page of my website.  I also own Bryce, but like Vue 
better.  They are both still slow to render BIG images.  I have two gigs of 
ram but the only way I can get Vue to do anything over 3200 x 2400 is to 
render it out in parts and then recombine in Photoshop.

--
www.mattclara.com 

Matt Clara wrote:
> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
> news:rq6dnYg4No1MJqjbRVnyjQA@bt.com...
> 
>>Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>
>>>I like this line of thinking.
>>>
>>
>>So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
>>landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
>>analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
>>can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
>>
>>We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating some 
>>imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow on a 
>>Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern Mac with 
>>Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size was limited 
>>to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is capable of big, 
>>big output files.
>>
>>David
> 
> 
> Look into Vue.  They have something called EcoSystem materials which can 
> generate vast fields of whatever 3D objects you'd like, if you make your 
> own, or if you use the presets, with fields of flowers and grasses, trees, 
> rocks, small villages, farmland, and more.  There are two images I created 
> in Vue on the front page of my website.  I also own Bryce, but like Vue 
> better.  They are both still slow to render BIG images.  I have two gigs of 
> ram but the only way I can get Vue to do anything over 3200 x 2400 is to 
> render it out in parts and then recombine in Photoshop.
> 


Lovely idea, but it's about five times the price of Bryce - which is 
affordable for recreational use, not commercial. Vue Infinite is a bit 
too expensive for our needs!

David

"David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
news:Ge6dnQTAk9aapqvbnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@bt.com...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
>> news:rq6dnYg4No1MJqjbRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>>
>>>Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>>
>>>>I like this line of thinking.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
>>>landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
>>>analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
>>>can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
>>>
>>>We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating some 
>>>imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow on a 
>>>Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern Mac 
>>>with Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size was 
>>>limited to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is 
>>>capable of big, big output files.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>>
>> Look into Vue.  They have something called EcoSystem materials which can 
>> generate vast fields of whatever 3D objects you'd like, if you make your 
>> own, or if you use the presets, with fields of flowers and grasses, 
>> trees, rocks, small villages, farmland, and more.  There are two images I 
>> created in Vue on the front page of my website.  I also own Bryce, but 
>> like Vue better.  They are both still slow to render BIG images.  I have 
>> two gigs of ram but the only way I can get Vue to do anything over 3200 x 
>> 2400 is to render it out in parts and then recombine in Photoshop.
>>
>
>
> Lovely idea, but it's about five times the price of Bryce - which is 
> affordable for recreational use, not commercial. Vue Infinite is a bit too 
> expensive for our needs!
>
> David

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_6_esprit/
It is more expensive than Bryce, but not five times.  It's also better than 
Bryce, by about 10 times.  Bryce has changed a little over the years, where 
Vue makes huge jumps in R&D, and will likely continue to do so--ecosystems 
are just that, a huge jump.  I would not be surprised to see Bryce bought up 
and incorporated into one of the other 3D software vendor's code, by and by.

--
www.mattclara.com 

"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message 
news:Pb6dnUYiV_uJzqvbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
> news:Ge6dnQTAk9aapqvbnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@bt.com...
>> Matt Clara wrote:
>>> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:rq6dnYg4No1MJqjbRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>>>
>>>>Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I like this line of thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
>>>>landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
>>>>analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
>>>>can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
>>>>
>>>>We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating 
>>>>some imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow 
>>>>on a Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern 
>>>>Mac with Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size 
>>>>was limited to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is 
>>>>capable of big, big output files.
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>> Look into Vue.  They have something called EcoSystem materials which can 
>>> generate vast fields of whatever 3D objects you'd like, if you make your 
>>> own, or if you use the presets, with fields of flowers and grasses, 
>>> trees, rocks, small villages, farmland, and more.  There are two images 
>>> I created in Vue on the front page of my website.  I also own Bryce, but 
>>> like Vue better.  They are both still slow to render BIG images.  I have 
>>> two gigs of ram but the only way I can get Vue to do anything over 3200 
>>> x 2400 is to render it out in parts and then recombine in Photoshop.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lovely idea, but it's about five times the price of Bryce - which is 
>> affordable for recreational use, not commercial. Vue Infinite is a bit 
>> too expensive for our needs!
>>
>> David
>
> http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_6_esprit/
> It is more expensive than Bryce, but not five times.  It's also better 
> than Bryce, by about 10 times.  Bryce has changed a little over the years, 
> where Vue makes huge jumps in R&D, and will likely continue to do 
> so--ecosystems are just that, a huge jump.  I would not be surprised to 
> see Bryce bought up and incorporated into one of the other 3D software 
> vendor's code, by and by.
>

My apologies if I appear to dis Bryce entirely; I still have several images 
on my site created in Bryce, including:
http://www.mattclara.com/moonsandaplanet.html (ferns were painted in post 
process with Corel Painter 6)
http://www.mattclara.com/turningpoint.html
(and a few others which should probably be taken down)

I don't think they compare favorably to my new Vue images 
(http://www.mattclara.com/thestruggle.html), though, but that could have to 
do with experience and a more developed eye (largely due to photography, I 
might add).  Also, as I said before, Bryce doesn't change much, whereas Vue 
does, and that makes Vue the more exciting program, both to use and to watch 
(some might say the same is true of Canon, though I believe that's a finer 
point).  Having said that, you may wish to watch Vue Easel for the day that 
ecosystems are incorporated therein.  It's only $89, and frankly, I thought 
I'd read that Vue Easel 6 had ecosystems, and that's what I was suggesting, 
not Infinite.  Vue espirit 6 allows you to load ecosystems--not sure if that 
means you can't make them or whether it includes a preexisting library of 
them--and it's running $199 (which just happens to be what I paid for my 
copy of Bryce 3D in 97/98).

--
www.mattclara.com 

I've used both Vue and Bryce, over many versions. My preference is for 
Vue, but I do have the latest Bryce. I just haven't reviewed it yet. The 
thing is, most people don't get anywhere near the potential of either 
program.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Matt Clara wrote:
> "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message 
> news:Pb6dnUYiV_uJzqvbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
>> news:Ge6dnQTAk9aapqvbnZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Matt Clara wrote:
>>>> "David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:rq6dnYg4No1MJqjbRVnyjQA@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like this line of thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
>>>>> landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
>>>>> analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
>>>>> can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating 
>>>>> some imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow 
>>>>> on a Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern 
>>>>> Mac with Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size 
>>>>> was limited to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is 
>>>>> capable of big, big output files.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> Look into Vue.  They have something called EcoSystem materials which can 
>>>> generate vast fields of whatever 3D objects you'd like, if you make your 
>>>> own, or if you use the presets, with fields of flowers and grasses, 
>>>> trees, rocks, small villages, farmland, and more.  There are two images 
>>>> I created in Vue on the front page of my website.  I also own Bryce, but 
>>>> like Vue better.  They are both still slow to render BIG images.  I have 
>>>> two gigs of ram but the only way I can get Vue to do anything over 3200 
>>>> x 2400 is to render it out in parts and then recombine in Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lovely idea, but it's about five times the price of Bryce - which is 
>>> affordable for recreational use, not commercial. Vue Infinite is a bit 
>>> too expensive for our needs!
>>>
>>> David
>> http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_6_esprit/
>> It is more expensive than Bryce, but not five times.  It's also better 
>> than Bryce, by about 10 times.  Bryce has changed a little over the years, 
>> where Vue makes huge jumps in R&D, and will likely continue to do 
>> so--ecosystems are just that, a huge jump.  I would not be surprised to 
>> see Bryce bought up and incorporated into one of the other 3D software 
>> vendor's code, by and by.
>>
> 
> My apologies if I appear to dis Bryce entirely; I still have several images 
> on my site created in Bryce, including:
> http://www.mattclara.com/moonsandaplanet.html (ferns were painted in post 
> process with Corel Painter 6)
> http://www.mattclara.com/turningpoint.html
> (and a few others which should probably be taken down)
> 
> I don't think they compare favorably to my new Vue images 
> (http://www.mattclara.com/thestruggle.html), though, but that could have to 
> do with experience and a more developed eye (largely due to photography, I 
> might add).  Also, as I said before, Bryce doesn't change much, whereas Vue 
> does, and that makes Vue the more exciting program, both to use and to watch 
> (some might say the same is true of Canon, though I believe that's a finer 
> point).  Having said that, you may wish to watch Vue Easel for the day that 
> ecosystems are incorporated therein.  It's only $89, and frankly, I thought 
> I'd read that Vue Easel 6 had ecosystems, and that's what I was suggesting, 
> not Infinite.  Vue espirit 6 allows you to load ecosystems--not sure if that 
> means you can't make them or whether it includes a preexisting library of 
> them--and it's running $199 (which just happens to be what I paid for my 
> copy of Bryce 3D in 97/98).
> 
> --
> www.mattclara.com 
> 
> 

"Wayne J. Cosshall" <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote in message
news:4636ed9b$0$11384$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>The thing is, most people don't get anywhere near the potential of either
> program.

Possibly true, but I bet the actual data you have to support such a claim is
zilch.
Although the same claim can probably be made for most modern software
without necessarily being wrong.

MrT.

"acl" <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1177894792.158691.29460@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 4:49 am, "J�rgen Exner" <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Toby wrote:
> > Of course with the classic Mandelbrot there are repeating
> > self-similarities which are not present in nature,
>
> Actually, I disagree. There are many self-similarities in nature.
> Look at e.g. streams that become rivers that become creeks that become a
> brook that becomes a streamlet.

In fact, turbulent flows (ie most flows in nature, streams etc) are
self-similar (eddies of various sizes coexist), frustrating our
attempts to understand it in a deep way (for some definition of
"deep"). Other examples of this type of self-similarity abound.
Someone even got a Nobel prize in 1982 for exploiting this self-
similarity in a particular field of physics.

But those levels of self-similarity are quite limited, compared to the 
infinte levels of self-similarity in a pure Mandelbrot fractal. Tree 
branchings exhibit the same self-similarity, but only up to a point.

Toby

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:16:33 +1000, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
<wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
: My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between 
: landscape photography and fractal images:
: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php

IIRC, Mandelbrot's original paper on fractals emphasized their similarity to
landscapes, notably to the shape of coastlines.

This is the first time I've seen Cosshall's column. He presents some
intriguing ideas, but someone should introduce him to a good proofreader. ;^)

Bob

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:50:09 +0100, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3@btconnect.com>
wrote:
: Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
: > I like this line of thinking.
: > 
: 
: So do I, because it allows Photoshop clone tool retouching of parts of 
: landscapes with related parts, and the eye can never spot it (image 
: analysis can!). The fractal nature of trees, grass, rocks etc means you 
: can even change scales of image parts, copy, and retouch.
: 
: We have just ordered Bryce, for my wife to mess around with creating 
: some imaginary landscapes. We had it years ago but it was painfully slow 
: on a Mac IIcx. I found the software recently, and tried it on a modern 
: Mac with Classic running - it was still slow, but also, the image size 
: was limited to something like XVGA! We are hoping that modern Bryce is 
: capable of big, big output files.

Here I've wandered into an area whereof I know nothing, but I'm intrigued by
the name "Bryce". Was the program so named because Bryce Canyon reminded its
author of a fractal image? It has been many years since my family hiked to the
bottom of Bryce Canyon (two of my granddaughters are older than my children
were then), but I do get the point!

Bob

LOLOLOLOL Since I went out on my own I lost my sub editor :)
I'll try harder on the proof reading. And I must say I still often get 
confused between my natural tendency to UK spelling and my decision to 
adopt US spelling on the site. Though I am sure that is not all of it. 
Know any who work for free :)? Sadly my wife is dyslexic, so is not 
always a good help on proofreading (at least not on bad days).

Yes, Mandelbrot did emphasize the landscape similarity and it certainly 
strikes me as real, particularly at time. Recently I was doing some 
macro work on crystals and rocks and boy was the landscape similarity 
obvious.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/Since I went



Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:16:33 +1000, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
> <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> : My latest column is up with some thoughts about the links between 
> : landscape photography and fractal images:
> : http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
> 
> IIRC, Mandelbrot's original paper on fractals emphasized their similarity to
> landscapes, notably to the shape of coastlines.
> 
> This is the first time I've seen Cosshall's column. He presents some
> intriguing ideas, but someone should introduce him to a good proofreader. ;^)
> 
> Bob

On May 2, 2:40 am, "Toby" <kymarto...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> "acl" <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>> In fact, turbulent flows (ie most flows in nature, streams etc) are
>> self-similar (eddies of various sizes coexist), frustrating our
>> attempts to understand it in a deep way (for some definition of
>> "deep"). Other examples of this type of self-similarity abound.
>> Someone even got a Nobel prize in 1982 for exploiting this self-
>> similarity in a particular field of physics.
>
> But those levels of self-similarity are quite limited, compared to the
> infinte levels of self-similarity in a pure Mandelbrot fractal. Tree
> branchings exhibit the same self-similarity, but only up to a point.
>

Very true. Nothing natural can be infinitely self-similar (it
eventually must break down in both directions, up and down), thus
fractals are, strictly speaking, platonic forms. eg turbulent flows
are said to be self-similar, but obviously when we get down to scales
of .01 angstrom, it no longer makes sense to speak of a fluid, much
less of a turbulent one. It's just that it turns out that we can
profitable separate length/energy/... scales and work with different
theories within each scale (quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
general relativity; or biology, psychology, sociology; etc), treating
each theory as absolutely true within its scale, and these theories do
not always tell us where they break down themselves; so we pretend
they are absolutely true, and hope that the fact that they are not
does not affect the conclusions (or incorporate corrections).

One notable group of people who really do think they've escaped this
and that they are in possession (or at least in pursuit) of absolute
truth is high-energy physicists (in particular, string theorists, but
other tribes also). Well, there's another group, but I'll get flamed...

<achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1178063599.341919.222610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 2:40 am, "Toby" <kymarto...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>> "acl" <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> In fact, turbulent flows (ie most flows in nature, streams etc) are
>>> self-similar (eddies of various sizes coexist), frustrating our
>>> attempts to understand it in a deep way (for some definition of
>>> "deep"). Other examples of this type of self-similarity abound.
>>> Someone even got a Nobel prize in 1982 for exploiting this self-
>>> similarity in a particular field of physics.
>>
>> But those levels of self-similarity are quite limited, compared to the
>> infinte levels of self-similarity in a pure Mandelbrot fractal. Tree
>> branchings exhibit the same self-similarity, but only up to a point.
>>
>
> Very true. Nothing natural can be infinitely self-similar (it
> eventually must break down in both directions, up and down), thus
> fractals are, strictly speaking, platonic forms. eg turbulent flows
> are said to be self-similar, but obviously when we get down to scales
> of .01 angstrom, it no longer makes sense to speak of a fluid, much
> less of a turbulent one. It's just that it turns out that we can
> profitable separate length/energy/... scales and work with different
> theories within each scale (quantum mechanics, classical mechanics,
> general relativity; or biology, psychology, sociology; etc), treating
> each theory as absolutely true within its scale, and these theories do
> not always tell us where they break down themselves; so we pretend
> they are absolutely true, and hope that the fact that they are not
> does not affect the conclusions (or incorporate corrections).
>
> One notable group of people who really do think they've escaped this
> and that they are in possession (or at least in pursuit) of absolute
> truth is high-energy physicists (in particular, string theorists, but
> other tribes also). Well, there's another group, but I'll get flamed...

It's interesting that when you perturb the classic z=z^2+c with applied 
functions, or often even straight mathematical parameters, you get an 
increasing loss of self-similarity as you iterate. I think that the Mandy is 
a special case--"platonic" as you so nicely put it.

My brother has a PhD in high-speed particle physics from Cal Tech--he did 
his work at SLAC in Palo Alto. Those guys are a wonderful, whacky subset of 
humanity. Me, I don't have the head for all the math. But theirs is a doomed 
attempt, since physical reality is also just a wonderful and whacky subset 
of absolute truth (IMO).

But I digress...

Toby