On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 06:21:47PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:

> So the huge image you generated is a fractal? Isn't it a bit silly to
> render such images (especially if they are huge) with GIMP, where all
> of the image's pixels are kept in memory (or the tile cache) all the
> time? Aren't many fractals such that you could calculate the value of
> each pixel independently of the others, with a very simple and minimal
> (non-interactive) program?

You're right. If you could tell me such a program... I would have used
it. The nearest approximation was xfractint but it's cumbersome to use
and doesn't have a gradient editor (and I'm not sure whether it's
capable of rendering 20000x14000 pixel images). ;-)

> (And if your desired output file format is PostScript, why not let the
> printer do the job ;-) PostScript is after all a programming
> language... Just send the printer a PostScript program that calculates
> the desired image. For many fractals, it might be surprisingly short.)

Muhahaha. The printer took about 8 hours to RIP the precalculated stuff.
The Xeon/2.4GHz took about an hour to render the fractal. I thought
about that, but I'm not familiar with Postscript (I guess, the gradient
stuff would be the most complicated - I used a custom gradient).

Bye, Tino.

             * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to