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? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer