Talk:Buddhabrot

message: I'm pretty sure this is named after "Laughing Buddha"/Budai depictions, and not after Buddha. Buddha is traditionally described as very skinny, which doesn't really match these images. Khim1 (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Buddha

message: Why do the image captions explicitly state everywhere, whether a picture is rotated or not? The axes can be chosen arbitrarily anyway; the choice of the axes does not make one picture more correct or more original than any other. Or is it really stated anywhere, that the real axis should be horizontal and the imaginary one vertical?? I doubt it. — Pt (T) 21:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Orientation

message: add a picture of it upside down pleaseOxinabox1 11:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picture of it upside down

message: Does the phrase "Melinda Green (then Daniel Green)" refer to a single person?  It's not clear from the wording at the moment.   — Lee J Haywood 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the reference and explanation regarding Daniel in the article, but I am leaving it here for some measure of fairness, since it is "public knowledge". It is bad form to refer to someone as "Jill (used to be Jack)" especially if it adds nothing to the discourse and leaving it out would remove nothing. Lets be good sports about this. --Lionelbrits 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Melinda Green did not do what is claimed here, since she was not Melinda Green. The situation is no different than a reference to activities of a now-married woman before her name was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.171.5 (talk) 4 August 2007
The problem is that the usenet post I cited gives the name Daniel Green, so without some explanation it makes no sense. Evercat 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: To me it looks more like the head of a tiger, or a fox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehagido (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha? 

message: :Previous researchers had come very close to finding the precise Buddhabrot technique. In 1988 Linas Vepstas relayed images of the Buddhabrot to Cliff Pickover for inclusion in Pickover's forthcoming book Computers, Pattern, Chaos, and Beauty. This led directly to the discovery of Pickover stalks. These researchers did not filter out non-escaping trajectories required to produce the ghostly forms typically reminiscent of Hindu art. Green first named it Ganesh, since an Indian co-worker "instantly recognized it as the god 'Ganesha' which is the one with the head of an elephant." The name Buddhabrot was coined later by Lori Gardi.
This is confusing. It makes it sound like they were looking for the Buddhabrot technique. I presume they were just trying things and they came close to producing the Buddhabrot but didn't. Also, it seems to suggest they sent Buddhabrot images even though it also implies that these aren't actually Buddhabrot images since it says Daniel/Melinda Green invented it and that they only came close i.e. it contradicts itself. Nil Einne 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: Hi there, with a new account, I still cannot upload images. I'd like to extend the text with the following interpretation:
The Buddahbrot can be seen as an overlay convergence-image of maps of the complex plane onto itself under different powers of the Mandel iteration z^2+c. Therefore, a natural way of coloring is to use a color map of the complex plane, then do successive iterations and pile color information in the overlay image. Through this You can track to some extent, which points from the original complex plane result in which structures in the buddhabrot fractal. In order to obtain a good image, one uses minuite random fluctuations in the starting point positions so that several passes enable to generate a stable image. 
Using this technique with all points, here's a first result: (have a look at wkw gruppe fraktale). Wikistallion (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that these alternative rendering variations and the further additions that Wikistallion followed-up with belong here because if they did, then there are all sorts of other variations that would then also seem to belong as well. At best, I think the idea of moving the pixels of an image under the control of a fractal function deserves it's own parallel page. Also, the suggestion of randomizing initial points taken from a grid is not really an improvement over sampling completely random points. My inclination is to simply remove this section as not really adding much to the particular topic but I thought I'd best declare my intent here to give others a chance to weigh in first. If nobody says anything in a month or two then I'll do that. Cutelyaware (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  After waiting 8 months without objection, I removed the Renderings section as planned. I also removed redundant images and the text describing impressions of similarity to faces and viscosity. Cutelyaware (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Because rendering Buddhabrot involves potentially iterating twice over each sample (once to test if it escapes, and again to plot its path if it does), it is more computationally intensive than standard Mandelbrot rendering techniques.
This is not exactly true. Since the first iteration, which is used to check whether the sample escapes or not, yields the exact same results as the second iteration, which is used to plot its path, one could just buffer the series of Z during the first iteration and use the buffer to plot the path if the sample escapes. I'm using this in my application and it works just fine - no need to do the same work twice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.170.68 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendering

message: :Because rendering Buddhabrot involves potentially iterating twice over each sample (once to test if it escapes, and again to plot its path if it does), it is more computationally intensive than standard Mandelbrot rendering techniques.
This is not exactly true. Since the first iteration, which is used to check whether the sample escapes or not, yields the exact same results as the second iteration, which is used to plot its path, one could just buffer the series of Z during the first iteration and use the buffer to plot the path if the sample escapes. I'm using this in my application and it works just fine - no need to do the same work twice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.170.68 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendering complexity

message: Another rendering of the Buddhabrot is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buddhabrot-red-rotated.png  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.206.69 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhabrot (red-rotated)

message: Quit surprised by the move/renaming of the page. Of the three references two refer to it as Buddhabrot and the first is its initial announcement before it had been given a name. The other external links also confirm that Buddhabrot is the generally accepted name.--Salix (talk): 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move/renaming 

message: I really like the images of the BB with different numbers of iterations. I'm a non-techie,but everywhere else, such progressions are depicted in ascending order, with the first image showing the lowest number of iterations, and succeeding images showing the emerging Set as the iterations become more numerous. 
I can't see why this is reversed here. It's like showing depictions of the development of human being, STARTING with a man, and then with later pictures ending up showing him as a new-born. Once again, I'm a non-techie, but this one puzzles me. Myles325a (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  iterations back the front 

message: It looks like Cartman wearing a tuque with a pompom on top.Doubledork (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like Cartman 

message: The five images that depict the Buddhabrot with increasing iterations don't open properly. A white image is all that is displayed when I click for a larger version. Would it be inappropriate for me to replace them with my own, non-white versions? I'd put up equivalent images with the same iterations and all. Or is there a way to restore the originals back? Lucky Potatoe (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuances - Section 

message: In the section "Nuances" there is an image of the Buddhabrot with 1Million iterations. It is asymetrical around the Real Number Line which the actual Buddhabrot is of course not. I understand, this article concentrates also on the aesthetic aspects of the subject and I would dislike seeing the image removed but maybe a comment would be needed. I myself, when I saw the Image a few years ago and quite new at University have taken from this (impressive) image a misconception of the structure in complex numbers away. I am not that sure what to change in the article. || JulSwrd (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not exactly wrong. Ideally you would continue the process until the image was completely converged, but at very high iterations, it could take prohibitively long to get a converged result. And the structure that gets generated along the way (what you see here) is quite interesting in its own right because it does let you see some of the behavior of those complex trajectories. The asymmetry is because the programmer didn't mirror all the plotted points as a timesaving device. There's a fair amount of room here for creative expression while staying true to the technique. It's just helpful to understand what you're looking at. Cutelyaware (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the section on how it's done, there this sentence: "Next, a random sampling of {\displaystyle c}c points are iterated through the Mandelbrot function.". Since it's a random sampling of points, you may end up with a different set of points on either side of the image. This is normal. Of course, the more points you start with, the more even and detailed it would look. I would like to regenerate these images with vastly more points. I think that with modern computers it should be possible to generate much better Buddhabrots than the images from 2008. dllu (t,c) 09:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly welcome to generate better images, though if you sample enough points to get a fully converged image, then you can get the same result in half the time by mirroring the points as you plot them. In other words, not doing that mirroring only makes sense if you're not going to take it all the way to convergence. Cutelyaware (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for clarifying. I might actually do some renderings to convergence in the future.  ||JulSwrd (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Just be sure to permanently save your array of exit values, because you'll probably want to experiment with how to turn those into intensity (pixel) values. A linear ramp produces poor results. Histogram equalization seems to be a natural approach.Cutelyaware (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,000,000 Iterations Image 

message: I've just written a fairly fast program to generate high resolution Buddhabrots. GitHub link. And here is an example 16384 × 16384 file with 2000 iterations: (LARGE 96 MB FILE) dllu (t,c) 05:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also just uploaded 16384 × 16384 Nebulabrot. On my 12-core computer this took merely 10 minutes to generate. The parameters were chosen to be the same as :File:Nebulabrot (5000, 500, 50).png but my gamma correction etc were different and my number of samples and escape radius may also have been different. dllu (t,c) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New Open Source Buddhabrot generator