|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Low-priority)|
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Citation Link Returning 404 Error
Speaking of fractal landscapes... the bit about erosion is not entirely correct. There is fractal rivers by prof. Bardeen (avaliable in MojoWorld) that focuses on rivers, and "fractal erosion" by myself ( http://dmytry.pandromeda.com/mojoworld/erosion_fractal/home.html ) that focuses on weathering (& can do some rivers). Though I worry that it would be considered "inapporiate advertising" if I correct this page regarding the erosion effects. It would link to pandromeda too much, or allright? I need input from somebody who are "neutral", i.e. aren't "attached" to any fractal terrain rendering or generation software.
- Seems more than relevant to me. I for one am interested... Go ahead -Averisk
- I would be very interested in seeing some details of how the fractal erosion algorithm works.
This page does seem a bit Mojo-centric. How about some mention of the other very well known early (VistaPro, Scenery Animator), mid (Bryce) and contemporary (World Construction Set/Visual Nature Studio, World Builder, Vue d'Esprit) tools other than MojoWorld? -Chris Hanson, 3D Nature (makers of WCS/VNS)
Well, there are tow parts of processing a landscape: The first part uses random and displacement. It is correct written: The generated structures are not very natural and they are not really fractal. The results are more the chaotic part of fractals.
The second part is the simulation of erosion or other landscape forming processes. The author does not seem to be up to date. Nearly every software, which deals with landscapes, also offers erosion algorithm, even Bryce. The qualtiy of the terrains depend on the subdivision process as well as on the erosion. Two top leading landsape generators, GeoControl and Worldmachine, offer very powerful and realistic erosions combinded with different subdivisions. Although the landscapes are still not really realistic, they are getting more close to realism with every new upgrade. - Johannes Rosenberg Developer of GeoControl
It is worth noting that above-mentioned erosion methods, that are available in nearly every landscale software, simulate the erosion on a fixed-resolution height field, and most do not scale properly to different resolution (so its really not much of fractal here). Thus these are not relevant to fractal landscape generation. - Dmytry Lavrov (developer of erosion fractal). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"... disappointment to those who expect eroded mountains. ... many simple fractal processes do not mimic actual geological and weathering ..."
Discussion above seems to indicate that algorithms exist that are, to some extent, able to handle this. Can anyone drop me a link to such an algorithm, preferrably with an accessible explanation? It would be intersting, even though, or perhaps because, I haven't really done any landscaping. Shinobu 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Fractal images, art, landscapes, surfaces, etc.
I have started looking at these fractal surface articles, partly because Mandelbrot died last month ago and I thought it was about time to do something. Now, it seems to me that the hierarchy/categories here need to be fixed first. Namely:
- Computer generated imagery: which captures the entire spectrum, including animation.
- Fractal landscape: Which is a good start, but is rather dated now. And it is really more than just surfaces.
- Fractal art: Which is part of Computer generated imagery but is more than surfaces. I do not know that topic well enough, and do not know if these things really sell, etc. Ideas there will be useful. But far flung articles such as Orbit trap (which actually includes source code!) really need clean up.
- Algorithmic art of which Fractal art is sometimes an instance.
I think these fractal surface/art/landscape articles need a better hierarchical structure, and certainly 10 times more references than they have now. Suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- What are you proposing? creating an arts category? What are you trying to 'fix'? Although there are vast numbers of people who create 'fractal art', as far as I know, exactly zero of them are recognized by the capital-A Art Establishment (I might be wrong), but in my casual visits to art museums, galleries, shows, or browsing museum bookstores, etc. I've pretty much come across no fractal anything (or at least, I've blanked it, if I have). Although I do recall one interesting attempt at depicting hyperspace at the Art Institute of Chicago. Note that SIGGRAPH has a juried art show, which I regularly found quite mind-blowing, but I don't recall seeing anything fractal, even there. Notable, perhaps, is that the article fractal art fails to name a single 'fractal artist', well, other than the author of the 'fractal art manifesto', who seems to not be notable enough to rate a WP article. !? linas (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have added a bunch more references to the fractal art page. I have tried to validate its legitimacy as an art genre and clarify what it specifically encompasses. It still needs expanding to include computer generated imagery and its use in special effects. It also still needs to have a paragraph on its acceptance or lack thereof. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is because fractal images emerged from science labs outside of the mainstream art culture. I presume the same cultural cringe occurred when photography emerged. Now that anyone with a computer can download fractal software and render images it gets tagged as disastrous. Another factor is that fractals blur the division between science and art. I think it is best to be inclusive and think of art as having a broad scope, so fractal art should include landscape renders, film making techniques and fashion such as these shoes. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It started by my separating text from Computer generated imagery to computer animation to clean those pages. Now, the imagery article needs to include various sub-elements, of which computer generated natural landscapes are one. What I have obtained so far, from the post was a confirmation (by you) that the fractal art images remain mostly simplistic examples of art, and like myself no one will pay anything much for that type of art. The search on Google shows various artists as the "famous ones" but frankly if those are the great works, my condolences are offered to the field.
There is no article on Fractal surface, so that will probably need to be built, of which Brownian surface will be a case. I have added more refs to this article today, and more will be added, but I am not sure how to place Fractal surface and Fractal Fractal landscape into a nice ontology along with Algorithmic art, for some of this is hand adjusted after the fact. Now, from the great examples of art in the SIGGRAPH show which are the top 5 static examples that get the most dollars based on your recollection? That type of info should probably go into Computer art, or somewhere with refs. Or is it the case that the static examples are yesterday's items and the real art is in film now?
In any case: Wondering angels of Fractal arts about why Fractal art is not getting accepted. Is any static computer art getting accepted (i.e. paid for) these days? What I am trying to structure, and understand in the process, is how computer art is/is not succeeding outside the film industry. It seems that at the macro level algorithmic art remains too simplistic and it is only when multiple algorithmically generated surfaces are meshed into a piece of art (e.g. a landscape) some items of interest get generated. But I do not have all the answers, and Wikipedia is certainly not providing them for me. That situation should change anyway. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that there is any distinction between a Fractal surface and a Fractal landscape and I'l made the former redirect to the latter. Brownian surface also seems to discuss a similar thing and the definition there is a little fuzzy. All three define surfaces with height functions given by some sort of fractal formula.
- As to the wider question on a acceptance of fractal art, I think you are broadly right. You might want to have a look at The Bridges Organization: art and mathematics which hold a yearly mathematical art event.--Salix (talk): 11:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)