HOME | DD

HalTenny In reply to mcgaelicgal [2014-07-22 15:41:15 +0000 UTC]

An oldie but goodie, thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mcgaelicgal In reply to HalTenny [2014-07-23 06:15:35 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to moonhigh [2012-12-06 17:18:16 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to JonLouq [2011-02-21 23:15:22 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to 3x3 [2011-02-07 22:41:42 +0000 UTC]

I Don't know, I have used the same exact settings on -aboxes... this [link] and this [link] are both negative amazingboxes using rotate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to Ellygator [2011-02-07 22:44:03 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! Sometimes it can be hard to get a decent mix of blue gold on these. Usually to much or not enough blue, can't seem to hit it just the way I want.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to pixelcomposer [2011-02-07 22:44:34 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to winklepickers [2011-02-06 16:52:17 +0000 UTC]

That's great! I'm glad he liked them, it means a lot to me! I have an AMD 3.4ghz 4 core machine and it took around 8 minutes to render using 3 cores. After the render was done, I spent another ten minutes or so adjusting the color, then selected a different ambient shadow setting which took another few minutes for the program to calculate.

Thanks very much for the compliment!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

winklepickers In reply to HalTenny [2011-02-06 17:48:40 +0000 UTC]

Ah OK.
I only have a 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo on a Mac,( I had to copy that as I don't understand at all. ) on which I run Parallels for Windows XP. I use 4Go of memory divided between the two.
So big fractals are long to appear and to render. ~Zooreka told me it needed a 4 core system. Well I'll just have to be patient as the Mac still works well.

My husband doesn't usually look at what I do. I told him to come and see. He's 75 soon, but we still feel young even if we look old.

Now I must get some food ready.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to fractal2cry [2011-02-06 17:24:55 +0000 UTC]

I don't do anything special. First I select the high setting where it says preview, video, mid and high... This has a default render size of 3072x width by whatever height. The reason being that when you size it down for posting or viewing, you are basically showing more resolution in a smaller image. Think of it this way. If you take a 50x50 avatar and enlarge it to 1000x1000, it will look like crap, just a bunch of boxes. The reverse is true when you take a large image, say 3000x3000 and reduce it to 600x600. It will look great! So always select the high setting. You also may need to check your render settings under the calculations tab. Here are the settings I use. (I'm not saying these are the best settings, they are simply what I use)

DE stop: 2
Raystep multiplier: 0.05
Stepwidth limiter: 1 - (New setting in version 1691 I leave at default)
Step count for binary search: 12
Smooth normals: 7 (I've read that anything above 2 or 3 doesn't help much but I use 7 anyway )
Any boxes that are checked by default, I leave checked.

Sometimes renders that aren't clear may simply be caused by certain formulas you use (that don't play well together) and some of the settings you use on the formula variables too. Hope this helps!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fractal2cry In reply to HalTenny [2011-02-06 19:48:34 +0000 UTC]

halTenny ty so much 4 taking the time 2 tell em this.i looked at fractaforums & did some adjustments but image still kinda crappy i will go by ur suggestions & try ty once again

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HalTenny In reply to SuicideBySafetyPin [2011-02-07 22:44:39 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0