Guessing: Despite its chaotic nature the Mandelbrot set has many large areas with a constant iteration count. Some of them are stationary frames at the beginning, but because the zoom speed drops at the end a higher percentage of the frames are towards the end where rendering takes longer, so the ratio of 9,360:916 is probably pretty reasonable and FX does about ten times less work. The original render ran at 30 frames per second for 312 seconds, for a total of 9,360 frames. Interpolation: The original render calculated every frame, whereas Fractal eXtreme calculates key frames, separated by a magnification increase of 2.0. So, I suspect the total CPU power available is close to identical. Sandybridge is really fast, but my laptop CPU has a max clock speed that is a lot lower than on desktop parts, and the hyperthreads aren’t as powerful as real cores, and I’ve got fewer total threads. I’m using a four-core eight-thread 2011 Sandybridge laptop CPU. So where did the speedups come from?ĭifferent computers: The original render used three quad-core computers of 2009 vintage.
I had expected FX to be faster, but 240 times faster was more than I had expected. These are discussed here and here – that second link also discusses making a 4K version of this same movie. That’s 240 times as fast.Īfter doing this experiment I also added some new features to FX to allow the creation of better quality zoom movies. I’ve worked pretty hard at optimizing Fractal eXtreme’s calculations so I decided to see how long it would take FX to render the exact same movie. The video was of an interesting area, but what really caught my eye was the information that the video took six months to render.
#Fractal zoom video movie
A few weeks ago while browsing YouTube for Fractal movies I came across a video that claimed to be (as of its post date of January 26, 2010) the deepest zoom movie on YouTube.
0 kommentar(er)
