Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 20:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zoom on Mandelbrot set
  •  Info created by User:Simpsons contributor - uploaded by Franklin.vp - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Zoom on the Mandelbrot set by more than 31 orders of magnitude. The scale difference from start to end is equivalent to zooming from the 100,000 light-year diameter of the milky way to a 0.1 nm diameter of a single hydrogen atom atom in one take! Doing this requires a lot of care dealing with precise floating point computations, efficient algorithms and represents 136 hours of computations on six processor cores. I think the resolution is well chosen in the respect of achieving a reasonable file size and the possibility to replay the animation with a satisfactory high frame rate on most computers. Much care has been taken to choose color palettes giving the maximum beauty and wow. Much more rudimentary versions of this was personally one of the things that triggered me into initiating science studies back in 1991, seeing that mathematics is cool! and wanting to understand this stuff. Hopefully this animation one can trigger new young people into thinking the same... --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - a classic. (PS shouldn't the link to the Java source code mentioned in en-wp-fpc be added to the file page?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source code is available here if somebody would like to add that link to the image. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the link on the image description page. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I screwed up in my edit. Fixed now. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The Simpsons Contributor (creator) voting here too! The last few frames wobble due to the breakdown of DoubleDouble (emulated 128-bit floating point) numbers at that point. Double primitives (64-bit floating point numbers) break down just slightly after entering the first Julia set. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could. Some people say it's appropriate (to show precision breakdown) and some don't. There's more info here --SimsContPics (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have a personal preference for keeping the last few frames showing the breakdown of the 128 bit precision floats used as I find it has an educational element. In practise you just cannot keep on zooming, as, although you can numerically use arbitrary precision floating point, you will hit (much harder) a computational wall, where you simply do not have the computing resources available to keep on zooming, so at some stage you just have to stop. On the other hand, I think such Mandelbrot set animations are typically shown in zoom regimes where numerical precision is not a problem, and maybe for the more casual viewer it would be better to cut the frames off? What you could do is upload an alternative under a new filename (as this file is currently being considered at WP:FPC, where the trend is to keep the wobbling frames, so it should keep those frames in the present file name). The alternative can then be put up for voting together with this and we can see, which one is preferred by the reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The wobbling is a property of how you've calculated it, not a property of the fractal. That's why I think it's less timeless with wobbles. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there is no pixelated version for the DoubleDouble animation, this one goes right to the last frame I made (the old rainbow images might still be available on Wikipedia). On the subject of resolution, the first animation was 640x480 and that was something like 80MB+. --SimsContPics (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, then forget about a pixelated version. For certain applications, a higher res 640×480 pixels, large file size version could certainly also be interesting - but just keep them under separate file names such that users can decide which to use depending on the use case. Would you be able to generate the same zoom sequence as this in 640×480 pixels with the same per/pixel high fidelity (except at the very end of course)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've uploaded the 82.8MB 640x480 (File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif) version. Could you add the particulars to the file description? (Slight change: this uses 3x supersampling, not 6x) Thanks. --SimsContPics (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Added the particulars. Please check that it is OK. I also linked to it from the file page of the nominated animation. You know, you could do this yourself? --Slaunger (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't used WC much. All the details are right. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please  Keep the wobbling frames, but please document them in the file page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite simple for me to upload a new version without those last few frames, shall I do that? I certainly agree that there is educational value, so to speak, in leaving those last frames in. When I made my first basic double precision “rainbow” zoom I zoomed past the point of breakdown until the image pixelated for the same reason and I made that part of the description. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have value independent of this nomination to upload both a version without any wobbling as well as a version, where you proceeed with the zoom to see the complete numerical breakdown with pixelation and everything (using two new file names on Commons). You should then link this media file to the other versions using the other_versions parameter of the {{Information}} template.--Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif

[edit]

Zoom on Mandelbrot set
  •  Support This higher resolution version. Users can use the low-res one if that is better for their application, but it seems to me that we should feature the high-res one. My only concern is that this will cause 80MB downloads for everyone viewing the galleries. Is there a way to stop this (Perhaps a special warning on the animations gallery?). --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's complicating things. The smaller version is much more suited to most networks (it took about ten minutes for me to upload it with cable internet). It might be better to just leave this article to the subject of featuring the original size, or maybe featuring a set of images in which both are part of a set (like the still zoom in gallery of Wikipedia's Mandelbrot article) --SimsContPics (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Alternatives are always complications, but we have a voting mechanism that handles them. I don't think a set is the way to go here because the images don't bring anything significantly different to the table except for size. It's easy for a user to chose their size from the "alternate versions" section of the image page. My main point is that this version is more in line with the guidelines: we do not know how these images will be used in the future, so it is better not to downsample (especially when the dimensions are actually small, as they are here). --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think it terms of image size and especially file size 320x240 is internet practical; 640x480 is not. Few people have the patience to wait for a 80+MB image to open and I don't think the animation is better even when open. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Prefer this higher resolution version for future compatibility. PS please document that wobbling on the image page. PPS there is a slightly related discussion going on on the VI talk page regarding featuring videos or animations if anyone would be interested to share their view on that. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I am torn about the resolution question. On one side I agree with 99of9 that it is in the spirit of COM:FPC to go for the highest possible resoution as we have to have also future developments in mind. On the other hand I also think the creator has a pretty strong argument that at present this high resolution version is unpractical due to its file size and bandwidth limitations and its (in)ability to be shown in the intended frame rate on most present day computers. Since we have both we could in a few years delist the "small" one and feature this instead if progression in technology and badwidth matches this. Finally, this whole resolution discussion is actually also due to the fact that animations are only covered very sparsely in the present guidelines, which are very much focused on still images. Maybe it would be time to give animations and video some more special attention, i.e., by making a Featured videos (sub?)-project. That is, move animated gifs out of the FPC scope and into a FVC scope and treat them on an equal footing as videos (.og*) and then make specialised video guidelines for those media types? --Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Which one is going to be featured? It seems that people withdrawing all their votes for image a and voting for image b is an unusual move. I've given up trying to keep track of what's going on now. --SimsContPics (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting closes on February 9, so at that time we will know. When there are alternatives the procedure is this
    1. Check which version(s) fulfill the criteria for being promoted (if any)
    2. If more than one version fulfills promotion critera, select the one with most support
  • That said, there is a slight risk that vote moving will deplete the intial overwhelming support for the original such that there is a risk that none of them gets featured (which would be a pity as clearly the Community is in favor of promoting this Mandelbrot zoom). But let's see what happens, still plenty of time. A reviewer can also support both versions, so it does not have to be vote moving (I just added a vote, as I abstained from the original to retain a balance). --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a risk that all support is being sucked away from the original image now. I wish we could just stick to the original one. --SimsContPics (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stress. There are well more than 10 votes in total, so at least one will get 5. Relax and watch the fun! --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support What about delisting previous fractal FP's? This animation explains the concept, while the previous FP's are "simply cute", nothing else. --S23678 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment To my knowledge, we have two related FPs in our archives already: One of a Julia Set, the other one a single image from a particularly esthetically pleasing region of the Mandelbrot Set. Now, the Julia Set is not the same as a Mandelbrot Set (although related), so I think it would be fair to have an FP of a Julia Set as it is also very well known. That said, I do not fancy the colors in that one. I also think a single high-res image of the Mandelbrot Set is OK to have featured in parallel with a zoom animation, as you do not really have the oppertunity to study the detailed structure when watching a zoom animation. For this purpose a single, well-chosen high-resolution image is better IMO. Moreover, the visual appearance is greatly dependent on the chosen color palette, which I think is very well chosen in the FP we have today, albeit I could have wished for a substantially larger resolution of that FP. We also have a 3D FP of the Menger sponge, which is also fractal, but of an entirely different nature. That one should certainly not be nominated for delisting IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per nom. Durova (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated
The chosen alternative is: File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif&oldid=35320152"