$Ultra fractal vs apophysis$

From that point on, you are using UF to strictly manipulate that imported photo. At best, the introduction of a photo into UF5 results in a work that is more accurately described as 'mixed-media.' At worst, bringing in a photo means that all fractal work in UF is immediately done.

$ultra fractal vs apophysis$

Practically speaking, once a photo (or Bryce creation, or Terragen landscape, or Poser figure, etc.) is imported into UF5, the work can no longer be said to be 'Made with UF.' It is only 'Processed in UF' - hence my suggestion that UF has now become a paint program. Gargantuan image sizes, like those preferred by the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest, might make the import feature of little value unless users think ahead and import only photos at a resolution that will not disintegrate when printed at the size of a plasma television. The bitmaps won't be scalable like the fractal elements will be because they're not vectorized. Incorporating photos into UF may be a real challenge when it comes to making a high res file for printing. Photos, in short, are unlike fractal images.ДЄnd here's one limitation from a technical standpoint. They have no parameters beyond that of a bitmap and are not the products of some other process. Photos, on the other hand, are 'dead' imagery they are static. I'd point out that is exactly how most people would describe a Photoshop plug-in. Popcorn, I'm assuming, is like a rendering effect that modifies the fractal-generated image but doesn't create anything on its own. I would draw a line between algorithms and bitmaps (photos). The introduction of imported photographs dramatically redraws the boundaries and shifts UF's focus from fractal production to graphics processing. I think we all would agree with a statement that fractal art is 'art with fractals.' But are we now also ready to agree that fractal art can also be 'art without fractals'? UF5's image importation feature will quickly allow any user to now do something similar with considerably less craft and effort. Paul DeCelle's work to reconstruct paintings using UF proved a fractal-less creation was possible through his personal vision and skill. Again, you have a work and a parameter file that is 0% fractal. Import your image, run Popcorn through it, and save. With the advent of refined image importation in UF5, something similar can now be done in UF. (Note, too, that a strict reading of Townsend's definition would likely exclude any - if not all - post-processing.)

$ultra fractal vs apophysis$

I was, in effect, post-processing a fractal with another fractal program. I have, in fact, sometimes imported fractals made in other programs (like QuaSZ) into Xenodream and put them through this process. More importantly, I used Xenodream strictly as a graphics program. I now have a Xenodream parameter file that is 0% fractal. Xenodream allows me to save both an image file (.jpg. I import a photograph into the lighting features of Xenodream, add an effect like Wild Glass, and save my work.

$ultra fractal vs apophysis$

I fear the answer is not as simple as Mark Townsend suggests when he notes that fractal art, for the most part, refers to 'images created with 'fractal' programs.' Take this situation. We - as artists, programmers, theorists, and viewers - should begin a conversation over what we consider 'fractal art' to be and speak up as to whether our perceptions of the art form should expanded or restricted. UF5 will almost certainly kick-start a paradigm shift as to how fractal art is seen and will raise serious questions about what fractal art can and cannot be. I believe UF5 has brought fractal art to a critical crossroads. I thought I'd try writing a post, in a straight-forward and non-sarcastic manner, that tries to clarify my concerns about Ultra Fractal 5.

$Ultra fractal vs apophysis$