custom outcoloring modes - 'acid pixel soup' problem

50 views
Skip to first unread message

L.L.

unread,
Jan 17, 2011, 10:22:30 AM1/17/11
to xaos-users
Hi people!

1. Great and unlimited kudos for the developers team. XaoS is THE best
fractal explorer out there.

2. I have a problem with outcoloring - in most regions of the
mandelbrot set under high iterations (500+) all combinations save for
'potential' yield an unwatchable acid pixel soup. The 'potential' mode
however is not very elastic. I've read at the group that a mode like
'iter^n' or a logarithmic pallette could do the trick; and some
fractal generating software have as a default an option to 'spread'
the pallette. Is it possible to do something like this from the
command line of XaoS or do a similar thing in another unobtrusive way
that doesn't require me to compile the whole thing down from source
code? Maybe I just don't see something, but I went through the
documentation, the group archive and seem to be stuck.

Thanks,
L.L.

Nathaniel Simone

unread,
Jul 30, 2014, 12:02:15 AM7/30/14
to xaos-...@googlegroups.com
This is the only big problem I've found with XaoS, and it is extremely frustrating. I haven't found any way to fix it, and unfortunately it looks like the developers don't even care anymore.

Rabelais

unread,
Jul 30, 2014, 2:17:14 PM7/30/14
to xaos-...@googlegroups.com
Yes....feeling frustrated myself about these issues (see my recent post) and despite not speaking C (yet) or having any experience of compiling, I'm considering having a crack at it.  My maths is ok, I've been writing Mandelbrot stuff in basic since the 80's (Atari - days to render a screen). First attempts to compile Xaos from source have been miserable failures, prob sthg obvious. My reason is I'm developing animations using Xaos as the engine and vb to generate xaf files, but the palette is almost uncontrollable
Geoff

Nathaniel Simone

unread,
Jul 30, 2014, 6:15:18 PM7/30/14
to xaos-...@googlegroups.com
I have some minimal experience with C, and I may be able to implement the "iter^n" method suggested by the OP. I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to try, though.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages