Fractal eXtreme recognizes these and avoids calculating every pixel in these regions (it is very conservative in order to avoid errors). 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. ![]() 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 Comments
Leave a Reply. |