41:
53:
369:
195:
189:
423:. I think voters know enough to vote according to all of its aspects, not just the size. Though I do suppose that someone could create a version with different colors and attempt to pass it as FP. For now, I would say to pass this version, and only replace it with another version only if it is clearly superior, not just different or larger. --
572:. I've been doing fractals since, well, 20 years ago. Mandelbrot images are less than a dime a dozen. Yes, there should be *a* Mandelbrot featured picture. This isn't the one. Let's get something exceptional. Also, an image that showed the low numbers of orbits (1, 2...) more clearly would be more informative.
387:
The sequence starting with the image is particularly good, but for the first image we can do better. I have uploaded a picture that improves in several ways: size, framing less tight vertically, non cyclic colors, sharper boundary. Mmmmm the thumbnail doen't seem to show on screen, maybe 10000 pixel
505:
don't understand everything, but it looks very bad. I hope it can be fixed. For the moment, I've replaced the thumbnail with a 2500x2000 version (the 5000x4000 version has the same problems). We can't let the 10000x8000 thumbnail stay here, my browser slows down every time it tries to display it. --
504:
From what I see, there are still serious thumbnail problems with the 10000x8000 file. Knowledge (XXG) is actually serving the original full size image instead of a downscaled version (probably because it failed to create the thumbnail), and lets the users' browsers downscale the image themselves. I
469:
No worries there, PNGs are slow to resize, so when you choose a new resolution to display it will be unavailable for about 20 minutes, a couple hours tops(you can place it on a talk page at a size and wait for it to render, then place it into an article to avoid the dead image in the duration). All
400:
I feel embarassed after having given my strong support to the first version. Of course this one is better, and if we care to produce a larger and more detailed version it would be even better! What to do with this kind of images? It looks like a contest, similar to finding the largest known prime
300:
Assuming that the wikimedia software eventually resizes the image hehe, I support this version. While the rendering is plain, that is compatable with an encyclopedic goal, and the giant resolution gives details that one does not regularly see when looking at a screen sized version.
457:
The current High
Resolution image is not displayed on pages though. When it will be displayed on pages, I will Strongly Support it. And I want the new higher-resolution image to replace the old low-resolution image so that we do not have to relink all pages to the new image.
445:
Knowledge (XXG)'s best would be the one with more pixels. We do not have to choose between aesthetics and resolution, as the mediawiki software resizes large images for small displays. Any fractal can be redered to any size so why not 20mb? I say we use wikipedias best.
110:. These images can go a LOT bigger, in theory, so I think someone who was willing to use that much computer time could make a better one. However, it is very sharp and attractive, and I think that makes up for the size. Those zoom links are fun... --
410:
PS. The problem here is that a higher resolution version of some fractal not only shows a larger image but also reveals new and unexpected details, i.e., it can be considered as a new picture ! -
283:
This looks like the default settings on a fractal program. If you have never seen a fractal before then it is amazing, but if you have you will know that it is a very plain rendering(see
470:
you have to do is wait a while after a new size is chosen, subsequent uses of the image at the same size will be instant. In other words it is a temporary problem that fixes itself.
34:
142:- 1280x960 is a very high resolution for Knowledge (XXG). This is the best fractal image on Knowledge (XXG) so far. If a better one is created, we can always nominate that one. --
126:. Much better. This allows you to see the close up detail as well as the whole fractal. Now if the thumbnail issue can be fixed, I think we'll have ourselves a featured picture --
228:
I think the colormapping of the points just outside the boundary looks fantastic. I would love to see a higher-resolution version with the same colormapping.
669:
243:
649:
344:
17:
539:
I still think that 2500x2500 is enough to get the point across. It's not like something amazing occurs at the micro-level. It's just an
255:
174:
These mathematical monsters are fascinating creatures. Let's promote one to FP (the father); more and more beautiful will come after.
67:
Good high-resolution picture. Best picture of the
Mandelbrot set on Knowledge (XXG). Mathematics images are under-represented in
517:- 2500x2500 is fine. But I would recommend you get as high resolution as Knowledge (XXG) will display as thumbnail normally. --
60:
327:. I actually prefer this simple version to the more complicated ones. However, i prefer the darker blue of the smaller one.
401:
number in the world ! Should we put a limit to size and resolution of fractals and evaluate only the aesthetical aspects?
436:
I would go with aesthetics rather than resolution. An encyclopedia viewer does not need to look at a 1 Gigabyte image. --
420:
23:
655:
622:
613:
593:
576:
562:
547:
534:
521:
509:
488:
476:
462:
452:
440:
431:
414:
405:
392:
379:
362:
350:
319:
307:
292:
273:
259:
232:
220:
208:
178:
159:
146:
134:
118:
97:
84:
639:
334:
251:
644:
339:
284:
484:- if a resolution thumb shows up on all pages and the new version is replaced with original version. --
316:
247:
270:
605:
601:
the 2500x2000 version. An image isn't encyclopedic if the reader can't see it because it's so big. --
286:). Also a fractal can be limited in size only by the 20mb limit, I would want a much larger render.
589:
556:
Actually, it does not iterate, it is different in every location, subtly different, but different.
635:
619:
544:
518:
485:
459:
437:
330:
217:
143:
94:
81:
216:- And in my opinion, this one has better coloring and better perspective than the other ones. --
40:
573:
411:
402:
205:
175:
68:
610:
602:
204:
Yes, and beautiful they are. But this one is special, it is the whole
Mandelbrot set. -
585:
359:
229:
52:
663:
557:
506:
471:
447:
389:
302:
287:
376:
368:
194:
269:, although I agree with Tewy that a higher resolution image would be better.
540:
528:
425:
153:
128:
112:
188:
240:
Brilliant image of the
Mandelbrot set. Visual mathematical image.
51:
39:
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrotset
388:
wide png is too much. I will downscale if needed. --
151:
Yes, but it's a pretty typical resolution for FP. --
44:The Mandelbrot set, the most common example of a
59:link to the 2500x2000 version instead, and the
8:
482:Conditional Support High-Resolution Version
419:The only real limit to picture size is the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
375:Rather boring compared to existing ones --
631:Promoted Image:Mandelbrot set 2500px.png
93:- new version will not load on pages. --
526:Or just link to the larger version. --
186:: We already have two Mandelbrot FPs:
7:
670:Ended featured picture nominations
31:
367:
193:
187:
358:better than the existing ones.
1:
656:10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
623:22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
614:21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
594:05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
577:13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
563:04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
548:03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
535:03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
522:03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
510:02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
489:21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
477:21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
463:21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
453:20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
441:20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
432:20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
415:21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
406:19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
393:23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
380:22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
363:17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
351:17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
320:13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
308:23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
293:07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
274:19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
260:13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
233:00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
221:01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
209:00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
160:02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
135:01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
124:Strong support larger version
98:01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
57:10000x8000 version by Bernard
179:23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
147:23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
119:22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
85:20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
686:
298:Support 10000x8000 version
172:Support Bernard version
325:Support Larger Version
64:
49:
246:comment was added by
55:
43:
315:. Great picture! --
171:
65:
50:
561:
475:
451:
306:
291:
263:
169:
22:(Redirected from
677:
652:
647:
642:
560:
531:
474:
450:
428:
371:
347:
342:
337:
305:
290:
241:
197:
191:
156:
131:
115:
91:Support original
63:version is here.
27:
685:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:
674:
660:
659:
650:
645:
640:
584:for version 2.
529:
426:
345:
340:
335:
282:
242:—The preceding
154:
129:
113:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
683:
681:
673:
672:
662:
661:
628:
627:
626:
625:
596:
579:
567:
566:
565:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
467:
466:
465:
417:
395:
382:
365:
353:
322:
310:
295:
278:
276:
264:
238:Strong Support
235:
223:
211:
199:
181:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
137:
103:
102:
101:
37:
35:Mandelbrot Set
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
682:
671:
668:
667:
665:
658:
657:
654:
653:
648:
643:
638:
637:
632:
624:
621:
620:Ineffable3000
617:
616:
615:
612:
609:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
575:
571:
568:
564:
559:
555:
549:
546:
545:Ineffable3000
542:
538:
537:
536:
533:
532:
525:
524:
523:
520:
519:Ineffable3000
516:
513:
512:
511:
508:
503:
500:
490:
487:
486:Ineffable3000
483:
480:
479:
478:
473:
468:
464:
461:
460:Ineffable3000
456:
455:
454:
449:
444:
443:
442:
439:
438:Ineffable3000
435:
434:
433:
430:
429:
422:
418:
416:
413:
409:
408:
407:
404:
399:
396:
394:
391:
386:
383:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
364:
361:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
343:
338:
333:
332:
326:
323:
321:
318:
314:
311:
309:
304:
299:
296:
294:
289:
285:
281:
277:
275:
272:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
239:
236:
234:
231:
227:
224:
222:
219:
218:Ineffable3000
215:
212:
210:
207:
203:
200:
196:
190:
185:
182:
180:
177:
173:
167:
161:
158:
157:
150:
149:
148:
145:
144:Ineffable3000
141:
138:
136:
133:
132:
125:
122:
121:
120:
117:
116:
109:
108:
104:
100:
99:
96:
95:Ineffable3000
92:
88:
87:
86:
83:
82:Ineffable3000
79:
78:
74:Nominate and
73:
72:
71:
70:
62:
58:
54:
47:
42:
36:
33:
25:
19:
634:
633:
630:
629:
606:
598:
581:
569:
527:
514:
501:
481:
424:
397:
384:
372:
355:
329:
328:
324:
317:JustVisiting
312:
297:
279:
266:
248:70.146.51.15
237:
225:
213:
201:
183:
168:
152:
139:
127:
123:
111:
107:Weak support
106:
105:
90:
89:
76:
75:
66:
56:
45:
618:I agree. --
421:20 MB limit
412:Alvesgaspar
403:Alvesgaspar
271:Warriorness
226:Weak oppose
206:Alvesgaspar
176:Alvesgaspar
61:10000x8000
586:TomStar81
541:iteration
360:Borisblue
230:Spebudmak
664:Category
558:HighInBC
472:HighInBC
448:HighInBC
303:HighInBC
288:HighInBC
256:contribs
244:unsigned
636:Nautica
599:Support
582:Support
574:Stevage
515:Comment
507:Bernard
502:Comment
398:Comment
390:Bernard
385:Comment
377:Fir0002
356:support
331:Nautica
313:Support
267:Support
214:Comment
202:Comment
184:Comment
170:Strong
140:Comment
77:support
46:fractal
570:Oppose
373:Oppose
280:Oppose
69:WP:FPC
611:oHelp
16:<
641:Shad
603:Here
590:Talk
543:. --
530:Tewy
427:Tewy
336:Shad
252:talk
192:and
155:Tewy
130:Tewy
114:Tewy
80:. -
666::
592:)
458:--
258:)
254:•
651:s
646:e
607:T
588:(
346:s
341:e
262:.
250:(
198:.
48:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
