There are less general comments to make about the images every day, but there are some points still not mentioned yet.

Most of these images were made much before than the now common 16:9 format became the default size (I guess it’s the default now, at least for LCD screens, isn’t it?). UltraFractal’s default size when you just install it and opens the default image is a 400 x 300 px image (or was, at least), in the standard (and already old?) 4:3 format. It was the common size used for ages, with all these very known sizes like 320 x 240, 640 x 480, 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768.

A very few of the new images (so far) were already made using this new 16:9 format, mostly some I did while trying to create wallpapers for myself and the old ones won’t – and can’t – be converted to 16:9. Sometimes they use specific techniques that if the original fractal is converted to a different size/proportion, will ruin the image. Like the kaleidoscope transformation, sometimes some invert transformations and so on. If in the original fractal software it can’t be “resized” like that most of the times, imagine trying to do it with an image editor just by stretching/shrinking things here and there. It doesn’t work. As the image is meant to fit in that specific “frame” (which is its proportion), most of the times the image will have to be cropped pretty much like that old VHS tape you converted to DVD to fit in a new proportion, or else something like these black bars will have to be added to compensate for something wrong in the proportion or some other odd “filling” stuff will have to be made. And adding “black bars” to a fractal isn’t a very pleasant thing to see. So, the images were kept in their original sizes.

I start making images most of the time using a default image size in UltraFractal (which I’ve kept in the original parameters just for convenience), and this is sometimes changed if there’s too much “white space” or something around an image, empty and useless areas, or if the main “theme” of the image is more symmetric (and has a 1:1 proportion) or if something needs to be cut out of it, then the image is cropped/resized and it’s not in the 4:3 proportion anymore. This is why sometimes there are some weird “non-traditional” sizes, like instead of 800 x 600 it’s 800 x 475 or something like that. Sometimes even adding a new layer makes it necessary to the original aspect of the image to be changed, for several reasons.

There are some images though that might be resized and even have some new interesting details appearing from these previously “hidden” areas, it’s always a surprise. In some images it’s not really possible (and I think I know which ones before even trying), but for a few “landscapes” it can work, and they can be sort of “expanded”.

Also, all the images are rendered using the 72dpi resolution option, no exception, for their online versions. This happens for 2 reasons. The images rendered in this resolution were meant to be used just for being displayed here, and it’s not necessary to have a bigger resolution than that. Also, as they are meant to be used just here, there’s no need to render them in a printable resolution if you know what I mean. I could get some good print results even with 100dpi (depends on the image, of course), let alone 300dpi or more. Having them ready to print… it’s a gift some would certainly like and misuse.

A brief note on colours and Fractint: if I say an image was done in Fractint, it wasn’t changed at all in UF, UF was just used for rendering because it can make the image to have more than the default 256 colours of Fractint, and this is sometimes very necessary to smooth out some areas. I could just let them be “pure” by just using the Fractint’s GIFs, but it’s not really something that will improve the image or make it better. If a single change was made to a Fractint image, it’s listed as UF + Fractint or something like that.

Related Images: