Talk:Fractal flame
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Systems rating: | Start Class | Mid importance | Field: Chaos theory | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
[edit] Editor
Why is Scott Draves (Spot) editing an article about his own project? This is blatant shameless self-promotion and hawking of wares in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV.--Editor5435 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you complaining about an editor who has edited a page you clearly act as if you own? (Fractal Compression) You should stick to your knitting and don't go causing trouble for other people. Spot's edits to this page are very much in the minority. RussNelson (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Not advertising, but a valid algorithm
I don't agree with Editor5435; fractal flames are, as far as I am aware, a type of mathematical algorithm that "belong" to math and not any one person. I don't think Scott Draves should be editing his own article, but his applications don't seem to be aggressively advocated or advertised, and with some points on the weaknesses of the algorithm (for which some kind of expert is necessary), the article would have a NPOV. I think editing is the solution, not deletion. Notostraca (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware from the available literature, Scott Draves invented fractal flames, wrote the algorithm and the source code. The authoritative document was (and this makes sense) written by him and is located here: [1]. However, he doesn't "own" them as the application is open source. Draves should welcome educated comments on algorithm and code from authorities on the topic, as his entire career is founded on open-source and collaborative principles (just like Wikipedia itself!).
Fractal Flames have been incorporated into several subsequent graphics programs, including a photoshop plugin (see http://www.andrewdavidson.com/aeflame/AEFlame.txt):
"DOES A VERSION OF AEFLAME EXIST AS A PHOTOSHOP PLUGIN? HEY, ISN'T THIS THE SAME THING AS THAT FRACTAL FILTER IN KPT 5?"
"AEFlame is based on flame GNU source code written by Scott Draves. Scott rewrote flame for inclusion in Kai's Power Tools 5, a PhotoShop plugin set for Mac and Windows that also includes many more plugins than just flame. It is called "FraxFlame" in KPT5. The renderings in AEFlame and FraxFlame are very similar because they are based on the same core concepts."
It doesn't make sense to me that notability should be in question here; the only POV I see is that flames are arguably "more beautiful" when rendered a certain way which is purely subjective opinion and should probably be deleted; I don't understand which part of it "reads like an advertisement"; and I think the person who posted complaints about this article has an axe to grind against Draves for personal reasons and therefore may not be looking at the community's best interests in his comments about articles related to Draves. Thank you, Isabelwh--Isabelwh (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- The code wasn't rewritten for KPT it was relicensed. At that time nobody had yet contributed so I had the copyright on the whole source and was able to license it for proprietary use. Spot (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Created in"
it's debatable if flames are created or discovered i think to avoid this, the term "rendered" should be used any thoughts? 212.56.120.244 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- there are several uses of the the word "create" in the article and i'm not sure which ones you mean, but to me, "render" refers to solving the equation and generating an image output. But the flame must also be designed, the equation parameters picked. This is why the word "create" is used, because it subsumes all of these in a generic way. "discover" is an interesting alternative for the design part of the process, and i think it warrants at least a sentance or two of explanation. Spot (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
