It does: Moiré
Aye. This.
You could see those on TV a lot in the 1970/1980s when TV technology was low-res, low definition interlace stuff, TVs were sucky CRTs, and news anchors would wear checkerboard jackets.
Early scanners (when 120 DPI was considered high quality and you had to pull the scanner over the original by hand) had a lot of that too when you used to scan printed media. Nowadays, scanners seem to have some smart kind of supersampling/antialiasing technology built-in.
Clearly an aliasing effect and nothing fractal about it.
If you say so ;\ (yawn)
Why do you bother asking if you're just going to reject the answers you get if they don't match your predetermined presumptions? I concur that it just looks like a Moiré pattern.
The effect is so stereotypical retro that it even became a catch-eye effect in a well-known movie trilogy.
You know this movie, don't you 
I cannot agree this is not a fractal, iMO this is a well defined fractal.
These things have definitions. Start by specifying precisely what set you are talking about, then compute its fractal dimension. If the result is not an integer, you do have a fractal.
I cannot agree this is not a fractal, iMO this is a well defined fractal.
These things have definitions. Start by specifying precisely what set you are talking about, then compute its fractal dimension. If the result is not an integer, you do have a fractal.
i dont know how to count a dimension do you know how to count this based on that picture?
this is not this thing, as i said the thing is a result of normal colorizing the surface with a stable preducted palette, no 'border' artifacts or interferency things
this is not this thing, as i said the thing is a result of normal colorizing the surface with a stable preducted palette, no 'border' artifacts or interferency things
As befits an encyclopedia, the linked Wikipedia article takes a narrow and precise view of what a Moiré pattern is, However, it's common to refer to most interference patterns as Moiré patterns, because they are essentially similar patterns regardless of the type of interference.
And aliasing is an interference pattern, between the sampling points and the features of the continuous signal.
In this case you are sampling (at pixel location) a wildly wobbling and discontinuous signal: the quantization error obtained by converting the eye-sphere distances to integers.
this is not this thing, as i said the thing is a result of normal colorizing the surface with a stable preducted palette, no 'border' artifacts or interferency things
As befits an encyclopedia, the linked Wikipedia article takes a narrow and precise view of what a Moiré pattern is, However, it's common to refer to most interference patterns as Moiré patterns, because they are essentially similar patterns regardless of the type of interference.
And aliasing is an interference pattern, between the sampling points and the features of the continuous signal.
In this case you are sampling (at pixel location) a wildly wobbling and discontinuous signal: the quantization error obtained by converting the eye-sphere distances to integers.
This is not interference involved also not precision errors or something, this is just a stable way of colorisation of the sphere also i think it has an infinite indepth complexity here (if you wil rize up the palette frequenzy to infinite, as i said, ), here is some 'zoomed' example yet
[attachment=19816:some.jpg]
This is not interference involved also not precision errors or something, this is just a stable way of colorisation of the sphere also i think it has an infinite indepth complexity here (if you wil rize up the palette frequenzy to infinite, as i said, ), here is some 'zoomed' example yet
The circles form one pattern, and the pixels forming the discrete sampling grid is the second pattern. The interference is implicit from the intersection between the two patterns when you sample the continuous circle pattern at the discrete pixel grid.
Overlay that image and the one from your first post and you'll see that the interference patterns, or fractals if you want, are not the same; neither at the equivalent scaled location or at the equivalent scaled size. Your patterns are thus resolution dependent. That's precisely how interference works.
This is not interference involved also not precision errors or something, this is just a stable way of colorisation of the sphere also i think it has an infinite indepth complexity here (if you wil rize up the palette frequenzy to infinite, as i said, ), here is some 'zoomed' example yet
The circles form one pattern, and the pixels forming the discrete sampling grid is the second pattern. The interference is implicit from the intersection between the two patterns when you sample the continuous circle pattern at the discrete pixel grid.
Overlay that image and the one from your first post and you'll see that the interference patterns, or fractals if you want, are not the same; neither at the equivalent scaled location or at the equivalent scaled size. Your patterns are thus resolution dependent. That's precisely how interference works.
I changed the palette frequenzy up 5times (by putting the ball more far now its centre is 5 km far and has a radius of 3.5 km) in the second picture as i said more details is wisible when rising up the palette frequenzy - what is interfering with what? (I do not see a need of talking
about this interferentions here, i do not see them, it would be better to talk about math structure of this pattern, but i m not to much educated in hyperbolic geometry or such things)
ps probably i could rise up the visual effect by defining nicer palette
(but not sure if got a time to do this today)
