HOME | DD
zweeZwyy — FlipFlopBox_by_zweeZwyy
Published: 2008-04-24 03:18:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 1694; Favourites: 26; Downloads: 42
Redirect to original
Description
Apophysis 2.06c beta 3D HackTara Roy's Fractal Making Tutorial 7 - Post Transforms [link] taught me how to make 3D boxes.
From that I created this M. C. Escher- & Vasarely-inspired visual illusion flip flop box.
Lining up the triangles accurately nearly sent me blind.
Until Apophysis gets smart guides in its' Edit window I guess images like this will always need tidying up in Photoshop or similar.
Related content
Comments: 47
Happy you like it - just an exercise to see if Apo cld do it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amazing. Wow.
I cannot imagine having the patience to work all this out! ^_^;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome! I commend your patience and perseverance in completing this piece. My first thought when I saw this was that it was in the wrong category of art. I'm definitely going to check out Tara's tute... I agree about the guide lines bit...they would be a help. Setting a light background in the edit window and using the closer spaced grid lines should help, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hadn't thought of that, great tip! 
I wonder if it's possible. I guess it's asking a bit much.
If you want to see real perseverance in this technique, check out some of the work of ,
links below too,especially the mosquito.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YW.. It can be a pain sometimes lining up the transform/triangles at times....especially when trying to 'drag' them from one spot to the next. I don't know about the order changing...it could prove intersting. But, I think it might affect whatever effect, that has been added to the transform, does to the overall image.
By the way, I like the "Escher" look of the piece, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Escher is one of my inspirations, Vasarely & Op Art too.
Yes, on reflection the way the xForms influence eachother in Apo could make changing order very complicated. But I'd love to be able to turn them on & off. Presently I just delete each one & have to "go back" if I don't like the fx, all time-consuming. 
I keep imagining how incredible Apo, or similar, will be after another 10-15-50 years of development by the wizards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mind boggling...LOL I've been using APO for quite a while, now. It's addicting...that's for sure. I've rarely used any of my other fractal apps since getting hooked on Apo. It sure lends itself for supplying images for my collages.. And, you're right...it can be quite time consuming in many ways...LOL....as bad as a Lay's Potato Chip...you just can't stop at one....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Practicing the technique of this style opened up a lot of other possibilities.
Very worthwhile exercise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
let me guess... 80 triangles???
I think we use the same technique on this type of fractal making... Post-triangles rock! [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nice coloring on this one! I know what you mean by going blind trying to put these together. But the result at the end is well worth it!
The only way I know to get these precisely right without going utterly insane is to calculate the exact position of where the next diamond goes and type it manually into the post-transform box. The math is a bit tricky- I used trig to calculate the parameters for the original box, to make it absolutely precise- but after you have the math for the original box, the rest is a bit simpler.
Maybe I'll write a script to do it for me someday. Dunno, though, because I'm not that great at math or at scripting. However, I think the best script would not be one that copied and moved whole boxes, but instead copied and moved single diamonds. Ideally, one could input into the script the number copies one wants and the line along which one wants the diamonds to be copied.
Anyway, nice fractal!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
About that coloring...I found it always ended up this sort of dull opaqueness, is there a way to make them more glassy & luminous? I tried many gradients that worked successfully on other fractals, but no go here.
I'll do that maths approach next time, it will be good practice for using the maths more often & that will make my approach to Apo work much fuller. Eventually I do want to script, but early days yet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the only way to make them more glassy, as far as I know, is to scale the sinusoidal transform down. Not the post-transform, but the actual transform. In my tutorial, I have the transform scaled up about 10 times. If you scale it down to about two times, and slightly rotate it a bit, you will get more of the ethereal look you were going for...kind of. It also depends on what other transforms you are using in the fractal, and the weights you put on them. For example, if you add linear transforms to you fractal, and put the weights on them really really high- like 10 or so- then your fractal will get glassier. However, because of the nature of the sine, there are a bunch of pointy artefacts in each of the diamonds. Increasing the wieght of other transforms in your fractal helps eliminate this, as does rotating your sine transform.
Aww, heck. I'll note you with an example. It gets a bit complicated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do complicated.
Thanks for the Note.
Love yr Fractal Alphabet, very droll.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, that's why I posted it.
Obviously you could make it in PS, Corel or similar, but the beauty of doing it in Apo is being able to apply other scripts, like this [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great work. I know exactly what you mean about going crazy lining these up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
U2? 
any examples you'd like to share?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You jest?
When I can get yr CubeIt script to do this then we'll talk awesome! Meanwhile I'm dragging megaton stone blocks around building the pyramids, going blind.
Woops, here comes the overseer with the whip.....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't wait to see what you come up with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I go nutty just trying to put O's together.
I really ought to look at `cmptrwhz tutorial where he explains how to do it, if I remember.
This probably has nothing to do with your problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Especially with this where each triangle had to be slightly offset! I'll check out the link, thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm looking for it again. I thought I had downloaded it.
It is on the right of his page.
I didn't know if you knew it already. It's a really complete explanation of Apo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, found it, just about to have a play. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I found the toggle to put all the zeros together. I will try to make it work instead of doing it by hand and eye!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Unfortunately this is slightly offset from the 0 to allow spaces between boxes.
But maybe I'll figure it out when I return to sending myself nutz 
....ah the lure of the Evil Muse!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh dear I agree.
It's past my bedtime, Anu.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"smart guides" - brilliant idea, another for the wishlist 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well that's it,
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes, definitely worth the mastery for the potential of further manipulation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here we go again...
I've promised self I'll apply Big Brain to scriptwriting, but so far all I get is the blank stare back when I give it a nudge.
Seems to be busy on other things. or maybe it's on strike.
I've promised it a whole new world of extraordinariness if it does deliver, that's always worked before. Maybe I'll get action from it by following yr lead. 
Drat, there's that White Rabbit again, 
I think that could be part of the problem.
So much to do, so little time left.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know just what you mean - I'm ticking along at subsistence level only, creativity-wise. Perhaps scripting will release something. Yesterday, I finally resolved coefficient conflicts that had been bugging me for ages, thanks to your linkage (it was `cmptrwhz 's cube script that showed me the light!). The summary:
[0,0] a scales X
[0,1] b
[1,0] c
[1,1] d scales Y
[2,0] e positions X
[2,1] f positions Y
It was the counterintuitive equivalence of 2 representing O/0 that had stumped me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad you know what I mean.
In order to be able to say I know what you mean I'll have to go away for a few days research to make sense of what you've just delivered here
Another
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah yes, dA removed the tabs so it looks rather odd: it's supposed to be a table showing the correspondance between the 2 coefficient scripting nomenclatures, with an extra column to comment on the function. These still seem in conflict with those listed in Draves' original paper, though. c.f. Fi(x, y) = (ai x + bi y + ci, di x + ei y + fi).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See 
6 am pre-Java blurr factor 9
👍: 0 ⏩: 0