View Single Post
Old 3rd March 2003, 06:08   #34
unchained
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: richmond, va
Posts: 639
Send a message via Yahoo to unchained
Quote:
Or even making the randomizer smart enough to know what kind of functions should go inside other functions. Giving it an understanding of mathematical function that provide visually interesting output. But since that's a judgement based on human perception it's going to require us to figure out how to code logic that "understands" that concept. The randomizer is actually quite stupid (brute force) at this point, and it shows.
I did a lot of playing around with making more-or-less random functions like that inside of the presets themselves. I know my code's probably too but ugly, and my brain too scattered to pick, but I'm willing to offer any advice I can.

A lot of my per-pixel ideas came straight out of topology and knot theory...you split the screen up into various regions, each one a "surface" unto itself, and can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you stay within the interval specified by those limit points. Then it's just a matter of finding functions that map points of one space onto another...standard embedding stuff.

I know a lot of people don't like the way my presets "jump", and it's mostly due to my never tying the beat detection code into the choice of regions in any sane way...but if you watch closely the individual effects are all pretty tight until the outer-most field shifts... in my experience the brain "knows" a lot of geometry, and can pretty much track anything that follows a sin curve even if it's embedded in 4 or 5 dimensions. It's when you break out of the "context field" that you're embedding in that you get visual dischord. It's all subjective though...I'll resist the urge to launch into my own theories of aestetics
unchained is offline   Reply With Quote