> Yes, I can imagine compressing data fractally (I don't have to visualise
> it), however I still don't see how that negates the argument I have been
> putting forward. You can't use fractal compression effectively on data
> that isn't fractal in nature. All the examples you have given me
> (including that game) are specific instances where fractal compression is
> appropriate. Using fractal compression in these instances is a good
> example of choosing the correct algorithm for the application. However,
> that does not mean that fractal compression is the general answer for all
> your compression needs.
I agree that a particular fractal compression software will not produce very
good results on some blocks of data. This is because it can't find the
fractal property in the data - that is basically what you are saying - except
you are also saying that if the software can't find the fractal property, then
it is not there. Would you agree that fractal compression software can be
improved to find more fractal properties in given data in the future?
> Again it boils down to the issue that not all things have a fractal
> nature. I'm not saying this out of blind faith, but because I have some
> idea of what it means to say "X is fractal". If you can point out to me
> how a dictionary is fractal, then I will admit that it can be compressed
> well. If you can't then I will have to retain the opinion that it won't
> be.
Before fractal image compression was invented, do you think that anyone would
have thought that Pavaroti was a fractal?
> > For the rest of you who are interested and want to see an example of fractal
> > IMAGE compression at a ratio of 100:1 without downloading any new software,
> > there is an example at:
> >
> > http://www.mitsubishi.co.jp/jp/fractal/perfor.html
> >
> > It shows you two images - the first one was compressed with JPEG and the
> > second was compressed with fractal compression. Both were compressed at a
> > rate of 100:1 - you don't really need a comparison between the two to be
> > amazed.
>
> Thank you. I was hoping you would give the address of a site that showed
> fractal compression that didn't require fractal compression tools (it
> would seem a little silly to have it any other way). The results are very
> impressive, but I wish they would show more then just two images. The eye
> is a little bit silly (obviously it would compress and zoom well, it's
> radially symmetric), the picture of Pavaroti is far more impressive. I
> would like to see that one zoomed. I'd also like to see compression times
> for images (though I admit that that is far less important).
I should have given you this url:
http://www.mitsubishi.co.jp/jp/fractal/fracdemo.html
Compression ratio performance - which you have already seen
Decompression speed comparison - shows you speed performance
Resolution Independence - shows you zooming
> If these images are genuine examples of how well the technique works,
> then I would expect that fractal compression might displace most of the
> other image compression techniques (for most circumstances).
You can download some software from http://www.iterated.com/ and experiment
yourself with compressing some of your own images. There are some things
which don't compress as well as others, but even they are impressive (to me
anyway).
> It would be interesting to see some engineer come up with a technique to
> take in images in a non-pixelated format. I think fractal camera's would
> make fractal compression far more interesting.
You would require an extremely fast chip to take that picture or you would
have to keep the camera still for a while and hope nothing moves. Maybe
beyond 2000 we will have the technology.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Heise rheise@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au