I remember back many moons ago those lovely junia set Fractal patterns of
ever repeating shapes at smaller sizes used to fascinate me. and I wondered
if anyone had ever made wallpaper using them.
I live in a house with significant amounts of fractal-based surface designs. Fabric, bags for ipads and phones, mats, etc. (not wallpaper!)
Partner used fractal-design software and other general graphics software (e.g. Photoshop) to produce some amazing things.
I think my favourites were what I called her "geologicals". They look rather like cross-sections of rocks but were entirely generated - nothing photographic whatsoever. And the complex colouring gives them a very special quality.
How large does the source file have to be for an acceptable image blown
up to the size of a wall? They appear to accept files up to 500Mbytes
but no consumer camera/phone gets anywhere near this size of output, and
few will output a raw image rather than a compressed jpeg image.
I've seen commercial produced wallpaper murals where the resolution is
so poor that they look out of focus unless standing at least 10 foot away.
As I recall those used to be used in shop window displays as a backdrop to
the item or items in the foreground.Don't worry, I'm not thinking of doing
this now I cannot see, but its the sort of thing you might have found in a
rock stars room somewhere in the 70s I think, a bit like that later room in
Dave Stewarts house where the whole room was papered by Sinclair
microvision TVs. I'd imagine that never needed any heating but where did he
get the power from!
I meant real walls actually, but yes even when I could see I recall the
pictures. If you rotated the palette on one it appeared animated in a quite
mesmerising way. Bit like that impossible waterfall picture illusion.
Used correctly there is nothing wrong with a JPEG file - even if you use
it incorrectly to store line art rather than a photograph. Using the
right settings is crucial and for some content other formats are
preferable. There are unfortunately broken implementations about :(
You have to decide on a dots per inch and a viewing distance.
Even large classic grand master paintings have an optimal viewing
distance to appreciate them at their best. Too close and you see too
much of the mechanics of the brush strokes or dots.
600dpi static image at normal reading distance of 20cm will be good
enough for most normally sighted people. 300dpi might do at a pinch.
60dpi will probably be good enough for wallpaper viewed from 2m away to
still look tack sharp. Print a test piece to decide what you can live with.
An original historic postcard contact print from a full size negative
can stand being enlarged to about A2 before it becomes a problem.
If you wanted to do it then one of the less common formats that allows a
65536 false colour palette would be ideal for Mandelbrot or Julia sets.
Always check that your print service can handle the format though.
I had a set of true monochrome JPEG images come back in psychedelic
colours once on a Fuji Crystal archive digital print service. The unit
substituted its own default false colour mapping on the images.