I improved the animation I posted on the other forum 
![[Image: MM-FlagVirtualSphereRotate.webp]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH_TBxWkbTuuHQocwywAszy4wofUG-HbMG-kwDH057NBnW4UMtH8DoygEfG6y_Dy53Wb_mwxxM-kEt3bJmNxY7usT2woJIE5TFybfK0WKkirnRaQLCxbcGJbj_4RXQHyly5MjJvkJpO0nuAddbGM7AVv6KOK1I0O6HHTg05_P4-Da6KKVkp38zFfsacu8/s720/MM-FlagVirtualSphereRotate.webp)
Started with a rectangle select of a fractal. I used mathmap flag chained to animated sphere. This makes a continuous animation. The sphere has an alpha background so it's a virtual sphere.
That makes the front animation. The back animation is the front reversed and made to look like it's on the inside of a sphere with G'MIC Distort lens. (not ideal because the front is alredy distorted)
Gimp has a tool called Script-fu Spinning globe. I checked it out because I'm looking for something that maps an image to the inside of an object. I was surprised to see that it was written in 1998. It makes the back and front similar or identical but I don't understand how it does the back. It feels like it was made in the 1990's
I packed the 90 layers of the back and scaled them to meet-up with the 90 packed layers on the front. I think the back is more of an optical illusion than a properly mapped object.
If anyone knows of a better way of doing something like this I would like to know?
Started with a rectangle select of a fractal. I used mathmap flag chained to animated sphere. This makes a continuous animation. The sphere has an alpha background so it's a virtual sphere.
That makes the front animation. The back animation is the front reversed and made to look like it's on the inside of a sphere with G'MIC Distort lens. (not ideal because the front is alredy distorted)
Gimp has a tool called Script-fu Spinning globe. I checked it out because I'm looking for something that maps an image to the inside of an object. I was surprised to see that it was written in 1998. It makes the back and front similar or identical but I don't understand how it does the back. It feels like it was made in the 1990's
I packed the 90 layers of the back and scaled them to meet-up with the 90 packed layers on the front. I think the back is more of an optical illusion than a properly mapped object.
If anyone knows of a better way of doing something like this I would like to know?