Menu
▾
▴
matplotlib-devel
|
From: Nathan G. <nat...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 00:09:00
|
I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a movie of ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...> wrote: > Ooooh, I am liking "D" a lot. It is almost like what Parula should have > been. Still not quite perfect, but I can't put my finger on it. > > Ben Root > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Nathaniel Smith <nj...@po...> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote: >> > On 2015/06/02 7:58 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Paul Ivanov <pi...@be...> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> That said, if you want to play around with the editor tool, it's >> >> linked on the webpage :-). >> > >> > >> > This is a really nice tool! >> > >> > Attached is an example of a map that circles the other direction, and >> that >> > sacrifices some visual delta for less extreme ends. Although I think >> the >> > "sunrise" type of map that you offered in versions A, B, and C is a >> good one >> > to have in the arsenal, I am not convinced that it should be the only >> > category to be considered as a default. Do we really want to reject the >> > somewhat Parula-like category just because Matlab uses the real Parula? >> > >> > I'm not saying the attached example is particularly good; it is >> intended to >> > re-introduce the category. (It is somewhat similar to a reversal of our >> > ColorBrewer YlGnBu, so I tried to name it following that scheme.) >> >> That is nice! For those following along at home, here's what Eric's >> colormap looks like: >> >> https://bids.github.io/colormap/images/screenshots/erics_PuBuGnYl_r.png >> >> We also tried tweaking it a bit to end on a more saturated yellow, >> which I think helps increase contrast in the deuteranomalous version >> in particular, and put this on the website as an "option D": >> https://bids.github.io/colormap/images/screenshots/option_d.png >> >> We also previously designed a colormap that follows parula's ideas >> pretty closely, in terms of starting/ending points, overall >> brightness, and the trick of kinking over through orange at the top >> end. It ends up being much much more green than parula though: >> https://bids.github.io/colormap/images/screenshots/fake_parula.png >> >> > It seems that the fundamental constraints in this map generator tend to >> > yield a somewhat muddy dark end and a muted middle. That's one >> compromise >> > among many that are possible. >> >> You can somewhat avoid the muddy end by bumping up the minimum >> brightness (option C does this to some extent), but of course that has >> other trade-offs. >> >> -n >> >> -- >> Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > |
|
From: Stéfan v. d. W. <st...@su...> - 2015-06-04 00:17:39
|
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> wrote: > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a movie of > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: > > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other proposed colormaps? Stéfan |
|
From: Benjamin R. <ben...@ou...> - 2015-06-04 00:30:08
|
May I suggest an update to the code showing the 3d sRGB colorspace? Can you add a "shade=False" to it? Currently, in pycam02ucs.viscm.py, around line 279, it calls the 3d scatter function without the kwarg. This means that mplot3d will apply an alpha transparancy to dots that are farther away to give the perception of depth. Since we actually want to see the correct color, we probably shouldn't have that feature on. Ben Root On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> > wrote: > > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a > movie of > > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: > > > > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 > > Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other > proposed colormaps? > > Stéfan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > |
|
From: Paul H. <pmh...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 00:49:10
|
I'm really digging option D too -- it has the bonus of being unambiguously distinct from GNUPlot, On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...> wrote: > May I suggest an update to the code showing the 3d sRGB colorspace? Can > you add a "shade=False" to it? Currently, in pycam02ucs.viscm.py, around > line 279, it calls the 3d scatter function without the kwarg. This means > that mplot3d will apply an alpha transparancy to dots that are farther away > to give the perception of depth. Since we actually want to see the correct > color, we probably shouldn't have that feature on. > > Ben Root > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >> wrote: >> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >> movie of >> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >> > >> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >> >> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >> proposed colormaps? >> >> Stéfan >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > |
|
From: Nathan G. <nat...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 07:43:20
|
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> > wrote: > > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a > movie of > > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: > > > > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 > > Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other > proposed colormaps? > Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k > > Stéfan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > |
|
From: Nathaniel S. <nj...@po...> - 2015-06-05 05:12:35
|
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >> wrote: >> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >> > movie of >> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >> > >> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >> >> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >> proposed colormaps? > > > Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. > > jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo > > parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ > > option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 > > option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 > > option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew > > option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k Awesome! Added these to the webpage. For extra fun (90 mb download, but worth it): http://vorpus.org/~njs/goldbaum-galaxies-all-colormaps.mkv -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org |
|
From: Juan Nunez-I. <jni...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 08:42:36
|
Fun activity: watch all 6 videos in a row then watch the text on this email spin and spin. =P Gorgeous! Thanks Nathan! I hope this kills C dead. It clearly makes certain features of the simulation harder to spot. A great demo of the terribleness of jet, too: it looks like a huge mess. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >> wrote: >> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >> movie of >> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >> > >> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >> >> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >> proposed colormaps? >> > > Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. > > jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo > > parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ > > option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 > > option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 > > option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew > > option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k > > >> >> Stéfan >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > |
|
From: Joe K. <jof...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 16:28:02
|
One other (admittedly very minor) consideration is how the colormaps look with shading applied. To borrow from the hillshading example <http://matplotlib.org/devdocs/examples/specialty_plots/topographic_hillshading.html> : (The image appears to be too large to attatch. Try here: http:// <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>www.geology.beer <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>/images/ <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>hillshaded.png <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>) <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png> I personally really like option D for a lot of reasons, but this is another reason to prefer it. Providing additional information through "shading" etc, still works quite well. Option C also does well in this particular test, though it appears too "washed out" for my tastes. At least to my eyes, options B fairs particularly poorly. In B's case, the fact that the colormap runs towards black means that hillshading is difficult to distinguish from elevation changes. A suffers from similar problems in this case, though they're much less severe. In my personal opinion: D >> A > C > B Cheers, -Joe Fun activity: watch all 6 videos in a row then watch the text on this email spin and spin. =P Gorgeous! Thanks Nathan! I hope this kills C dead. It clearly makes certain features of the simulation harder to spot. A great demo of the terribleness of jet, too: it looks like a huge mess. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >> wrote: >> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >> movie of >> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >> > >> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >> >> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >> proposed colormaps? >> > > Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. > > jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo > > parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ > > option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 > > option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 > > option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew > > option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k > > >> >> Stéfan >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Mat...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel |
|
From: Joe K. <jof...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 16:34:15
Attachments:
hillshaded.png
|
Well that got horribly garbled somehow (and I hit send too early). Let me try that again: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Joe Kington <jof...@gm...> wrote: > One other (admittedly very minor) consideration is how the colormaps look > with shading applied. To borrow from the hillshading example > <http://matplotlib.org/devdocs/examples/specialty_plots/topographic_hillshading.html> > : > > (The image appears to be too large to attatch. Try here: http:// > <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>www.geology.beer > <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>/images/ > <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>hillshaded.png > <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>) > <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png> > > I personally really like option D for a lot of reasons, but this is > another reason to prefer it. Providing additional information through > "shading" etc, still works quite well. Option C also does well in this > particular test, though it appears too "washed out" for my tastes. > > At least to my eyes, options B fairs particularly poorly. In B's case, > the fact that the colormap runs towards black means that hillshading is > difficult to distinguish from elevation changes. A suffers from similar > problems in this case, though they're much less severe. > > In my personal opinion: D >> A > C > B > > Cheers, > -Joe > Fun activity: watch all 6 videos in a row then watch the text on this > email spin and spin. =P > > Gorgeous! Thanks Nathan! > > I hope this kills C dead. It clearly makes certain features of the > simulation harder to spot. > > A great demo of the terribleness of jet, too: it looks like a huge mess. > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >>> wrote: >>> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >>> movie of >>> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >>> > >>> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >>> >>> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >>> proposed colormaps? >>> >> >> Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. >> >> jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo >> >> parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ >> >> option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 >> >> option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 >> >> option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew >> >> option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k >> >> >>> >>> Stéfan >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>> Mat...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > |
|
From: Brian G. <ell...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 16:37:18
Attachments:
hillshaded.png
|
I very much like D. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Joe Kington <jof...@gm...> wrote: > Well that got horribly garbled somehow (and I hit send too early). Let me > try that again: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Joe Kington <jof...@gm...> > wrote: > >> One other (admittedly very minor) consideration is how the colormaps look >> with shading applied. To borrow from the hillshading example >> <http://matplotlib.org/devdocs/examples/specialty_plots/topographic_hillshading.html> >> : >> >> (The image appears to be too large to attatch. Try here: http:// >> <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>www.geology.beer >> <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>/images/ >> <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>hillshaded.png >> <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png>) >> <http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png> >> >> I personally really like option D for a lot of reasons, but this is >> another reason to prefer it. Providing additional information through >> "shading" etc, still works quite well. Option C also does well in this >> particular test, though it appears too "washed out" for my tastes. >> >> At least to my eyes, options B fairs particularly poorly. In B's case, >> the fact that the colormap runs towards black means that hillshading is >> difficult to distinguish from elevation changes. A suffers from similar >> problems in this case, though they're much less severe. >> >> In my personal opinion: D >> A > C > B >> >> Cheers, >> -Joe >> Fun activity: watch all 6 videos in a row then watch the text on this >> email spin and spin. =P >> >> Gorgeous! Thanks Nathan! >> >> I hope this kills C dead. It clearly makes certain features of the >> simulation harder to spot. >> >> A great demo of the terribleness of jet, too: it looks like a huge mess. >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <st...@su...> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nat...@gm...> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I'm a big fan of option D. So much so that when I needed to make a >>>> movie of >>>> > ony my galaxy simulations today I went ahead and used it: >>>> > >>>> > https://youtu.be/bnm554et0T8 >>>> >>>> Beautiful! How hard would it be to also do this for the other >>>> proposed colormaps? >>>> >>> >>> Thankfully you made it pretty easy to script this. >>> >>> jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvT5hImPmo >>> >>> parula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8146CMi-OaQ >>> >>> option a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvxuQSzWO4 >>> >>> option b: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7bpV3XPV0 >>> >>> option c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rHbq4jw1ew >>> >>> option d: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_HiUXVNm2k >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Stéfan >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>>> Mat...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >>> Mat...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Matplotlib-devel mailing list >> Mat...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-devel mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel > > -- Brian E. Granger Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo @ellisonbg on Twitter and GitHub bgr...@ca... and ell...@gm... |
|
From: Nathaniel S. <nj...@po...> - 2015-06-04 17:32:52
|
On Jun 4, 2015 9:28 AM, "Joe Kington" <jof...@gm...> wrote: > > One other (admittedly very minor) consideration is how the colormaps look with shading applied. To borrow from the hillshading example: > > (The image appears to be too large to attatch. Try here: http://www.geology.beer/images/hillshaded.png) > > I personally really like option D for a lot of reasons, but this is another reason to prefer it. Providing additional information through "shading" etc, still works quite well. Option C also does well in this particular test, though it appears too "washed out" for my tastes. I'm not sure what I'm looking at in that picture exactly, or how to distinguish a good result from a poor one -- could you elaborate? FYI I should also note that we're planning on additionally providing isoluminant (or approximately isoluminant) variants for whatever colormaps we end up contributing, exactly for cases where you want to preserve the lightness channel for shading effects. So in any case you'll have a choice between "mapA" and "mapA-isoluminant", etc. -n |
|
From: Joe K. <jof...@gm...> - 2015-06-04 18:21:41
Attachments:
shaded_topography.py
hillshaded.png
|
> > I'm not sure what I'm looking at in that picture exactly, or how to > distinguish a good result from a poor one -- could you elaborate? > It an nutshell, it's whether shading can be distinguished from value changes. > FYI I should also note that we're planning on additionally providing > isoluminant (or approximately isoluminant) variants for whatever colormaps > we end up contributing, exactly for cases where you want to preserve the > lightness channel for shading effects. So in any case you'll have a choice > between "mapA" and "mapA-isoluminant", etc. > > -n > It's essentially isoluminance, but also the absolute value of the luninance. (Ideally, you'd want a more-or-less isoluminant colormap with an average luminance near 0.5.) A colormap with all dark colors or all light colors can be isoluminant, but is largely useless for this application, as it will be difficult to distinguish shaded slopes from low areas or highlighted slopes from high areas. Also, from a purely subjective level for this example, it's how effectively the shading tricks your brain into seeing a topographic surface. The colormap has a good bit of influence on this, but I have no idea how to quantify it. At any rate, including an isoluminant version solves a large amount of the problem. Thanks! Also, to illustrate the exact issue I was referring to a touch more clearly, here's a zoomed-in version of the previous example: P.S. Sorry, Nathaniel, you're going to get this twice. I didn't look closely enough when I hit reply. I seem to be rather bad at the whole "e-mail" thing today. |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X