You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}
(3) 
_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(12) 
_{Sep}
(12) 
_{Oct}
(56) 
_{Nov}
(65) 
_{Dec}
(37) 

2004 
_{Jan}
(59) 
_{Feb}
(78) 
_{Mar}
(153) 
_{Apr}
(205) 
_{May}
(184) 
_{Jun}
(123) 
_{Jul}
(171) 
_{Aug}
(156) 
_{Sep}
(190) 
_{Oct}
(120) 
_{Nov}
(154) 
_{Dec}
(223) 
2005 
_{Jan}
(184) 
_{Feb}
(267) 
_{Mar}
(214) 
_{Apr}
(286) 
_{May}
(320) 
_{Jun}
(299) 
_{Jul}
(348) 
_{Aug}
(283) 
_{Sep}
(355) 
_{Oct}
(293) 
_{Nov}
(232) 
_{Dec}
(203) 
2006 
_{Jan}
(352) 
_{Feb}
(358) 
_{Mar}
(403) 
_{Apr}
(313) 
_{May}
(165) 
_{Jun}
(281) 
_{Jul}
(316) 
_{Aug}
(228) 
_{Sep}
(279) 
_{Oct}
(243) 
_{Nov}
(315) 
_{Dec}
(345) 
2007 
_{Jan}
(260) 
_{Feb}
(323) 
_{Mar}
(340) 
_{Apr}
(319) 
_{May}
(290) 
_{Jun}
(296) 
_{Jul}
(221) 
_{Aug}
(292) 
_{Sep}
(242) 
_{Oct}
(248) 
_{Nov}
(242) 
_{Dec}
(332) 
2008 
_{Jan}
(312) 
_{Feb}
(359) 
_{Mar}
(454) 
_{Apr}
(287) 
_{May}
(340) 
_{Jun}
(450) 
_{Jul}
(403) 
_{Aug}
(324) 
_{Sep}
(349) 
_{Oct}
(385) 
_{Nov}
(363) 
_{Dec}
(437) 
2009 
_{Jan}
(500) 
_{Feb}
(301) 
_{Mar}
(409) 
_{Apr}
(486) 
_{May}
(545) 
_{Jun}
(391) 
_{Jul}
(518) 
_{Aug}
(497) 
_{Sep}
(492) 
_{Oct}
(429) 
_{Nov}
(357) 
_{Dec}
(310) 
2010 
_{Jan}
(371) 
_{Feb}
(657) 
_{Mar}
(519) 
_{Apr}
(432) 
_{May}
(312) 
_{Jun}
(416) 
_{Jul}
(477) 
_{Aug}
(386) 
_{Sep}
(419) 
_{Oct}
(435) 
_{Nov}
(320) 
_{Dec}
(202) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(321) 
_{Feb}
(413) 
_{Mar}
(299) 
_{Apr}
(215) 
_{May}
(284) 
_{Jun}
(203) 
_{Jul}
(207) 
_{Aug}
(314) 
_{Sep}
(321) 
_{Oct}
(259) 
_{Nov}
(347) 
_{Dec}
(209) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(322) 
_{Feb}
(414) 
_{Mar}
(377) 
_{Apr}
(179) 
_{May}
(173) 
_{Jun}
(234) 
_{Jul}
(151) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 






1
(5) 
2
(6) 
3
(4) 
4
(9) 
5
(7) 
6
(16) 
7
(5) 
8
(10) 
9
(2) 
10
(3) 
11
(9) 
12
(1) 
13
(13) 
14
(1) 
15
(13) 
16
(5) 
17
(3) 
18
(14) 
19
(17) 
20
(14) 
21
(15) 
22
(6) 
23
(6) 
24

25
(4) 
26
(4) 
27
(4) 
28
(11) 
29
(7) 
30
(1) 
From: andes <czunigaz@ya...>  20110401 23:41:57

Thanks so much JJ! It works great. carlo JaeJoon Lee wrote: > > If you want full control of label coordinates, you need to use > "Axis.set_label_coords" method. For example, > > ax = gca() > ax.xaxis.set_label_coords(0.5, 0.1) > > And alternative way is to adjust the padding between the axis and the > label. > > ax.xaxis.labelpad = 0 > > Regards, > > JJ > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:27 AM, andes <czunigaz@...> wrote: >> x = linspace(0,1,10) >> y = x**2 >> plot(x, y) >> xlabel('xname', position=(0.5,0.1)) #< >> ylabel('yname', position=(0.1,0.5)) #< > >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlibusers mailing list > Matplotlibusers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlibusers > >  View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3AChangingxlabelylabelpositiontp31225992p31300118.html Sent from the matplotlib  users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
From: Garlock, Lee <Lee.G<arlock@gd...>  20110401 22:04:27

Using some real world measurement data that has an underlying comb spectrum with specgram, I have noticed an issue with the amplitude of narrowband signals being affected by the number of FFT points used (NTTF). For areas where there is no signal (in this case near 0 Hz) I see the noise floor (level) drop by about 3 dB as I double the value of NTTF, which is expected. A narrower "resolution" bandwidth will provide lower broadband noise amplitude. However, the signal has a comb spectrum present, and as I increase the value of NTTF the amplitude values of each component of the comb spectrum increases by about 3 dB when I double NFFT. I would expect that the narrowband levels would remain the same and not increase. I expect that the underlying FFT function in specgram scales by 1/NFFT, or maybe it does not (the FFT function in MATLAB does not included the 1/NFFT scaling). To get a "true" amplitude for each frequency bin does the output of specgram need to be scaled by 1/NFFT (or 1/NFFT*1/NFFT since it's a power spectrum)? Lee 
From: Stan West <stan.west@nr...>  20110401 16:57:23

From: Nat Echols [mailto:nathaniel.echols@...] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 16:47 I'd like to divide the line segments up to get a smoother color gradient, but the values are dictated by the experiment, not a mathematical function. <snip> so I guess what I'm really asking for is a way to add intermediate X,Y values between every pair of values in 'points'. I can do this myself in Python, but I assume that's going to be pretty sluggish. Perhaps (for convenience if not speed) you could use a routine from scipy.interpolate [1,2], such as interp1d for piecewise linear interpolation. I imagine that, within each linear piece, you would want the density of x values to be roughly proportional to the slope. [1] http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy0.8.x/reference/tutorial/interpolate.html [2] http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy0.8.x/reference/interpolate.html 
From: andes <czunigaz@ya...>  20110401 01:58:56

Andrew, After you are done modifying your figure (either in your code or in the GUI), run the following line: savefig('example.png', bbox_inches='tight') Does it save the figure the way you want? Best, carlo  View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ChangingImageSizetp31278497p31291865.html Sent from the matplotlib  users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
From: Eddie Schlafly <schlafly@ho...>  20110401 00:43:01

Hi all, I was surprised today to notice that "subplot" was the slowest part of some plotting code of mine. On my machine, the last line of the following code puts ten subplots on a figure and records the amount of time it took to make them: >>> import matplotlib>>> matplotlib.use('AGG')>>> import time>>> from matplotlib.pyplot import *>>> def f():... t = time.time()... clf()... for i in xrange(10):... subplot(5,2,i+1)... return time.time()t... >>> >>> times = [f() for x in xrange(10)] This code gives me a bunch of times that are on average about half a second. I expected it to be much faster as I wasn't actually plotting anything. Is this expected? Can I choose a faster backend or something? I've experimented a little but without success. I realize that 5 hundredths of a second per subplot isn't terrifically slow, ... but I guess I make a lot of plots. Thanks a lot, Eddie Schlafly 