[yt-dev] off_axis_projection

[Matthew Turk]

Okay.

Cameron, I know you rely upon the off_axis_projection -- would it be
okay, in your opinion, if we deprecated the interpolated = True option
in some 2.X release and then in 3.0, if you want interpolation, you
need to set up a projection camera yourself?  I ask because the setup
for these two is very different, and (in the spirit of the plot
window!) I'd like to try to reduce the complexity.  If you're -1 on
this, then we can keep it the way it is.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com> wrote:
> That capability doesn't exist yet for interpolated=True. When that is
> possible, I would be +1 with moving from volume to data_source.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I think the only kwarg I'd be really +1 with getting rid of would be
>> > no_ghost.  interpolated=True should just trigger no_ghost=False, and
>> > interpolated=False doesn't use the ghost zones no matter what.  I think
>> > volume should stay, especially since I think it will soon be possible to
>> > do
>> > an off_axis_projection of a data object which would probably be fed in
>> > through the volume.
>>
>> Why not get rid of volume and instead supply data_source, like
>> projections?
>>
>> >
>> > Sam
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Elizabeth,
>> >>
>> >> I agree, this makes sense.
>> >>
>> >> Last night I tried to take a crack at this, but I got very confused
>> >> with the various definitions of volume, interpolated, etc etc, in the
>> >> routine off_axis_projection.  Cameron and Sam, do you think it would
>> >> be okay if we simplified this routine and relied on the
>> >> ProjectionCamera for advanced things, like specifying a volume?
>> >>
>> >> -Matt
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Elizabeth Tasker
>> >> <tasker at astro1.sci.hokudai.ac.jp> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > "off_axis_projection" doesn't seem to accept field parameters.
>> >> >
>> >> > This isn't a big problem and I can definitely get around it by using
>> >> > global variables, but should it have a field_parameter option for
>> >> > consistency with add_projection?
>> >> >
>> >> > Elizabeth
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > yt-dev mailing list
>> >> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > yt-dev mailing list
>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>