[yt-dev] off_axis_projection

[Cameron Hummels]

Hey guys,

I guess I don't entirely understand why these two functionalities are so
different, but I'll chat with you, Matt, a bit more about this offline
when I'm back at CU.

Cameron

> 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 sim