[yt-dev] Change to defaults of ProjectionPlot and OffAxisProjectionPlot

Tue Jul 15 17:56:11 PDT 2014

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:

> after all, we have projected_units attached to the fields.
>

Nope, not after unitrefactor was merged in.

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is probably a bad idea, but could we add a "projected_name" keyword
>> (or something similar) to the add_field function, which could be
>> "Projected" as the default but could be left as "" for things like SZY? It
>> would only be applied if there isn't a weight field.
>>
>> I suspect folks feel that add_field already has too many keyword
>> parameters, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
>>
>> Sent from John ZuHone's iPad
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:39 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sam,
>>
>> What would you think if we changed the "Projected" prepend to
>> "Integrated"?  That would still apply well for "Integrated Density" as well
>> as "Integrated SZY", right?
>>
>> I'm just very much against the default of having "Density (g/cm^2)" show
>> up on projection plots (using the 'integrated' type), because this is
>> misleading and it just makes it look like you made a mistake when your
>> units don't match your field.  As Matt suggests, we could have the title
>> set to "Projection" for projections by default which is better than the
>> current settings IMO, but it seems less clean than changing the colorbar
>> label.
>>
>> Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
>>
>> Cameron
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Cameron,hing
>>>
>>> While it would be nice if there was a simple default that would work for
>>> all types of projections and fields, I think I'm also a -0 on this because
>>> of weird fields like the SZY, where it only makes sense as an integrated
>>> field, and Projected SZY isn't a term that is used.  I think that simply
>>> allowing others to modify the colorbar name is the more sustainable way in
>>> terms of handling all of the options for integration type as well.  I could
>>> be convinced otherwise, but I think having the units for things like
>>> density show up as g/cm^2 vs g/cm^3 should be enough for the time being.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>
>>>> I'm -0 on this, but mainly because I don't really like changing it to
>>>> have that information as part of the colorbar, rather than the title
>>>> for instance.
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Oh, I almost forgot to show examples:
>>>> >
>>>> > current behavior of a non-weighted density projection:
>>>> > http://i.imgur.com/vBSRRLq.png
>>>> >
>>>> > proposed behavior of a non-weighted density projection:
>>>> > http://i.imgur.com/UP6f5Nh.png
>>>> >
>>>> > although i like the idea that Nathan has about having "column
>>>> density" for
>>>> > projected density plots.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <
>>>> nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Hey everyone,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I've created a pull request which changes the defaults of the
>>>> >>> ProjectionPlot and OffAxisProjectionPlot, although I'm looking for
>>>> feedback
>>>> >>> from the community.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Right now, when you create a projection, say for "Density", it
>>>> labels the
>>>> >>> colorbar with "Density" and then gives its projected units (instead
>>>> of
>>>> >>> g/cm^3, it gives g/cm^2).  My PR is simply to change the default
>>>> label to be
>>>> >>> "Projected <field>" in this case "Projected Density (g/cm^2)".
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> +1. I also sort of like the idea of special-casing  - in particular
>>>> for
>>>> >> density, which I think should show up as "Column Density".
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It will do this in the case of non-weighted projections.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Also only when proj_stype = "integrate".
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I think this is the expected behavior and more accurate than the
>>>> former
>>>> >>> behavior, but I'm open to discussion from the rest of the dev
>>>> community.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In addition, it might be worthwhile to change the defaults on
>>>> >>> weighted-projections (e.g. density-weighted temperature
>>>> projection), to give
>>>> >>> it and appropriate label as well, but I'm less convinced of this
>>>> change.
>>>> >>> Perhaps something like "<weight_field>-Weighted <field> (units)" ?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm not sure about this.  Whatever we decide on, it should hopefully
>>>> be
>>>> >> compact.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There is also a PR awaiting approval by John Regan that deals with
>>>> this
>>>> >>> behavior which will allow users to easily specify whatever label
>>>> they want
>>>> >>> for the colorbar, but I thought having a sensible default was
>>>> appropriate as
>>>> >>> well.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Anyway, what do people think about these potential changes?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Cameron
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Cameron Hummels
>>>> >>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>>> >>> Steward Observatory
>>>> >>> University of Arizona
>>>> >>> http://chummels.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
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Cameron Hummels
>>>> > Postdoctoral Researcher
>>>> > Steward Observatory
>>>> > University of Arizona
>>>> > http://chummels.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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Hummels
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Steward Observatory
>> University of Arizona
>> http://chummels.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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Hummels
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Steward Observatory
> University of Arizona
> http://chummels.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140715/e8fc3dcc/attachment.htm>