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

Michael Zingale michael.zingale at stonybrook.edu
Thu Jul 17 06:57:19 PDT 2014


I like the idea of letting the user override the label as they see fit.
 There should be a good default that works for 90% of the cases, and an
optional keyword argument to tweak things as needed.  (I don't typically
need projections, so I don't have an opinion on the defaults).


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, j s oishi <jsoishi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> I am struggling to understand your objection. The unit is already changed
> in projection. Cameron's point is that the variable name is not changed,
> and without a qualifier such as integrated or projected, it does look like
> the user made a typo. Why would we want to put the burden on the user to
> correct such a common occurrence?  I guess I don't understand your
> objection. Could you expand on why you are so skittish about changing the
> colorbar label? I am assuming there is a technical objection I don't know
> about.
>
> Also, I think adding a title is not a good solution, since it creates a
> large distance between between "projection" and "density" (for example),
> but leaves no distance between "density" and "g/cm^2".
>
> Furthermore, regarding Sam's objection regarding SZ and other unusual
> fields, I wonder if we should put the burden of manually entering the label
> on the least likely use case. I think, though I could be wrong, that the
> majority of Astro users are interested in density projections, in which
> case we should use "projection" by default. If we are striving to
> generalize beyond that, then I think "integrated" is the proper word.
>
> J
> Hi Cameron,
>
> I've done a lot of thinking about this, and I'm of two minds.
>
> 1) I do not think we should change the colorbar; we're displaying
> units there, and we should either let the person making the plot
> change the title of those units, or we should display what they are.
> 2) We should allow the plots to indicate somehow what they are, rather
> than delegating that exclusively to the filename.
>
> Do you think it would suffice to add a title to the plots?  That would
> not touch the "units" (which I am really skittish about modifying) but
> will still display the semantic information about the plot.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Michael Zingale
Associate Professor

Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University • Stony Brook, NY
11794-3800
*phone*:  631-632-8225
*e-mail*: Michael.Zingale at stonybrook.edu
*web*: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140717/6d1b20c7/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list