Yeah, that would be SF.net #3170761, http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3170761&group_id=2915&atid=102915 "plshades draws quite slowly"
Doug, you'll probably have to post that to plplot-devel, since I'm not subscribed. That issue alone keeps me from using PLplot for any image display. This would be more apparent if the plplot test suite would have a test image bigger than 35x46. best, Derek On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Doug Hunt wrote: > Hi plplot folks: There has been a conversation on the PDL list recently > about which plotting package to use by default for PDL. I've been advocating > for use of PLplot, but have limited time to spend on interface development. > > One of the major perceived limitations of PLplot is image plotting speed. > Apparently PLplot uses an expensive algorithm to contour data. > > A nice performance plot showing the problem is attached. > > Does any of you know about this? Is there a way to speed up image plotting? > > Thanks much, > > Doug Hunt > > [email protected] > Software Engineer > UCAR - COSMIC, Tel. (303) 497-2611 > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:43:10 -0700 > From: Craig DeForest <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: Craig DeForest <[email protected]>, > Karl Glazebrook <[email protected]>, > perldl list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Perldl] A common, working plotting package? > > Funny you should mention that -- there's a Mac Port of PLplot now, and it > installed flawlessly when I tried it last night -- which is a huge change > from my earlier experience. It is indeed a very nice plotting package - the > high level plots, in particular, are very nice looking. > > Derek has had difficulty using it for image plotting, largely because it uses > a very expensive algorithm that is best adapted to low resolution data (and > does a fabulous job in that case) but does not scale well to high resolution > images. The difficulty is best summed up in the performance plot (apropos to > the performance discussion last night). I don't know if there's a better way > than the existing high-level contour plot method. As far as point-plotting > speed, it's about the same as gnuplot. The plot times are on a 2011 MacBook > Pro with stock Ports install. > > > > > On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Doug Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Karl: I still maintain that PLplot is a good, modern plotting package >> that runs on all required platforms. It is well maintained and has a nice >> build system. It also has interactive capabilities which I don't know much >> about. >> >> I have not supported Windows and Mac with PDL::Graphics::PLplot because I >> don't have the time and access to required machines. >> >> I think others who have time/machines could do this without much effort. >> >> I think PLplot could be brought up to speed with minor enhancements to >> PDL::Graphics::PLplot, which I don't necessarily have time to do. >> >> Regards, >> >> Doug >> >> [email protected] >> Software Engineer >> UCAR - COSMIC, Tel. (303) 497-2611 >> >> On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Karl Glazebrook wrote: >> >>> If GNUplot can plot a million points or a 4096^2 image with a delay < 1s >>> and no memory disaster then that would be fast enough for me. >>> >>> I wish there was a better solution >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/03/2013, at 2:04 AM, Henning Glawe wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 10:04:45PM +1100, Karl Glazebrook wrote: >>>>> I don't know how 'modern' PLplot is. The documentation still talks about >>>>> Tektronix terminals! >>>>> >>>>> I did some googling, DISLIN seemed the closest but is only semi-frree. >>>>> >>>>> In astronomy people really only use pgplot at the c/f77 level. (At a >>>>> higher level they use language specific graphics, e.g. IDL, IRAF, Python, >>>>> sm (!), gnuplot, MMA). >>>>> >>>>> What about other scientific fields? What do people you know use? >>>> >>>> In my field (computational quantum physics/chemistry), computation and >>>> visualization are usually treated separately. Typically, the actual >>>> numerical simulations are very heavy (taking CPU-days or even CPU-weeks on >>>> current HPC-Clusters). >>>> The visualization is performed in a separate step, where different >>>> "classes" >>>> of tools are employed: >>>> * Special purpuse tools for molecule/crystal visualization, which show: >>>> - crystal structures >>>> - densities either on cutting planes or as equipotential surfaces >>>> Tools belonging to this class are: >>>> - xcrysden http://www.xcrysden.org/ >>>> - v-sim http://www-drfmc.cea.fr/L_Sim/V_Sim/index.en.html >>>> * General-purpose plotting tools with a focus on 2D-visualization: >>>> - gnuplot http://gnuplot.sourceforge.net/ >>>> - grace http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/Grace/ >>>> * General-purpose plotting tools with more focus on 3D-visualization: >>>> - OpenDX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_OpenDX >>>> (Official website seems to be down) >>>> Learning curve is quite steep, interface is a bit awkward to use (for >>>> modern standards) >>>> - paraview http://www.paraview.org/ >>>> Easier to use than OpenDX; very powerful visualization tool, integrated >>>> python scripting support for >>>> - sources (data generation) >>>> - filters (data processing) >>>> - general-purpose macros >>>> >>>>> Looks dismal. Perhaps the moral is people who put significant effort in >>>>> to visuals tend to go commercial? >>>> >>>> I don't think so. You can get quite good results out of free >>>> visualization tools, altough sometimes you may have to tweak the settings a >>>> bit. One very good example for this is gnuplot; the default settings have >>>> not >>>> changed much in the past 20 years (think backwards compatibility), but with >>>> some modifications in your gnuplot scripts, plots may look a lot more >>>> attractive. This is one of the websites showing how to do this: >>>> http://www.gnuplotting.org >>>> >>>> For paraview, there are some good examples in the image gallery: >>>> http://www.paraview.org/paraview/project/imagegallery.php >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe we have to go back to the question what _kind_ of visualization >>>> support >>>> we need to have available directly within PDL. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, a very simple plotting interface used mainly for >>>> debugging/development is enough. >>>> For anything beyond this, there are really good plotting tools available >>>> also >>>> as free software, we just need to be able to export data in a format >>>> readable >>>> by them. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> c u >>>> henning >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Perldl mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl >> > <PDL_plotting_performance.png>_______________________________________________ > Perldl mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
