Skip to main content

plotting - Why is ListContourPlot so slow?


The process of ListContourPlot[] or ListDensityPlot[] is extremely slow comparing to Matlab's contour(). Why? Is it possible to speed it up? I prefer ListDensityPlot[] but plotting of an array of 512x512 elements takes about 5 min (several seconds with contour() in Matlab).


EDIT


To be more specific: I have a regular square grid of (x,y) coordinates, x = y = -5*^-7 ... 5*^-7, and a square grid of function values in range [0,0.05]. To plot these data I tried ListDensityPlot[{{x1,y1,f1},{x2,y2,f2},...,{xn,yn,fn}}] but it's very slow (several minutes, rescaling doesn't help). DensityPlot[Interpolate[...]] is much faster but the image quality deteriorates by interpolation. I like ArrayPlot[], it's fast and image looks nice, but I loose any information about coordinates. I need to simply visualize points without any changes but keep (x,y) coordinates.



Answer




This comes up quite often here - Mathematica simply does a much better job of making 2D plots when the data is an $n\times n$ array of z-values than it does when the data is an $n^2 \times 3$ list of {x, y, z} tuples. I think it uses different interpolation algorithms.


If the data is on a regular grid, then there is absolutely no reason to use the tuples form, since you can specify the x and y ranges using DataRange. Here is an example, with a larger list of data than in the OP,


testdata1 = 
  Flatten[Table[{x, y, 
     Sin[x - 2 y] Cos[
       2 x + y]}, {x, -π, π, .01}, {y, -π, π, .01}], 
   1];

Dimensions@testdata1
(* {395641, 3} *)


If I use ListDensityPlot on the data in this format, it takes 81 seconds on my machine (ListContourPlot takes a bit longer),


ListDensityPlot[testdata1, ImageSize -> 400] // AbsoluteTiming

enter image description here


If, however, I restructure the data using Partition (and Transpose to keep the x and y axes in the same spot), then it only takes about 4 seconds,


testdata2 = Transpose[Partition[testdata1[[All, 3]], 629]];
ListDensityPlot[testdata2, ImageSize -> 400, 
  DataRange -> {{-π, π}, {-π, π}}] // AbsoluteTiming


enter image description here


Exact same output, in much less time.


You can get a similar plot with ArrayPlot, although it doesn't make the tick marks look very nice. You have to reverse the data to account for the reversal that automatically happens with ArrayPlot,


ArrayPlot[Reverse@testdata2, 
  ColorFunction -> "M10DefaultDensityGradient", 
  DataRange -> {{-π, π}, {-π, π}}, AspectRatio -> 1, 
  FrameTicks -> All, ImageSize -> 500(*,DataReversed\[Rule]{True,
  False}*)] // AbsoluteTiming

enter image description here



This is the fastest non-interpolating option. You can get away from the ugly tick labels if you use the CustomTicks package, part of the SciDraw package. If you do the above plot using FrameTicks -> {{LinTicks, StripTickLabels@LinTicks}, {LinTicks, StripTickLabels@LinTicks}} then it comes out looking decent.


Another workaround is to use Interpolation, and it is faster, but it's usually better to work with the data itself. And to get the same quality, you often have to use a high value for PlotPoints,


func = Interpolation[testdata1];
DensityPlot[func[x, y], {x, -π, π}, {y, -π, π}, 
  ImageSize -> 400, PlotPoints -> 100] // AbsoluteTiming

enter image description here


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....
Post a Comment
Read more