Skip to main content

graphics - Rasterize: Resolution option not working properly



Bug introduced in 7 or earlier and persisting through 12.0
Bug isn't present in version 5.2




Something about Rasterize which doesn't seem to work as intended.


Recipe:




  1. Make some simple vector graphics:


    Test = Graphics[Circle[{0, 0} 1]]



  2. Try to rasterize it having defined ImageSize and ImageResolution:


    TestNew = Rasterize[Test, "Image", ImageResolution -> 300, ImageSize -> 72]

    ImageSize set to 72 means that the resulting image should have exactly 1 inch in size on the screen, since screen resolution is 72 pixels per inch. This is okay.


    ImageResolution set 300 means that this image should have dimensions 300 over 300, since ImageResolution is defined in printer dots per inch and the image has the size of one inch.




  3. However, check image dimensions:


    ImageDimensions[TestNew]


    To discover that it is 72.




Moreover: the result does not depend at all on ImageResolution option. From documentation: "RasterSize and ImageResolution determine the coarseness of rasterization; ImageSize determines the size at which the final image will be displayed." If I vary RasterSize, the coarseness indeed changes. If I vary ImageResolution, the coarseness stays the same.


My system: Ubuntu 14, MMA10.0.1


Questions:




  1. Can anyone reproduce the behaviour? (done; yes)





  2. If it's not a bug, what is the reason? (mostly done: technical reason wonderfully explained by Alexey Popkov; this will be updated after the answer from WRI support is available)




  3. Could someone try this on older MMA versions? (done: See Alexey's comment to his answer: ImageResoltution is overriden by ImageSize in V7, but not in V5)




Edit: The result I would want to obtain in the above example can be obtained by calling:


TestNew = Rasterize[Test, "Image", RasterSize -> 300, ImageSize -> 72]


Or, for general image sizes:


Rasterize[Test, "Image", ImageResolution -> , ImageSize -> ()*(72/2.54)]

should give the same result as:


Rasterize[Test, "Image", RasterSize -> (/2.54)*(), ImageSize -> ()*(72/2.54)]

In other words, ImageResolution and RasterSize seem to serve the same purpose, but the former one doesn't seem to work as it should.


Status update: According to the feedback from WRI: The question has been acknowledged as an issue. However it is not decided yet, how exactly it is to be resolved.



Answer




With a bit of spelunking I extracted the following from


g = Graphics[{Circle[], FontSize -> 20, Text["x^2+y^2<1", {0, 0}]}, ImageSize -> 72];
Trace[Rasterize[g, ImageSize -> 72, ImageResolution -> 100]]

in v.10.0.1.




An excerpt from the Trace output


1) At first, the value of RasterSize is extracted from the Rasterize command using OptionValue:


System`ConvertersDump`rs$ = 
OptionValue[Rasterize, {ImageSize -> 72, ImageResolution -> 100}, RasterSize]



Automatic

2) In our case RasterSize is Automatic (the default value) and hence on the following line the value of ImageSize option (which has dimensionality of printer's points, i.e. the base unit is inch) is incorrectly taken as RasterSize (which has dimensionality of pixels) without taking into consideration ImageResolution:


If[System`ConvertersDump`rs$ === Automatic, 
System`ConvertersDump`rs$ =
OptionValue[Rasterize, {ImageSize -> 72, ImageResolution -> 100},
ImageSize]]



72

3) Now the new value for RasterSize is converted into the form {width, heigh}:


If[! ListQ[System`ConvertersDump`rs$] || Length[System`ConvertersDump`rs$] != 2, 
System`ConvertersDump`rs$ = {System`ConvertersDump`rs$, Automatic}]


{72, Automatic}


4) At the next step final image resolution is calculated from the new RasterSize (note that the original ImageResolution is present but ignored!):


{System`ConvertersDump`w$, System`ConvertersDump`h$} = System`ConvertersDump`rs$;

System`ConvertersDump`ir$ =
System`ConvertersDump`GetIR[
Graphics[{Circle[{0, 0}], FontSize -> 20, Text["x^2+y^2<1", {0, 0}]}, ImageSize -> 72],
{System`ConvertersDump`w$, System`ConvertersDump`h$},
ImageSize -> 72, ImageResolution -> 100]



72

5) And finally the packet is constructed using the obtained value for ImageResolution:


System`ConvertersDump`rdpdata$ = 
System`ConvertersDump`ToRasterDataPacket[
Graphics[{Circle[{0, 0}], FontSize -> 20, Text["x^2+y^2<1", {0, 0}]}, ImageSize -> 72],
{"Rasterize", "BoundingBox"},
ImageResolution -> System`ConvertersDump`ir$, Background -> System`ConvertersDump`bg$,
ColorSpace -> System`ConvertersDump`cs$,
Sequence @@

FilterRules[{ImageSize -> 72, ImageResolution -> 100},
Except[{ImageResolution, Background, ColorSpace}]]]



What happens when ImageSize is not specified


When ImageSize is not specified, everything is the same up to the step 4):


System`ConvertersDump`ir$ = 
System`ConvertersDump`GetIR[
Graphics[{Circle[{0, 0}], FontSize -> 20, Text["x^2+y^2<1", {0, 0}]}, ImageSize -> 72],
{System`ConvertersDump`w$, System`ConvertersDump`h$},

ImageResolution -> 100]


100

We see that when the new value of RasterSize is {Automatic, Automatic} the original value of ImageResolution is taken as the final value for image resolution at this step.




Conclusion


From the above it is clear that the key option which currently determines the image resolution in Rasterize is not ImageResolution but RasterSize.


The mechanism of the inconsistent behavior described in the question is as follows: when non-Automatic ImageSize is specified without RasterSize it is taken as ImageResolution. This contradicts to the documented meaning of these options: ImageSize specifies the size of the image in printer's points where inch is the base unit while ImageResolution has dimensionality of dots per inch.



At the same time the combination RasterSize + ImageSize works as expected in accord with the Documentation. So the workaround is to use RasterSize and do not rely on ImageResolution.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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}]

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}]

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.