Skip to main content

plotting - Thickness of logarithmic tick marks



Bug introduced in 8 or earlier and persisting through 12.0



I'm trying to plot a graph wit a logarithmic y-axis. Since I'm exporting the graph to pdf and later printing it, I want to manually set the frame and tick marks to a reasonable thickness. However the logarithmic tick marks do not change their thickness.


(Note: I exaggerated the thickness of the tick marks on purpose to illustrate my point.)


LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, PlotStyle -> Red, Frame -> True,
FrameStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]],
FrameTicksStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]]
]

Plot with Logarithmic Ticks



I'm working with Mathematica 10 on Mac OS X 10.9.4. In Mathematica Version 9 the logarithmic tick marks change their thickness as expected.


Can anyone reproduce this behavior? Is this a bug or did the FrameTicksStyle change in Mathematica 10?



Answer



Reproduced in v.10.0.0 under Win7 x64. In versions 8.0.4 and 9.0.1 the behavior differs in details but the bug is also present: only major logarithmic frame ticks change their thickness, but not minor ticks.


Let us elaborate. First of all, in v.10 the logarithmic tick specifications are generated dynamically when the plot is rendered by the FrontEnd by calling Charting`ScaledTicks and Charting`ScaledFrameTicks:


LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, Frame -> True];
Options[%, FrameTicks]    


{FrameTicks -> {{Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, Exp}], 

    Charting`ScaledFrameTicks[{Log, Exp}]}, {Automatic, Automatic}}}

Here is what these functions return (I have shortened the output for readability):


Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, Exp}][1, 10]


{{2.30259, 10, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{4.60517, 100, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{6.90776, 1000, {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{9.21034, Superscript[10,4], {0.01, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 

{0., Spacer[{0, 0}], {0.005, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}, 
{0.693147, Spacer[{0, 0}], {0.005, 0.}, {AbsoluteThickness[0.1]}}}

It is clear that the thickness specifications are already included and have higher priorities than the FrameTicksStyle directive. That is the reason why the latter has no effect.


So this behavior reflects inconsistent implementation of Charting`ScaledTicks and Charting`ScaledFrameTicks which should NOT include styling into the tick specifications they generate. It is a bug.


Here is a function fixLogPlot which fixes this:


fixLogPlot[gr_] := 
  Show[gr, FrameTicks -> {{# /. _AbsoluteThickness :> (## &[]) &@*
       Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, 
         Exp}], # /. _AbsoluteThickness :> (## &[]) &@*

       Charting`ScaledFrameTicks[{Log, Exp}]}, {Automatic, 
      Automatic}}];

fixLogPlot@
 LogPlot[x^2, {x, 1, 3}, Frame -> True, 
  FrameTicksStyle -> Directive[Black, AbsoluteThickness[2]]]

plot


UPDATE


Here is universal fix for version 10 which works for all types of log plots:



fixLogPlots[gr_] := 
 gr /. f : (Charting`ScaledTicks | Charting`ScaledFrameTicks)[{Log, Exp}] :>
                                                   (Part[#, ;; , ;; 3] &@*f)

UPDATE 2


And here is universal fix for versions 8 and 9:


fixLogPlots[gr_] := gr /. f : (Ticks | FrameTicks -> _) :> (f /. _Thickness :> (## &[]))

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