Skip to main content

graphics - AspectRatio option works unpredictably?


Let us examine the agreement between specified value for the AspectRatio option and the actual aspect ratio of generated plot. For this purpose I define a function which uses the Rasterize trick for determination of the actual aspect ratio:



realAspectRatio = #2/#1 & @@ (#2 - #1) & @@ 
    Rasterize[
      Show[#, Epilog -> {Annotation[
          Rectangle[ImageScaled[{0, 0}], ImageScaled[{1, 1}]], "Two", 
          "Region"]}], "Regions"][[-1, 2]] &;

(Instead of realAspectRatio@ one can use much more basic but lesser precise function #2/#1 & @@ ImageDimensions@ what gives the same results.)


At first, we check the agreement for simple graphics Graphics[{Point[{{0, 0}, {1, 1}}]}]:


table = Table[{10^p, realAspectRatio@
     Graphics[{Point[{{0, 0}, {1, 1}}]}, AspectRatio -> 10^p]}, {p, -2, 2, .1}];

lm = LinearModelFit[table, x, x];
lm["BestFit"]
ListPlot[lm["FitResiduals"], Frame -> True, 
         FrameLabel -> {"AspectRatio", "fit residual"}]


1.26421 + 0.603143 x


plot



One can see that actual aspect ratio substantially differs from the requested via the AspectRatio option and the dependence between them is nonlinear!



In this case the situation becomes MUCH better if we provide at least horizontal PlotRange specification PlotRange -> {{0, 1}, Automatic}:


table = Table[{10^p, 
    realAspectRatio@
     Graphics[{Point[{{0, 0}, {1, 10}}]}, AspectRatio -> 10^p, 
      PlotRange -> {{0, 1}, Automatic}]}, {p, -2, 2, .1}];
lm = LinearModelFit[table, x, x];
lm["BestFit"]
ListPlot[lm["FitResiduals"], Frame -> True, 
 FrameLabel -> {"AspectRatio", "fit residual"}]



0.00391481 + 1.00225 x


plot



But for a little more complex graphics ListPlot[Prime[Range[25]]] this remedy does not help even if we vary AspectRatio in much lesser diapason from 1/5 to 5:


table = Table[{ar, realAspectRatio@
      ListPlot[Prime[Range[25]], PlotRange -> {{0, 25}, {0, 100}}, 
       AspectRatio -> ar]}, {ar, 1/5, 5, .1}];
lm = LinearModelFit[table, x, x];
lm["BestFit"]

ListPlot[lm["FitResiduals"], Frame -> True, 
 FrameLabel -> {"AspectRatio", "fit residual"}]


0.248369 + 0.768459 x


plot



How this behavior can be explained? Is it intended behavior? And more importantly: is there a way to make the actual aspect ratio predictable?



Summary of the discussion and the conclusion



The source of confusion was the first sentence under the "Details" section on the Documentation page for AspectRatio: "AspectRatio determines the scaling for the final image shape." This statement is clearly wrong and more correct statement can be found as the first point under the "Properties and Relations" subsection in the "Examples" section on the same page: "AspectRatio determines the ratio of PlotRange, not ImageSize." But as it is clearly demonstrated in dedicated answer, even this statement is not precise because actually AspectRatio determines the aspect ratio of the plotting area which is specified by both PlotRange and PlotRangePadding.



Answer



It seems to me that there is little point in making the image size so small that the image cannot possibly have a close to accurate aspect ratio. If I also get rid of the superfluous parts outside of the plot range by setting PlotRangePadding, ImagePadding, and ImageMargins all to zero, I can use simple ImageDimensions to check aspect ratio. Doing all this I find that it is quite precise in 10.1 under Windows:


table = Table[{10^p, 
    N[#2/#] & @@ 
     ImageDimensions@
      Image@Graphics[{Disk[]}, AspectRatio -> 10^p, PlotRangePadding -> 0, 
        ImagePadding -> 0, ImageMargins -> 0, ImageSize -> {2000}]}, {p, -2, 2, .1}];

lm = LinearModelFit[table, x, x];

lm["BestFit"]
ListPlot[lm["FitResiduals"], Frame -> True, FrameLabel -> {"AspectRatio", "fit residual"},
  DataRange -> {10^-2, 10^2}, PlotRange -> All]


-0.00279057 + 1.00046 x

enter image description here


Likewise your ListPlot example:


table = Table[{ar, 

    N[#2/#] & @@ 
     ImageDimensions@
      Image@ListPlot[Prime[Range[25]], PlotRange -> {{0, 25}, {0, 100}}, 
        AspectRatio -> ar, PlotRangePadding -> 0, ImagePadding -> 0, ImageMargins -> 0, 
        ImageSize -> {2000}]}, {ar, 1/5, 5, .1}];

lm = LinearModelFit[table, x, x];
lm["BestFit"]
ListPlot[lm["FitResiduals"], Frame -> True, FrameLabel -> {"AspectRatio", "fit residual"},
 DataRange -> {1/5, 5}]



0.000344083 + 0.999798 x

enter image description here


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

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