comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Plot Size difference
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Plot Size difference [message #81452] Fri, 21 September 2012 09:07
Ian[2] is currently offline  Ian[2]
Messages: 7
Registered: March 2012
Junior Member
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:05:46 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:02:34 AM UTC-5, Coyote wrote:
>
>> Ian writes:
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> I have two plot setups, and from what I can tell, the eps files should come out with plots exactly the same physical size, BUT of course they are not. Can anyone tell if I am missing something simple, or if there is a work around? I believe the first set of code produces plots about 1 square centimeter larger than the second code (for some reason that was not the case earlier this week, they matched nicely).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> The different CHARSIZE used in the two plots is affecting the position of the plot (by manipulating the plot margins). You could use a POSITION keyword to
>
>>
>
>> force the plot into the right place, regardless of the character sizes.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Cheers,
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> David
>
>
>
> Thanks David, I just noticed that a second ago.

Its always those little things :)
Re: Plot Size difference [message #81453 is a reply to message #81452] Fri, 21 September 2012 09:05 Go to previous message
Ian[2] is currently offline  Ian[2]
Messages: 7
Registered: March 2012
Junior Member
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:02:34 AM UTC-5, Coyote wrote:
> Ian writes:
>
>
>
>> I have two plot setups, and from what I can tell, the eps files should come out with plots exactly the same physical size, BUT of course they are not. Can anyone tell if I am missing something simple, or if there is a work around? I believe the first set of code produces plots about 1 square centimeter larger than the second code (for some reason that was not the case earlier this week, they matched nicely).
>
>
>
> The different CHARSIZE used in the two plots is affecting the position of the plot (by manipulating the plot margins). You could use a POSITION keyword to
>
> force the plot into the right place, regardless of the character sizes.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> David

Thanks David, I just noticed that a second ago.
Re: Plot Size difference [message #81454 is a reply to message #81453] Fri, 21 September 2012 09:04 Go to previous message
DavidF[1] is currently offline  DavidF[1]
Messages: 94
Registered: April 2012
Member
>> I have two plot setups, and from what I can tell, the eps files should come out with plots exactly the same physical size, BUT of course they are not. Can anyone tell if I am missing something simple, or if there is a work around? I believe the first set of code produces plots about 1 square centimeter larger than the second code (for some reason that was not the case earlier this week, they matched nicely).
>
>
>
> The different CHARSIZE used in the two plots is affecting the position of the plot (by manipulating the plot margins). You could use a POSITION keyword to
> force the plot into the right place, regardless of the character sizes.

Oh, wait, you are doing multiple plots. Yeah, you're hosed unless you use the same Character sizes. :-)

Cheers,

David
Re: Plot Size difference [message #81455 is a reply to message #81454] Fri, 21 September 2012 09:03 Go to previous message
Ian[2] is currently offline  Ian[2]
Messages: 7
Registered: March 2012
Junior Member
On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have two plot setups, and from what I can tell, the eps files should come out with plots exactly the same physical size, BUT of course they are not. Can anyone tell if I am missing something simple, or if there is a work around? I believe the first set of code produces plots about 1 square centimeter larger than the second code (for some reason that was not the case earlier this week, they matched nicely).
>
>
>
>
>
> Pro velocitycombo
>
> plotsym, 4, 1.4, /FILL
>
> set_plot, 'PS'
>
> device, filename='Ratio_Velocity.eps', /color, bits=8,xsize=7,ysize=9,yoffset=1.0, xoffset=1, /inches, /portrait,encapsulated=eps,_extra=_extra
>
> !P.MULTI=[0,1,3,0,1]
>
> !Y.OMARGIN=[3,0]
>
> !y.style=1
>
> !x.style=1
>
> ;start with C+N data
>
> y_C = [6.03, 6.15, 7.8, 20.9, 23.7]
>
> x_C = [372, 592, 353, 583, 360]
>
> yerr_C = [.496, 1.26, 1.27, 7.44, 6.08]
>
> ploterror, x_C, y_C,yerr_C, type = 1, psym =8, xtitle='Solar Wind km/s', xrange =[300,650], yrange=[1,100],xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=1.8, ytitle='C+N/OVII';title='Ratios vs Velocity'
>
> ;now Mg data
>
> y_M = [.047, .26, .09, .25, .17]
>
> x_M = [372, 592, 353, 583, 360]
>
> yerr_M = [.006, .032, .021, .065, .0389]
>
> ploterror, x_M, y_M,yerr_M, type =1, psym =8, xtitle='Solar Wind km/s', xrange =[300,650], yrange=[.001,10],xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=1. 8, ytitle='Mg/OVII'
>
> ;finally Si data
>
> y_S = [.012, .257, .121, .3, .265]
>
> x_S = [372, 592, 353, 583, 360]
>
> yerr_S = [.002, .030, .025, .083, .052]
>
> ploterror, x_S, y_S,yerr_S, type =1, psym =8, xtitle='Solar Wind km/s', xrange =[300,650], yrange=[.001,10],xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=1. 8, ytitle='Si/OVII'
>
> !P.MULTI=0
>
> !Y.OMARGIN=[0,0]
>
> device, /close
>
> set_plot, 'X'
>
> END
>
>
>
> Pro Combo
>
> plotsym, 8, /FILL
>
> set_plot, 'PS'
>
> device, filename='CN_Mg_Si_ratios3.eps', /color, bits=8,xsize=7,ysize=9,yoffset=1.0, xoffset=1, /inches, /portrait,encapsulated=eps,_extra=_extra
>
>
>
> !P.MULTI=[0,1,3,0,1]
>
> !Y.OMARGIN=[3,0]
>
> !y.style=1
>
> !x.style=1
>
> ;C+N data
>
> y = [6.03, 6.15, 7.8, 20.9, 23.7]
>
> x = [1.05, .465, .661, .167, .3]
>
> yerr = [.496, 1.26, 1.27, 7.44, 6.08]
>
> xerr = [.023, .048, .021, .0878, .0583]
>
> ploterror, x, y, xerr, yerr, type = 3, xtitle='OVIII/OVII', ytitle='C+N/OVII', psym=8, xrange=[0.05,2.], yrange=[1,100], xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=2.2
>
> ;Mg data
>
> yy = [.047, .26, .09, .25, .17]
>
> xx = [1.05, .465, .661, .167, .3]
>
> yyerr = [.006, .032, .021, .065, .0389]
>
> xxerr = [.023, .048, .021, .0878, .0583]
>
> ploterror, xx, yy, xxerr, yyerr, type=3, xtitle="OVIII/OVII", ytitle="Mg/OVII", psym = 8, xrange=[.05,2], yrange=[.001,10], xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=2.2
>
> ;Si Data
>
> yyy = [.012, .257, .121, .3, .265]
>
> xxx = [1.05, .465, .661, .167, .3]
>
> yyyerr = [.002, .031, .025, .083, .0522]
>
> xxxerr = [.023, .048, .021, .0878, .0583]
>
> ploterror, xxx, yyy, xxxerr, yyyerr,type = 3, xtitle='OVIII/OVII', ytitle='Si/OVII', psym=8, xrange=[0.05,2.], yrange=[0.001,10], xthick=2.2,ythick=2.2,thick=2.2,charsize=2.2
>
> !P.MULTI=0
>
> !Y.OMARGIN=[0,0]
>
> device, /close
>
> set_plot, 'X'
>
> End
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Much
>
> Ian

Scratch that, problem solved!
Re: Plot Size difference [message #81456 is a reply to message #81455] Fri, 21 September 2012 09:02 Go to previous message
DavidF[1] is currently offline  DavidF[1]
Messages: 94
Registered: April 2012
Member
Ian writes:

> I have two plot setups, and from what I can tell, the eps files should come out with plots exactly the same physical size, BUT of course they are not. Can anyone tell if I am missing something simple, or if there is a work around? I believe the first set of code produces plots about 1 square centimeter larger than the second code (for some reason that was not the case earlier this week, they matched nicely).

The different CHARSIZE used in the two plots is affecting the position of the plot (by manipulating the plot margins). You could use a POSITION keyword to
force the plot into the right place, regardless of the character sizes.

Cheers,

David
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Plot Size difference
Next Topic: For loop avoidance - getting indices of real space

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 15:11:25 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00614 seconds