![]() ![]() I would like to focus a bit more on the contour plot option problem instead (cont). So set them to 200 along X an Y axis as I showed and use CONT4 if you want (instead of COL). My point was to show that you should increase the number of bins of the underlying histogram. I see that this COL option approximates in a way what i want to do, however the limit on the pixel size ( even if i would increase the # of pixels to more than 500 from the source code) does not provide such a high quality figure as compared to the one that the cont4 option could provide. TColor::CreateGradientColorTable(NRGBs, stops, red, green, blue, NCont) Here follows the contour-related regions i use:ĭouble_t stops = Is this distortion upon cont4/surf option due to some bug, or is a limitation of the mathematical method used to calculate the contour regions? ![]() When ‘cont5’ option is selected instead (or any Delaunay based option like ‘TRI’), things look good, but for presentation purposes i would prefer to have this tgraph2d with the ‘cont4’ option (in order to avoid these non-filled white areas within the contour region). I am trying to plot the attached data (“save.txt”) using a TGraph2D graph and a 2D Contour plot.Īs you may see at the attached figures, it looks that when i am using a ‘cont4’ option the graph is getting significantly distorted at the edges (the same happens when i use ‘surf’ options too) i assume that is related somehow to the way the contour regions are calculated. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |