On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, David Berry wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Malcolm J. Currie wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I'm not suggesting dropping all WCS support. I just meant that things
>>> like handling error bars, options for making the X axis linear in pixel,
>>> freq, or log(freq), including lots of different Frames in the stored
>>> AGI Plot, etc, are probably not needed.
>>
>> Are they actually taking much time?
>
> Having taken out the database stuff, there seems to be no single obvious
> bottle neck.
A cache in KPG1_ASSET so that all the GRP handling is not duplicated for
each spectrum? The plot style isn't changing between plots yet every
single plot involves temporary files and parsing of GRP parameters.
>> The ticks are a requirement; they let you read off co-ordinates and
>> heights of features. While we have CURSOR for the screen, on hardcopy
>> the ticks provide the visual reference frame, and potentially across
>> many more plots. For a sensible number of plots (even more than for
>> axis labelling), the tick marks are quite clear to me.
>
> My point is, do people want to actually read values off this sort of plot,
> or just get a qualitative feel for what's happening and where?
>
I think the ticks are useful. The annotation of the bottom left plot is
also required. These sorts of plots are published in journals.
--
Tim Jenness
JAC software
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
|