Dear R users, I have a desktop computer and a laptop, both of them with Ubuntu Lucid. The former has R2.10 installed from Ubuntu repositories (this is the most recent version in the repositories), while the latter has R2.13 from the CRAN repositories. I noticed that postscript files generated with R2.10 are "better" than files generated with the latest release of R, in particular for plots with colored areas, such as the output of image or persp. The thing is that my ps viewer (e.g. gv or evince) is very slow in opening ps files from R2.13, while it smoothly displays ps files from R2.10, regardless of "encapsulation". I think this is related to differences in the way the ps file is generated by the two versions of R, but I don't know how to go deeper in the matter. Is there anyone experiencing the same issue? Is there any solution? Thank you in advance Cheers Gaetano [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On 21-Jul-11 07:23:54, pilchat wrote:> Dear R users, > > I have a desktop computer and a laptop, both of them with > Ubuntu Lucid. The former has R2.10 installed from Ubuntu > repositories (this is the most recent version in the > repositories), while the latter has R2.13 from the CRAN > repositories. > > I noticed that postscript files generated with R2.10 are > "better" than files generated with the latest release of R, > in particular for plots with colored areas, such as the > output of image or persp. The thing is that my ps viewer > (e.g. gv or evince) is very slow in opening ps files from > R2.13, while it smoothly displays ps files from R2.10, > regardless of "encapsulation". > > I think this is related to differences in the way the ps > file is generated by the two versions of R, but I don't > know how to go deeper in the matter. > > Is there anyone experiencing the same issue? Is there any > solution? > > Thank you in advance > > Cheers > GaetanoHi Gaetano, First, to be sure of the nature of the problem: When you compare the speed of display of a graph generated by R-2.10 with the speed of display of a graph generated by R-2.13, are these two graphs created using identical commands in each version of R? I.e. is it the case that they should be identical graphs? If not, then (depending on how you generated them) it might be that a graph you have generated on R-2.10 consists of "vector" graphics, while another, generated on R-2.13 consists of bit-map graphics. Display of a PostScript file consisting of bit-maps will always be slower that display of a "vector graphics" file. Have you tried copying the same PS file from your desktop to your laptop, or vice versa, in order to compare the speed of display of the same file on the two different machines? If you wish, you can send me privately a) A PS file generated on R-2.10 (desktop) b) A PS file generated on R-2.13 (laptop) using identical commands (i.e. in principle the same) where the two files exhibit the difference in display speed which you describe. I will then attempt to diagnise the problem (please also send the R commands used). Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.harding at wlandres.net> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 21-Jul-11 Time: 12:39:00 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 11-07-21 3:23 AM, pilchat wrote:> Dear R users, > > I have a desktop computer and a laptop, both of them with Ubuntu Lucid. The > former has R2.10 installed from Ubuntu repositories (this is the most recent > version in the repositories), while the latter has R2.13 from the CRAN > repositories. > > I noticed that postscript files generated with R2.10 are "better" than > files generated with the latest release of R, in particular for plots with > colored areas, such as the output of image or persp. The thing is that my ps > viewer (e.g. gv or evince) is very slow in opening ps files from R2.13, > while it smoothly displays ps files from R2.10, regardless of > "encapsulation". > > I think this is related to differences in the way the ps file is generated > by the two versions of R, but I don't know how to go deeper in the matter.Postscript files are mostly text, so you can compare the two files and see what the differences are. The NEWS file shows a number of changes since 2.10.0, but I can't see any that would cause problems for viewers. Duncan Murdoch> > Is there anyone experiencing the same issue? Is there any solution? > > Thank you in advance > > Cheers > > Gaetano > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Another option in this specific case is to use the new useRaster=TRUE option, which makes the image function generate much more compact and faster-rendering image plots. This code: setEPS() postscript (file="volc.eps",width=5,height=4) image(volcano,useRaster=TRUE) dev.off() in R 2.13 generates a 37Kb file which renders very quickly (compared to a 193Kb file without using the useRaster=TRUE option). # David Smith On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:23 AM, pilchat <pilchat at gmail.com> wrote:> > Dear R users, > > I have a desktop computer and a laptop, both of them with Ubuntu Lucid. The > former has R2.10 installed from Ubuntu repositories (this is the most recent > version in the repositories), while the latter has R2.13 from the CRAN > repositories. > > I noticed that postscript files generated with R2.10 are "better" ?than > files generated with the latest release of R, in particular for plots with > colored areas, such as the output of image or persp. The thing is that my ps > viewer (e.g. gv or evince) is very slow in opening ps files from R2.13, > while it smoothly displays ps files from R2.10, regardless of > "encapsulation". > > I think this is related to differences in the way the ps file is generated > by the two versions of R, but I don't know how to go deeper in the matter. > > Is there anyone experiencing the same issue? Is there any solution? > > Thank you in advance > > Cheers > > Gaetano > > ? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.-- David M Smith <david at revolutionanalytics.com> VP of Marketing, Revolution Analytics? http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com Tel: +1 (650) 646-9523 (Palo Alto, CA, USA)