You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(33) |
Dec
(20) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(43) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(61) |
Aug
(44) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(82) |
Nov
(97) |
Dec
(47) |
2005 |
Jan
(77) |
Feb
(143) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(31) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(93) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(78) |
Sep
(56) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(72) |
Dec
(75) |
2006 |
Jan
(116) |
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(181) |
Apr
(171) |
May
(112) |
Jun
(86) |
Jul
(91) |
Aug
(111) |
Sep
(77) |
Oct
(72) |
Nov
(57) |
Dec
(51) |
2007 |
Jan
(64) |
Feb
(116) |
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(53) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(519) |
Aug
(151) |
Sep
(132) |
Oct
(74) |
Nov
(282) |
Dec
(190) |
2008 |
Jan
(141) |
Feb
(67) |
Mar
(69) |
Apr
(96) |
May
(227) |
Jun
(404) |
Jul
(399) |
Aug
(96) |
Sep
(120) |
Oct
(205) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(261) |
2009 |
Jan
(136) |
Feb
(136) |
Mar
(119) |
Apr
(124) |
May
(155) |
Jun
(98) |
Jul
(136) |
Aug
(292) |
Sep
(174) |
Oct
(126) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(79) |
2010 |
Jan
(109) |
Feb
(83) |
Mar
(139) |
Apr
(91) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(164) |
Jul
(184) |
Aug
(146) |
Sep
(163) |
Oct
(128) |
Nov
(70) |
Dec
(73) |
2011 |
Jan
(235) |
Feb
(165) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(74) |
Jun
(118) |
Jul
(65) |
Aug
(75) |
Sep
(162) |
Oct
(94) |
Nov
(48) |
Dec
(44) |
2012 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(40) |
Mar
(88) |
Apr
(35) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(69) |
Jul
(90) |
Aug
(123) |
Sep
(112) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(105) |
Dec
(116) |
2013 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(78) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(61) |
Jun
(53) |
Jul
(147) |
Aug
(85) |
Sep
(83) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(27) |
2014 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(49) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(52) |
Sep
(35) |
Oct
(47) |
Nov
(110) |
Dec
(27) |
2015 |
Jan
(50) |
Feb
(93) |
Mar
(96) |
Apr
(30) |
May
(55) |
Jun
(83) |
Jul
(44) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(5) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(1) |
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(5) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
(2) |
3
|
4
(1) |
5
(2) |
6
|
7
(1) |
8
(1) |
9
|
10
(5) |
11
|
12
(1) |
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
(4) |
21
(2) |
22
(2) |
23
(1) |
24
(1) |
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
(2) |
29
|
30
(2) |
31
|
|
|
|
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote: > On 2014年11月21日, 4:42 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Darren Dale <dsd...@gm...> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Phil Elson <pel...@gm...> wrote: >>>> >>>> Please use this thread to discuss the best choice for a new default >>>> matplotlib colormap. >>>> >>>> This follows on from a discussion on the matplotlib-devel mailing list >>>> entitled "How to move beyond JET as the default matplotlib colormap". >>> >>> >>> I remember reading a (peer-reviewed, I think) article about how "jet" was a >>> very unfortunate choice of default. I can't find the exact article now, but >>> I did find some other useful ones: >>> >>> http://cresspahl.blogspot.com/2012/03/expanded-control-of-octaves-colormap.html >>> http://www.sandia.gov/~kmorel/documents/ColorMaps/ >>> http://www.sandia.gov/~kmorel/documents/ColorMaps/ColorMapsExpanded.pdf >> >> Those are good articles. There's a lot of literature on the problems >> with "jet", and lots of links in the matplotlib issue [1]. For those >> trying to get up to speed quickly, MathWorks recently put together a >> nice review of the literature [2]. One particularly striking paper >> they cite studied a group of medical students and found that (a) they >> were used to/practiced at using jet, (b) when given a choice of >> colormaps they said that they preferred jet, (c) they nonetheless made >> more *medical diagnostic errors* when using jet than with better >> designed colormaps (Borkin et al, 2011). >> >> I won't suggest a specific colormap, but I do propose that whatever we >> chose satisfy the following criteria: >> >> - it should be a sequential colormap, because diverging colormaps are >> really misleading unless you know where the "center" of the data is, >> and for a default colormap we generally won't. >> >> - it should be perceptually uniform, i.e., human subjective judgements >> of how far apart nearby colors are should correspond as linearly as >> possible to the difference between the numerical values they >> represent, at least locally. There's lots of research on how to >> measure perceptual distance -- a colleague and I happen to have >> recently implemented a state-of-the-art model of this for another >> project, in case anyone wants to play with it [3], or just using >> good-old-L*a*b* is a reasonable quick-and-dirty approximation. >> >> - it should have a perceptually uniform luminance ramp, i.e. if you >> convert to greyscale it should still be uniform. This is useful both >> in practical terms (greyscale printers are still a thing!) and because >> luminance is a very strong and natural cue to magnitude. >> >> - it should also have some kind of variation in hue, because hue >> variation is a really helpful additional cue to perception, having two >> cues is better than one, and there's no reason not to do it. >> >> - the hue variation should be chosen to produce reasonable results >> even for viewers with the more common types of colorblindness. (Which >> rules out things like red-to-green.) >> >> And, for bonus points, it would be nice to choose a hue ramp that >> still works if you throw away the luminance variation, because then we >> could use the version with varying luminance for 2d plots, and the >> version with just hue variation for 3d plots. (In 3d plots you really >> want to reserve the luminance channel for lighting/shading, because >> your brain is *really* good at extracting 3d shape from luminance >> variation. If the 3d surface itself has massively varying luminance >> then this screws up the ability to see shape.) >> >> Do these seem like good requirements? > > Goals, yes, though I wouldn't put much weight on the "bonus" criterion. > I would add that it should be aesthetically pleasing, or at least > comfortable, to most people. Perfection might not be attainable, and > some tradeoffs may be required. Is anyone set up to produce test images > and/or metrics for judging existing colormaps, or newly designed ones, > on all of these criteria? I had some time on a plane today, so I wrote a little script for visualizing colormaps (esp. WRT perceptual uniformity and colorblindness). To try it: $ git clone https://github.com/njsmith/pycam02ucs.git $ cd pycam02ucs $ ipython In [1]: %matplotlib In [2]: from pycam02ucs.viscm import viscm In [3]: viscm("jet") (Or substitute your favorite built-in colormap, or pass a matplotlib colormap object, i.e. a callable that takes an array of values in the range [0, 1] and returns an array of RGBA values with shape (n, 4).) I'm attaching an example, plus an annotated example explaining what the different bits show. It's a bit crude, but has definitely reached the fun-to-play-around-with stage :-). If anyone makes improvements send me a PR! Hidden feature: you can pass show_gamut=True to get a crude approximation of the space of possible sRGB colors drawn onto the 3d plot at the bottom. The idea is if trying to design a better colormap it's useful to have a sense of what potential colors are available to use. It's pretty crude and somewhat distracting though so I left it off by default for now. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh http://vorpus.org