Sharon Cady wrote: > It may not be imperative that your new graphics look exactly like the old, but > do you need them to be publication ready ?
Yes, but it's more a "want" than a "need" (at least in my opinion); this point doesn't have the highest priority. > I agree with Lloydt that more can > be > done in DX than meets the eye, but some of it gets pretty messy. Do you need > more than one image on a page, with exact sizing and positioning ? Do your > images contain more than one element (e.g. image with colorbar) ? Since in IDL > images are treated as arrays, you can manipulate them precisely as pixels on a > page (such as for a GIF image). In IDL you also have "design" control within > postscript of all image elements. > > Are colorbars an important part of your graphics ? If so, with DX you will > probably end up with a big struggle on your hands. The user has little control > over the labeling of the bar, which can then dramatically affect the > positioning of elements. The user can tweek the colorbar somewhat after he > sees > that he doesn't like it, but you probably shouldn't expect a level of > standardization necessary to produce consistent output products. Yes, several images, multiple elements, including colorbars, are important. (there are some - or rather a lot - who think that standardization and consistency are necessary.) > Since OpenDX is free, why not keep it around and experiment with it for > possible use when your 3-D requirements reach an appropriate level ? It really > would be nice to have the capabilities of both packages available. Yes, that's what I want to do if the "official" decision would be to use IDL; > The packages are more complementary than competitive. as Lloydt wrote.
