Scott, et al,
It appears nothing has changed in the latest nightly build.
However, I have found that the remote X display I'm using is set to a
resolution of 640x480. Given that info, it might make sense that
ParaView is not rendering anything bigger than 636x420 if it's
restricted to the X display's size. Is it possible to get around the
size of the remote X display when rendering something offscreen with
ParaView?
Jordan
Jordan Deyton
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Telephone: (865) 574-1091
Email: [email protected]
On 3/4/2015 12:15 PM, Scott Wittenburg wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I wonder if that is the issue that is addressed in this topic:
http://review.source.kitware.com/#/t/5425/
If so, I think this fix may be merged soon, as it has already been
approved. If you built the ParaView release you're running yourself,
you could always try to check out the topic and see if it fixes the
issue you're seeing.
Cheers,
Scott
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jordan Deyton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
ParaView gurus,
I am working on a project that uses the JSON RPC protocols
provided by ParaViewWeb. I've noticed that the image quality for
ViewPorts seems bad regardless of what is specified in the call to
viewport.image.render (docs here:
http://www.paraview.org/ParaView3/Doc/Nightly/www/js-doc/index.html#!/api/protocols.ParaViewWebViewPortImageDelivery
<http://www.paraview.org/ParaView3/Doc/Nightly/www/js-doc/index.html#%21/api/protocols.ParaViewWebViewPortImageDelivery>
).
After decoding the returned image from the Base64 encoding, the
JPEG image comes out as 636x420, while the quality is listed as
100 and the original size is 1440x850.
The JSON object passed to viewport.image.render looks like
{"args":[{
"localtime":1425413914878,
"view":-1,
"size":[1440,850],
"quality":100}]
}
While the returned object from that RPC call looks like
{
"image": "very long encoded image text here",
"localTime": 0,
"stale": false,
"size": [1440,850],
"format": "jpeg;base64",
"global_id": "315",
"mtime": 3068929,
"workTime": 1
}
I've used two separate Base64 decoders, and both result in a JPEG
image that is 636x420, not the reported 1440x850.
Any idea what could be the problem here? Is this a bug in
ParaViewWeb? I'm running the latest stable ParaView release
(4.3.1) on RHEL.
Thanks,
Jordan
--
Jordan Deyton
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Telephone: (865) 574-1091 <tel:%28865%29%20574-1091>
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com <http://www.kitware.com>
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at:
http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
