On 3/14/2006 9:29 PM, context grey wrote: > Thank you. However I don't think I understand the > response here. > > In what sense do I "want a nonstandard layout"?
You said you want something that is wide and short (3 squares, side by side). The standard layout would fit on a normal piece of paper, or a default window on screen. The R graphics model is that the drawing surface is established first, then the things you draw are adjusted to fit in it. R won't change the shape of the display because you are drawing more things on it. I don't think I understand exactly what you want to achieve; sample code that produces something close would be helpful (even if it comes out the wrong shape). Duncan Murdoch > > Is because I am specify aspect=1/1 in the xyplot() ? > > If so, then is there some other way to cause the > scatterplot > to be rougly square? I took this out and looked at > the result again. > Rougly estimating, the aspect ratio of each > scatterplot is about 7:1. > When a normal distribution is stretched to this extent > it looks like > a linear trend. Very hard to read. > > Alternately, my nonstandard layout may be the > specfication of > width/height in the trellis.device() call? But > without both of these > R gives the error mentioned in my original post. > (And this > is the most puzzling point to me - I really > don't understand why both of these are required -- > specifying one of them would serve usefully to scale > the plot > without changing its aspect ratio, and R should be > able to figure > out the aspect ratio since it is drawing the plot.) > > The issue is not with Latex. I'm using > graphicx/includegraphics, which > does not stretch figures unless requested. I also > verified this > by opening the .eps in another program; it looks the > same as in latex. > Latex is correctly reading the bounding box, but the > bounding box > is quite wrong. > > (May need to clarify here, there are two situations: > 1) aspect=1/1 is not specified in the xyplot() call. > Then the scatter > plots come out hugely stretched. The bounding box > may be correct. > 2) specify aspect=1/1. Now the scatterplots are sort > of correct, > provided I can either guess what width/height should > be in trellis.device(), or else omit the > paper=special. But the bounding > box is quite wrong, it is roughly square, whereas the > figure itself > should be roughly 3:1 for 3 square scatterplots). > > Again, I think the problem is that I'm just > overlooking something basic, but cannot figure out > what it is. > > Here's an idea: maybe lattice/trellis doesn't handle > putting several > plots into a single figure (and same .eps file), i.e. > it should have > separate device/plot/dev.off() calls for each figure? > And then > I'd try to assemble the three into one using latex? > > > > > > --- Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You say you want a nonstandard layout, then you say >> you shouldn't have >> to tell R what you want. How else would it know? >> >> Regarding the stretching: that's being done by >> whatever software is >> importing the picture. Just tell it to preserve the >> aspect ratio, and >> things will be fine. R writes the bounding box into >> EPS files, and >> reasonable software should be able to read it from >> there. >> >> Duncan Murdoch > > ______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html ______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
