pikers
/
piker
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 5 Pull Requests 7 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Drop log scaling support since uppx driven scaling seems way faster/better

pre_flow
Tyler Goodlet 2022-04-24 17:08:16 -04:00
parent 88ba1765ba
commit 1d63a71de3
1 changed files with 32 additions and 32 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

64
piker/ui/_compression.py
View File

@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ def ohlc_to_m4_line(
flat,
px_width=px_width,
uppx=uppx,
log_scale=bool(uppx)
# log_scale=bool(uppx)
)
x = np.broadcast_to(x[:, None], y.shape)
x = (x + np.array([-0.43, 0, 0, 0.43])).flatten()
@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ def ds_m4(
px_width: int,
uppx: Optional[float] = None,
xrange: Optional[float] = None,
log_scale: bool = True,
# log_scale: bool = True,
) -> tuple[int, np.ndarray, np.ndarray]:
'''
@ -211,27 +211,27 @@ def ds_m4(
# optionally log-scale down the "supposed pxs on screen"
# as the units-per-px (uppx) get's large.
if log_scale:
assert uppx, 'You must provide a `uppx` value to use log scaling!'
# uppx = uppx * math.log(uppx, 2)
# if log_scale:
# assert uppx, 'You must provide a `uppx` value to use log scaling!'
# # uppx = uppx * math.log(uppx, 2)
# scaler = 2**7 / (1 + math.log(uppx, 2))
scaler = round(
max(
# NOTE: found that a 16x px width brought greater
# detail, likely due to dpi scaling?
# px_width=px_width * 16,
2**7 / (1 + math.log(uppx, 2)),
1
)
)
# px_width *= scaler
# # scaler = 2**7 / (1 + math.log(uppx, 2))
# scaler = round(
# max(
# # NOTE: found that a 16x px width brought greater
# # detail, likely due to dpi scaling?
# # px_width=px_width * 16,
# 2**7 / (1 + math.log(uppx, 2)),
# 1
# )
# )
# px_width *= scaler
# else:
# px_width *= 16
assert px_width > 1 # width of screen in pxs?
assert uppx > 0
# should never get called unless actually needed
assert px_width > 1 and uppx > 0
# NOTE: if we didn't pre-slice the data to downsample
# you could in theory pass these as the slicing params,
@ -248,16 +248,16 @@ def ds_m4(
# uppx *= max(4 / (1 + math.log(uppx, 2)), 1)
pxw = math.ceil(xrange / uppx)
px_width = math.ceil(px_width)
# px_width = math.ceil(px_width)
# ratio of indexed x-value to width of raster in pixels.
# this is more or less, uppx: units-per-pixel.
# w = xrange / float(px_width)
# uppx = uppx * math.log(uppx, 2)
w2 = px_width / uppx
# w2 = px_width / uppx
# scale up the width as the uppx get's large
w = uppx# * math.log(uppx, 666)
w = uppx # * math.log(uppx, 666)
# ensure we make more then enough
# frames (windows) for the output pixel
@ -269,18 +269,18 @@ def ds_m4(
# we have room for all output down-samples.
pts_per_pixel, r = divmod(xrange, frames)
if r:
while r:
frames += 1
pts_per_pixel, r = divmod(xrange, frames)
# while r:
frames += 1
pts_per_pixel, r = divmod(xrange, frames)
print(
f'uppx: {uppx}\n'
f'xrange: {xrange}\n'
f'px_width: {px_width}\n'
f'pxw: {pxw}\n'
f'WTF w:{w}, w2:{w2}\n'
f'frames: {frames}\n'
)
# print(
# f'uppx: {uppx}\n'
# f'xrange: {xrange}\n'
# f'px_width: {px_width}\n'
# f'pxw: {pxw}\n'
# f'WTF w:{w}, w2:{w2}\n'
# f'frames: {frames}\n'
# )
assert frames >= (xrange / uppx)
# call into ``numba``