I have Matlab code that produces an array of subplots that looks like this:
When I save this as an EMF file (normally a vector format) and insert in Powerpoint or view with Inkscape, then zoom in closely on the image, it looks pixelated, and clearly made up of a single encapsulated object as opposed to many small graphical objects:
This is very surprising to me, as I have for a long time been exporting Matlab plots as EMF and integrating those into Powerpoint slides, in order to build there more complex graphs that, as vector graphics, would print well at any size. These imported EMFs would also scale well and look smooth regardless of how much I zoomed into them in Powerpoint.
Can anyone guess why it is that on this occasion, this plot is not saved as a vector graphics but is instead (as it seems) rendered as raster? The code that produces this figure (based on the Matlab commands subplot, line, and scatter) is rather long/inelegant, but I can give details or simplify, if required to find a solution. Thanks!
Other similar threads on this site have not helped fix this.
I believe I have encountered this issue before. If it is the same as the issue I was facing, it is to do with the renderer being used to save the plot. Although it should automatically select the painters renderer when exporting to vector files, I have had instances where it used the openGL renderer instead, which results in bitmaps being used. I'm not entirely sure why this happens -- it might be the case that for particularly complicated figures, it reverts to openGL to avoid obnoxiously large or complicated vector files.
If you are using the print command, you can force it to use the painters algorithm as follows:
print('-painters',...)
if you're saving using File>Save As..., I believe setting the renderer for the figure should work:
set(figure_handle,'renderer','painters');
For explanation, per the MATLAB documentation:
-opengl' — OpenGL renderer. Use this renderer when saving bitmap images. OpenGL produces a bitmap image even with vector formats, which might limit the extent to which you can edit the image in other applications.
'-painters' — Painters renderer. Use this renderer when saving vector graphics files. If you save to a vector graphics file and if the figure RendererMode property is set to 'auto', then print automatically attempts to use the Painters renderer. If you want to ensure that your output format is a true vector graphics file, then specify the Painters renderer. For example:
print('-painters','-deps','myVectorFile')
If you do not specify the renderer, then print automatically uses the appropriate renderer to produce the output format requested. However, if you set the Renderer property for the figure, then print uses that renderer when generating output.
EDIT: Another option is to use the Copy Figure command (Edit > Copy Figure) -- this should copy the figure as an EMF file, and should obey the figure's renderer settings.
Related
I want to export some MATLAB-plots as vector-graphics for presentations. In the most cases, using print-command, for example:
set(0,'defaultAxesTickLabelInterpreter','Latex')
set(0,'defaultTextInterpreter','Latex')
t=linspace(0,6,6000);
s=sin(t);
figure
for spl=1:16
subplot(4,4,spl);
plot(t,s,'k')
end
print('Sinetest','-dpdf');
but as soon as the number of data-points (or the expected file size) turns too big, for example use t=linspace(0,6,7000); the method fails: instead of a scalable vector graphic, an ugly pixel-monster is saved in the .pdf-file. I've tried to use other file-formats, for exampl .emf, .eps, .svg (svg is what I need actually) instead of .pdf, but it's always the same problem. Reducing the number of data points works in this example, but not in general for me.
Is there any option or work around?
The solution is to specify that the painter renderer should be used:
print('Sinetest','-dpdf', '-painters');
If you save to a vector graphics file and if the figure RendererMode
property is set to 'auto', then print automatically attempts to use
the Painters renderer. If you want to ensure that your output format
is a true vector graphics file, then specify the Painters renderer.
Note that this may result in long rendering times as mentioned in the docs:
Sometimes, saving a file with the '-painters' option can cause longer
rendering times [...]
I am asking for a solution to the blurred image I get when I use copy figure option in Matlab. For example, when I plot 3d figure in matlab I get the following image (It is the result of printscreen!)..
However, when I use the option copy figure I get a blurred image as the following image
.
How can I avoid this as I need to get high resolution image using copy figure option. Thank you in advance for any help you may lend.
By default, the figure is copied as an Enhanced Metafile (a color graphics format) which works for basic plots such as bar plots, line plots, and other 2D plots but may yield undesirable results for more complex plots as in your case. This is because the rendering of the Metafile content is controlled my Microsoft Word and it may render things differently than MATLAB.
If you need a high resolution image, I would recommend using the print command where you can specify the desired resolution (using the -r option). Then you can import the resulting image into Word
print(gcf, 'myfile.png', '-dpng', '-r300')
Alternately, you can use export_fig from the File Exchange which better preserves the appearance
Another option would be to change the format used by Copy Figure to tell it to use a bitmap instead
Or you can call Copy Figure programmatically and specify a different format (either a bitmap or PDF)
print(gcf, '-clipboard', '-dpdf')
I am trying to export a figure which includes highlighting of regions - something like this: Highlight parts of matlab plot. Unfortunately, when I export the figures to .eps files the size is of the order of ~10 MB... Thus, when I include them in a tex file, the quality is severely degraded. As expected this problem seems to occur due to the use of the area function for the highlighting. Is there any workaround on this?
You have transparency in your plot which requires the renderer to be OpenGL which causes any EPS to not really be vector graphics but rather bitmaps coerced in some strange way. This is why the file size is much larger than what you would expect for vector graphics. If you open the resulting EPS file with an external editor (Illustrator, Inkscape, etc.) you will see what I am talking about. As a side-note, transparency isn't technically supported in EPS files.
Your options are really to
Save your figures as something else such as TIFF or PNG
You could try saving the figure as an EPS using export_fig from the file exchange but you will likely still have the same issue.
Turn off transparency, save to an EPS, and use Illustrator or an external program to change the transparency and try to save as an EPS file and see if you get better results.
I am looking to export my MATLAB plot as a high quality figure. Specifically, I would like to save it as a vector based file format such as EPS or SVG.
I have tried print and saveas commands:
saveas(h,'myFileName','epsc2');
print('-r150','-depsc2', 'myFilename');
On all occasions this produces poor quality parts of the graph, although the axis-labels are indeed vector. Why does MatLab do some horrible rendering before putting it into an EPS?
Example of poor quality plot here:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~pemb2372/myFileName.eps
Edit:
It is also worth noting that if you use a Mac viewing an EPS file from Matlab, 'Preview' app may render inner graph content rasterized and poor quality, while leaving the axis and labels vectorized and high quality. This is very misleading but when you open said EPS file in, for example, Inkscape, the quality is actually vector and quite high.
Edit 2:
My university hosting account has expired, so you can no longer view the figure. Suffice it to say that it showed a poor quality raster-style plot within high quality beautiful axis lines, ticks and labels.
I thought I would share the issue I had, and how I overcame it...
I was getting terrible results because I had the wrong renderer set to default. In my startup.m, I had the zbuffer renderer enabled. This is an example eps output.
I made that eps output with: print(gcf,'-depsc2','filename.eps'). This eps is so OBVIOUSLY rasterised. It makes me angry at matlab. Then, I had a brainwave - perhaps my default renderer zbuffer is interfering with the image save process. So, adding the line:
set(gcf,'renderer','painters')
and running the print command as before, here is the output:
Note that I just took screenshots of the eps output files at 100%. And I can confirm the second image is actually vector. Here is a good question/explanation on choosing Renderers in MATLAB.
Matlab can export to pdf with better quality than EPS, but with its own caveats of setting decent margins and font sizes.
edit:
Examples are similar to the EPS case as explained in the help of e.g. print:
saveas(gcf,'filename.pdf')
or
print('-dpdf','filename.pdf')
You might also want to take a look at the PaperSize, PaperPosition and PaperUnits properties of your figure (by means of the set and get functions).
edit: Another option is to use one of the functions available on FileExchange such as the ones mentioned by #user664303 below. My personal favorite for use with LaTeX is matlab2tikz for which the latest version can be gotten from GitHub. Together with the external library of TikZ, I think this delivers some of the most nicest graphs around.
Probably it's also best to mention that I have been actively involved in the matlab2tikz project since 2012.
The export_fig function on the MATLAB file exchange is a reasonably reliable way of accurately exporting figures to eps and pdf (as well as bitmap formats) in MATLAB.
The plot2svg function, also from the file exchange, allows you to export in svg format. It provides some additional benefits, such as being able to export translucent patch objects in vector format.
A comparison of exporting methods is given in this blog post.
I always acquire the final plots (those which are supposed to be inserted into papers and publications) by matplotlib library of python.
You can bet on the amazing quality of the generated plots, both .pdf and .eps formats.
I have a 2D color-map plot created with imagesc and want to export it as a .eps file using
print -depsc.
The problem is that the "original" image data is from a rather small matrix (131 x 131). When I view the image in the matlab figure window, I can see all the individual pixels if I zoom a bit closer.
When I export to eps, however, there seems to be some interpolation or anti-aliasing going on, in that neighboring pixels get blurred/blended into each other. I don't get the problem if I export a high-resolution tiff, but that format is not an option (as demanded by a publisher).
How can I obtain an eps that preserves the pixely structure of my image without applying interpolation or anti-aliasing?
The blurring actually depends on the rendering software your viewer application or printer uses. To get good results all the time, make each pixel in your image an 8x8 block of pixels of the same color. The blurring then only affects the pixels at the edge of each block. 8x8 blocks are best as they compress without nasty artifacts using DCT compression (sometimes used in eps files).
Old question, but highly ranked in Google, so here is my answer:
Open the .eps-file with a text editor, search for "Interpolate" and change the following "true" to "false". Repeat that step for all Interpolate-statements.
It might also depend on the viewer you're using, but probably just because some viewers ignore the "Interpolate"s...
Had the same problem using plot2svg in Matlab and exporting from Inkscape to eps.