I have noticed several time that the location of minor ticks in logarithm scale is not well define. See for instance the enclosed file HV_MinorTick_log.jpg
Here the x axis (frequency) is displayed in logarithm. I manually change both major and minor ticks. It seems that only major ticks are logarithm scale.
Have you already noticed this bug?
Frequency axis - Minor ticks
Frequency axis - Minor ticks
- Attachments
-
- HV_MinorTicks_log.jpg
- (40.58 KiB) Downloaded 400 times
I've just checked the position of minor ticks. They are correctly placed.
The interval between minor ticks is not constant. For .jpg image, from 1 to 2 the intervals in pixels are:
(1.0) 0, 23, 45, 65, 83, 100, 116, 131, 145, 158, 171 (2.0)
(1.0) 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13 (2.0)
x 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ... 1.9, 2.0
Log 0, 0.0414, 0.0792, ..., 0.279, 0.301
Ratio log/pixel 0.0018, 0.00176, ..., 0.00177, 0.00176
Hence the X scale of your graph is a correct log scale even for minor ticks. If the step between 1 and 1.1 is close to the one from 1.9 to 2, this is normal, this is log scale. The step difference is certainly less than between 1 and 10.
The interval between minor ticks is not constant. For .jpg image, from 1 to 2 the intervals in pixels are:
(1.0) 0, 23, 45, 65, 83, 100, 116, 131, 145, 158, 171 (2.0)
(1.0) 22, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13 (2.0)
x 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ... 1.9, 2.0
Log 0, 0.0414, 0.0792, ..., 0.279, 0.301
Ratio log/pixel 0.0018, 0.00176, ..., 0.00177, 0.00176
Hence the X scale of your graph is a correct log scale even for minor ticks. If the step between 1 and 1.1 is close to the one from 1.9 to 2, this is normal, this is log scale. The step difference is certainly less than between 1 and 10.