Re: Porrectus (continued)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
>       pickup pencircle scaled blot_diameter;
>       drawdot (blot_diameter/2,0);
>       set_char_box(0, blot_diameter#, blot_diameter#/2, blot_diameter#/2);
> fet_endchar;
> 
> When I invoked metafont with
> 
> mf  "\mode=\proof; mag="`guile -c "(write (/ 600 2602))"`";" input
> feta20.mf
> 
> producing a 600dpi gf file, the result of the blot was this (one X = one
> pixel):
> 
> XXX
> XXX
> XXX
> XXX

> 
> Why is the blot-diameter so small - it seems pointless with all this
> fuss when the result in 600dpi nevertheless will be a perfect rectangle.

Blot_diam is 0.4 pt, which is more than 2 pixels at 600
dpi. IIRC, we use it as a radius -- so it should be renamed.

> Well, the blot-diameter actually should depend on the resolution - but
> is that possible?

No, it is is resolution *and* design size independent. It should
reflect the characteristics of the engraving process. Perhaps more
exact measurements on real sheet music are in order here.


-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/