[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fine-tuning new flags - feedback needed

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: fine-tuning new flags - feedback needed
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:58:28 -0200

2011/2/5 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:

>> Overall comments:
>> * There is no question that this is better for the 32nd and shorter in
>> forced directions, especially for the head-facing part of the flag.
>> * It seems to shorten the flags at the tip end too.  I'm not sure if
>> that is desired.
> Do you mean the difference marked in attachment ("tip difference.png")?


> If so, its desired. Reasons for the change were:
> - old stem length was so big that the unbeamed 32nd note was reaching
> a lot higher (half staffspace) than beamed 32nds lying higher on the
> staff (see "lower note higher stem.png")

Don't take 32nds as a standard for comparing beams and stems.  Due to
its configuration, the 32nd beam has very little room to move
vertically. See for example

\relative {
  g32 g[g] a32 a[ a] b32 b32[ b] c32 c32[ c] d32 d[ d] e e[ e] f f[ f]

as you can see, there is a discrepancy that goes the other way too.

> - the stem length and flag characteristic points didn't correspond
> nicely to 16th and 64th flags (see red lines in "upstem flags
> old.png")

Right. While you are talking about the 32nd flag only, my impression
is that after your change, the flags overall are at smaller or at
equal height relative to the corresponding beam. I would like them to
pop out a bit to give a visual balance against the (much heavier)

>> In normal non-forced positions, the flags are a little bit taller than
>> the beamed notes from the same position, and the old version maintains
>> that for the forced positions too (of course, the beaming quants
>> sometimes make it less obvious).  This effect is gone in your verison
>> example, it seems all forced stems are getting shorter than the beams.
> I cannot say what will happen in "real-life situations", but in my
> example ("flag") it's not quite as you say. 2.13.47 output
> was like that:
> - stems of shortened 8ths, 32nds and 128th with flags were longer than
> beamed ones,
> - stems of shortened 16ths and 64ths with flags were equal or
> *shorter* than beamed ones.

> In my suggested output shortened 32nd notes with flags are a bit
> longer than beamed ones, 8ths are a bit longer or equal, and all other
> are equal. No flagged note is shorter than corresponding beamed one.
> Are you sure that you haven't switched the files when comparing?

I am sure; the version number is on the bottom.  I am looking at the
flag test proofsheet. Compare for example, a'' 8th upstem (3rd line).
The old version pops out, the new version is as long as the beam. It's
best to look at the beams outside the staff, as the ones inside the
staff are more restricted in allowed positions due to interference
from the stafflines

Of course, it may be that the beaming is not perfect, and should be
adjusted in some situations, but maybe we could solve one problem at a
time? Ie. fix the discrepancy of the 32nd, and improve the shape for
the shortened flags at the note head end?  We could try to treat the
tip lengths in a separate patch; possibly beam scoring should be tuned

>>  Is there a way to main
> ..?

sorry - brainfart.  I was going to write "maintain the lengths of the old flags"

>> * For the longer (8th, 16th), it trades some voloptuousness for
>> practicality.  I think the overall feel of feta is more on the
>> exuberant side, so I think we could lessen the effect there, and
>> lengthen the hooks a bit more.
> I'm not sure if i understand what effect you want to achieve. From my
> experiments it looks like it won't work well, though. I'll post some
> examples tomorrow.

Especially the 8th up flag in shortened position (f'' and higher)
looks stocky rather than elegant and slender.  If you let the flag
length overall be longer, it will be easier to maintain the slender

The 16th has the same problem, but much less space to make it still
look slender, so I understand it may not be possible.

>> * I'm not sure, but it looks like the outer flag of the 64th and 128th
>> upstem flag seems to pop out a bit.  There is a correction for this,
>> perhaps you uptune that correction for the shorter up flags.
> I don't see what you mean.
> And by 'outer' do you mean topmost or bottommost?

I mean that the hip_wid_multiplier for the last hook of the flag is
smaller (0.95 vs. 1.0)

% Because of optical illusion, the utmost flag (bottom for
% down-pointing, top for up-pointing) should be smaller than the other
% flags.  Adobe Sonata doesn't do this correctly.  (Instead they have
% an extension flag, which looks less elegant.)

I have the feeling that the new 64th and 128th upflags have their
utmost hooks be too large.

hope this helps,
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]