[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length
Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length
Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:43:23 +0100
On Mar 8, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> i don't see any discussion going on here, so i assume you agree to
> shortening the 32nd unbeamed stem.
> I attach the patch.
> 2011/3/5 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>
>> Carl, Han-Wen, Werner, Trevor,
>> thanks for swift answers!
>> 2011/3/5 Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
>>>> Therefore i call for shortening 32nd unbeamed notes by 0.25 ss. Do you
>>> SGTM - I don't think we ever put this much thought or analysis into
>>> the numbers we put there.
>> :) I'm going to do more such analysis :)
>> 2011/3/5 Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:
>>>> i suggest making unbeamed 32nd stems a bit shorter than they are
>>>> now. The main reason for doing so is to better match the stem
>>>> length of the beamed notes.
>>> While I generally agree with your suggestions, I'm not sure that it is
>>> the right solution. In many of the `red' cases of the `old' image, I
>>> think that the length of the unbeamed 32nd stems are fine, but the
>>> length of the beamed stems you are comparing to are too short. To be
>>> more precise, I would increase the minimum stem length for beamed
>>> 32nds so that the beams snap to the next, more distant staff line.
>>> Have you played with that also?
>> No, but i did it now (by inserting \override Stem #'details
>> #'beamed-lengths = #'(3.5 3.5 4.25) in line 21 of that proof-sheet,
>> compiled proof-sheet with colors is here:
>> The effects are quite what i expected - it introduces a lot of yellow
>> and in my opinion starts looking weird in some places. Because of beam
>> quanting, virtually all changes are of a whole staffspace, and it
>> looks like too much, see "too high.png" - i prefer shorter stems in
>> this case.
>> However, i'm not familiar with internal workings of beam quanting -
>> maybe changing some parameters would improve the situation without
>> introducing new problems.
>> By the way, what do engraving books say about it?
>> 2011/3/5 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>
>>> I was surprised to see the quite wide variation in the lengths
>>> of the beamed 32nd notes. Some seem too long and some
>>> too short.
>> I agree that they look somewhat inconsistent.
>>> By that I mean moving them to the next quan position
>>> to make them shorter or longer respectively would seem to be
>>> an improvement. I wonder if the default quanting parameters
>>> are optimally tuned. Perhaps this should be investigated first?
>> As we have seen above, simply changing beamed-lengths doesn't work very well.
>> In my opinion we should decrease the length of unbeamed 32nds as i
>> suggested, and also lenghten some beamed ones, but not by a whole
>> For example look at the "some improvement.png". Current beam behaviour
>> is on the left, and the beamed stems are too short there (and the
>> unbeamed stem is shortened there by 0.25 ss as i suggested). On the
>> right is my idea of fixing this. The trick is that the version on the
>> right has exactly the same quanting problems, but they appear in the
>> lower part of the beam instead of the upper part. Somehow LilyPond
>> never uses this solution.
>> Implementing this would fix 8 out of 18 oranges, and i have ideas how
>> other oranges could be improved as well.
>>>> (red - unbeamed stem is 1 staffspace longer than beamed stem, orange - 0.75
>>>> staffspace longer)
>>>> As you can see, there is quite a lot of red and orange there.
>>>> Now what would it look like if we changed the length of the unbeamed 32nd
>>>> notes to 4.25 ss (instead of 4.5)? Look here:
>>>> Looks much better to me - no red, only orange. Unfortunately it introduces
>>>> some yellow (unbeamed stem shorter than beamed one), but it's just a
>>> Agreed, irrespective of my comments on quanting above. Increasing
>>> the length of the very short beamed 32nds would remove some red,
>>> but reducing the length of the very long ones would introduce more,
>>> or at least more orange.
>> So, should i Prepare the Patch (it would be really tiny :D)?
I don't have a particular opinion either way on this subject, but I would like
to say that I trust Janek on this topic more than I trust myself and thus I
defer to his judgement.
Even if you don't have a strong opinion for or against this change, I'd still
like to see more discussion on Janek's proposal so that he knows whether or not
to move forward with it.
- shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Janek Warchoł, 2011/03/04
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Carl Sorensen, 2011/03/04
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2011/03/04
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/03/04
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Trevor Daniels, 2011/03/05
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Janek Warchoł, 2011/03/05
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Janek Warchoł, 2011/03/08
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Trevor Daniels, 2011/03/08
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Graham Percival, 2011/03/09
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, Janek Warchoł, 2011/03/09
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length,
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, address@hidden, 2011/03/09