Re: small staff massacre

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> > > % 1. Note positions in chords are not computed correctly.  There
> > > %    seems to be a problem to decide which is `up' and which is
> > > %    `down'.
> >
> > Strange, cannot duplicate.
> 
> I still get this.  I use guile 1.6.4, compiled manually.  For both
> lilypond and guile I've used gcc 2.95.3 (with libc.so.6).  Maybe a
> rounding problem, relying on compiler-specific features?

I think that current CVS fixes this; please test.

> > This is intentional. Extra-offset is a global mechanism that is
> > supposed to work for arbitrary objects.
> >
> > We could change this, though.
> 
> While extra-offset now seems to give the correct results, the size of
> dynamics is still different (see image).

Hmm.

> > > %     is that the thickness of beams must be smaller; this reduces
> > > %     the contrast between beams and staff lines.
> >
> > Check out a good quality pocket score.
> 
> Hmm, I've just had a look into a Henle Urtext edition (violin concerto
> No. 3 from Saint-Saëns, piano score), and there the staff lines of the
> smaller violin staff *are* thinner.  But this is from 2002, and it
> looks like a computer generated score.  An older Henle Urtext edition
> (Beethoven violin sonatas, from 1978) indeed have equally thick staff
> lines, but beams are thicker.  So I suggest to increase the beam
> thickness slightly or to reduce the line thickness a bit.  [Some hours
> later] After I've printed some pages with a 600dpi laser printer I now
> think that thinner lines is the right solution.

I have discoupled the staffline-thickness from the font-thickness, and
tuned it down a little. Unfortunately, now the font has to be tuned
again at different staffsizes.

Most of the tuning has been done on 18pt and 20pt staff
size. Unfortunately, I don't have a 1200 dpi printer, which is really
necessary for such work.


-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen