[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:24:08 +0100 (CET) |
> 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?
Werner
- 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 <=
- 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, address@hidden, 2011/03/09
- Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length, address@hidden, 2011/03/09