> I am developing a /relatively/ easy python script to allow a person to tweak
> the default Emmentaler font as they desire without needing to mess with
> metafont, but by simply modifying the .OTF files in FontForge. I feel like
> I've gotten things /mostly/ under control, but I am running into two issues
> that I just can't figure out.
> The first has to do with the glyphs, which I tweaked a little, that come
> from the feta-alphabet subfonts (i.e., the time-signature numerals and the
> dynamics letters) which for some reason default to some other font for the
> numbers and letters and don't use those in my font at all:
> The other issue appears with the arpeggio element and, I suspect, also with
> the trill element (though I haven't tried it explicitly), neither of which
> did I modify at all. As can be seen below, the glyph doesn't connect for a
> continuous look:
> I have combed through the source code, but I couldn't find anything remotely
> obvious as to why this would be the case. There also appears to be some
> kerning information for these glyphs that I think I've figured out, but not
> sure. Let's just say I am at a loss without some help from someone more
> intimately involved in the data required to render these glyphs (Han-wen?
> Now, why am I doing this?
> Well, Although creating a new music notation font is definitely fun, there's
> another more important reason for this. I'm an engineer by trade with some
> manufacturing experience. I also love singing and playing the piano and
> computer programming, which makes using LilyPond quite enjoyable. As I have
> looked at the notation glyphs from older (and IMHO more beautiful) scores
> that are hand engraved and printed, there is an artistic aspect of the glyph
> designs that is still missing from Emmentaler. I am, in NO WAY, saying that
> Emmentaler is a poorly designed font. It is VERY NICE and I offer my highest
> regards to those who developed it. I know it took a ton of work.
> Here's what's missing, and I don't know how metafont can capture this. Much
> of the focus of the design of Emmentaler font has been around the
> */engraving/* part, which is HUGELY important. However, one thing we are
> forgetting (which may not be important to others, but I see as more
> critical) is the design AND FABRICATION of the punches that were used. Let
> me explain what I mean.
> In order to cut metal, I have to have a tool that is */sharp/*. How sharp?
> Well, that's relative I suppose, but let's assume I have a tool with
> knife-like edge that is hard enough to cut, say, the treble clef punch at a
> particular size. Now, this knife edge is only so sharp and, when cutting
> metal, isn't likely to be used like we would use a knife to carve wood. On
> the contrary, it would be used more like a chisel and would be able to
> create a /smallest/ feature size, like for an interior corner. This is the
> most obvious kind of feature that most people don't think about when
> creating a classical-looking font. Exterior corners can be made sharp--/no
> problem!/--because I am not limited in size by the tool I'm using to create
> it. On the other hand, the interior corners are /*NEVER EVER EVER* going to
> be sharp/ because I simply do not have a strong enough tool with a sharp
> enough edge to cut a perfectly sharp interior corner. Even nowadays with our
> advanced manufacturing processes, this is a difficult and very expensive
> What this means: in order to have a truly authentic, classically engraved
> look, ALL interior corners should be rounded-ish, and the rounded-ness
> should remain optically constant (i.e., for emmentaler-26, the internal
> rounds would be optically the same size as those for emmentaler-11, but in
> the font itself, the rounds would be /MUCH LARGER/ for emmentaler-11 than
> emmentaler-26 because the intended print size is /MUCH SMALLER/). I realize
> that using a traditional printing press with liquid ink will also contribute
> to the final size of these rounds, so what this "minimum feature size"
> should be is certainly debatable. I know that not everyone would agree with
> the need to add this feature, or with any of the other changes I've made,
> but take it for what it's worth. I think it would add a very nice touch to
> Wow, I didn't mean for all that to come out right now, but I thought I'd
> share some thoughts on this matter. I just LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the printed
> look of hand-engraved scores, and the Emmentaler font does great for the
> most part, but I don't feel like it quite captures some unmistakable
> hand-engraved features of the whole engraving/printing process needed to
> make computer-generated scores look more authentic and less
> computer-generated. There are even more features that I love, but would be
> most difficult to mimic, so I won't go there (yet).
> So, back to my original reason for posting this. Can someone help me figure
> out why the dynamic letters and time-signature numbers won't appear like
> they should from my font and why the arpeggio elements won't line up? I know
> there's kerning involved, but I don't suspect that is the issue. I know the
> glyphs are there in the font, so that's also not the issue. Thanks for your
> help and keep up the excellent work!
> View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Question-about-customizing-emmentaler-font-tp161702.html
> Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]