[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Slanted Beams thickness

From: Valentin Petzel
Subject: Re: Slanted Beams thickness
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:51:32 +0100

Hi Simon,
none of these slopes are extreme enough to really make a difference.

Am Freitag, 25. März 2022, 14:21:12 CET schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> Hi everyone,
> On 25/03/2022 01:44, Valentin Petzel wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Lilypond handles slanted Beams in a geometrically weird way, that is, the
> > thickness is not measured as the shortest distance between the opposing
> > sides of the boundary, but as vertical distance. This results in Beams
> > getting optically thinner and closer the higher the slope is. But we can
> > very easily factor this out by adjusting the thickness to the slope. In
> > fact if we want to achieve a real thickness theta the adjusted thickness
> > would need to be theta·sqrt(1 + slope²). See attached an experimental
> > example.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Valentin
> I think this is a great idea. IMO, the way to think about it should be:
> slanted beams shouldn’t appear any less weighty than horizontal ones.
> It’s not easy to find very obvious examples, but I attach four versions
> of a bar from Grieg in which both beams seem equally thick.
> I agree with others that the distances between multiple beams don’t seem
> good in your mockup. It’s certainly important to preserve the qualities
> of the beam quanting that Lily does, but I don’t know how the
> intricacies of that would play out.
> Best, Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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