[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fingering Type Size
From: |
Fairchild |
Subject: |
RE: Fingering Type Size |
Date: |
Sat, 3 Jun 2006 18:53:10 -0500 |
Careful. Not everything scales logarithmically. See attached.
- Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
Kieren Richard MacMillan
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Carrick Patterson
Cc: User's List LilyPond
Subject: Re: Fingering Type Size
Hi, Carrick:
> Well, that worked just great. Thanks a lot.
My pleasure!
> I never would have guessed how the size increment divisions worked
> without your help, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.
It is counter-intuitive if you think of them literally as "divisions"
-- in that case, it would be intuitive that 0 is zero (invisible), 1
(= 100%) is "full-size", and numbers in between are smaller than
normal but bigger than invisible (e.g., 0.5 = 50% of normal size).
However, if you think of 1 as "full-size" and each number, positive
or negative, as ONE STEP AWAY FROM NORMAL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE
SIGN (+1 = one step bigger, -1 = one step smaller), then this system
suddenly "becomes intuitive". ;-)
Best wishes,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
AAAltStripped.ly
Description: Binary data
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: Fingering Type Size,
Fairchild <=