2011/7/31 Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net>: > Don't think this is a problem, but it is a bit interesting. I've been > trying to run my pixel comparator to compare 15.7 to 15.5 and getting a > difference in the bar lines of every image - presumably owing to the work to > stop the PDF artefacts. Looking carefully at the bar lines, you can see > they're not actually black - they're various shades of grey, in both > versions. The difference is that the shading has changed. I attach 2 > highly magnified images - one with normal contrast, and one with it adjusted > to emphasise the shading.
Interesting indeed. I guess it works like this: when rasterizing postscript output Lily decides that barlines are not thick enough to be represented by a perfectly black 2 pixel wide line. Therefore she chooses to draw it as a dark grey 2 pixel wide line (dark grey 2 pixel wide line looks from the distance like something a bit narrower than perfectly black 2 pixel wide line). However, on the spots where barline and stafflines intersect, the "blackness" of the barline is added to the pixel shade, making it darker. In other words, a pixel on the intersection of barline and staffline has more reasons to be completely black (namely, two reasons: being on a barline and being on a staffline) than pixels lying on a barline and not on the staffline. thanks for showing this! Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
