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: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n161702/timesignature-and-dynamics.png> 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: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n161702/arpeggio-and-dynamics.png> 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? Werner?) 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 challenge. 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 Emmentaler. (phew!) 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! -Abraham -- 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 lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
