Urs,

Good, valid questions, and thank you for your response. Let's see if I 
can answer them satisfactorily:

1. The use case, at least as it is with me, would be for anyone 
dabbling with their own notation fonts that want to use them without 
needing to mess with source code. Granted, the work-flow is a little 
bit hacked and definitely done on the command-line, so it takes some 
courage for those less inclined to work there. Also, the method I'm 
using allows the user to edit only the glyphs they want to change in 
FontForge (usually the standard glyphs) and leave the other less-common 
glyphs (like the ancient notations) as they are, but still available 
(as opposed to what Gonville has done) if someone wants to mix notation 
styles in a score, thus allowing for complete flexibility while 
maintaining a comprehensive glyph set.

2. The reason I chose not to edit the metafont source is because it 
appeared that metafont behaves more like a person with a pen writing 
down the glyph (which absolutely has its place) and not a craftsman 
with a chisel making a glyph punch and engraving the glyph in a metal 
plate. I just don't know (probably because of my lack of experience) if 
metafont can easily add the features I've identified. Now, I 100% agree 
that it would be a very nice touch if it could be integrated into 
LilyPond itself, even a totally custom build. I just don't know how to 
make the changes in the metafont easily, but that, again, could be due 
to my lack of experience.

Honestly, the differences between Emmentaler and Cadence (that's what 
I'm calling my font so far) are pretty small. Some more obvious, others 
more subtle. I've attached the FontForge's full-font print out to show 
the 20pt sizes of both Emmentaler and Cadence. 

Also attached are LilyPond's engraving of the first score in the 
"essay", Suite I, BWV 1007. One version was laid out to match the PDF 
version of the essay in its printed size (larger margins, staff-size of 
15.3pt, etc.), but engraved with Emmentaler, which looks fabulous (I 
always wondered why LilyPond's version was not included for comparison 
in the essay), which looks fabulous. 

The other two are the same score at 20pt size, still letter-size paper, 
but default margins, one using Emmentaler and the other using Cadence. 
This particular score looks fine with Cadence since it doesn't use any 
dynamics or numerals (except for the fingering which actually comes 
from a smaller optical Emmentaler font).

- I've tried to mimic the way that some styles blend the noteheads 
together, particularly the half-note and whole note (similar to what 
the Parnassus font does for MuseScore). They are a little larger, and a 
little more round, but still NOT round or even elliptical.
- I've simplified the curves of the treble clef (it just always looked 
a little too hand-written to me) and increased the length of the tail 
of the bass clef. 
- I've also increased the width of the natural accidentals (not 
completely settled on this yet, but the default seems a little thin to 
me) and increased the stems a little, adjusted the interior void of the 
flat accidentals so that the stem has a more consistent taper and the 
bulb is more voluptuous and black. 
- Of course, I added consistent internal rounds to all the glyphs that 
should have them (and not all SHOULD have them, by the way, if we 
follow the engraving process).

If you get any tips as to solving my problems with the font, I'd 
greatly appreciate it!

Regards,
Abraham

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Urs Liska [via Lilypond] 
<ml-node+s1069038n16170...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> Hi Abraham, 
> 
> this sounds very interesting indeed. I'd be most interested in seeing 
> some comparison examples! 
> 
> I can't help you at all with your actual question, but I have a 
> question 
> of my own: Could you please make somewhat more clear what the use 
> case 
> is exactly (in terms of your "users")? 
> My main question is why exactly you want ot edit the .odt files and 
> not 
> the sources. I mean you are writing a Python script, so your users 
> wouldn't mess with Metafont anyway. 
> Of course Modifying the .otf is faster and doesn't require a LiylPond 
> build. But wouldn't it be a very nice touch if the modifications you 
> made could principally be integrated into LilyPond itself (or at 
> least a 
> custom build). 
> 
> Urs 
> 
> Am 21.04.2014 19:19, schrieb tisimst:
> 
> > 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 
> > [hidden email] 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> lilypond-devel mailing list 
> [hidden email] 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
> 
> 
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the 
> discussion below:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Question-about-customizing-emmentaler-font-tp161702p161703.html
> To unsubscribe from Question about customizing emmentaler font, click 
> here.
> NAML


pr-Cadence-20-20pt.pdf (285K) 
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/161707/0/pr-Cadence-20-20pt.pdf>
suite1-bwv1007-emmentaler.pdf (190K) 
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/161707/1/suite1-bwv1007-emmentaler.pdf>
suite1-bwv1007-cadence.pdf (191K) 
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/161707/2/suite1-bwv1007-cadence.pdf>
suite1-bwv1007-essay.pdf (63K) 
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/161707/3/suite1-bwv1007-essay.pdf>
pr-Emmentaler-20-20pt.pdf (202K) 
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/161707/4/pr-Emmentaler-20-20pt.pdf>




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Question-about-customizing-emmentaler-font-tp161702p161707.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

Reply via email to