Sorry, forgot to say: instead of correcting with 1/cos(\theta) I wonder if correcting with 1/cos(\theta/2) would be an idea?
sl2 = sl / (1+sqrt(1+sl*sl)) // tan(\theta/2) th *= sqrt(1+sl2*sl2) HTH L On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:35 AM Luca Fascione <l.fasci...@gmail.com> wrote: > This video shows Hans Kuehner at work > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvyoKdW-Big > > at 4m36 shows beams being engraved, he appears to keep the instrument > orthogonal to the line direction, > which makes Valentin's formula appropriate to capture this process. > > (I love it when it goes "What happens when you make mistakes?" -> "I > _don't_ make mistakes!" (7m59 or so) ) > > As Werner said, I'd have expected something more of a halfwayhouse, > because in my mind I was expecting more or a nib > pen feel to this, but even looking at photography based processes > there seems to be no evidence that any of that technique > would influence this. > > I feel that for more organic looking fonts (such as lilyjazz) this might > want to change, but I guess that's a somewhat different > topic. > > L > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:10 AM Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> > wrote: > >> Le 25/03/2022 à 01:44, Valentin Petzel a écrit : >> > 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. >> >> >> >> Did you look into engraving literature to back this up? >> Given the amount of effort put by Han-Wen & Jan in beam >> formatting, I have trouble imagining this being just >> an oversight. >> >> Jean >> >> >>
