Re: barline problem
- Original Message - From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: barline problem Which gets us to the crux of the problem. Finale and lilypond use all of the nuances of postscript that they possibly can..perhaps even using parts of it that the PDF "subset" does not support very well. For this reason, all the PDF viewers I have tried look like crap. Sad. Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes. The PDF files certainly are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. Stephen -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4855143 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 17:25, Stephen wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: barline problem > > > Which gets us to the crux of the problem. Finale and lilypond use all of > > the > > nuances of postscript that they possibly can..perhaps even using parts of > > it > > that the PDF "subset" does not support very well. For this reason, all > > the > > PDF viewers I have tried look like crap. Sad. > > Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the > only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript > file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what > matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice > your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a > 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes. I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to produce png output if you want to view output on screen; because pngs display a lot faster than pdf or ps, and > The PDF files certainly > are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad > or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, > 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If > Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. btw, lily is optimized for 600 dpi iirc: the stems have slightly rounded edges, this is not visible on resolutions below 600dpi. -- Erik ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 17:25, Stephen wrote: > Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the > only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript > file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what > matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice > your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a > 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes. I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to produce png output if you want to view output on screen: pngs are optimised for on-screen viewing regardless of which viewer you use, and they can probably be displayed a lot faster than pdf or ps can. > The PDF files certainly > are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad > or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, > 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If > Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. btw, lily is optimized for 600 dpi iirc: the stems have slightly rounded edges, this is not visible on resolutions below 600dpi. -- Erik ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
On 6/14/06 9:42 AM, "Erik Sandberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 14 June 2006 17:25, Stephen wrote: >> - Original Message - >> From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:55 PM >> Subject: Re: barline problem >> >>> Which gets us to the crux of the problem. Finale and lilypond use all of >>> the >>> nuances of postscript that they possibly can..perhaps even using parts of >>> it >>> that the PDF "subset" does not support very well. For this reason, all >>> the >>> PDF viewers I have tried look like crap. Sad. >> >> Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the >> only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript >> file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what >> matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice >> your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a >> 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes. > > I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good > on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to > produce png output if you want to view output on screen; because pngs display > a lot faster than pdf or ps, and > >> The PDF files certainly >> are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad >> or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, >> 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If >> Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. > > btw, lily is optimized for 600 dpi iirc: the stems have slightly rounded > edges, this is not visible on resolutions below 600dpi. I'm not sure that Lilypond is "optimized" for any set resolution as postscript is a device/resolution independent system. That is it is your interpreter/printing device that determines what the final resolution is. I print out using a 1200 dpi postscript printer and the output looks great. Walter Hofmeister ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but you have not changed my mind. I need better PDF output. printed sheet music is not the only reason for needing to produce music notation. Lilypond will not work for me in that regard. I may or may not still use it for printing if it will not involve too much duplication of work. I do really like the printed output of Lilypond a lot. Its beautiful. But it is sad I can't use lilypond for the whole thing. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want some decent looking PDF files by the way. The ones produced now are really crap. not slightly bad. Crap. Finale suffers the same fate. Whatever the technlogy that would be needed to make Lilypond produce better looking PDF's in addition to the beautiful printed pages..consider this my official plea to the developers to try to do that. regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868193 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Yes Walter, you are correct, Postscript is not based on a particular resolution. Must print beautifully on that printer of yours. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868246 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Walter Hofmeister wrote: > > I would say that in older versions of Lilypond where it relied on LaTex, > the > PDFs were much better looking on the screen. > > Walter Hofmeister > > Yea interesting. So I take it there is no way to make the new lilypond use the old mode or something? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868280 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
that's an interesting point and perhaps in the future that will become more standard, but I would reckon not until the displays are higher resolution, to match that of paper. In any case, that's not the only use for producing music notation.for putting on a music stand to play. Simply producing notation for the sake of study, producing lessons, etc..there are many uses that would be very handy to be completely useable and viewable on-screen. Really, in an ideal situation, you should be able to look at it on the screen and think to yourself "ah, what nice looking notation", then print it out and say "holy cow what beautiful notation". Or at worst, at least if lilyond provided options to choose one way or the other... There is also the point that if I am going to share or even sell a piece of sheet music online, then most likely I would want to distribute it in PDF form. There is a certain polish factor that would come from the PDf looking right. instead of the person opening my PDF file and thinking "ick", I want them to open it up and think, ah, nice.then if they like it, print it out. Erik Sandberg-2 wrote: > > I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so > good > on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to > produce png output if you want to view output on screen: pngs are > optimised > for on-screen viewing regardless of which viewer you use, and they can > probably be displayed a lot faster than pdf or ps can. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868374 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
- Original Message - From: "Walter Hofmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:56 AM Subject: Re: barline problem On 6/14/06 9:42 AM, "Erik Sandberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 14 June 2006 17:25, Stephen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: barline problem Which gets us to the crux of the problem. Finale and lilypond use all of the nuances of postscript that they possibly can..perhaps even using parts of it that the PDF "subset" does not support very well. For this reason, all the PDF viewers I have tried look like crap. Sad. Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes. I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to produce png output if you want to view output on screen; because pngs display a lot faster than pdf or ps, and The PDF files certainly are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. btw, lily is optimized for 600 dpi iirc: the stems have slightly rounded edges, this is not visible on resolutions below 600dpi. I'm not sure that Lilypond is "optimized" for any set resolution as postscript is a device/resolution independent system. That is it is your interpreter/printing device that determines what the final resolution is. I strongly suspect that Eric knows what PostSript is. Just because PostScript is designed to allow rendering at any resolution, does not mean that the basic images are not drawn initially at a specific size. The glyphs in truetype fonts are stored in a specific resolution, as I rememnber it, they are drawn on a square of 2048x2048 internally. QUOTE: " FUnits and the grid ... The points represent locations in a grid whose smallest addressable unit is known as an FUnit or font Unit. The grid is a two-dimensional coordinate system whose x-axis describes movement in a horizontal direction and whose y-axis describes movement in a vertical direction. The grid origin has the coordinates (0,0). The grid is not an infinite plane. Each point must be within the range -16384 and +16383 FUnits. Depending upon the resolution chosen, the range of addressable grid locations will be smaller. The choice of the granularity of the coordinate grid-that is, number of units per em (upem)-is made by the font manufacturer. Outline scaling will be fastest if units per em is chosen to be a power of 2, such as 2048. ... FUnits are relative units because they vary in size as the size of the em square changes. The number of units per em remains constant for a given font regardless of the point size. The number of points per em, however, will vary with the point size of a glyph. An em square is exactly 9 points high when a glyph is displayed at 9 points, exactly 10 points high when the font is displayed at 10 point, and so on. Since the number of units per em does not vary with the point size at which the font is displayed, the absolute size of an FUnit varies as the point size varies. ... Converting FUnits to pixels Values in the em square are converted to values in the pixel coordinate system by multiplying them by a scale. This scale is: pointSize * resolution / ( 72 points per inch * units_per_em ) where pointSize is the size at which the glyph is to be displayed, and resolution is the resolution of the output device. The 72 in the denominator reflects the number of points per inch. For example, assume that a glyph feature is 550 FUnits in length on a 72 dpi screen at 18 point. There are 2048 units per em. The following calculation reveals that the feature is 4.83 pixels long. 550 * 18 * 72 / ( 72 * 2048 ) = 4.83 " My point is that in such systems there has to be a 'choice of the granularity' for storing the images, or rather I should say 'for describing the images' since the images are not stored as a bitmap. Sorry for the long post. The distinction between the FUnit and the em is a good analogy for how PostScript works. Stephen I print out using a 1200 dpi postscript printer and the output looks great. Walter Hofmeister ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-us
Re: barline problem
- Original Message - From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: Re: barline problem that's an interesting point and perhaps in the future that will become more standard, but I would reckon not until the displays are higher resolution, to match that of paper. In any case, that's not the only use for producing music notation.for putting on a music stand to play. Simply producing notation for the sake of study, producing lessons, etc..there are many uses that would be very handy to be completely useable and viewable on-screen. Really, in an ideal situation, you should be able to look at it on the screen and think to yourself "ah, what nice looking notation", then print it out and say "holy cow what beautiful notation". Or at worst, at least if lilyond provided options to choose one way or the other... There is also the point that if I am going to share or even sell a piece of sheet music online, then most likely I would want to distribute it in PDF form. There is a certain polish factor that would come from the PDf looking right. instead of the person opening my PDF file and thinking "ick", I want them to open it up and think, ah, nice.then if they like it, print it out. You have to look very carefully to see what you are talking about. Lilypond looks very nice in PDF. As already stated, the best way to display a sample online is in a png file format. Stephen Erik Sandberg-2 wrote: I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to produce png output if you want to view output on screen: pngs are optimised for on-screen viewing regardless of which viewer you use, and they can probably be displayed a lot faster than pdf or ps can. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868374 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
On 6/14/06 10:25 AM, "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Walter Hofmeister wrote: >> >> I would say that in older versions of Lilypond where it relied on LaTex, >> the >> PDFs were much better looking on the screen. >> >> Walter Hofmeister >> >> > > Yea interesting. So I take it there is no way to make the new lilypond use > the old mode or something? > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868280 > Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. > > There is a way to select the Tex backend. Its described in section 12.1 of the manual (2.9.7 version here). But I can't seem to get it to work here. I'm on Mac OS X and when I CD to the directory where the binaries are in the installed package, I get a warning: command not found. :( Not sure how to fix this. Walter ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
That would be good to figure out. I'll try to see if I can follow up here and get that to work here. I also tryied using --png option to create a png file and the output in png is much nicer on screen then the PDF... So perhaps I can get around this issue by always producing both png and pdf output..something like that. Walter Hofmeister wrote: > > There is a way to select the Tex backend. Its described in section 12.1 of > the manual (2.9.7 version here). But I can't seem to get it to work here. > I'm on Mac OS X and when I CD to the directory where the binaries are in > the > installed package, I get a warning: command not found. :( Not sure how > to > fix this. > > Walter > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4869264 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
On 6/14/06 10:22 AM, "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are of course welcome to your opinion, but you have not changed my mind. > I need better PDF output. printed sheet music is not the only reason for > needing to produce music notation. Lilypond will not work for me in that > regard. I may or may not still use it for printing if it will not involve > too much duplication of work. I do really like the printed output of > Lilypond a lot. Its beautiful. But it is sad I can't use lilypond for the > whole thing. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want some decent > looking PDF files by the way. The ones produced now are really crap. not > slightly bad. Crap. Finale suffers the same fate. Whatever the technlogy > that would be needed to make Lilypond produce better looking PDF's in > addition to the beautiful printed pages..consider this my official plea to > the developers to try to do that. > > regards > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868193 > Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. > I just tried converting the postscript file that lilypond generates to PDF using both the built-in conversion in the Mac OS and Adobe Acrobat Professional and here are the results: The built-in Mac OS conversion looks the same as what Lilypond produces (likely also uses Ghostscript) but here is the surprising part: Acrobat professional produces noticeably worse looking file despite setting it for higher quality display. Walter ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Hi, Dewdman! I need better PDF output. Have you passed a Lilypond-outputted PDF (or the PS) through ps2ps (or pdf2pdf, etc.)? I haven't used that for this particular purpose, but I have found that certain versions of Adobe Illustrator will read a "post-ps2ps" file better than a "pre-ps2ps" file -- which is to say, something is clearly happening to the PostScript code during the "conversion". Can't say for sure that will fix your problem(s) -- heck, it might even make them worse -- but it can't hurt to try it out. Best regards, Kieren. p.s. If you do try it, please forward your results and observations to the list again, for the curious among us... =) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Oh that is very interesting. I have not heard of these utilities ps2ps or pdf2pdf. I'll google them and try it. Thanks. Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > Have you passed a Lilypond-outputted PDF (or the PS) through ps2ps > (or pdf2pdf, etc.)? > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4869457 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Dewdman42 wrote: Oh that is very interesting. I have not heard of these utilities ps2ps or pdf2pdf. I'll google them and try it. Thanks. Kieren MacMillan wrote: Have you passed a Lilypond-outputted PDF (or the PS) through ps2ps (or pdf2pdf, etc.)? ps2ps + ps2pdf results in a file that is about 5 times larger; the Century Schoolbook glyphs appear bitmapped, with obvious jaggies when you zoom in. But the line art appears to be marginally better, and the Feta glyphs are as clear as ever. pdfopt does not improve any hinting in the originally-generated PDF. I don't think these are viable solutions. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Hi, Daniel: I don't think these are viable solutions. Thanks for doing the tests, and reporting back! It will be interesting to see how this thread is "resolved" (i.e., what the final solution turns out to be). Best regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Well, I looked up those two tools and they appear to be linux only? Anyone know if there are windows versions of these tools? Seems like these tools basically do about the same thing as if I use the --png option with lilypond to produce a png file, except that the result is output in a pagenated PDF file. Obviously, it would be supremely better to have a single PDF file that displayed well on-screen and still retained all the line vector glory for optimal printing. My thoughts right now are that this is not possible with Lilypond because postscript encoding is built into the very heart of the way lilypond lays things out on the page. That is not neccessarily a bad thing, the print outs from Lilypond speak for themselves. However, I do think at this time, this is a limiting factor in producing vector-based PDF files. Probably the only real solutino is going to be to produce (if someone needs it), so seperate PDF's, one for printing and one for on-screen display..where the on-screen version either is based on the PNG, or some other utility such as already mentioned does the conversion to bitmap for me. It is unfortunate that the various PDF viewers I have tried do such a poor job of interpretting the vector graphics into 72dpi bitmaps on-screen... or ghostscript either it would appear (which is what limits Finale in the same way). In the case of Oveture...the PDF's look great...and they appear to be vector based. The only diffierence I can surmise is that Oveture is not using postscript in its core..its using some form of vector graphics that is more transportable. However its also quite likely that the postscript language is more precise and flexible than whatever Overture is using, so I am confident that Oveture has limitations in what can be done, albeit, more consistently. I guess the ultimate in Lilypond would be if it had the option of producing the same vector data that Oveture and other non-postscript programs produce, for situations just like this one. In any case, back on topic..if anyone knows about those pdf2pdf tools that run on windows without cygwin, please let me know..otherwise I am probably giving up on this idea and will just crank out PNG files when I need to. I want to experiment with the Tex option someone suggested earlier also. Its possible that Tex is producing the generic vector data instead of postscript also. Daniel Johnson-2 wrote: > > ps2ps + ps2pdf results in a file that is about 5 times larger; the > Century Schoolbook glyphs appear bitmapped, with obvious jaggies when > you zoom in. But the line art appears to be marginally better, and the > Feta glyphs are as clear as ever. > > pdfopt does not improve any hinting in the originally-generated PDF. > > I don't think these are viable solutions. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4872618 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
Hello users, Ghostscript comes with tools for ps/pdf conversion into several formats. Xpdf converts pdf->ps->pdf. They all run in Windows. Another thing to try is to convert the PDF into PDF again, using print to PDF tools. There are many like that for free, like PDF995. I may be wrong but TeX backend is no longer supported. Maybe the documentation needs an update. I didn't verify that. Another remark: I'm not part of Lilypond's developer, but I think the expression "crap" is too strong, and may not be the right approach to encourage the developers to do something better about the PDFs. Also, since this particular need is not the main focus of Lilypond, you could sponsor Han-Wen to take a look in the matter. Regards, Eduardo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
No offense was intended. I think Lilypond is a super product when it comes to printing. Sorry, but the PDF output is less than satisfactory. Sorry if my choice of words was found to be offensive, none was intended other than expressing my impression. I realize lilypond is totally free and have nothing but the deepest respect and appreciation for the efforts of the developers involved. It is what it is. I hope in the future they will consider the on-screen PDF issues more. regards ps - I have already tried using pdf995 to print another pdf from the first pdf and it did not make any difference whatsoever. It still looked like cr uh like not as good as I hoped... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4874808 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: barline problem
- Original Message - From: "Walter Hofmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:29 PM Subject: Re: barline problem On 6/14/06 10:22 AM, "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are of course welcome to your opinion, but you have not changed my mind. I need better PDF output. printed sheet music is not the only reason for needing to produce music notation. Lilypond will not work for me in that regard. I may or may not still use it for printing if it will not involve too much duplication of work. I do really like the printed output of Lilypond a lot. Its beautiful. But it is sad I can't use lilypond for the whole thing. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want some decent looking PDF files by the way. The ones produced now are really crap. not slightly bad. Crap. Finale suffers the same fate. Whatever the technlogy that would be needed to make Lilypond produce better looking PDF's in addition to the beautiful printed pages..consider this my official plea to the developers to try to do that. regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868193 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. I just tried converting the postscript file that lilypond generates to PDF using both the built-in conversion in the Mac OS and Adobe Acrobat Professional and here are the results: The built-in Mac OS conversion looks the same as what Lilypond produces (likely also uses Ghostscript) but here is the surprising part: Acrobat professional produces noticeably worse looking file despite setting it for higher quality display. Mmmm, try setting it for low resolution display. What does 'quality' mean if you are trying to look at it at 72 dpi? Stephen Walter ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
