Re: Noteheads slightly too large

> >> Well, I don't know how can I be *completely* sure about it, but I >> see this issue on Evince and Okular pdf readers, as well as in >> Frescobaldi. If you have some suggestion on how to test this >> further, please let me know. > > Frescobaldi, Evince and Okular all use the Poppler library.

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Op Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:14:45 -0700 (MST) Gilberto Agostinho schreef: > Well, I don't know how can I be *completely* sure about it, but I see > this issue on Evince and Okular pdf readers, as well as in > Frescobaldi. If you have some suggestion on how to test this further, > please let me know. F

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Pierre, > On Feb 10, 2016, at 4:08 AM, Pierre Perol-Schneider > wrote: > > Finally, after all types of trials, using 'stencil-scale is definitely the > best workaround to reach an acceptable note head output: > > #(set-global-staff-size 180) %% <= below scales and offsets were set at > #

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

hree different settings for overdone_heads and the noteheads in green are available on the tracker issue: https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4693/ <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4693/> Thanks, Carl -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

> On Feb 14, 2016, at 10:11 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > > Your image only shows notes between staff lines. However, a reduction > in notehead size will mainly make notes _on_ staff lines look too small > and/or unsymmetric so the image is not really useful for judging > potential _downsides_ of t

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Carl Sorensen writes: > The feta font files specify the notehead height to be exactly staff_space + > staff_line_thickness. I am assuming that in the conversion from ps to type1 > font with hinting, the notehead gets just a bit larger. > > I have rebuilt the feta font with a notehead height of s

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

eheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187152.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

staff height has traditionally been 1000 units-per-em. Thanks for correcting me. Best, Abraham -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187084.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Abraham, Thanks for this explanation. Now that I have read up on this, for TrueType at least, I see that FUnits, or font units are used, and that there are a given number of units-per-em for a specific design, say 1000 or 2048 and so on. I can’t find much reference to em-units - to me that s

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Paul, Finally, after all types of trials, using 'stencil-scale is definitely the best workaround to reach an acceptable note head output: #(set-global-staff-size 180) %% <= below scales and offsets were set at #(set-global-staff-size 300) and controlled at zoom #2000 #(set-default-paper-size

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

> Most fonts are usually defined relative to a resolution of a > 1000em-unit scale, Normally used for third-order Bézier outlines (Type1, CFF). > a 1024em-unit scale or a 2048em-unit scale. Normally used for second-order Bézier outlines (TrueType). Note that this is really a convenience thing,

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

a 1000-em unit staff-size (center of bottom line to center of top line), which makes a single staff-space equal to 250-em units. It's just a convenience thing. HTH, Abraham [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em_%28typography%29 -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Pierre, > On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Pierre Perol-Schneider > wrote: > > Some thoughts regarding the use of ly:stencil-scale: > 1. the command seems to have a side effect on the stem attachment (or > probably no effect on the note head extents - tested on a W8 OS) > 2. applying it on all n

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Abraham, What unit is this particular em? In typography at least an em is a measurement equal to the currently specified point size for a font. That does not seem to fit your analysis here. Andrew On 10 February 2016 at 02:12:48, tisimst (tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com) wrote: Relative to a 10

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Send it again with something more homogeneous: %% \version "2.19.36" #(set-global-staff-size 180) #(set-default-paper-size "a4" 'landscape) #(define (my-note-heads grob) (let* ((style (ly:grob-property grob 'style)) (duration (ly:grob-property grob 'duration-log))) (c

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Hi Paul, 2016-02-09 16:48 GMT+01:00 Paul Morris : > \version "2.19.36" > > example = \relative { > c' d e f g a b c > } > > { > \example > } > > { > \override NoteHead.stencil = > #(lambda (grob) > (ly:stencil-scale > (ly:note-head::print grob) > 250/276 250/276)) > >

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Well, that depends on where you want the top/bottom of the notehead to touch the staff-lines: - 275/276 - If you want it to have the same vertical extent as the two touch staff lines. - 250/276 - If you want it to touch the centers of the staff lines - 225/276 - If you wanted them to fit perfectly with

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

/lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187047.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 10:12 AM, tisimst wrote: > > Although microscopic, I can confirm this is true at the font level (at > least at the default printed 20pt size, I didn't check the other optical > variants). Relative to a 1000-em unit staff height (which is what the fonts > are designed to, cent

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

-- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187044.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187042.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

On 09.02.2016 15:14, Gilberto Agostinho wrote: I see this issue on Evince and Okular pdf readers, as well as in Frescobaldi. If you have some suggestion on how to test this further, please let me know. Well, it’s known that on-screen display is often inexact. You might try other backends (SVG,

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

some suggestion on how to test this further, please let me know. Cheers, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187039.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

. Are you completely sure that the issue is in LilyPond's output and not in the displaying program? I agree that LilyPond should take this kind of issues seriously, but there sometimes are more candidates fir causing them. Urs > >Cheers, >Gilberto > > > >-- >View

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

wn work which I print in A4 paper, I really can't see this as an issue at all, so I am not "affected" by it in this sense. Cheers, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659p187037.html Sent from the

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

fills > the space, touching the stave-line on each side of it, but without > extending > beyond either line" (p. 10). > > Cheers, > Gilberto > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Am 12.12.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > On 12.12.2015 00:43, Urs Liska wrote: >> >> Am 12.12.2015 um 00:02 schrieb Simon Albrecht: >>> Thanks for the report. >>> >> This *may* be intended, which should be checked - if someone recalls

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

10). Cheers, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https:/

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

ls >> the space, touching the stave-line on each side of it, but without >> extending >> beyond either line" (p. 10). >> >> Cheers, >> Gilberto >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

10). Cheers, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659.html Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https:/

Noteheads slightly too large

Behind Bars/, states that "[t]he notehead fills the space, touching the stave-line on each side of it, but without extending beyond either line" (p. 10). Cheers, Gilberto -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Noteheads-slightly-too-large-tp184659.ht