Hi all,
On Jan 19, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> I didn't look deeply into the article, but figure 5 on p.478 has me
> wondering what it would look like for different rhythms. Spacing
> polyphonic music is inherently a tradeoff, so I expect this technique
> to produce undesirable a
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> I [...] submit this article which discusses the topic in detail.
>>
>> https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cache//b/b/p/bbp2372.2002.097/bbp2372.2002.097.pdf#page=2;zoom=75
>>
>> I would love to see Lilypond incorporate this improved algorithm
>>
I think it’s possible to respect someone’s hard work but provide feedback
to make it even better. As the article shows, using Gourlay’s spacing
algorithm has demonstrable limits in certain contexts involving
polyrhythms. If you’re content seeing Lilypond perform no better than
Finale, Sibelius, and
Hello,
Yes I am not a specialist of music engraving and certainly I must respect
why the implementer made current implementation.
Is there anyone who knows the reason of current behavior?
Regards,
Tatejima Tomohiro
2018/01/17 午前7:16 "Simon Albrecht" :
On 16.01.2018 19:05, Tomohiro Tatejima wro
On 16.01.2018 19:05, Tomohiro Tatejima wrote:
As for first issue, I can understand that `f d` does not need so much
space between notes as `f f`, as `d` does not collide with the stem of
`f`. But what I cannot understand is that `f a` or `f b` needs more
space than `f f` or `f g` (assume all note
> I [...] submit this article which discusses the topic in detail.
>
> https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cache//b/b/p/bbp2372.2002.097/bbp2372.2002.097.pdf#page=2;zoom=75
>
> I would love to see Lilypond incorporate this improved algorithm
> [...]
This sounds like an interesting GSoC project! Han-Wen
Hello,
thank you for your reply.
Of course I can set the optical corrections to 0. I sent these issues
to this mailing list because default correction seems a little odd (at
least for me). I think fixing them might produce a slight (but valid)
improvement on LilyPond's default spacing.
As for f
Hey all,
This is actually my first post on this forum so I hope I’m doing this
correctly! I echo Tomohiro’s concern about spacing polyrhythms and submit
this article which discusses the topic in detail.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cache//b/b/p/bbp2372.2002.097/bbp2372.2002.097.pdf#page=2;zoom=75
On 1/14/2018 8:28 PM, Tomohiro Tatejima wrote:
Hello all,
I encountered some issues related to optical spacing. One is like this:
\version "2.19.80"
{
\override Staff.NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction = #2.5 % to
emphasize effects of optical correction
c'2 a | c' b | c' c' | c' d' |
Hi Tomohiro,
I'm not quite sure I understand what your problem is, but you can set
all these optical corrections to 0.
Under
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals-big-page#notespacing
you'll find the settings and their current defaults.
You may also wish to look at scm/define-gro
Hello all,
I encountered some issues related to optical spacing. One is like this:
\version "2.19.80"
{
\override Staff.NoteSpacing.same-direction-correction = #2.5 % to
emphasize effects of optical correction
c'2 a | c' b | c' c' | c' d' | c' e'
}
The output file is attached as example1.pn
11 matches
Mail list logo
