The final chapter of this slightly wierd story is that I just upgraded to
RedHat 8.0 and now my lilypond PS output looks great on Ghostview. I can
only guess that there was something wrong with the way I installed
Ghostview, but it doesn't matter any more!
Colin
_
> Mats,
>
> I'm getting weird results as well. PS and PDF output look fine. DVI
> output looks VERY weird. The fonts look square. (but not "dotty" as in
> low resolution dotty, it looks squigly, or something like that)
What DVI file are you refering to? Those produced on your own
system or the
Mats,
I'm getting weird results as well. PS and PDF output look fine. DVI
output looks VERY weird. The fonts look square. (but not "dotty" as in
low resolution dotty, it looks squigly, or something like that)
PDF and PDF output looks flawless. it could be his Tetex installation.
If he is viewin
Mats Bengtsson schrieb:
>This is not the problem. If you followed the discussion, you'd see
>that Colin produced a Postscript file which he claims looks weird
>on his screen but fine on printer. His file looks fine over here.
>Check yourself at
>http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org
This is not the problem. If you followed the discussion, you'd see
that Colin produced a Postscript file which he claims looks weird
on his screen but fine on printer. His file looks fine over here.
Check yourself at
http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg02497.html
I have converted
I had a quick look at texconfig but wasn't sure what to do - which options
do I select?
C
> Are you using tetex, and is it configured to output PS higher than
> 300dpi??? That could be an explanation as to why the notes output dotty.
> . . .
>
> You can change this configuration using the texco
> I it looks fuzzy, it's just since you used the standard
> bitmapped fonts. To get nice fonts in the PDF file, use
> ly2dvi -p file.dvi
No, it just looks completely wrong.
> (assuming that you have Lilypond 1.6.x and that you
> built the Type1 fonts if you compiled the program yourself).
I used
> > I it looks fuzzy, it's just since you used the standard
> > bitmapped fonts. To get nice fonts in the PDF file, use
> > ly2dvi -p file.dvi
> No, it just looks completely wrong.
Does the PDF file look wrong both in ghostview and Acrobat
or only with ghostview?
/Mats
> Does the PDF file look wrong both in ghostview and Acrobat
> or only with ghostview?
Both.
-C
___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> Looked ok, except the distance between the
> root name and the slash is too great.
> ( D /A instead of D/A ) You can use
> lyrics for chords. DaveA
The extra space in the chord name can be fixed with a simple edit of
chord-names.scm. On line 326:
tonic-text except-text " " sep-text
rem
> > Did you check the PDF version of your PS file that I did,
> > to see if it looks OK?
> The staves and the clefs look right but the note heads and chord names
> come out as a dotty mess.
Do you mean that it looks fuzzy or completely wrong?
I it looks fuzzy, it's just since you used the stand
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:14:22 Colin Cotter wrote:
> > How have you looked at the PS file? Did you try to print
> > it out or have you used Ghostview. What version of
> > ghostscript do you use (gs -version)?
> I used Ghostview.
> Here is the output of gs -version
> GNU Ghostscript 6.52 (2001-10-20)
> > How have you looked at the PS file? Did you try to print
> > it out or have you used Ghostview. What version of
> > ghostscript do you use (gs -version)?
> I used Ghostview.
> Here is the output of gs -version
> GNU Ghostscript 6.52 (2001-10-20)
> Copyright (C) 2001 artofcode LLC, Benicia, CA.
> Did you check the PDF version of your PS file that I did,
> to see if it looks OK?
The staves and the clefs look right but the note heads and chord names
come out as a dotty mess.
> Have you tried printing the file to a printer?
That comes out fine, strangely.
I can't figure this out at all -
> How have you looked at the PS file? Did you try to print
> it out or have you used Ghostview. What version of
> ghostscript do you use (gs -version)?
I used Ghostview.
Here is the output of gs -version
GNU Ghostscript 6.52 (2001-10-20)
Copyright (C) 2001 artofcode LLC, Benicia, CA. All rights r
Th PS file looks fine here, I converted it to PDF
and you could check the result at
http://www.s3.kth.se/ ~matsb/oldmrs.pdf
How have you looked at the PS file? Did you try to print
it out or have you used Ghostview. What version of
ghostscript do you use (gs -version)?
/Mats
> > Do you see t
> Do you see the same problems if you run
> ly2dvi -P on some small .ly file?
OK, I attach an .ly file and its associated .ps and .dvi
The .ps looks like lots of messy blobs to me. How does it come out for
you?
Colin
oldmrs.ps
Description: PostScript document
oldmrs.dvi
Description
"Scott Ainsworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had once this problem because my Lilypond setup (using cygwin) causes
> the generated fonts to be put in a subdirectory of my working directory
> (i.e. .../scores/dpi600).
This should be fixed with the latest tetex release.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwen
Yes, this is a remaining problem about the cygwin installation.
Since the generated fonts end up in separate directories for
each user, it's hard to remove them automatically in the
installation scripts.
However, Colin used RedHat where this shouldn't be a problem.
Also, the command 'kpsewhich f
forces the generated fonts to be recreated and solves the problem.
Scott Ainsworth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Mats Bengtsson
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 1:30 PM
To: Colin Cotter
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ps output looks
> > The attached postscript looks fine to me.
> That's very wierd - when I view it with gv it looks like a whole bunch of
> wierd characters. Perhaps there is something wrong with gv and not dvips?
> Colin
I can't imagine that gv fails. Are you sure you are
looking at the same version of the po
> The attached postscript looks fine to me.
That's very wierd - when I view it with gv it looks like a whole bunch of
wierd characters. Perhaps there is something wrong with gv and not dvips?
Colin
___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
> > OK! Then, follow the initial replies to your
> > question and clean all feta* files you can find
> > in /var/lib/texmf/pk/ljfour/
> I tried that:
> I don't get the error messages now but my ps file still looks bizarre (see
> attachments).
> Colin
The attached postscript looks fine to me.
Th
> > Just curious: What do the following commands return?
> > kpsewhich feta20.pk
> /var/lib/texmf/pk/ljfour/feta20.600pk
OK! Then, follow the initial replies to your
question and clean all feta* files you can find
in /var/lib/texmf/pk/ljfour/
> > echo $TEXMF
> [returns nothing]
It should, see
> I hope you did a typing error when you wrote the
> version number. Anyway, there should be a nice
> RPM for the latest stable Lilypond version
> (1.6.4) at www.lilypond.org. Try that instead.
OK.
> Just curious: What do the following commands return?
> kpsewhich feta20.pk
/var/lib/texmf/pk/lj
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >I think you have upgraded your lilypond and forget to delete the old
> >fonts cached...
> Not sure this is true because I have just installed it
> on a new machine. Colin
That's weird.
I hope you did a typing error when you wrote the
version number. Anyway, there
I installed from lilypond-1.1.57-1.i386.rpm on RedHat-7.3
Colin
> Read the section on "Font Problems" in the installation
> instructions.
> Did you compile it yourself or did you install a
> binary package? What platform do you use?
>
>/Mats
>
> > Hi,
> > I have a problem with my dvips out
> I think you have upgraded your lilypond and forget to delete the old
> fonts cached...
Not sure this is true because I have just installed it on a new machine.
Colin
___
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/list
Colin Cotter wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a problem with my dvips output.
> My xdvi file looks fine, but I get
> dvips: Checksum mismatch in font feta16
> dvips: Checksum mismatch in font feta11
> dvips: Checksum mismatch in font feta-nummer8
> dvips: Checksum mismatch in font feta-nummer6
> when I try t
Read the section on "Font Problems" in the installation
instructions.
Did you compile it yourself or did you install a
binary package? What platform do you use?
/Mats
> Hi,
> I have a problem with my dvips output.
> My xdvi file looks fine, but I get
> dvips: Checksum mismatch in font feta1
30 matches
Mail list logo
