On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:54:06 +0100 Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> W dniu 7 stycznia 2012 01:40 użytkownik Carl Sorensen > <c_soren...@byu.edu> napisał: ... > > Are you measuring staff space in pixels from the top of one staff > > line to the top of the next staff line? > > Yes, exactly like that. I was often measuring one sample in several > places (and estimating an average) because the shapes are not perfect. Comparing scanned data to internal numbers is not a fair comparison. When scanning, the lines can get blurred and then they are converted to black-and-white based on the darkness settings. Lines can get thicker or thinner. The most fair comparison would be between the original score on paper and the score produced by Lilypond, also printed on paper. You may need a microscope to measure the widths. As an alternative to the microscope, you can compare scanned scores, but only if both scores were scanned by the same scanner with the same settings. Also, the scans should be grayscale or better, not black-and-white, so that you can measure the human-perceived width rather than a computer-calculated boundary that can be affected by the color of the paper and the ink. This way, you would be using the same method to measure the original and the new data. Lilypond should imitate printed scores, not scanned scores. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel