On 11.09.2004 3:46 Uhr, Richard Yates wrote >> Don't put your hopes up too much for music scanning. It can be useful but >> really it only works in rare cases. Most of the time it is quicker to > enter >> all the music using speedy. > > My experience recently has been much better than this. I scanned several > baroque harpsichord sonatas (mostly two voice counterpoint) and it was much > faster than note entry would have been. There are quirks still, and I do not > know how one would actually put a percent accuracy on it, but in this case > it saved me a lot of time.
I agree, with simple music like that, no polyphony within a stave, not many articulations or expressions, or slurs, and a well engraved original, scanning/recognition accuracy may be good enough for it to save some time over Speedy. I myself have done it. However, only a very small percentage of source material will qualify. Complicated keyboard parts: forget it. Even a three part Bach fugue is usually not worth the effort (half the time the voices get all mixed up). Lots of expressions or artics confuse the program (they don't get recognized anyway in the built-in smartscore light). Scanning got much better over the years, but it is still not such that you can simply take a score, put it on the scanner, and let Finale do the rest. And I don't think it is much help except for the very rare cases of sources in the perfect condition. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
