[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > pickup pencircle scaled blot_diameter; > drawdot (blot_diameter/2,0); > set_char_box(0, blot_diameter#, blot_diameter#/2, blot_diameter#/2); > fet_endchar; > > When I invoked metafont with > > mf "\mode=\proof; mag="`guile -c "(write (/ 600 2602))"`";" input > feta20.mf > > producing a 600dpi gf file, the result of the blot was this (one X = one > pixel): > > XXX > XXX > XXX > XXX
> > Why is the blot-diameter so small - it seems pointless with all this > fuss when the result in 600dpi nevertheless will be a perfect rectangle. Blot_diam is 0.4 pt, which is more than 2 pixels at 600 dpi. IIRC, we use it as a radius -- so it should be renamed. > Well, the blot-diameter actually should depend on the resolution - but > is that possible? No, it is is resolution *and* design size independent. It should reflect the characteristics of the engraving process. Perhaps more exact measurements on real sheet music are in order here. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/ _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
