Hi Pavel, 2012/1/9 Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org>: > 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.
Good point, your concerns are valid. However, the difference between current Lily default beam thickness and average calculated from samples is so big (almost 0.1 staffspace), that i think we don't have to worry about this. Also, the change i suggest is small - only 0.03 staffspace thicker. Of course, i invite you all to print Lily-engraved scores with default settings and with beam thickness changed to 0.51. I only want to warn you that these results might be prone to similar problems: when some time ago i compared a printout of Lily-made pdf with an older printout, i was surprised to see significant difference in thickness of everything (i estimate it was something like 0.04-0.06 ss). And both copies were printed with the same printer, the only difference was the cartridge! cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel