On Wednesday 14 June 2006 17:25, Stephen wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: Re: barline problem > > > Which gets us to the crux of the problem. Finale and lilypond use all of > > the > > nuances of postscript that they possibly can..perhaps even using parts of > > it > > that the PDF "subset" does not support very well. For this reason, all > > the > > PDF viewers I have tried look like crap. Sad. > > Your right, Lilypond does not produce PDF files, ghostscript does. So the > only thing Lilypond could do is add additional hinting in the PostScript > file as Hans has already suggested. And as you've already pointed out, what > matters is how the music looks printed out. It is inadviseable to practice > your instrument looking at the 72 dpi of the computer screen rather than a > 300 dpi printed score. That's bad for your eyes.
I think there exist music stands consisting of TFT displays nowadays, so good on-screen rendering is desirable to some extent. However, I'd advise to produce png output if you want to view output on screen; because pngs display a lot faster than pdf or ps, and > The PDF files certainly > are perfectly readable and legible, so therefore, I don't think it is sad > or even undesireable to have the slight aliasing issues you see. After all, > 72 dpi will always be inferior to 300 dpi no matter how you slice it. If > Lilypond is optimized for 300 dpi, that is a good thing. btw, lily is optimized for 600 dpi iirc: the stems have slightly rounded edges, this is not visible on resolutions below 600dpi. -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
