Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
On 12/17/2009 8:00 PM, SN jef chippewa wrote: 1) anyone feels there is some advantages of using one over the other as a default for the file I initially used page scaling, but some years back I changed to system scaling. There was a discussion about it here, and some people (Johannes? Robert? Jari?) gave some very good reasons in favor of system scaling. I like it because it means I don't need to mentally scale my page margins, and I don't need to use fixed-size text for page-attached items. 2) anyone has a brilliant solution to the different appearance of fixed font expressions with enclosures in PT and (reduced) SC, Sorry, I've never seen that, because I don't use fixed-size fonts in expressions. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
On Fri Dec 18, at FridayDec 18 7:27 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: On 12/17/2009 8:00 PM, SN jef chippewa wrote: 2) anyone has a brilliant solution to the different appearance of fixed font expressions with enclosures in PT and (reduced) SC, Sorry, I've never seen that, because I don't use fixed-size fonts in expressions. Aaron. Aaron, may I ask, then, are you happy with microscopic rehearsal letters and tempo changes in your scores? Once the score sizing gets down to 60% or so (not at all unusual in an orchestra score) then all these items are illegible. I am okay with fixed sizes for tempo marks and rehearsal letters, because there is actually an advantage to having these items be grotesquely large in the score compared with the staff height, but the enclosures are a tough one. JazzFont, of course, (and all the related fonts like Swing and the Broadway font) has built-in enclosures that scale perfectly along with the letters. For Engraver users, Jari Williamsson just came out with a free series of Times-like fonts with built-in enclosures that look pretty good. No circles, though. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
I like it because it means I don't need to mentally scale my page margins, and I don't need to use fixed-size text for page-attached items. ah, well, this isn't such an issue for me, i use fixed for very specific things and can see reason to continue to do so, even though i will change to system scaling instead of page scaling. for me, there is the serious advantage that positioning of page-attached text blocks doesn't shift when page scaling is set to 100%. so to look at this from the oher side now, given that i can achieve everything i want using system scaling instead of page scaling, what could page scaling be useful for that no other method could allow the user to do? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
Staff Styles, which is what I use for different clef changes, isn't as ridiculous as some other workarounds. yeah, but it is still silly. i have to apply one style in the SC for cues and a different one for PT, then in some cases have to also add clef change styles, which of course have to be made in different transpositions... Your other points stand. I am really enjoying, however, the different measure numbers available in score and parts now, since the 2010 update. yes, this is major, but once again, alas, only teasing us. we know they CAN fix these things... but won't do it completely/properly. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
On Fri Dec 18, at FridayDec 18 8:13 AM, SN jef chippewa wrote: Staff Styles, which is what I use for different clef changes, isn't as ridiculous as some other workarounds. yeah, but it is still silly. i have to apply one style in the SC for cues and a different one for PT, then in some cases have to also add clef change styles, which of course have to be made in different transpositions... Ooh, I've never had to do that with different transpositions. It's hard for me to grasp, actually, where one would need to do that. But I freely admit your experience is much wider than mine! Your other points stand. I am really enjoying, however, the different measure numbers available in score and parts now, since the 2010 update. yes, this is major, but once again, alas, only teasing us. we know they CAN fix these things... but won't do it completely/properly. Heh, heh! Tease, indeed! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: Duplicating linked parts for similar instruments
yeah, but it is still silly. i have to apply one style in the SC for cues and a different one for PT, then in some cases have to also add clef change styles, which of course have to be made in different transpositions... Ooh, I've never had to do that with different transpositions. It's hard for me to grasp, actually, where one would need to do that. But I freely admit your experience is much wider than mine! horns. i could also see it being used for passages that should be in the tenor clef in the parts (vc/bsn) but may be preferable in treble in C scores. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
On 12/18/2009 8:09 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Aaron, may I ask, then, are you happy with microscopic rehearsal letters and tempo changes in your scores? Once the score sizing gets down to 60% or so (not at all unusual in an orchestra score) then all these items are illegible. For the type of thing I do (generally chamber orchestra scores at 65% on 8.5x11), it works out fine. For larger scores, it's a bit of a moot point. I wouldn't conduct from anything much smaller than 65%, so if I have more staves I would blow it up onto larger paper at a larger percentage. I think I might find that fixed sizes have the opposite problem: if they're the right size for the parts, then the proportion relative to the music in the score would be too great. So I can see the argument for something else which has been discussed, the option to specify different sizes for expressions in score and parts (either fixed or proportional). I am okay with fixed sizes for tempo marks and rehearsal letters, because there is actually an advantage to having these items be grotesquely large in the score compared with the staff height, but From a conductor's perspective, I disagree. I would rather have everything on the page be at an appropriately scaled size. By the time I get to rehearsal, I'm not really reading tempo marks and such, because I know how the piece goes, and anything I need I will have marked in my favorite 6B pencil. And if I have to lean in a bit to verify a rehearsal letter when we're starting up, I don't mind. I imagine that things might be different in the recording world, where a conductor might be leading a group through a commercial or something that he'd gotten just the day before. In that case, very large markings might help compensate for the lack of preparation time. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] nudge different according to view percent
is anyone aware of some internal logic to this? my default setting is arrows nudge 1px. at different view percentages a single nudge has different effects. and the effects are different in scroll and page view. is this because the setting is related to the screen pixel and not the score itself? page and scroll columns below are the EVPU values of one nudge. view% pagescroll 50 10 8 75 7 5 100 5 4 200 3 2 400+1 1 the discrepancy is made worse by the fact that the effects are different yet again for a score at a smaller scaling than the part. here the nudges are for 65% system scaling, compare with list above: view% page 50 12 75 8 100 6 200 3 400 2 500+1 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
SN jef chippewa wrote: is this because the setting is related to the screen pixel and not the score itself? Yes, nudging has always been based on screen pixels. At the Program Options/Edit page it even says Arrow Keys Nudge Items By ___ Pixel(s). Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
yeah, well, i know... but somehow... i was hoping against the odds that i had misunderstood something. is there a valid reason for items to nudge according to the screen pixels and not in relation to the music they are associated with? is this because the setting is related to the screen pixel and not the score itself? Yes, nudging has always been based on screen pixels. At the Program Options/Edit page it even says Arrow Keys Nudge Items By ___ Pixel(s). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
SN jef chippewa wrote: is there a valid reason for items to nudge according to the screen pixels and not in relation to the music they are associated with? Probably because some people would think the feature was broken otherwise (when zooming out and the items doesn't seem to move visually at a keyboard nudge). I have also wanted nudge to be score-measurement related in the past, an option on how it should behave here would be nice. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
I have also wanted nudge to be score-measurement related in the past, an option on how it should behave here would be nice. like this? default programme setting by manufacturer = 1 EVPU; definable by user to any value - arrow = nudge by default value - sh-arrow = nudge 2x default value opt-arrow = nudge by 1/2 space (12 EVPU), this is hard-wired and the value cannot be changed (?) a checkbox (default by manufacturer is unchecked) allows the user to invert behaviour (normal/option) - unchecked = nudge by definable value - checked = nudge by 1/2 space value (shit-arrow = full space) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
Probably because some people would think the feature was broken otherwise (when zooming out and the items doesn't seem to move visually at a keyboard nudge). And going the other direction, too. If you are in wide view, nudge something and it goes too far, the intuitive thing to do (for my intuition at least!) would be to nudge it back, then zoom in and nudge it again. If it nudged the same distance in the score I would be complaining about it. I have also wanted nudge to be score-measurement related in the past, an option on how it should behave here would be nice. Yes, the option would be good. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
It seems the most logical to me (genuinely a feature, not a bug). If you are in a highly magnified view, presumably you want to make very small adjustments; if you are in a wider view you want larger ones. Also, it means that you can quickly change how far nudging nudges by switching view percentage - far easier than changing the setting for number of pixels nudged in program Options. Richard Yates yeah, well, i know... but somehow... i was hoping against the odds that i had misunderstood something. is there a valid reason for items to nudge according to the screen pixels and not in relation to the music they are associated with? is this because the setting is related to the screen pixel and not the score itself? Yes, nudging has always been based on screen pixels. At the Program Options/Edit page it even says Arrow Keys Nudge Items By ___ Pixel(s). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
And going the other direction, too. If you are in wide view, nudge something and it goes too far, the intuitive thing to do (for my intuition at least!) would be to nudge it back, then zoom in and nudge it again. If it nudged the same distance in the score I would be complaining about it. REALLY!? you mean when you are dealing with the look of the score you think it is better to change view percentages? in my view, it is best to do as much as possible at the same view so that what you see is on the same scale as much as possible. this ensures a much greater consistency. and you can work quicker, not having to zoom in and out and drag teh page as often. then for the few cases where you need a more fine view, you zoom in. in my experience, the types of collisions that you need to move things for are very often on a similar scale (distance between items on score, not screen), therefore it seems to em to make sense that the default be to move by score distances. for people who are less concerned than others about the real geeky details about positioning, or who prefer to approach this purely visually, there is the drag method. :-) but i have spent a lot of time perfecting the auto-positioning of a range of expression categories and once placed in the score (at default positions) i nudge where possible, or type values into the positioning dialogue. then, if necessary, i drag, nudge or retype value, according to the circumstance. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
On 12/18/2009 11:21 AM, SN jef chippewa wrote: REALLY!? you mean when you are dealing with the look of the score you think it is better to change view percentages? It's funny, my instinct is to agree with Richard, but I think I've just been well trained by Finale. In layout programs like InDesign, the arrow keys nudge by fixed distances, not related to view percentages, as jef suggests. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
SN jef chippewa wrote: so to look at this from the oher side now, given that i can achieve everything i want using system scaling instead of page scaling, what could page scaling be useful for that no other method could allow the user to do? The only time I've ever used page scaling was in scores for a visually challenged individual. I took a score originally sized about 5 1/2 x 8, and scaled it up 200 percent using page scaling, and printed the resulting score on 11 x 17 paper, with less than a dozen mouse clicks and a like number of key strokes. ns. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] scale page vs. scale system
On 12/18/2009 11:43 AM, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: The only time I've ever used page scaling was in scores for a visually challenged individual. I took a score originally sized about 5 1/2 x 8, and scaled it up 200 percent using page scaling, and printed the resulting score on 11 x 17 paper, with less than a dozen mouse clicks and a like number of key strokes. In recent Finales (at least since 2007), you don't even need page scaling for this. In the print dialog, just make sure 1-up is selected under Layout, and then check the box that says Fit to page. Select the appropriate size paper in your print driver, and Finale will (or should) autoscale it correctly, relative to the size of your page in Finale. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] [OT] my 1st mac laptop -- suggestions?
it's finally time to put the mac mini to rest. wondering of anyone has any comments about these configs. i'm trying to figure out what is my best option for price, power, portability and functionailty. working with F2010 these days and the only other hogs i run are photoshop (from time to time) and dreamweaver (well, not really that heavy an app). i.e. i don't usually do any real heavy graphic work. and i'm moving around quite a bit in recent years, although usually for extended periods, so i bring monitor with me. base models and price of upgrading to 4G / 500 GB HD / applecare (end of message is same in more detail): macbook 13.3 2.26 GHz1375 EUR macb pro 13.3 2.261670 macb pro 13.3 2.531785 macb pro 15.4 2.532085 i'm considering the 3rd option, since i have a very new 24 viewsonic so am thinking the 13 might be sufficient for portable / on the road work. i imagine for all real work i will work at home, but i have never owned a laptop so am unsure how my working habits might change. 1st is not worth considering unless they put a firewire port in it. a few suggestions from friends have been: buy memory somewhere other than apple to save a few bucks; don't buy through apple store to save even more bucks; if you can afford the 15 the improvement in visuals is important (but 500g heavier and larger to transport). BASE MODEL macbook pro pro pro screen (in) 13.313.313.315.4 speed (GHz) 2.262.262.532.53 RAM (GB)2 2 4 4 HDsize (GB)250 160 250 250 EXTRAS 4 GB RAM90 90 0 0 500 GB HD 135 180 135 135 applecare add 250 250 250 350 extra costs 475 520 385 485 base rate EUR 900 115014001600 total incl. extras 1375167017852085 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
And going the other direction, too. If you are in wide view, nudge something and it goes too far, the intuitive thing to do (for my intuition at least!) would be to nudge it back, then zoom in and nudge it again. If it nudged the same distance in the score I would be complaining about it. REALLY!? you mean when you are dealing with the look of the score you think it is better to change view percentages? Better than what? in my view, it is best to do as much as possible at the same view so that what you see is on the same scale as much as possible. this ensures a much greater consistency. and you can work quicker, not having to zoom in and out and drag teh page as often. then for the few cases where you need a more fine view, you zoom in. Well, that's just what I was saying, when you need a more fine view you zoom in. And when you do zoom in you want finer control of movement. in my experience, the types of collisions that you need to move things for are very often on a similar scale (distance between items on score, not screen), therefore it seems to em to make sense that the default be to move by score distances. To quote you: REALLY!? The nudge of a fingering number in front of a notehead is very small since I autoplace them with a metatool. Moving an expression is often much larger. Moving a barline might be another distance entirely. Jari's suggestion that this be an option seems best for the variety of methods. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] [OT] my 1st mac laptop -- suggestions?
They're about to update the MacBook pro next month, according to rumours. There is a site that shows the product life cycle for each member of the mac family. The recommendation for the MacBook pro is to only buy now if really needed. Matthew Sent from my iPhone On 19/12/2009, at 5:35 AM, SN jef chippewa shirl...@newmusicnotation.com wrote: it's finally time to put the mac mini to rest. wondering of anyone has any comments about these configs. i'm trying to figure out what is my best option for price, power, portability and functionailty. working with F2010 these days and the only other hogs i run are photoshop (from time to time) and dreamweaver (well, not really that heavy an app). i.e. i don't usually do any real heavy graphic work. and i'm moving around quite a bit in recent years, although usually for extended periods, so i bring monitor with me. base models and price of upgrading to 4G / 500 GB HD / applecare (end of message is same in more detail): macbook 13.32.26 GHz1375 EUR macb pro 13.32.261670 macb pro 13.32.531785 macb pro 15.42.532085 i'm considering the 3rd option, since i have a very new 24 viewsonic so am thinking the 13 might be sufficient for portable / on the road work. i imagine for all real work i will work at home, but i have never owned a laptop so am unsure how my working habits might change. 1st is not worth considering unless they put a firewire port in it. a few suggestions from friends have been: buy memory somewhere other than apple to save a few bucks; don't buy through apple store to save even more bucks; if you can afford the 15 the improvement in visuals is important (but 500g heavier and larger to transport). BASE MODELmacbookpropropro screen (in)13.313.313.315.4 speed (GHz)2.262.262.532.53 RAM (GB)2244 HDsize (GB)250160250250 EXTRAS 4 GB RAM 909000 500 GB HD135180135135 applecare add250250250350 extra costs475520385485 base rate EUR900115014001600 total incl. extras1375167017852085 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] [OT] my 1st mac laptop -- suggestions?
crap... i have a big job mid-jan that will be death for the mini, and i have from now until then to sort out the upgrade over the next month... but not during the job. any ideas or speculations as to what the upgrade might entail? They're about to update the MacBook pro next month, according to rumours. There is a site that shows the product life cycle for each member of the mac family. The recommendation for the MacBook pro is to only buy now if really needed. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] [OT] my 1st mac laptop -- suggestions?
Here is the site that has info on Apple product life cycles: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ The bottom MacBook Pro is a ripoff, really. Only a 160GB Hard Drive in there which is ridiculous. Even the MacBook, the lower model, has 250GB. So I expect at least a bump in that area when the MacBook Pro is revised. SN jef chippewa wrote: crap... i have a big job mid-jan that will be death for the mini, and i have from now until then to sort out the upgrade over the next month... but not during the job. any ideas or speculations as to what the upgrade might entail? They're about to update the MacBook pro next month, according to rumours. There is a site that shows the product life cycle for each member of the mac family. The recommendation for the MacBook pro is to only buy now if really needed. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] [OT] my 1st mac laptop -- suggestions?
Possibly these next-gen processors: http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/intel-will-unleash-32-nm-processors-on-january-7th Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://secretsociety.typepad.com On 18 Dec 2009, at 2:18 PM, SN jef chippewa wrote: crap... i have a big job mid-jan that will be death for the mini, and i have from now until then to sort out the upgrade over the next month... but not during the job. any ideas or speculations as to what the upgrade might entail? They're about to update the MacBook pro next month, according to rumours. There is a site that shows the product life cycle for each member of the mac family. The recommendation for the MacBook pro is to only buy now if really needed. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Fin08 Crash when inserting measure stack
I've got a Fin08 file that crashes whenever I insert a measure stack. Has anyone else seen this? Any idea how to work around it? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] nudge different according to view percent
I have found the view percentage is most accurate when it is set to represent the true full scale of the music font. That is, when the system is reduced to 50%, the most accurate views are 200%, or 400%. If the reduction is 85%, the view should be 118% or 235%. (Divide 100 by the reduction size to find the correct view size. You have to round to the nearest whole number in Finale). I think this has to do with the design of the screen fonts which are directly related to their resolution on the screen. (You're trying to make a 24pt character, for example, look as close to real 24pt size on screen). This is an attempt to bypass the computers efforts to portray the shape of the characters by fudging how they look at sizes other than that true resolution of the font. Things have improved since the early days of WYSIWYG, but you can still be more confident of the printed output with accurate view resolutions. If the page has no reduction, view sizes in multiples of 100% will be most accurate, but only for text blocks, etc. attached to the page itself. Mark Ralston mac...@bellsouth.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Fin08 Crash when inserting measure stack
Yes. Insert 20 measures. Then delete 19. That used to work. JB Sent from my iPhone using my thumbs w/out a spellchecker On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Robert Patterson rob...@robertgpatterson.com wrote: I've got a Fin08 file that crashes whenever I insert a measure stack. Has anyone else seen this? Any idea how to work around it? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
