I do not know which scanners exactly will work, and if it works for you, great.
Tom Johnson of MakeMusic has a list of about 2 scanners that work. Contact him
at MM and he will be happy to share his list with you
When I scan, I import only time sigs, key sigs and notes from a score. Not
I don't expect perfection, but I think it is reasonable to expect that I
shouldn't have to make edits to every single measure where the scanning
software has missed something important (ties, repeats, slurs,
articulations, got the rhythms wrong, etc.)
On 1/23/2014 5:14 PM, Vosbein, Terry
After a very frustrating start a couple of years ago, I am now scanning music
into Finale with a reasonable level of success. I am using a Canon scanner set
to 300 dpi greyscale, but I do not scan directly into Finale. That's what I
used to do and it was very frustrating and led to more
Clif,
Thanks for sharing. That's a different approach than I had considered.
I may give that a try this weekend.
I am struck by the observation that part of your process involves things
that are absolutely inexcusable for today's software to not already deal
with. Specifically,
I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I
have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and
SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of
the 3, I could sometimes get marginal results with SharpEye, but usually
there
On 1/22/2014 10:22 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote:
I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I
have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and
SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of
the 3, I could sometimes get
Hi Craig,
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to get much better if I were you…
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org
On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Craig Parmerlee cr...@acticalc.com wrote:
I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I
After watching Tom Johnson of Finale scan in clinics with relative ease I have
gone back to scanning. He tells us that certain scanners are better than others
for scanning and that a dpi of 500 or better will achieve optimal results. 300
dpi is pretty awful in scanning music even though we were
It works fine for mea few hints:
Do not scan the music in a scanner and then try to convert it.
Open Finale and scan from within Finale
Also, only a very few scanners actually work. A very very few.
I use an Epson V33 and have no trouble scanning well engraved music.
Hope this helps,
I used a variety of scan formats and they all produced identical
results. One was a 600 BPI TIFF grey scale.
It is hard to believe that the scanner model would make such a
difference because the image at 600 BPI is extremely crisp on my scanner
(which happens to be a Brother.
I did some
I gave up with scanning music - there were so many mistakes that it was
easier and quicker to re-type the entire document than scan, check and
correct.
Sorry,
Lawrence
On 22 January 2014 19:54, Craig Parmerlee cr...@parmerlee.com wrote:
I used a variety of scan formats and they all produced
Hey Terry,
I have an HP Photosmart 6520. Will that work?
John Witmer
- Original Message -
From: Terry Vosbein vosbe...@wlu.edu
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
It works fine for mea few
I have an HP Scanjet G4010 and it scans into Finale pretty well.
Dr.A.S.Weinstangel
sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca
NEW! cel.647-292-4605
From: wit...@nctv.com
To: finale@shsu.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:02:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning
When you say it scans pretty well, do you mean that most of the time
it accurately recognizes these things:
* Key sigs
* Meter marks
* Dotted notes and ties
* Slurs
* Repeats and endings
* Common dynamics and hairpins
* Multi-measure repeats
and doesn't add a bunch of extraneous notes you have
That does seem to be the experience of the majority. However, the
vendors claim great success and apparently some people are finding it
good enough to use, at least occasionally. If there are
hardware/software/parameter combinations that improve the results, I'd
like to discover that because
15 matches
Mail list logo
