Re: Barline scans

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Marnen Laibow-Koser escreveu:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> Marnen Laibow-Koser escreveu:
> [...]
>>> Nope, wrong again.  My original judgement came in fact from viewing the
>>> PDF file.
> [...]
>> The fanciest computer displays are 142 dpi (1600x1200 14" laptop
>> screen).  This is not good enough for judging typography.
> 
> Augh!  The moment I posted my earlier remark, I knew you were going to
> say this.  I neglected to mention that I did in fact magnify the PDF
> file to a point where I could be sure that the proportions I was seeing
> were accurate.  I often do this to judge typography, and it has served
> me very well in other cases.

You cannot judge typography from screen, no matter how much you magnify.
It's just not the same thing. Anyone who has ever designed a font can 
tell you the same thing.  (-- Yes, I did design a font;   a music font
at that)

>>  - Yes, LilyPond uses heavy barlines, at approx. 1.9
>> stafflinethickness (20 pt staff height, 0.5pt stafflinethickness)
>>
>>  - Whether you think that's ugly or not, is a personal opinion.
> 
> Yes.  "Ugly" is a personal opinion.  "Out of the mainstream", however,
> is not a personal opinion, but is a measurable statistic.

Yes, but we already determined that it was not "out of mainstream", but
rather "away from average".

> The issue here is not the quality of my printer, but Lilypond's
> typographic decisions, which I have also confirmed through
> high-resolution examination of PDF files, as I mentioned above.  I
> thought we had a good substantive discussion of these points starting;
> methodological quibbles can't make *everything* go away.

In the end, it's about how things look on paper. Without proper
paper print-outs,  I don't see how you can have a substantive 
point-of-view on how the output looks.

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com