[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Porrectus (continued)
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: Porrectus (continued) |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:30:04 +0100 |
address@hidden writes:
> pickup pencircle scaled blot_diameter;
> drawdot (blot_diameter/2,0);
> set_char_box(0, blot_diameter#, blot_diameter#/2, blot_diameter#/2);
> fet_endchar;
>
> When I invoked metafont with
>
> mf "\mode=\proof; mag="`guile -c "(write (/ 600 2602))"`";" input
> feta20.mf
>
> producing a 600dpi gf file, the result of the blot was this (one X = one
> pixel):
>
> XXX
> XXX
> XXX
> XXX
>
> Why is the blot-diameter so small - it seems pointless with all this
> fuss when the result in 600dpi nevertheless will be a perfect rectangle.
Blot_diam is 0.4 pt, which is more than 2 pixels at 600
dpi. IIRC, we use it as a radius -- so it should be renamed.
> Well, the blot-diameter actually should depend on the resolution - but
> is that possible?
No, it is is resolution *and* design size independent. It should
reflect the characteristics of the engraving process. Perhaps more
exact measurements on real sheet music are in order here.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/
- Re: [PATCH] Porrectus (continued), Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2002/01/02
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Rune Zedeler, 2002/01/02
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2002/01/03
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Juergen Reuter, 2002/01/04
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2002/01/04
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Rune Zedeler, 2002/01/07
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2002/01/08
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Rune Zedeler, 2002/01/08
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2002/01/16
- Re: Porrectus (continued),
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: Porrectus (continued), Rune Zedeler, 2002/01/31