Re: fine-tuning new flags - feedback needed

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi,

this is (hopefully) the final version of the new flags; it's a mix of
previous two propositions and some new modifications. I must admit
that i'm proud of it :)
Some differencies between this version and the "compromise" version
(from my previous mail):
- 32nd stems are a bit shorter (but not as short as i suggested
before), 128th stems are a bit shorter too. This makes the stem length
transition smoother (see the coloured lines in the attachments),
- the downstem flags are modified in such a way that the gap between
notehead and flag is smaller; this makes 64th and especially 128th
notes more balanced (at least in my opinion), see the dots in the
attachment,
- the downstem 8th flag is a bit shorter. This is to make sure that
there will be a visible gap between notehead and the end of the flag.
See attachment,
- the shortened upstem 8th flags are shorter (now the dots don't
collide with them!).

Here are the .ly files used for testing: http://www.sendspace.com/file/gjh6ng
Here are the pdfs: http://www.sendspace.com/file/j9dq5t
Here are pdfs made with current dev release (2.13.47) for comparison:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/ogl8rk
Here is the patch file (i hope i got this right...):
http://www.sendspace.com/file/2dx8wa

Please tell me what you think.
Graham, Han-Wen, Reinhold, Keith - may i ask for your opinion too?
After all, this changes will affect virtually all scores (all notes on
middle line of the staff will have longer stems, not mentioning other
changes). Also it's my first contribution, and i've spent many hours
fine-tuning the new flags, so i'd like to know how this turned out.
(as for the c++ code - i'm totally aware that it needs improvement.
metafont is much easier ;P).

cheers,
Janek


2011/1/30 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
> Hi,
>
> After some discussion in "flags, beams and stem length in forced
> directions - output improvement" thread, i've created new flags for
> shorter-stemmed notes and new rules for shortening stems. Please look
> at pdfs linked below and tell me what you think.
> Changes:
> - stem length transition between regular stems and shortened stems is
> now smooth (it's especially visible with unflagged notes),
> - the difference in length between regular stems and shortened stems
> depends on the duration of notes (that's because notes with different
> amount of flags need different treatment),
> - regular stems of 32nd and 128th notes are shorter. I felt they were
> too long, especially compared to the beamed notes - for example the
> stem of the unbeamed e 32nd reaches higher than the beamed f's
> following it,
> - 64th and 128th basic flag shape now matches stem length better (i think).
>
> I hope that .zip archives are appropriate here...
> Each archive is about 400 KB.
> output from 2.13.45: http://www.sendspace.com/file/6cwf2q
> proposed new output: http://www.sendspace.com/file/52bbz6
> If you don't like the last two changes (shorter regular stems and
> modified basic flags), try this: http://www.sendspace.com/file/gglzoh
> (shortened stems of 8th and 16th notes are also a little bit longer
> here than in previous one)
>
> I attach .ly files used for testing. You may send me more files if you
> want to see how they would look like.
> I will send a patch with the code changes when i resolve some problems
> i've encountered; as for now i'd like to know your opinions about the
> output itself. I see that there is a problem with dots and single
> flags... I'd gladly help with solving this one, i have some idea what
> the solution may look like.
>
> cheers,
> Janek

single downstem old.PNG
Description: PNG image

upstem flags new.PNG
Description: PNG image

upstem flags old.PNG
Description: PNG image

downstem flags new.PNG
Description: PNG image

downstem flags old.PNG
Description: PNG image

single downstem new.PNG
Description: PNG image