Re: shortened flags affair, part 3 - 32nds stem length

[Janek Warchoł]

Hm,

i don't see any discussion going on here, so i assume you agree to
shortening the 32nd unbeamed stem.
I attach the patch.

cheers,
Janek

2011/3/5 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>
>
> Carl, Han-Wen, Werner, Trevor,
> thanks for swift answers!
>
> 2011/3/5 Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>
> >
> > > Therefore i call for shortening 32nd unbeamed notes by 0.25 ss. Do you
> > > agree?
> >
> > SGTM - I don't think we ever put this much thought or analysis into
> > the numbers we put there.
>
> :) I'm going to do more such analysis :)
>
> 2011/3/5 Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:
> >
> >> i suggest making unbeamed 32nd stems a bit shorter than they are
> >> now.  The main reason for doing so is to better match the stem
> >> length of the beamed notes.
> >
> > While I generally agree with your suggestions, I'm not sure that it is
> > the right solution.  In many of the `red' cases of the `old' image, I
> > think that the length of the unbeamed 32nd stems are fine, but the
> > length of the beamed stems you are comparing to are too short.  To be
> > more precise, I would increase the minimum stem length for beamed
> > 32nds so that the beams snap to the next, more distant staff line.
> >
> > Have you played with that also?
>
> No, but i did it now (by inserting \override Stem #'details
> #'beamed-lengths = #'(3.5 3.5 4.25) in line 21 of that proof-sheet,
> compiled proof-sheet with colors is here:
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/4ch1mg).
> The effects are quite what i expected - it introduces a lot of yellow
> and in my opinion starts looking weird in some places. Because of beam
> quanting, virtually all changes are of a whole staffspace, and it
> looks like too much, see "too high.png" - i prefer shorter stems in
> this case.
> However, i'm not familiar with internal workings of beam quanting -
> maybe changing some parameters would improve the situation without
> introducing new problems.
> By the way, what do engraving books say about it?
>
> 2011/3/5 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>
> > I was surprised to see the quite wide variation in the lengths
> > of the beamed 32nd notes.  Some seem too long and some
> > too short.
>
> I agree that they look somewhat inconsistent.
>
> > By that I mean moving them to the next quan position
> > to make them shorter or longer respectively would seem to be
> > an improvement.  I wonder if the default quanting parameters
> > are optimally tuned.  Perhaps this should be investigated first?
>
> As we have seen above, simply changing beamed-lengths doesn't work very well.
> In my opinion we should decrease the length of unbeamed 32nds as i
> suggested, and also lenghten some beamed ones, but not by a whole
> staffspace.
> For example look at the "some improvement.png". Current beam behaviour
> is on the left, and the beamed stems are too short there (and the
> unbeamed stem is shortened there by 0.25 ss as i suggested). On the
> right is my idea of fixing this. The trick is that the version on the
> right has exactly the same quanting problems, but they appear in the
> lower part of the beam instead of the upper part. Somehow LilyPond
> never uses this solution.
> Implementing this would fix 8 out of 18 oranges, and i have ideas how
> other oranges could be improved as well.
>
> >> (red - unbeamed stem is 1 staffspace longer than beamed stem, orange - 0.75
> >> staffspace longer)
> >> As you can see, there is quite a lot of red and orange there.
> >> Now what would it look like if we changed the length of the unbeamed 32nd
> >> notes to 4.25 ss (instead of 4.5)? Look here:
> >> http://www.sendspace.com/file/2mzt4a
> >> Looks much better to me - no red, only orange. Unfortunately it introduces
> >> some yellow (unbeamed stem shorter than beamed one), but it's just a 
> >> little.
> >
> > Agreed, irrespective of my comments on quanting above.  Increasing
> > the length of the very short beamed 32nds would remove some red,
> > but reducing the length of the very long ones would introduce more,
> > or at least more orange.
>
> Exactly.
>
> So, should i Prepare the Patch (it would be really tiny :D)?
>
> cheers,
> Janek

0001-unbeamed-32nd-stem-is-shortened-by-0.25-ss-to-fit-be.patch
Description: Text Data