Re: suggestion - increase default beam thickness

[Janek Warchoł]

Hi Pavel,

2012/1/9 Pavel Roskin <address@hidden>:
> Comparing scanned data to internal numbers is not a fair comparison.
> When scanning, the lines can get blurred and then they are converted to
> black-and-white based on the darkness settings.  Lines can get thicker
> or thinner.
>
> The most fair comparison would be between the original score on paper
> and the score produced by Lilypond, also printed on paper.  You may
> need a microscope to measure the widths.
>
> As an alternative to the microscope, you can compare scanned scores,
> but only if both scores were scanned by the same scanner with the same
> settings.  Also, the scans should be grayscale or better, not
> black-and-white, so that you can measure the human-perceived width
> rather than a computer-calculated boundary that can be affected by
> the color of the paper and the ink.
>
> This way, you would be using the same method to measure the original
> and the new data.  Lilypond should imitate printed scores, not scanned
> scores.

Good point, your concerns are valid.  However, the difference between
current Lily default beam thickness and average calculated from
samples is so big (almost 0.1 staffspace), that i think we don't have
to worry about this.  Also, the change i suggest is small - only 0.03
staffspace thicker.

Of course, i invite you all to print Lily-engraved scores with default
settings and with beam thickness changed to 0.51.  I only want to warn
you that these results might be prone to similar problems: when some
time ago i compared a printout of Lily-made pdf with an older
printout, i was surprised to see significant difference in thickness
of everything (i estimate it was something like 0.04-0.06 ss).  And
both copies were printed with the same printer, the only difference
was the cartridge!

cheers,
Janek