[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
accidental placement (was "Re: 2.1.7-3!!")
From: |
Kieren Richard MacMillan |
Subject: |
accidental placement (was "Re: 2.1.7-3!!") |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:16:26 -0500 |
Hello, all --
Han-Wen wrote:
I suppose the distance should be increased
if the acc is before a downstem. I added a TODO.
Super!
(By the way, if I wanted to experiment on this, what
property/settings/code would I need to modify/create?)
probably right-padding of AccidentalPlacement. (not sure)
I think that would affect *all* accidentals, not just the first, right?
Seems to me that Lily's placement of accidentals beyond the first
column works quite well...
I double-checked in Ross (ps 131): he says the left edge of the first
accidental is set 1.5 spaces to the left of the left edge of the
notehead/stem.
A quick averaging of measurements taken in Illustrator from an
untweaked Lilypond score reveals the following:
staff space = 4 pt --> 1.5 space = 6 pt
sharp = 5.1 pt (85% of recommended)
flat = 4.5 pt (75% of recommended)
natural = 3.6 pt (60% [!!] of recommended)
Here's a sample measure:
lily.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
To my eye, they're all too close, but in particular, the naturals are
downright crowded.
Now, I'm not certain that they should all be set a full 1.5 spaces as
per Ross -- even when "right justified" to compensate for the
difference in glyph widths, to my eye that's a little much (though not
unbearable), :
ross.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
In these days of high-resolution output, something a little closer to
the note seems appropriate and feasible -- here's a compromise (5.5
points instead of a full 6):
splitTheDiff.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
To my eye, that's more pleasing than the default (in fact, a couple of
1/10ths of a point more might be even better).
Anyone have thoughts?
Regards,
Kieren.
- 2.1.7-3!!, Kieren Richard MacMillan, 2004/01/14
Re: 2.1.7-3!!, Ray McKinney, 2004/01/16