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

[address@hidden]

On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 PM, address@hidden wrote:

> On Mar 8, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> 

Oops...I responded to the wrong e-mail!

I meant part "4" of the affair (about the gaps between the tip of the flag and 
the notehead).

Cheers,
MS