Re: suggestion - increase default beam thickness

[Pavel Roskin]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:54:06 +0100
Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> wrote:

> W dniu 7 stycznia 2012 01:40 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
> <address@hidden> napisał:
...
> > Are you measuring staff space in pixels from the top of one staff
> > line to the top of the next staff line?
> 
> Yes, exactly like that.  I was often measuring one sample in several
> places (and estimating an average) because the shapes are not perfect.

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.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin