Re: Jagged hairpins

[David Kastrup]

SoundsFromSound <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote

>> That very much appears like you are not properly converting your PDF for
>> use with the "high quality" printer.
>> 
>>> Please see attached images and if someone could please let me know if I'm
>>> doing something wrong - or if there is a way to soften the hairpins -
>>> that
>>> would be awesome! :)
>>>
>>> finale_14_line.png
>>> &lt;http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n158826/finale_14_line.png&gt;
>>>   
>>>
>>> LilyPond_PDF_line_-_jagged.png
>>> &lt;http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n158826/LilyPond_PDF_line_-_jagged.png&gt;
>>>
>>> LilyPond_-_during_input.png
>>> &lt;http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n158826/LilyPond_-_during_input.png&gt;
>> 
>> The first thing you are doing wrong is not describing at all what the
>> images are supposed to be from.  "LilyPond_-_during_input"?  Seriously?
>> My LilyPond files look like "c16 d e d r4" during input.

> Hi David,
>
> For these examples I was on Windows 7 using the Adobe Acrobat PDF
> printer set to either 600 or 1200dpi, sorry I can't recall.

Since LilyPond does not use anything like an "Adobe Acrobat PDF printer"
for producing its PDF files, that does not seem like useful information
at all.  You also don't state whether this "PDF printer" comes into play
for LilyPond output or Finale output.

> These were done late last night. But that's the only PDF printer
> option I use when printing to PDF, regardless of program.

Now you are talking about printing _to_ PDF.  LilyPond does not even
have any mechanism where its PDF production could involve an Adobe
utility.

So this is plain nonsense.  Then you are talking about setting some
printing resolution.  If you render to 600dpi while printing to a
1200dpi printer (and 600dpi does not qualify as "high quality" with
printers these days), then the result will be jagged.  Printer dots are
somewhere between round and square at nominal resolution and will
combine more or less gracefully.  However, when rendering at half
resolution or less, a high quality printer will produce sharp edges and
steps.  That's what it's high quality is good for: it will reproduce the
imaging of a low-quality printer better than the low-quality printer
itself could.

> Also I had thought I renamed all the images correctly after working
> last night but it looks like I left one untouched and uploaded it. The
> 'during-input' was the name I gave it to remind me that that
> particular image was what I saw while inputting into
> Frescobaldi.

Frescobaldi uses an entirely different previewing mechanism (Cairo) than
going through a PDF previewer (though some use it as well, they'll
likely drive it differently).  It will definitely benefit from the
-dstrokeadjust option and reduce the variation in thickness due to
staircasing.  The staircasing itself when viewed on each edge of the
line independently will not likely be much affected, however.

-- 
David Kastrup