Different outputs

Discuss the rules of notation, standard notation practices, efficient notation practices and graphic design.
Post Reply
OCTO
Posts: 1271
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Different outputs

Post by OCTO » 09 Apr 2016, 22:03

What is difference between these two files?
Any comment is welcome.
Attachments
drawing.pdf
(80.29 KiB) Downloaded 198 times
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25.5 • Sibelius 2019 • MuseScore 2+3 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9+10 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 10)

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1503
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Different outputs

Post by John Ruggero » 09 Apr 2016, 22:43

The second example has some stem issues with 16th notes.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

OCTO
Posts: 1271
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Different outputs

Post by OCTO » 10 Apr 2016, 06:39

I don't know how it is rendered on your screen, what do you mean as "issue"?
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25.5 • Sibelius 2019 • MuseScore 2+3 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9+10 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 10)

User avatar
tisimst
Posts: 334
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 17:57
Location: UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Different outputs

Post by tisimst » 10 Apr 2016, 06:57

OCTO wrote:What is difference between these two files?
I don't see any difference at all between the two. I even rotated the page so I could cross my eyes to see the difference (since I couldn't see anything different in the normal orientation) and I didn't see any aberrations in what my left eye saw vs what my right eye saw. Is there something truly different?
Music Typeface Designer & Engraver - LilyPond | Sibelius | Finale | MuseScore | Dorico | SMuFL | Inkscape | FontForge
http://www.musictypefoundry.com

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Different outputs

Post by Knut » 10 Apr 2016, 07:17

tisimst wrote:
OCTO wrote:What is difference between these two files?
I don't see any difference at all between the two. I even rotated the page so I could cross my eyes to see the difference (since I couldn't see anything different in the normal orientation) and I didn't see any aberrations in what my left eye saw vs what my right eye saw. Is there something truly different?
+1

User avatar
Alexander Ploetz
Posts: 22
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 01:55
Location: Dresden, Germany
Contact:

Re: Different outputs

Post by Alexander Ploetz » 10 Apr 2016, 10:06

Grace note ledger line have different thickness, but I wouldn't have found it if I had not been looking for, well... anything.

OCTO
Posts: 1271
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Different outputs

Post by OCTO » 10 Apr 2016, 10:27

Correct.
This is my test, which is connected and resulted from another thread. IMO, the grace notes and cautionary clefs should be emboldened to correct the BW-balance with the rest of music. Finale and I guess Sibelius don't do this, but just resize everything equally. The difference between thin lines of reduced symbols and the rest of regular sized music dramatically increases, which makes a "drop" in the visual perception and quick assimilation by musicians.

The items which are manually edited are:
- cautionary G clef is emboldened slightly
- grace-ledger lines are equal to normal ledger lines
- grace-stems are equal to normal stems
- grace-accidentals are emboldened

If none has noticed anything dramatic, it means this can be a good way to do this.
P.s. my ledger lines are pretty heavy, but my point here is to have the same thickness both graces and normals.
P.s.2 some items like g-clef could be emboldened even more. Knut has done a good versions of boldness: not all parts of the clef should be equally emboldened.
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25.5 • Sibelius 2019 • MuseScore 2+3 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9+10 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 10)

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Different outputs

Post by Knut » 10 Apr 2016, 11:28

I agree. This is essentially the same problem that arises when mixing different staff sizes in the same score.

In a widely spaced score like this, very slight changes are harder to see than in a denser score. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, a bolder music font is less sensitive to this issue than the incredibly thin fonts à la Maestro.

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1503
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Different outputs

Post by John Ruggero » 10 Apr 2016, 11:39

OCTO, your thickness revisions are excellent. However, the revision to the grace note stems is what caused the stem issue I noted above. A screen shot:
Stems.jpg
Stems.jpg (34.74 KiB) Viewed 5506 times
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

OCTO
Posts: 1271
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Different outputs

Post by OCTO » 10 Apr 2016, 16:46

John, that is correct. I just didn't have time to edit also these. It was to late...
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 25.5 • Sibelius 2019 • MuseScore 2+3 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9+10 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 10)

Post Reply