Jan, I want to give you detailed feedback on this, but showing you is much easier than writing bullet points. If you attach the Finale file, I could implement all my preferred adjustments, which hopefully would give you a good Idea of the changes I feel is needed.jan wrote: ↑27 Mar 2017, 14:26Knut, here are two more before/after PDFs which show the optimization better than the video.
One new feature is the automatic violin clef change that allows more condensation on empty staves: Haydn font instead of Maestro (see example score 2 bottom staves).
The dynamic expressions now don't use rectangular boundary boxes anymore, but cut-out boundary boxes as in SMuFL. This allows for a better condensation for example in m.5 piano where the fermata box would otherwise collide with the mp box.
Adding additional clef changes would be another feature that would improve for example m.3 in bassoon 1 (the high note in that measure was only added for demo purposes).
Did you just switch the treble clefs from one font (Maestro) to another (Haydn)? I wouldn't recommend this, unless you can switch between different clef styles in the same font.
Also, while I would agree with all of John's points under normal circumstances, a condensed layout (i.e., closest possible vertical spacing) require special liberties, and most, if not all, elements should be allowed to be placed at least partially within the staff. Send me the file and I'll show you what I mean.