Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Recommendations concerning notation and publishing software in a non-partisan environment.
Post Reply
harpsi
Posts: 18
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by harpsi » 31 Mar 2017, 07:42

I have been reading the forum's threads on line thickness with pleasure. Really interesting and this forum is a truly useful resource. Right now I am working on layouting a score in Sibelius and I have to change lots of things in the file - I did not do it from scratch. The line settings were a bit upside down for my taste:

Staff lines 0.19
Barlines 0.16
Stems 0.1

Question: What would be the reason for these settings? I know that some prefer staff lines thicker than the rest, but so much?

I changed this to

Staff lines 0.1
Stems 0.13
Barlines 0.16

which made the music easier to read. I also changed from Opus font to Norfolk, I think I will keep it.

Question: When inputting the numbers in Sibelius, I found that they all round off. 0.12 will be 0.13, 0.11 will be 0.1, 0.15 will be 0.16. Etc.
Why is it like this? Is there a special procedure to input other numbers?

Schonbergian
Posts: 145
Joined: 03 Feb 2017, 02:25
Location: Toronto

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by Schonbergian » 31 Mar 2017, 20:15

Thicker staff lines require correspondingly larger and heavier noteheads to match, in addition to other suitably heavy elements. Opus (like most modern music fonts) has relatively anemic noteheads and is designed with a very light line weight in mind (not to mention the other horrific design elements of Opus). Older hand-engraved scores made thicker staff lines work by:

- Using ink, which bled into the paper and ensured that most smaller elements had a consistent weight, and
- Making use of much larger noteheads that appeared in the foreground even with heavier lines all around.

However, I do agree that barlines and stems should not be lighter than staff lines.

Harpsichordmaker
Posts: 13
Joined: 10 Apr 2016, 08:19

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by Harpsichordmaker » 31 Mar 2017, 22:12

Schonbergian wrote:
31 Mar 2017, 20:15
Thicker staff lines require correspondingly larger and heavier noteheads to match, in addition to other suitably heavy elements. Opus (like most modern music fonts) has relatively anemic noteheads and is designed with a very light line weight in mind (not to mention the other horrific design elements of Opus).
Norfolk, a derivative from Bravura, is more substantial than Opus and allows thicker staff lines.
May I ask what is the consensus about Opus, and what are the horrific elements?
Please trust I'm only asking to learn what is to be looked at when reviewing a font, no polemic purposes here. :)

Schonbergian
Posts: 145
Joined: 03 Feb 2017, 02:25
Location: Toronto

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by Schonbergian » 01 Apr 2017, 01:37

Harpsichordmaker wrote:
31 Mar 2017, 22:12
Schonbergian wrote:
31 Mar 2017, 20:15
Thicker staff lines require correspondingly larger and heavier noteheads to match, in addition to other suitably heavy elements. Opus (like most modern music fonts) has relatively anemic noteheads and is designed with a very light line weight in mind (not to mention the other horrific design elements of Opus).
Norfolk, a derivative from Bravura, is more substantial than Opus and allows thicker staff lines.
May I ask what is the consensus about Opus, and what are the horrific elements?
Please trust I'm only asking to learn what is to be looked at when reviewing a font, no polemic purposes here. :)
Norfolk is still slightly too small for my tastes, but I agree that it is a welcome improvement over Opus.

Opus just screams "designed by an amateur" to me. For instance, the treble clef is horribly imbalanced - the vertical line going through the eye is off-centre and the clef seems quite imbalanced because of it. The noteheads are both rather small and incredibly wide. Even Maestro is (to me) a better designed font than Opus.

Harpsichordmaker
Posts: 13
Joined: 10 Apr 2016, 08:19

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by Harpsichordmaker » 01 Apr 2017, 13:37

Schonbergian wrote:
01 Apr 2017, 01:37
Harpsichordmaker wrote:
31 Mar 2017, 22:12
Schonbergian wrote:
31 Mar 2017, 20:15
Thicker staff lines require correspondingly larger and heavier noteheads to match, in addition to other suitably heavy elements. Opus (like most modern music fonts) has relatively anemic noteheads and is designed with a very light line weight in mind (not to mention the other horrific design elements of Opus).
Norfolk, a derivative from Bravura, is more substantial than Opus and allows thicker staff lines.
May I ask what is the consensus about Opus, and what are the horrific elements?
Please trust I'm only asking to learn what is to be looked at when reviewing a font, no polemic purposes here. :)
Norfolk is still slightly too small for my tastes, but I agree that it is a welcome improvement over Opus.

Opus just screams "designed by an amateur" to me. For instance, the treble clef is horribly imbalanced - the vertical line going through the eye is off-centre and the clef seems quite imbalanced because of it. The noteheads are both rather small and incredibly wide. Even Maestro is (to me) a better designed font than Opus.
Thank you, Schoenbergian.

harpsi
Posts: 18
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by harpsi » 01 Apr 2017, 15:44

Thanks to both of you.

Actually I tried to use Engraver font first, but there was an issue with the percussion clef that did not position itself correctly.
Anyway, I feel that Norfolk is an improvement over Opus in this case. The page format is a3 and I have set the staff size to 5 mm. To my eyes, 0.1 spaces for the staff lines is OK. The next possible space setting is 0.13 and I feel that is too thick.

The mystery of only being able to choose 0.1, 0.13, 0.16 etc. continues unsolved...

dspreadbury
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 10:57

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by dspreadbury » 07 Apr 2017, 05:50

The rounding in Sibelius's UI is caused by the fact that under the hood its resolution allows for increments of 1/32nd of a space, or 0.03125 in decimal. All of the fields in the UI are displayed to two decimal places, which means that they are rounded to the nearest hundredth.

User avatar
odod
Posts: 133
Joined: 25 Nov 2015, 15:10

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by odod » 07 Apr 2017, 15:02

dspreadbury wrote:
07 Apr 2017, 05:50
The rounding in Sibelius's UI is caused by the fact that under the hood its resolution allows for increments of 1/32nd of a space, or 0.03125 in decimal. All of the fields in the UI are displayed to two decimal places, which means that they are rounded to the nearest hundredth.
Thanks for the explanation Daniel .. :)
LogicX, Cubase 5, MacMini i7, Macbook Pro 2015, PowerMac G5, Sibelius 8, Finale, Musescore, Reaper, Apogee Duet, Universal Audio Apollo Twin MKII, FontLab, tons of Faith and Prayers

Serenade Music Engraving Service

harpsi
Posts: 18
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 10:30

Re: Line thicknesses/Sibelius

Post by harpsi » 08 Apr 2017, 09:47

Thanks, that explains it.

Post Reply