Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Hans Aikema-2

> On 3 Dec 2016, at 13:18, Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ponders,
>
> Anyone else using coloring in scores, using lilypond unstable and spotting coloring-issues when generating scores?
>
> I spotted a horrible output for a score I created for beamer in our church service and upon futher inspection it appears caused by only partial coloring of the score from black to white: some barlines / stems were still in black and from the looks of it the ouline of the Lyric font is consistently black (filling is white; in 2.19.49 both appear to be white at first glance)
>
> For recoloring the score I use the following LSR snippet:
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=443
>
> I’ll try to compose a minimal example showing the erratice behavior, but am curious if others are seeing the same.

Tracked down the issue to be related to PNG alpha-transparency… The PNG alpha transparency no longer uses the actual color of the grobs, but black for generating the partially transparent pixels

Modify the LSR snippet by adding

#(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency

and the partial transparent blue pixels will become partial transparent black pixels


The modified LSR snippet showing the issue, using white, which makes the sympoms even clearer (as there should be no hint of darkness in a partially transparent white line):


% PNG partially transparent pixels should be in grob-color (white)
% but in 2.19.51 they are in black
#(define (override-color-for-all-grobs color)
  (lambda (context)
   (let loop ((x all-grob-descriptions))
    (if (not (null? x))
     (let ((grob-name (caar x)))
      (ly:context-pushpop-property context grob-name 'color color)
      (loop (cdr x)))))))

#(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency

\relative c' {
  \applyContext #(override-color-for-all-grobs (x11-color ‘white))
  c4\pp\< d e f
  \grace { g16[( a g fis]) } g1\ff\!
}


_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Hans Aikema-2

> On 3 Dec 2016, at 13:52, Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 3 Dec 2016, at 13:18, Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Ponders,
>>
>> Anyone else using coloring in scores, using lilypond unstable and spotting coloring-issues when generating scores?
>>
>> I spotted a horrible output for a score I created for beamer in our church service and upon futher inspection it appears caused by only partial coloring of the score from black to white: some barlines / stems were still in black and from the looks of it the ouline of the Lyric font is consistently black (filling is white; in 2.19.49 both appear to be white at first glance)
>>
>> For recoloring the score I use the following LSR snippet:
>> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=443
>>
>> I’ll try to compose a minimal example showing the erratice behavior, but am curious if others are seeing the same.
>
> Tracked down the issue to be related to PNG alpha-transparency… The PNG alpha transparency no longer uses the actual color of the grobs, but black for generating the partially transparent pixels
>
> Modify the LSR snippet by adding
>
> #(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency
>
> and the partial transparent blue pixels will become partial transparent black pixels
>
>
> The modified LSR snippet showing the issue, using white, which makes the sympoms even clearer (as there should be no hint of darkness in a partially transparent white line):
>
>
> % PNG partially transparent pixels should be in grob-color (white)
> % but in 2.19.51 they are in black
> #(define (override-color-for-all-grobs color)
>  (lambda (context)
>   (let loop ((x all-grob-descriptions))
>    (if (not (null? x))
>     (let ((grob-name (caar x)))
>      (ly:context-pushpop-property context grob-name 'color color)
>      (loop (cdr x)))))))
>
> #(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency
>
> \relative c' {
>  \applyContext #(override-color-for-all-grobs (x11-color ‘white))
>  c4\pp\< d e f
>  \grace { g16[( a g fis]) } g1\ff\!
> }
>

Did a validation on 2.19.50…. there it was still fine, so the issue surfaced in between 2.19.50 and 2.19.51 releases. My gut-feel is that this is an undetected side-effect of David Kastrups changes to properly initialize with a pre-init as the other commits from there message seem to me to be unrelated to the issue at hand.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
dak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

dak
Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> writes:

>> On 3 Dec 2016, at 13:52, Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> I spotted a horrible output for a score I created for beamer in our
>>> church service and upon futher inspection it appears caused by only
>>> partial coloring of the score from black to white: some barlines /
>>> stems were still in black and from the looks of it the ouline of
>>> the Lyric font is consistently black (filling is white; in 2.19.49
>>> both appear to be white at first glance)
>>>
>>> For recoloring the score I use the following LSR snippet:
>>> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=443
>>>
>>> I’ll try to compose a minimal example showing the erratice
>>> behavior, but am curious if others are seeing the same.
>>
>> Tracked down the issue to be related to PNG alpha-transparency… The PNG alpha transparency no longer uses the actual color of the grobs, but black for generating the partially transparent pixels
>>
>> Modify the LSR snippet by adding
>>
>> #(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency
>>
>> and the partial transparent blue pixels will become partial transparent black pixels
>>
>>
>> The modified LSR snippet showing the issue, using white, which makes the sympoms even clearer (as there should be no hint of darkness in a partially transparent white line):
>>
>>
>> % PNG partially transparent pixels should be in grob-color (white)
>> % but in 2.19.51 they are in black
>> #(define (override-color-for-all-grobs color)
>>  (lambda (context)
>>   (let loop ((x all-grob-descriptions))
>>    (if (not (null? x))
>>     (let ((grob-name (caar x)))
>>      (ly:context-pushpop-property context grob-name 'color color)
>>      (loop (cdr x)))))))
>>
>> #(ly:set-option 'pixmap-format "pngalpha") % set PNG background to use Alpha transparency
>>
>> \relative c' {
>>  \applyContext #(override-color-for-all-grobs (x11-color ‘white))
>>  c4\pp\< d e f
>>  \grace { g16[( a g fis]) } g1\ff\!
>> }
>>
>
> Did a validation on 2.19.50…. there it was still fine, so the issue
> surfaced in between 2.19.50 and 2.19.51 releases. My gut-feel is that
> this is an undetected side-effect of David Kastrups changes to
> properly initialize with a pre-init as the other commits from there
> message seem to me to be unrelated to the issue at hand.

The pre-init stuff is very much concerned about the distinction between
potential memory corruption and no memory corruption.

If the patch is actually _responsible_ for the change, this is not a
side-effect but a bug.

My guess is rather that this is an error occuring semi-randomly and the
pre-init changes, as something with a significant effect on allocation
order, cause enough changes in allocation that they are more likely to
make a difference for the trigger of such random errors than changes
with less of an impact on object allocation.

But if you are working with our binary distributions, I consider it most
likely that a change in Gub is responsible: quite a bit in terms of font
changes and Ghostscript were done recently.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Thomas Morley-2
In reply to this post by Hans Aikema-2
2016-12-03 14:27 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <[hidden email]>:

> Did a validation on 2.19.50…. there it was still fine, so the issue surfaced in between 2.19.50 and 2.19.51 releases.

I tested the code with 2.18.2. Looks fine.
2.19.51 looks bad.
2.19.52 (custom build with guile2). Looks fine as well.

Someone should check with a guile-1-build. But I wouldn't be surprised
if its fixed already by Masamichi-San's follow ups.

Cheers,
  Harm

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Hans Aikema-2

> On 3 Dec 2016, at 15:50, Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 2016-12-03 14:27 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Did a validation on 2.19.50…. there it was still fine, so the issue surfaced in between 2.19.50 and 2.19.51 releases.
>
> I tested the code with 2.18.2. Looks fine.
> 2.19.51 looks bad.
> 2.19.52 (custom build with guile2). Looks fine as well.
>
> Someone should check with a guile-1-build. But I wouldn't be surprised
> if its fixed already by Masamichi-San's follow ups.
>

Finally got around to try and install/configure LIlyDev 4.1 on VMWare on my Mac (was on my todo list for quite a while)… did a build of current master (which is a guile-1 build IIUC).. PNG output looks fine again with current master.

regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Thomas Morley-2
2016-12-06 0:17 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <[hidden email]>:

>
> On 3 Dec 2016, at 17:47, Hans Aikema <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3 Dec 2016, at 15:50, Thomas Morley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 2016-12-03 14:27 GMT+01:00 Hans Aikema <[hidden email]>:
>
> Did a validation on 2.19.50…. there it was still fine, so the issue surfaced in between 2.19.50 and 2.19.51 releases.
>
>
> I tested the code with 2.18.2. Looks fine.
> 2.19.51 looks bad.
> 2.19.52 (custom build with guile2). Looks fine as well.
>
> Someone should check with a guile-1-build. But I wouldn't be surprised
> if its fixed already by Masamichi-San's follow ups.
>
>
> Finally got around to try and install/configure LIlyDev 4.1 on VMWare on my Mac (was on my todo list for quite a while)… did a build of current master (which is a guile-1 build IIUC).. PNG output looks fine again with current master.
>
> regards,
> Hans
>
> Checked today with the released Mac OS X build of 2.19.52 and discovered that that build is still having the issue of incorrect transparency.
>
> regards,
> Hans Aikema

If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a
GUB-problem as David suspected.
Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed.

Cheers.
  Harm

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Masamichi HOSODA-2
> If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a
> GUB-problem as David suspected.
> Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed.

Between LilyPond 2.19.50 and 2.19.51,
Ghostscript bundled with the binary distributed on lilypond.org
has been updated.

2.19.50 has Ghostscript 9.15.
2.19.51 has Ghostscript 9.20.
(Also 2.19.52 has Ghostscript 9.20.)

I've tried some versions.

LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.15:
  no problem.

LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.16:
  no problem.

LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.18:
  no problem.

LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.19:
  reproduced.

LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.20:
  reproduced.

LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.18:
  no problem.

LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.19:
  reproduced.

LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.20:
  reproduced.

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Masamichi HOSODA-2
>> If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a
>> GUB-problem as David suspected.
>> Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed.
>
> Between LilyPond 2.19.50 and 2.19.51,
> Ghostscript bundled with the binary distributed on lilypond.org
> has been updated.
>
> 2.19.50 has Ghostscript 9.15.
> 2.19.51 has Ghostscript 9.20.
> (Also 2.19.52 has Ghostscript 9.20.)
>
> I've tried some versions.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.15:
>   no problem.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.16:
>   no problem.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>   no problem.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>   reproduced.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>   reproduced.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>   no problem.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>   reproduced.
>
> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>   reproduced.

I've reported it to Ghostscript Bugzilla.
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697423

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Thomas Morley-2
2016-12-06 15:40 GMT+01:00 Masamichi Hosoda <[hidden email]>:

>>> If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a
>>> GUB-problem as David suspected.
>>> Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed.
>>
>> Between LilyPond 2.19.50 and 2.19.51,
>> Ghostscript bundled with the binary distributed on lilypond.org
>> has been updated.
>>
>> 2.19.50 has Ghostscript 9.15.
>> 2.19.51 has Ghostscript 9.20.
>> (Also 2.19.52 has Ghostscript 9.20.)
>>
>> I've tried some versions.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.15:
>>   no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.16:
>>   no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>>   no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>>   reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>>   reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>>   no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>>   reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>>   reproduced.
>
> I've reported it to Ghostscript Bugzilla.
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697423

Thanks for caring.

Best,
  Harm

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Coloring broken in Lily 2.19.51? (PNG alpha-transparency coloring is broken)

Hans Aikema-2
In reply to this post by Masamichi HOSODA-2
On 6 Dec 2016, at 15:40, Masamichi Hosoda <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>> If master is ok, but not the released version, it's more likely a
>>> GUB-problem as David suspected.
>>> Maybe Masimichi-San can could say more, cc-ed.
>>
>> Between LilyPond 2.19.50 and 2.19.51,
>> Ghostscript bundled with the binary distributed on lilypond.org
>> has been updated.
>>
>> 2.19.50 has Ghostscript 9.15.
>> 2.19.51 has Ghostscript 9.20.
>> (Also 2.19.52 has Ghostscript 9.20.)
>>
>> I've tried some versions.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.15:
>>  no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.16:
>>  no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>>  no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>>  reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.49 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>>  reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.18:
>>  no problem.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.19:
>>  reproduced.
>>
>> LilyPond 2.19.52 + Ghostscript 9.20:
>>  reproduced.
>
> I've reported it to Ghostscript Bugzilla.
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697423

Bug has been reported as solved and a new version of ghostscript has recently been released that incorparates the fix. I’m happy to volunteer testing a new (Mac OS X) binary with Ghostscript 9.21 packaged, but I’ve failed all attempts to get a local running GUB build to get a cross-platform build delivering me a Mac binary to try out.

regards,
Hans Aikema


_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Loading...