flag position problems with flat-flag style

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

flag position problems with flat-flag style

Gilberto Agostinho
Hi all,

I noticed that some of the 32nd-note flags in the flat-flag style seem to
have a layout problem. The flat flags should always match the staff lines
(just like beams do), but in a few cases they are located in between the
staff lines, which looks quite bad. See the minimal example below and look
for the notes marked with an asterisk below them.



Producing:  <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t4165/flatflag.png>

Best wishes,
Gilberto



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Torsten Hämmerle
Gilberto Agostinho wrote
> I noticed that some of the 32nd-note flags in the flat-flag style seem to
> have a layout problem. The flat flags should always match the staff lines
> (just like beams do), but in a few cases they are located in between the
> staff lines, which looks quite bad. See the minimal example below and look
> for the notes marked with an asterisk below them.

Hi Gilberto,

There is no checking for straight flags, the beam lengths are just taken
from
Stem.details.lenghts (optimised for ordinary flags).

Looking into Stem.details.lengths, the entry for 32th flags is 4.25. That's
why the flags are being placed in between stave-lines.
If you set this value to 4.5 (or to 4.0 if you prefer shorter stems), the
flat-flags will work as expected:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/flat-flags.png>

The modified Stem details are:

  \override Stem.details = #'((lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
                              (beamed-lengths 4.26 4.5 4.6)
                              (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 2.83 2.5 2.25)
                              (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0 1.25)
                              (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))

HTH,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Gilberto Agostinho
Hi Torsten,

Thanks a lot for your message and apologies for my late reply, for some
reason I did not receive a notification that someone had replied to my post.

Also, thank you very much for the modified Stem details, that indeed does
the trick. I will add that to all my scores.


Torsten Hämmerle wrote
> There is no checking for straight flags, the beam lengths are just taken
> from Stem.details.lenghts (optimised for ordinary flags).

Wouldn't it be possible to add a conditional to check for those? If an user
uses flat-flag then they certainly would also prefer these stem length
settings that you posted. Having this automatized would be great.

Best,
Gilberto




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Gilberto Agostinho
In reply to this post by Torsten Hämmerle
Hi Torsten,

Sorry to disturb you but I noticed that the length of the stems in beamed
notes changed considerably after I used your suggestion below, they are now
much taller than before:


Torsten Hämmerle wrote
> The modified Stem details are:
>
>   \override Stem.details = #'((lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
>                               (beamed-lengths 4.26 4.5 4.6)
>                               (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 2.83 2.5 2.25)
>                               (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0
> 1.25)
>                               (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))

Using:

\version "2.19.81"

{
  c'8[^"default" d']
  a'[ b']
  \override Staff.Stem.details = #'((lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
                              (beamed-lengths 4.26 4.5 4.6)
                              (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 2.83 2.5 2.25)
                              (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0 1.25)
                              (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))
  c'[^"overriden" d']
  a'[ b']
 
 \revert Staff.Stem.details
  c'16[^"default" d']
  a'[ b']
  \override Staff.Stem.details = #'((lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
                              (beamed-lengths 4.26 4.5 4.6)
                              (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 2.83 2.5 2.25)
                              (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0 1.25)
                              (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))
  c'[^"overriden" d']
  a'[ b']
 
 \revert Staff.Stem.details
  c'32[^"default" d']
  a'[ b']
  \override Staff.Stem.details = #'((lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
                              (beamed-lengths 4.26 4.5 4.6)
                              (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 2.83 2.5 2.25)
                              (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0 1.25)
                              (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))
  c'[^"overriden" d']
  a'[ b']
}

See:  <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t4165/beam.jpg>

Would you happen to know where can I find the default values to tweak your
suggestion above? I would really like to have the beam height unaltered.

Many thanks,
Gilberto




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Torsten Hämmerle
Gilberto Agostinho wrote
> I noticed that the length of the stems in beamed
> notes changed considerably after I used your suggestion below, they are
> now
> much taller than before:

Hi Gilberto,

Oh, bummer, I had forgotten to set some values back to default after playing
around with them...

All the default values of Stem.details can be found in the  LilyPond
internals references: 3.1.109 Stem
<http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/stem>  .

In my example, all the beamed-lengths and beamed-minimum-free-lengths have
been 1 stave-space too high, that's why the beamed stems became taller.
The correct values (just changing one flagged stem length and nothing else)
are:

\override Stem.details = #'(lengths 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
  (beamed-lengths 3.26 3.5 3.6)
  (beamed-minimum-free-lengths 1.83 1.5 1.25)
  (beamed-extreme-minimum-free-lengths 2.0 1.25)
  (stem-shorten 1.0 0.5 0.25))

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Torsten Hämmerle
In reply to this post by Gilberto Agostinho
Gilberto Agostinho wrote
> Wouldn't it be possible to add a conditional to check for those? If an
> user
> uses flat-flag then they certainly would also prefer these stem length
> settings that you posted. Having this automatized would be great.

Hmmm,

At first glance, that seems to be a good idea.
But after thinking this through, I came to the conclusion that other
straight-flag designs (with other flag distances) might not work and, more
importantly, such an automatism would obscure the the basic idea about
detail-lists.

How much exactly a flagged stem should be lengthened primarily depends on
the design of the flags.
Therefore, these values are not hard-coded but user-changeable (as we have
seen).

Any automatic interference (even if it's only in a special case like for
flat-flag-style) could lead to unpredictable results and the user would lose
part of the freedom and flexibility to set any desired value by modifying
the details lists.

For this very reason, I think we should keep the original way of dealing
with Stem details by modifying the list details, even if this means an
additional step when using flat flags style.

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

David Kastrup
Torsten Hämmerle <[hidden email]> writes:

> Any automatic interference (even if it's only in a special case like for
> flat-flag-style) could lead to unpredictable results and the user would lose
> part of the freedom and flexibility to set any desired value by modifying
> the details lists.
>
> For this very reason, I think we should keep the original way of dealing
> with Stem details by modifying the list details, even if this means an
> additional step when using flat flags style.

You don't _need_ to override the whole list.  You could just override
single properties from it.

--
David Kastrup

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

Re: flag position problems with flat-flag style

Gilberto Agostinho
In reply to this post by Torsten Hämmerle
Hi all,

Thanks for all your replies.


David Kastrup wrote
> You don't _need_ to override the whole list.  You could just override
> single properties from it.

You are of course right, David, I can just use: \override
Stem.details.lengths = #'(3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0)
Thanks for the tip.


Torsten Hämmerle wrote
> Any automatic interference (even if it's only in a special case like for
> flat-flag-style) could lead to unpredictable results and the user would
> lose
> part of the freedom and flexibility to set any desired value by modifying
> the details lists.
>
> For this very reason, I think we should keep the original way of dealing
> with Stem details by modifying the list details, even if this means an
> additional step when using flat flags style.

Another idea could be changing the default values of Stem.details.lengths.
Using 4.5 or 4.0 instead of the current default 4.25 for the 32nd note stems
make them look much better for both the flat and modern flags and have very
little difference regarding the default flag, see (top is default value of
4.25, bottom is 4.5):

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t4165/flags.png>

Best,
Gilberto

 



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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