[smufl-discuss] Re: Stem item metrics and size of text items

[dspreadbury]

Michael wrote:

> We would like metrics for stems and items commonly placed on stems to be
> treated consistently. We prefer that all these glyphs have the left side
> bearing set at the zero point, rather than a negative left side bearing
> with the glyph centering on the zero line. For example, the metrics for
a
> tremolo are currently different than the metrics for a buzz roll.

You're right that the tremolo beams in Bravura are inconsistent in their
registration with other symbols designed for combining with stems; I
wasn't sure what to do about this group of characters, since they can
theoretically also appear between notes in the case of fingered (or
two-note) tremolos. Thinking about it again now, the solution seems
obvious to me: the glyphs between uniE205 and uniE209 should be registered
with the left-hand edge of the symbol at x=0, while the ones between
uniE200 and uniE204 should be registered such that they are centred on
x=0. This would at least be consistent with the registration guidelines as
they exist currently.

The rationale behind centering stems and glyphs that are superimposed on
stems around x=0 is to make it simple to lay out noteheads and stems for
applications that cannot e.g. use primitives to draw stems, or struggle
with precise positioning of glyphs in separate text objects. The current
registration represents a compromise, in that ideally the right-hand side
of the stem should meet x=0 for up-stem notes (i.e. the stem should be
entirely in negative space), and the left-hand side of the stem should
meet x=0 for down-stem notes (with a zero-width right side-bearing), such
that for an up-stem note you would draw notehead followed by stem, and for
a down-stem note you would draw stem followed by notehead, for precise
attachment of stem to notehead. With things as they stand, you will
instead see a small "step" where the notehead and stem meet, because the
stem will extend to the left or right of the notehead by half its width
when they are positioned in the same run of text.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for this kind of registration to be
used in fonts intended for use in text-based applications, rather than
scoring applications, which will typically construct complex notes out of
a combination of glyphs (notehead, flag, stem decoration, augmentation
dot) and primitives (stem, beam).

If there is general agreement from the community, I am certainly open to
considering changing the registration of stems and stem decorations such
that the left-hand extent of the outline of the glyph is always positioned
at x=0 in font design space. This will mean that e.g. the position of the
vertical stroke of a stem will be different between (say) uniE1F0 (an
undecorated stem) and uniE1F1 (a stem with an X superimposed upon it).
Does this represent a problem for anybody in the community?

For our part, we do not intend to use the stem glyphs at all in our
application; even when rendering notes in text we anticipate using the
glyphs in the 'Individual notes' and 'Beamed groups of notes' ranges,
rather than constructing them out of separate glyphs. For stem decoration
glyphs, I'm sure we can work with either the glyph being centered around
x=0 or proceeding rightwards from x=0 (in which case we will simply halve
the width of the font's bounding box to find its centre point in order to
register it correctly in relation to the primitive stem).

> We would also like to see the size of text items in the font (dynamics,
> D.C., D.S.) reduced to match the size of all other music characters in
the
> font. We believe the scaling for all items within the font should be
> consistent.

Can you provide further clarification about this request?  What do you
consider to be a matching size?

The rationale for the current scale used for the textual characters in the
font is that they should match the size of text from another text font at
the same point size. Take a look at this simple example:

http://imgur.com/RjzQV7J

This shows uniE4FD from Bravura at 72pt next to "mf" from Times New Roman
Italic, also at 72pt. The size is quite consistent.

For comparison, here is "F" from Maestro at 72pt next to "mf" from Times
New Roman Italic, also at 72pt:

http://imgur.com/vqbiWx5

This shows an inconsistency in size that seems not particularly useful to
me.

Perhaps you can help me to understand the rationale behind the sizing of
the dynamic characters in Maestro.

Thanks,

Daniel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: [phone] | Fax: [phone] | www.steinberg.net
President / Managing Director: Andreas Stelling
Managing Director: Kazunori Kobayashi, Hiroshi Sasaki
Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>