On 6/14/06 10:22 AM, "Dewdman42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are of course welcome to your opinion, but you have not changed my mind. > I need better PDF output. printed sheet music is not the only reason for > needing to produce music notation. Lilypond will not work for me in that > regard. I may or may not still use it for printing if it will not involve > too much duplication of work. I do really like the printed output of > Lilypond a lot. Its beautiful. But it is sad I can't use lilypond for the > whole thing. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want some decent > looking PDF files by the way. The ones produced now are really crap. not > slightly bad. Crap. Finale suffers the same fate. Whatever the technlogy > that would be needed to make Lilypond produce better looking PDF's in > addition to the beautiful printed pages..consider this my official plea to > the developers to try to do that. > > regards > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/barline-problem-t1778120.html#a4868193 > Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com. > I just tried converting the postscript file that lilypond generates to PDF using both the built-in conversion in the Mac OS and Adobe Acrobat Professional and here are the results: The built-in Mac OS conversion looks the same as what Lilypond produces (likely also uses Ghostscript) but here is the surprising part: Acrobat professional produces noticeably worse looking file despite setting it for higher quality display. Walter _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
