I've never scanned any music to work with in Finale, so I guess I was
envisioning more rhythm and pitch errors than the type that you mention. I
realize that if elements are showing up in the wrong tool ("ties
misinterpreted as slurs and tempo markings misinterpreted as song verse")
different prob
At 09:43 PM 2/9/2004, Don Hart wrote:
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would
make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering
everything. Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own ble
I would think that proofing by playback, at least in most cases, would make
95% accuracy work pretty well, as opposed to reentering everything. Even if
both methods were a wash timewise, scanning would break the routine, and
that can sometimes be its own blessing.
Don Hart
on 2/9/04 4:46 PM,
On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Phil Daley wrote:
Note bene: I am not familiar with note scanning software.
I am _extremely_ familiar with character scanning software.
"95% accuracy" in scanning conversion to text produces a useless
document. It is more work to clean up that mess than to retype i
said.
(Hell, I don't get 95% accuracy with Speedy Entry!)
RH
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Finale list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] comparing finale/sibelius -
At 2/9/2004 12:17 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
>"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
>
>But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend
>of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
>days ago, by telling me that he has been having gre
"Lies" is a strong word, and here, unjustified.
But I would have agreed with you on the scanning until last week. A friend
of mine (a viola player and user of WinFin2003) astounded me, just a few
days ago, by telling me that he has been having great success scanning.
After some trial and error, h
