[Finale] End of OSX pre-10.7 Finale plug-in development
Hello! From now on, the future Finale plug-in updates on the Mac side will require OSX 10.7 or later. (Today's updates of JW Pattern and JW Staff Polyphony were the last OSX 10.4 Carbon plug-ins I'll release.) The future plug-in releases will be based my Cocoa UI framework instead, which will provide much more current and powerful technology. The JW Lua betas have been running running on that for all its releases. Since the Carbon UI layer (which is a now-obsolete OSX user interface technology) contained some serious limitations that were difficult to work around, this will give me more opportunities to create plug-ins that works the way I want them to work. For example, I can move ahead with the JW Change and JW Validate betas, which were very much affected by those Carbon limitations. And there will be future plug-in releases that hopefully will go beyond what my previous plug-ins have done. When the old Carbon plug-ins are replaced by the new Cocoa versions, I'll archive the last available Carbon plug-in in the Outdated plug-ins folders on the tips site. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of the 3, I could sometimes get marginal results with SharpEye, but usually there were so many errors that it was not worth the time to even try. I need to transpose a big band chart for my singer. As this is very clean music, very well engraved, I thought this might be a good time to see how that software has progressed. I was encouraged when I saw that both Smartscore and Photoscore are proudly claiming that they now work even with hand-written scores. Perfect. Then it should have no trouble at all with my engraved music that uses the jazz font. Well, I think you know how this story turned out. I tried the latest versions of all three programs, using a wide variety of scan settings. They all failed miserably. The best one was Smartscore, which at least recognized the key signatures and most of the notes, but it still had at least one error on every single measure -- and this is not complicated music. It missed slurs, ties, multi-measure rests, endings, repeats, etc and interpreted dynamics and text as notes. I would have expected a lot better given that we are now over 20 years into the music scanning game. I assume that these programs must work on SOMETHING, but they surely didn't work on what I considered to be a very clean, relatively uncomplicated score. Is anybody having any success whatsoever with any scanning programs, or should I just forget about this for another 10 years? P.S. The Smartscore people invite users to send them trouble files, so I have done that, but I'm also blocking out about 8 hours to re-enter that whole score by hand. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
On 1/22/2014 10:22 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of the 3, I could sometimes get marginal results with SharpEye, but usually there were so many errors that it was not worth the time to even try. I need to transpose a big band chart for my singer. As this is very clean music, very well engraved, I thought this might be a good time to see how that software has progressed. I was encouraged when I saw that both Smartscore and Photoscore are proudly claiming that they now work even with hand-written scores. Perfect. Then it should have no trouble at all with my engraved music that uses the jazz font. Well, I think you know how this story turned out. I tried the latest versions of all three programs, using a wide variety of scan settings. They all failed miserably. The best one was Smartscore, which at least recognized the key signatures and most of the notes, but it still had at least one error on every single measure -- and this is not complicated music. It missed slurs, ties, multi-measure rests, endings, repeats, etc and interpreted dynamics and text as notes. Photoscore works best when I scan at 300dpi and grayscale. What settings did you scan at? I've never tried it on any handwritten font nor on my manuscript. It often has problems with multi-measure rests but most of the mistakes are easy to fix in PhotoScore before importing into Sibelius. I haven't worked with SmartScore so I can't offer any insights into that but perhaps re-scanning at 300dpi/grayscale if you haven't used those settings might help. Good luck -- keep us posted as to what sort of results the SmartScore people provide for you. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
Hi Craig, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to get much better if I were you… Cheers, - DJA - WEB: http://www.secretsocietymusic.org On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Craig Parmerlee cr...@acticalc.com wrote: I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of the 3, I could sometimes get marginal results with SharpEye, but usually there were so many errors that it was not worth the time to even try. I need to transpose a big band chart for my singer. As this is very clean music, very well engraved, I thought this might be a good time to see how that software has progressed. I was encouraged when I saw that both Smartscore and Photoscore are proudly claiming that they now work even with hand-written scores. Perfect. Then it should have no trouble at all with my engraved music that uses the jazz font. Well, I think you know how this story turned out. I tried the latest versions of all three programs, using a wide variety of scan settings. They all failed miserably. The best one was Smartscore, which at least recognized the key signatures and most of the notes, but it still had at least one error on every single measure -- and this is not complicated music. It missed slurs, ties, multi-measure rests, endings, repeats, etc and interpreted dynamics and text as notes. I would have expected a lot better given that we are now over 20 years into the music scanning game. I assume that these programs must work on SOMETHING, but they surely didn't work on what I considered to be a very clean, relatively uncomplicated score. Is anybody having any success whatsoever with any scanning programs, or should I just forget about this for another 10 years? P.S. The Smartscore people invite users to send them trouble files, so I have done that, but I'm also blocking out about 8 hours to re-enter that whole score by hand. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
After watching Tom Johnson of Finale scan in clinics with relative ease I have gone back to scanning. He tells us that certain scanners are better than others for scanning and that a dpi of 500 or better will achieve optimal results. 300 dpi is pretty awful in scanning music even though we were all told that long ago it was acceptable. I watched Tom scan in a random band score at the Midwest clinic in Dec. and it produced every note that was on the page correctly as seen using the free version of smartscore lite. Yes there were no text on the scanned page but he also added that instead of taking the scanned page and turning it into your finished doc you should copy the info from it and paste into a new doc set up how you want the final score to look like. __ J. Scott Jones Band/Orchestra Director/Freelance Trumpet Player-Teacher/Music Engraver Sent from my i5 On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:30, David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com wrote: On 1/22/2014 10:22 AM, Craig Parmerlee wrote: I know this is an old topic that has been batted around many times. I have owned several of the scanning products (Smartscore, Photoscore, and SharpEye). The last time I used any of them was about 7 years ago. Of the 3, I could sometimes get marginal results with SharpEye, but usually there were so many errors that it was not worth the time to even try. I need to transpose a big band chart for my singer. As this is very clean music, very well engraved, I thought this might be a good time to see how that software has progressed. I was encouraged when I saw that both Smartscore and Photoscore are proudly claiming that they now work even with hand-written scores. Perfect. Then it should have no trouble at all with my engraved music that uses the jazz font. Well, I think you know how this story turned out. I tried the latest versions of all three programs, using a wide variety of scan settings. They all failed miserably. The best one was Smartscore, which at least recognized the key signatures and most of the notes, but it still had at least one error on every single measure -- and this is not complicated music. It missed slurs, ties, multi-measure rests, endings, repeats, etc and interpreted dynamics and text as notes. Photoscore works best when I scan at 300dpi and grayscale. What settings did you scan at? I've never tried it on any handwritten font nor on my manuscript. It often has problems with multi-measure rests but most of the mistakes are easy to fix in PhotoScore before importing into Sibelius. I haven't worked with SmartScore so I can't offer any insights into that but perhaps re-scanning at 300dpi/grayscale if you haven't used those settings might help. Good luck -- keep us posted as to what sort of results the SmartScore people provide for you. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
It works fine for mea few hints: Do not scan the music in a scanner and then try to convert it. Open Finale and scan from within Finale Also, only a very few scanners actually work. A very very few. I use an Epson V33 and have no trouble scanning well engraved music. Hope this helps, Terry Vosbein ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
I used a variety of scan formats and they all produced identical results. One was a 600 BPI TIFF grey scale. It is hard to believe that the scanner model would make such a difference because the image at 600 BPI is extremely crisp on my scanner (which happens to be a Brother. I did some tests where I scanned separately and opened the TIFF under Finale. I did others where I let Finale do the scanning and the results were the same. Here is an example of the problems: 1-4 should be a multimeasure rest. Shows up as one measure with 2 bad notes 5 No slur or dynamic 6 No slur 7 No slur or tie 9 No opening repeat. Should be 4-bar multi-measure. Recognized as one measure with 2 bad notes. 13 No slur or tie 14 missing slur and tie 16 missing staccato and tie 17 missing articulations Every single measure would require some editing, which obviously is not a good trade-off of time. In the past, I did have somewhat better success with less jazzy music fonts. However, the things the scanners are missing are not the notes so much. They are slurs, ties, expressions, and they aren't that much different in the jazz font. I'd rather not buy a new scanner, as I have two multi-function units nearby already, and one of them does up to 11x17. The cheapest Epson 11x17 scanner is over $1500, and I bet it wouldn't do any better than my Brother MFC. On 1/22/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Jones wrote: After watching Tom Johnson of Finale scan in clinics with relative ease I have gone back to scanning. He tells us that certain scanners are better than others for scanning and that a dpi of 500 or better will achieve optimal results. 300 dpi is pretty awful in scanning music even though we were all told that long ago it was acceptable. I watched Tom scan in a random band score at the Midwest clinic in Dec. and it produced every note that was on the page correctly as seen using the free version of smartscore lite. Yes there were no text on the scanned page but he also added that instead of taking the scanned page and turning it into your finished doc you should copy the info from it and paste into a new doc set up how you want the final score to look like. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
I gave up with scanning music - there were so many mistakes that it was easier and quicker to re-type the entire document than scan, check and correct. Sorry, Lawrence On 22 January 2014 19:54, Craig Parmerlee cr...@parmerlee.com wrote: I used a variety of scan formats and they all produced identical results. One was a 600 BPI TIFF grey scale. It is hard to believe that the scanner model would make such a difference because the image at 600 BPI is extremely crisp on my scanner (which happens to be a Brother. I did some tests where I scanned separately and opened the TIFF under Finale. I did others where I let Finale do the scanning and the results were the same. Here is an example of the problems: 1-4 should be a multimeasure rest. Shows up as one measure with 2 bad notes 5 No slur or dynamic 6 No slur 7 No slur or tie 9 No opening repeat. Should be 4-bar multi-measure. Recognized as one measure with 2 bad notes. 13 No slur or tie 14 missing slur and tie 16 missing staccato and tie 17 missing articulations Every single measure would require some editing, which obviously is not a good trade-off of time. In the past, I did have somewhat better success with less jazzy music fonts. However, the things the scanners are missing are not the notes so much. They are slurs, ties, expressions, and they aren't that much different in the jazz font. I'd rather not buy a new scanner, as I have two multi-function units nearby already, and one of them does up to 11x17. The cheapest Epson 11x17 scanner is over $1500, and I bet it wouldn't do any better than my Brother MFC. On 1/22/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Jones wrote: After watching Tom Johnson of Finale scan in clinics with relative ease I have gone back to scanning. He tells us that certain scanners are better than others for scanning and that a dpi of 500 or better will achieve optimal results. 300 dpi is pretty awful in scanning music even though we were all told that long ago it was acceptable. I watched Tom scan in a random band score at the Midwest clinic in Dec. and it produced every note that was on the page correctly as seen using the free version of smartscore lite. Yes there were no text on the scanned page but he also added that instead of taking the scanned page and turning it into your finished doc you should copy the info from it and paste into a new doc set up how you want the final score to look like. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- Lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
Hey Terry, I have an HP Photosmart 6520. Will that work? John Witmer - Original Message - From: Terry Vosbein vosbe...@wlu.edu To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning? It works fine for mea few hints: Do not scan the music in a scanner and then try to convert it. Open Finale and scan from within Finale Also, only a very few scanners actually work. A very very few. I use an Epson V33 and have no trouble scanning well engraved music. Hope this helps, Terry Vosbein ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
I have an HP Scanjet G4010 and it scans into Finale pretty well. Dr.A.S.Weinstangel sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca NEW! cel.647-292-4605 From: wit...@nctv.com To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:02:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning? Hey Terry, I have an HP Photosmart 6520. Will that work? John Witmer - Original Message - From: Terry Vosbein vosbe...@wlu.edu To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning? It works fine for mea few hints: Do not scan the music in a scanner and then try to convert it. Open Finale and scan from within Finale Also, only a very few scanners actually work. A very very few. I use an Epson V33 and have no trouble scanning well engraved music. Hope this helps, Terry Vosbein ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] problem with hiding staves in 2014
Has anyone had any trouble hiding staves in the 2014 finale? Sometimes the staves are hidden properly, and sometimes they show up even if they're empty. I have a staff style that can force hiding, but I don't need to tell you how awkward this is. Does any of you recognize a problem here? Aaron J. Rabushka ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] tambourine sound
One more try with this question, as there was no response. Any suggestions, my friends? Dr.A.S.Weinstangel sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca NEW! cel.647-292-4605 From: dr...@hotmail.com To: finale@shsu.edu Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:37:29 -0500 Subject: [Finale] tambourine sound Fin2012, Win 8.1. I am trying to assign one staff to tambourine sound. It is delightful to find that, say, in the Brush drum kit that would be MIDI note number 83, and in the Electronic drum kit it would be number 54, but I have no idea how to assign that globally to the whole staff. Sliding the note with the mouse gives me all possible sounds, except what I need here. Please help! Dr.A.S.Weinstangel sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca NEW! cel.647-292-4605 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] tambourine sound
Open the Score Manager and select your tambourine staff. Set Notation Style to Percussion and select Maracas, Tambourine Shakers in the Percussion layout selection dialog, then click on Select. Back in Score Manager set the Perc. MIDI Map of the tambourine staff to General MIDI and assign SmartMusicSynth as Device. When using MIDI playback (and not VST Playback), assign MIDI channel 10 to the tambourine staff in the Score Manager. When you now enter into the staff with speedy note entry, you should be able to enter and to hear maracas, tambourine and shakers notes. If you want to have tambourine only, you can edit the Maracas, Tambourine Shaker settings above and delete everything except Tambourine. Better make a duplicate of the original notation style before deleting. If you are not using SmartMusicSynth or any General MIDI playback engine, you may need a different Perc.MIDI Map and a different notation style. Best regards, Jan Am 21.01.2014 18:37, schrieb dr.a.s. weinstangel: Fin2012, Win 8.1. I am trying to assign one staff to tambourine sound. It is delightful to find that, say, in the Brush drum kit that would be MIDI note number 83, and in the Electronic drum kit it would be number 54, but I have no idea how to assign that globally to the whole staff. Sliding the note with the mouse gives me all possible sounds, except what I need here. Please help! Dr.A.S.Weinstangel sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca NEW! cel.647-292-4605 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
When you say it scans pretty well, do you mean that most of the time it accurately recognizes these things: * Key sigs * Meter marks * Dotted notes and ties * Slurs * Repeats and endings * Common dynamics and hairpins * Multi-measure repeats and doesn't add a bunch of extraneous notes you have to manually delete? Which software are you using? On 1/22/2014 4:33 PM, dr.a.s. weinstangel wrote: I have an HP Scanjet G4010 and it scans into Finale pretty well. Dr.A.S.Weinstangel sasha.weinstan...@utoronto.ca NEW! cel.647-292-4605 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Anybody having any success with scanning?
That does seem to be the experience of the majority. However, the vendors claim great success and apparently some people are finding it good enough to use, at least occasionally. If there are hardware/software/parameter combinations that improve the results, I'd like to discover that because I would use this function a lot if it didn't require manually editing every single measure. I still believe that the goal for software should be, If the human brain can easily do it, then software ought to be able to reach that same level. Clearly even in the most optimistic case, music recognition software is only 5% of the way toward that ideal. On 1/22/2014 3:02 PM, Lawrence Yates wrote: I gave up with scanning music - there were so many mistakes that it was easier and quicker to re-type the entire document than scan, check and correct. Sorry, Lawrence ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
