Hi Alexander, I think there is no easy solution to this. In fact, smoothing bitmapped characters in Acrobat is the only advantage of the old-style slurs (and that only when viewing at their natural resolution). I can try to draw the outmost lines of the slur in gray, but this would disturb the printed output. And having different files for screen and paper is definitely not a good idea.
BTW, the bitmapped slurs look better only when printed and view in their native resolution, otherwise they are much worse than the PS ones. And long slur (and generally any line at low angle) will be jagged on priners with less than 600 dpi resolution, regardless of its bitmapped or vector nature. This is a fact. The result is: if you want to have smooth slurs running across the whole page, buy a 1200 dpi printer... :-( Best regards, Stanislav. Alexander V. Voinov wrote: > Hi Stanislav, > > ... and what I reported previously about the printed output is also > related to this. Slurs are too "steppy" also on the paper, not only on > the screen, though it's less detectable. This does not depend on the > difference between PS and PDF. > > Alexander > See this PDF: http://www.sobor.org/tmp/MercyOfPeaceKvl.pdf > Here the slurs look too stepwise, in a great contrast to the refined > "TeXish" look of the rest. > > Stanislav Kneifl wrote: > >>Hi Alexander, >> >>I think the problem is at your side. The slurs are drawn as a Bezier >>curves and there is no (easy) way nor reason to implement antialiasing >>in a PS code. The only way you can influence the smoothness is the >>flatness parameter determining the maximum allowed difference between >>the bezier curve and its actually drawn approximation - line polygon. >>You can make some experiment - look for line >> >>/drawseg { 0 0 moveto >> >>in the psslurs.pro and replace it with >> >>/drawseg { currentflat 2 div setflat 0 0 moveto >> >>and see what happens for differrent values of 2 :-) >> >>A screenshot of your problem could tell more, but I suppose it is only a >>matter of screen output. >> >>Regards, >> >>Stanislav. >> >>Alexander V. Voinov wrote: >> >>>Hi Don, >>> >>>Don Simons wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Alexander V. Voinov" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>... and for the short slurs old ones actually look better (slightly, but >>>>>it's detectable). And these are majority, even in our choral music where >>>>>a lexem may by sung in 15 measures. >>>> >>>>I've already commented to Stanislav that the short slurs seem too light, and >>>>suggested it would be nice at least to be able to optionally change the >>>>thickness from the default. Why do you think the old ones are better? >>> >>> >>>I didn't mean thickness. I my concrete example old slurs have more >>>regular curves, smoother, finer. Maybe it's an effect of converting from >>>PS to PDF via Acrobat Distiller, I don't know. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Opinions about stuff like this are valuable to the developers. >>> >>> >>>When you see the resulting PDF on the screen the slurs look too >>>"finalish" :-). Is it possible to antialias them, or it's too much a >>>demand? >>> >>>Alexander >>>_______________________________________________ >>>TeX-music mailing list >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>TeX-music mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music > > _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
