Open craigsapp opened 3 years ago
Fixed as well?
It is improved, but the current rendering unnecessarily violates basic rules about starting/ending beams in the middle of a staff space (which is happening with the 16th-note beams in the second beam of the bottom system above).
Here is the rule from Behind Bars (page 20) that should always be followed for 8th and 16th note beams (32nd and higher are difficult to avoid breaking this rule):
Guidelines from page 18 for placing beam endpoints (outermost beam):
Notice that the first beam in the example follows this rule (top of beam start centers on staff line) but the second one is violating these guidelines (top of beam start sits on a staff line, but this is only allowed for stem down beams).
Here are the correct stem-lengths for the second beam:
or
or
I like the first option even though it has some tiny wedges that will get filled in with anti-aliasing. Then I like the third option the next best because the beam angles of both beams are the same (but the beam angle seems a little steeper than it needs to be).
So we can leave this issue open until verovio reproduces one of the above examples 😉
Here is an example of a highly frowned-upon placement of a beam:
Click to view MEI data for above example.
```xmlTranscoded from Humdrum
Beam endings are never allowed to be centered in a staff space (the right side of the example beam). I recently have not noticed any other such cases, but this one somehow slips though the the beam algorithms.
As background, there are two reasons this position is not allowed (1) it increases the visual activity which decreases readability, and (2) in traditional ink printing, the wedge underneath the beam would get filled in with ink, so on paper, the thin white wedge would most likely be filled in with ink, particularly as the horizontal spacing increases:
The source of the problem may be related to the beam-flattening algorithm, but if so, it has a bug: the right side of the beam should not be raised about 1/2 a diatonic step as is happening here, because that would increase the slope of the beam.
The right side of the beam should sit on the 4th staff line (go down 1/2 a diatonic step).
And the left side should hang from the fourth staff line -- if applying slope reduction. But I would prefer that step-wise beamed notes not have slope reduction applied to their beams (this is somewhat a stylistic thing that could be debated). In such cases, having the beams and the stepwise notes in parallel makes them easier to read. It also makes adjacent beams on scalar passages better aligned rather than having a stepped look:
Click to view MEI data for above example.
```xmlTranscoded from Humdrum
Compare to beams that are parallel to the notes:
Click to view SCORE data for above example.
``` 8 1 0 0 0 80 3 1 1.5 1 1 13.5 0 10 0 0.25 6 1 13.5 0 3 38.44 12 1 1 21.813 1 10 0 0.25 1 1 30.125 2 10 0 0.25 1 1 38.438 3 10 0 0.25 1 1 46.75 4 10 0 0.25 6 1 46.75 4 7 71.69 12 1 1 55.063 5 10 0 0.25 1 1 63.375 6 10 0 0.25 1 1 71.688 7 10 0 0.25 14 1 80 1 ```