On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I've done a little weekend hacking experimenting
with adding
higher-resolution output support for the Score extension -- the current PNG
images look pixelated or fuzzy when printed or viewed on high-DPI (eg
'Retina') displays.
Awesome!
There's two avenues I'm exploring:
*
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/62243/ - outputs SVG instead of PNG
In theory, SVGs will scale cleanly to any screen or print resolution; but
some older browsers (IE < 9 and Android < 3) won't display them.
Unfortunately I'm getting totally corrupted SVG output on my MacBook with
Lilypond 2.16.2. On my Ubuntu 12.04 machine with 2.14.something I get
complete-looking SVGs, but they're missing the XML namespace and so won't
render.
Bummer. This is an avenue Jan Gerber is exploring as part of figuring
out bug 47826:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/47826
The problem outlined there is that it doesn't take a terribly
complicated score to run our current implementation out of memory,
where the most expensive step is the PNG conversion, which as of this
writing is still happening on our main webservers. He's hoping that,
rather than using Postscript as an intermediate format, we can use
SVG, which will make it a little easier to offload to our image
scalers, and (probably more importantly) better suited to direct
inlining. Of course, it could be that SVG->PNG is more memory
intensive than PS->PNG, but maybe someday soon we can come to expect
full SVG support everywhere.
Looks like part of getting SVG working is going to be some upstream
fixes to Lilypond. :-/
*
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/62313/ - allows
for producing higher-resolution PNGs
[...]
Any ideas or preferences on which is the better way to
go?
Due to the memory usage issues, my preference would be for the SVG
option. PNG seems like more of a legacy support option than something
we should use in a high-res setting.
Rob