Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 08:22:33 pm »
That 3.5 gig file size comes from Lilypond's attempt to process my .ly  source file which is only about 4 kilobytes.
I didn't make an  .ly file that big! And without the anti-aliasing command it exports to a .png at 191 kilobytes, no problem. The huge files are all artifacts of the process generated by the extra command:

-danti-alias-factor=10

I though that the GNU program I installed a little while ago had included pngtopnm, but running

pngtopnm --version
 
from the command line gives me the error message, "not a recognized command"... my goof some way, I will look at this some more. The program is on my computer and installed, see screenshot. I also put its directory in the path, but still get "unrecognized command" from the command line.

I have been considering Lily-book, it does appear to be Lilypond's own in-house way to do what Scribus does, but as I am still dealing with basic input code in Lilypond, it will probably be a while before I am ready to tackle it.
32
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by dragonfly on October 11, 2018, 08:11:39 pm »
No .. I did not use ImageMagick .. that was a guess.

I did run this command in Ubuntu ...

pngtopnm --version
pngtopnm: Using libpbm from Netpbm Version: Netpbm 10.0
pngtopnm: BSD defined
pngtopnm: RGB_ENV='RGBDEF'
pngtopnm: RGBENV= 'RGBDEF' (env vbl is unset)

Check if you have pngtopnm library installed in Windows.

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/apps/pnmtopng.html

Incidentaaly one of your reports shows file size 3.5 GB. This is very large.
I would focus on compiling smaller files into png and then concatenate the result.
Remember the discussion about merging fragments of markdown?

Lily-book might be worth exploring.
33
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 07:55:48 pm »
I saw no error messages in my test run.

so your test run used the pngtopnm from ImageMagick?
34
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 07:51:51 pm »
I overlooked that I could scroll up in the command line window and find the previous command string run, so here is a screen shot of both processes for comparison.
35
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 07:47:01 pm »
OK, I took the underscores out of the file name and ran the command line string again, but it did not fix anything.
 
This time, "fatal error" message (see screen shot) and also, "pngtopnm is an unrecognized command" (neither of which happened the last time, sorry again I omitted to take a screen shot then), BUT the new output included a new .old file which is 4 megs, and also a .ps file - there was a .ps file output from the previous experiment also, which I hadn't noticed.

The .ps file could no doubt be converted.

This is all, I suppose, really in the province of the Lilypond developers. I have not yet joined the Lilypond mailing list - they have no forum - although I have searched the mailing list often lately. The bottom line here is the answer to the question "considering the current state of both open-source software programs, what Lilypond output works in Scribus now?" and we have one answer - the hi-res but not anti-aliased ,png file, as well as some interesting information. There does not appear to be any problem with Scribus. All of the problems have been generated by Lilypond. We have wandered far off the original topic of the footnotes, with unexpected but very interesting results, and the discussion has been very helpful and has certainly given me some useful new tools to work with.

Perhaps ImageMagick has amongst its utilities a different program also called pngtopnm, which would give different results from the GNU program that I found and installed, if invoked by Lilypond.   
36
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 07:14:18 pm »
No, there are no spaces in the file name but there are under-scores.

After a while Gimp did open the big file and you may see a screen shot of the image properties attached.

37
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by dragonfly on October 11, 2018, 07:09:11 pm »
Searching the lilypond forum (which might be more informative for researching such errors) I read here
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Spaces-in-filenames-don-t-work-with-danti-alias-factor-option-td72186.html
that this error occurs with spaces in filenames.

Does this message occur with a simple file name like test.ly? No underscores.
I saw no error messages in my test run.

It may not like underscores in filenames (I'm surmising).

Incidentally I don't think that ImageMagick is needed yet.

38
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by jack_cat on October 11, 2018, 06:08:03 pm »
Re the .svg issue, well, I'm glad this didn't turn out to be totally just my cluelessness! Thanks DF & ALE for helping identify the issue.

On the other issue of the  .png resolution:
I tried putting this string into the lilypond command line in Atom-package lily-compile's settings:

-danti-alias-factor=10 -dresolution=300

where I had, before, had only

-dresolution=300

and got peculiar results including nothing happening,  a partial (?) error message, and making the VI program (Windows free image viewer I use) hang also, so that it displayed only a black screen even on other images, which went away after I closed and restarted it.

So this is why DF said,
"I think that you will need to install ImageMagick."
I may do this although I am not yet convinced of the necessity... (ahem, to be continued.)

When I tried the complete string (as given above by DF) directly in the Windows command line it took a very long time, and finally produced an error message, screen shot attached (for the record, although DF has been over this before.)

a search for "pngtopnm" turned up this page:

http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/pngtopnm.html

with this text:
"...
This program is part of Netpbm.

pngtopnm was obsoleted by pngtopam, introduced with Netpbm 10.44 (September 2008). pngtopam is backward compatible with pngtopnm, plus adds many additional functions, including the ability to produce a PAM image that includes a transparency (alpha) channel. Starting in Release 10.48, pngtopnm is just an alias for pngtopam.

pngtopnm remained in the Netpbm package through Release 10.47 because it may have fewer bugs than pngtopam in those releases, and may be faster in some environments. But pngtopnm's incompatibility with the most current PNG libraries makes it impractical to maintain along with pngtopam now.

In releases before 10.48, you can use the pngtopam documentation for pngtopnm, considering the following differences:

    pngtopnm options are a subset of pngtopam's, as documented above.
    Any change that the pngtopam manual says happened in or after Netpbm 10.44 doesn't apply to pngtopnm.

..."

I also found this by searching "pngtopnm windows"

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/pngutils.htm

"PngUtils is a collection of utilities for PNG images: "

list of files including:

"[bullet] PngtoPnm: convert a Portable Network Graphics file into a portable anymap "

This looked like a likely thing instead of Image-Magick...
So I downloaded it and installed it, with more peculiar results, to wit:
I ran the same string from the Windows 7 DOS command line.
Took a long time. Sorry I didn't screen-shot the output. Said something about "renaming file to file.old" and then said, "file exists".
In the output directory there were then two files where there was one before.
One file appeared to be that which I had made with lily-compile an hour before - same date, time, properties, size 191 kilobytes, 300 dpi.
The second file had the same name with extension .png.old, and it is 4 megabtyes !! I took the .old extension off it, and indeed it appears to be a very high res .png file, but of course much too large to be of practical use. I can see part of it with VI, but it won't go small enough to see the whole thing! I tried to open it with Gimp, and Gimp appears to have hung - awaiting developments, it is still sitting there with its little hourglass. I'll give it a while.

Anyway, that's two strikes and one hit: the .svg and the anti-aliased .png have miss-fired, and the hi-res 300 dpi .png output from lilypond is working fine, and can be imported into Scribus routinely, and that's where it makes sense to me to leave it for now. Until I make a test print I have no further criticism of the 191k 300 dpi file, unless it turns out that it doesn't print well (and I could I suppose up the resolution more), but I have no printer these days, ha! So it can wait.
39
Features / Re: Suggestion: a good start for footnotes Insert > Char > Footnote#
« Last post by dragonfly on October 11, 2018, 05:05:01 pm »
Done. They are about to release a new version so hopefully it might be brought into line with Scribus SVG import.
40
Scripts and Plugins / Re: PNG Export - no background option?
« Last post by a.l.e on October 11, 2018, 03:44:25 pm »
i've uploaded a tabbed patch...
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10