Increase Snapshot tool capacity.

• Jun 8, 2017 - 00:58

Snapshot tool doesn't have enough range to copy and paste a score several pages long, not even in continuous view. I haven't found a way for Paint to add to an existing file, only to paste over it. I use IrfanView for my photo editor. It's free, just like Musescore. It gives me the ability to paste the first page and then paste sequential pages to the bottom. Until I find a workaround in Paint, I can use Irfanview for large scores.


Comments

Right. File / Export is the way to get a whole score. The image capture tool is only meant for small snippets, like to include musical examples in a textbook.

In reply to by judeeylander

If you've found some software that does what you want to achieve, namely irfanView, why the desire to revert back to some other software to achieve the same results? The question is rhetorical and not wanting a response, as it intends only to think about what's the fastest way of going about what you want to achieve. What matters is what works and what is most efficient in your relation to it.

Having said that, In MS Paint you have the ability to extend the dimensions of the image either by dragging that little bottom corner dot while being zoomed out properly, or by setting the dimensions property in the File->Properties dialogue window. You'd probably want the height attribute to be in multiples of whatever is set to the first file loaded, if vertical stacking is what you want. Once you've done that, you can easily open another image in another instance of MS Paint, copy it, then paste this into the other instance of MS Paint and then drag it down to fit below after you've altered the dimensions properly.
Sorry if this doesn't help.

In reply to by worldwideweary

I try to use the products recommended by Musescore. I figure they chose the product and have tailored Musescore to interface well. However, I've been tinkering with Paint again, trying to get your suggestions to work. Just not happening. And wasting time when I DO have another option I'm familiar with. Good advice all around. Quit fiddling and get back to work! LOL! Thanks for your candid insight and advice.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

You are right. I just reread the handbook again. Paint is mentioned many times in the threads found by Google when referencing the Snapshot Tool. IrfanView is a free image processor recommended by Distributed Proofreaders. I was wrong when I stated Musescore recommended Paint. However, it seems to be the most used software when reading through the threads.

I apologize for stating something that wasn't true. It was assumed, always a bad idea. In a good sense, you pointing this out relieves my conscience of the responsibility to use suggested products. I'll stick the the one I know something about.

Once again--thanks, Jojo.

In reply to by Thomas

Interesting! I looked it up. Has lots of potential. However, it's one more software to learn. I can do everything I need in IrfanView, and I've been using for years now. Thanks for the suggestion! Someone will pick it up from here. :)

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I think pngs produce the smallest bit size. When producing books, bit size real estate is at a premium. Every little bit extra is extra download time on old computers with slow connections. Since we produce books for the world to read in any language, we also want to be aware of limitations for the end user.

My personal goal is to reach the child or adult in any third world country who doesn't have access to books. Even if they don't have money for school, nearly everyone has a cell phone available.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

Ah, Jojo! You keep me on my toes! And keep me humble. Once again, I have been operating in error, for years this time. The recommended standard for music scores is pdf! I even read it in the guidelines for transcribing music. All new to me! Just like I'd never read the document before! [OOPS]

In my humble defense, I will say that the postprocessor chooses the format, but the transcriber has input. In my current book, I convinced the pp that png was a smaller file size than jpg for black and white output. I'll reopen the conversation about pdf being an even smaller file size right away.

This is a music book in the DP example list that does an excellent job of including pdf scores and midi sound.

The Good Old Songs
We Used to Sing—’61 to ’65
PRICE, TEN CENTS

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21566/21566-h/21566-h.htm

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I disagree. For web pages by far the most compact format is SVG (since, like PDF it's a voctor based format). The SVG code can even be directly included in the htlm code (so no extra connects to the webserver). SVG is device independent, so users can zoom in and out, depending on their needs.

BTW, MuseScores SVG output from the Snapshot tool is excellent!

In reply to by rmattes

True. I didn't mean to imply PNG was better than SVG for this purpose - I meant, compared to PDF. But indeed, in 2017, SVG is probably a better option. Support in other programs wasn't so universal even just a couple of years ago so I've been in the habit of using PNG but should probably start using SVG more at this point.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I continued this discussion in the Distributed Proofreaders Music Forum. This is a response I thought was worth sharing here.

PDF is not "merely" a graphics file format. It contains, among other things, a programming language (hence, the potential for security flaws), a drawing language, and inlined binary objects (which may themselves be some graphically-formatted stuff.)

Quite often, in fact, a "PDF" file merely contains a stream of "PNG" or "JPG" files. And where that is happening, it's cleaner and faster (and, because of what was said above, safer) just to expose the PNG or JPG files themselves.

For text purposes, there's another issue: not necessarily but normally and nearly always, PDF files have text flowed for a particular font and screen size. HTML or ePUB are (again, not necessarily but normally and nearly always) reflowable, so that the text layout automatically changes to fit a smaller screen or take advantage of a larger screen.

True believers in the portability creed (which is part of all non-Satanic programming religions) will want to know that PDF is well-documented and reasonably well-supported by widely-available tools, but it is still a proprietary standard--unlike HTML and ePUB which are open to public discussion.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I'm on the Music Team for Distributed Proofreaders. We recreate public domain books and put them online for project Gutenberg. I need to be able to crop, stack, and save images as pngs for display in the HTML versions. If crop and stack features were part of Musescore, I wouldn't need to go to an outside source, I could just save the pngs and midis, then zip and upload to the postprocessor. We include midi files for the audio reader.

This is a book where I was both the music recreator and postprocessor. I used Musescore for this one too.

How Music Developed
A Critical and Explanatory Account of the
Growth of Modern Music

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43467/43467-h/43467-h.htm

In reply to by judeeylander

If the largest scores you'd need to deal with are just a few pages long, and if the goal is to present them as one tall images you scroll through (which is what I'd imagine if you are viewing HTML in a web browser), then why not simply make the page size big enough that the score is one page? Then you can export it all at once, no need for the image capture tool or for IrfanView or any other third party tools.

In reply to by judeeylander

You're welcome! I would think that between enlarging your pages as necessary and then also using the Image Capture tool for shorter snippets (be sure to check out the "Auto-resize to page" option), you would have no need for any external image processing tool. I've produced quite a bit of similar material and never needed any, at least not since the image capture tool became available in MuseScore 2.

I should also mention, not that it necessarily would help in this particular case but you never know, that there is the MuseScore Example Manager extension for LibreOffice (or OpenOffice). I wrote this for my own use which is more about putting together actual print books, but since LibreOffice can export HTML, it could in principle be used to design ebooks as well. If you are OK with building the main content of your book in LibreOffice, then using this extension to incorporate musical examples into has a number of significant advantages over manually exporting PNG files from MuseScore. One is that it handles the cropping for you, another is that it automates the whole process so you are really just dealing with MSCZ files, but most significantly for books under active development (maybe not so big a deal for reproductions of historical editions), you can simply click an example in the book and be taken directly back to MuseScore with the original MSCZ loaded up ready for further editing. In principle the extension could be enhanced to also generate audio.

In reply to by Jojo-Schmitz

I can't open the link, so I don't know what you are seeing. Sometimes postprocessors choose to use the original images in the book. Others request a new copy be made for clarity. What's more, image size has to be scaled to no more than Thumbnail: under 40 KB, 300 - 400 pixels in width or height (whichever is larger). All of which reduces image quality. :(

The cleaner the image I produce, the better the end product will be. That's one reason I'm so glad to find I can do cropping and stacking within Musescore--one less process to reduce quality. :)

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.