Which file format gives most successful read by Photoscore?

Sibelius beginners can discuss all things Sibelius here ("how do I...?").
Mama-G
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:22 pm

Post by Mama-G » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:43 pm

I want to scan a lot of sheet music onto my computer so I can downsize my music collection, and then I want to be able to, very occasionally, move it to Sibelius so I can manipulate it and print it out eg. in different keys.

Does anyone know which file format (.bmp or .pdf using Ghostscript or anything else?) produces the most accurate read from Photoscore? And does anyone know the best dpi to use? (I experimented with a .bmp file with a scan rate of 800dpi but then Photoscore just hung - I assume this is because Photoscore's maximum dpi read-rate is 400 and that the dpi of the read-rate and scan-rate have to be the same.)

I have Sibelius 5 and whatever level of Photoscore that comes with. I'd be interested to know if there's general consensus on whether Photoscore or, for example, Sharpeye is currently thought to work best. Many thanks.


Sebasian
Posts: 1476
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:46 pm

Post by Sebasian » Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:07 am

Mama-G wrote:I have Sibelius 5 and whatever level of Photoscore that comes with.
PhotoScore Lite (which come with Sibelius) lacks some of the features of the full version and may not be the best solution unless you have great patience or only want a few pieces scanned. But PhotoScore Ultimate (i.e. full version for extra cost) is a great advance on previous versions (and uses some SharpEye technology, I'm told).

My best results come from PDF files generated directly by a notation program, but I have also had good results from TIFF files. PhotoScore usually doesn't work any better at higher DPI rates, and performance may actually degrade, so I tend to stick to 300dpi unless things go very wrong.

laurencepayne
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:02 am

Post by laurencepayne » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:06 am

I don't think PhotoScore cares about filetype as much as it does about resolution. Obviously choosing a dpi figure that matches the options in PS is sensible.

I've always found PS a questionably useful application. It's quick and fairly accurate on simple material - but such material would be very quick to enter by other means. Complex music such as piano/voice sheets will always require a LOT of cleaning up - so much so that you really need to consider whether manual entry would be quicker.

And I'm afraid I'm talking about the full version of PS which is, admittedly, a great improvement over earlier releases. The lite version bundled with Sibelius isn't even that good.

But play with it. Maybe your mileage will vary, in a good way :-)

Tangleweed
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 1:21 pm

Post by Tangleweed » Sun May 31, 2009 1:37 pm

Hi; I have just bought the latest v of PS. laurencepayne seems to be right, so far as I can see so far. I have scanned in pages from the Charlie Parker Omnibook (jazz transcriptions) which is printed but in dense handwritten style with large heads on the notes. I have tried various configs but PS makes virtually no sense of it at all. Anyone with any advice on this type of score (it would be hard work doing it manually as v long and zillions of notes)?

laurencepayne
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:02 am

Post by laurencepayne » Sun May 31, 2009 2:03 pm

I think you'll have to do it manually though. If you've tried both Photoscore's printed and handwritten options, and various scanning resolutions, there's little point in beating your head against a brick wall any further.

Look for the patterns in the music. Copy/paste/repitch can save a lot of time.

Noobie007
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:37 am

Post by Noobie007 » Sun May 31, 2009 9:36 pm

Very littel luck with it here as well. Even after talking to tech support.
Mike

Post Reply