Do you mean on your screen, or in a PDF export, or in a print? Could be you need to toggle the setting of the anti-aliasing in Edit / Preferences / Canvas.
So if not in PDF or print, you mean on your computer screen only? The try
the option mentioned. If that doesn’t help, tell us your monitor resolution and whether you are using the -D option to specify resolution manually.
Doesn't matter. If I'm right, it is nothing new, nothing connected to any specific change made, it's just that the nightly builds and the regular builds keep their preferences separate. So if you're saying you don't see this with the release build, that would be because that preference is set differently in that. Whatever preference setting you make in a release build, stays in all updates to that release build. What preference setting you make in a development built, stays in all updates to that development build. So you probably just need to make sure you are using the best setting for your particular OS, display, and device driver. Some do better with the anti-aliasing on, others with it off, and that's why we provide the preference.
It seems you also use OS scaling. Perhaps that is what you're seeing there, the effect of a drawing upscaled 150%? Consider running MuseScore with -D dpi to force that part
It overwrites the automatic dpi detection of MuseScore, which is likely wrong because of that global scaling factor. I'm suspecting that if you currently have MuseScore open with a score at 100%, that it doesn't match the real paper size.
Wait I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to do... Do I have to type a command in my terminal? Like: mscore -D dpi or something? I tried some things but didn't work...
Because MuseScore renders at 100% itself, so it draws the vectorinformation of the musical symbols onto a pixelGrid (the ScoreView) as perfect as it can (with or without antialiasing as configured). This rasterized image is then sent to your graphic subsystem of your window manager to show it on screen.
This is where the 150% of your system settings come into play. It upscales the given image (no longer a vector format) to 150%. Each pixel in the original drawing gets mapped to 1 and a half pixel on your screen. This is where the artifacts come to life.
Which OS? Is the directory where mscore sits in your PATH?
Oh, AppImage.... you need to normally call your AppImage and append that -D 91 to the commandline
Uh... does the number have to be EXACT to what I found? I found 91,78.. I managed to run it though nothing seemed to have changed. More specifically, I changed to the directory I kept the AppImage and did:
./(MusescoreAppImageVersion) -D 91
a comma , is a separator on a command line so I don't think you can enter any number that uses a , in it. I'm not sure if local settings allow for , rather than the . in the US as a decimal. I've never seen a DPI any way but integers since you don't really expect 0,78 of a dot to be drawn.
No, but the more exact it is, the more precisely 100% zoom will actual reflect the true size of the score. Rounding to the nearest integer or really even the nearest "round" number is fine. 100 DPI is standard, so no surprise a value only slightly different from that wouldn't have a noticeable effect. Seems the observations about your use of OS-level scaling are more to the point - your OPS is apparently no doing a very good job here. So if you generally are accustomed to 150% scaling done by the OS, instead try setting that back to 100%, but increase your DPI value by 150% (so, for instance, "-D 135". This should achieve the same thing but the scaling will be done by MuseScore.
Are you saying the standard AppImage behaves differently in this regard? Would be useful to trace through all of these things to understand what is different - whether they are running as different users, in different environments (and hence different environment variable settings), with different OS-level scaling options, different settings of the anti-alias option within MuseScore, etc.
When I set it back to 100% it works finely, but everything looks too small in every window normally and I don't want everything in my OS to look so small... That's why I raise the scaling.
I run Manjaro KDE Plasma, probably latest Plasma version, I have only 1 user in this OS. Here is what I tried after I read your message, 150% global scaling, and it resulted in the same stuff as before:
Not sure what your images is supposed to be showing, that looks like normal console output. The question is, what difference did it make?
If you need the OS to scale things for you overall, fine, go ahead and do that, but then see if you find a way to force that off for MuseScore specifically, and let MuseScore do the scaling then by choosing the appropriate value for DPI. Things are tricky when scaling is involved, so instead of worrying about calculations, I recommend just using trial and error until the score viewed at 100% is actual life size (as in, literally hold up a piece of paper next t your score to see if the sizes match). You can also try setting or upsetting the environment variable QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR (set it to 1, or completely unset it).
Unfortunately there are so many different variations in how different systems handle scaling it's virtually impossible for a single cross-platform application to always look perfect on every screen, but that's why there are so many controls available, to allow you to customize for your own unique system.
Wait I'm not sure if we talk about the same thing... I just need the score symbols to look "well drawn" and not like pixel art. Ok I found that 60 ALMOST does the trick... But the problem is still not solved.
Unfortunately I don't have any better advice than trial and error using different combinations of all of these variables: the system-wide OS scaling, application-specific-scaling by the OS, different values for the "-D" option to MuseScore, setting or upsetting the environment variable, setting or upsetting the anti-aliaising option.
As I said, if it's working in a different AppImage or other installed version, try to determine the settings for each of these in the working version, then compare to the non-working version, that might give clues. But if the only working version is an installed version as opposed to an AppImage (this would be rare), it won't be an apples-to-apples comparison, because they will be using different libraries, and maybe that will turn out to be the relevant difference.
Comments
Do you mean on your screen, or in a PDF export, or in a print? Could be you need to toggle the setting of the anti-aliasing in Edit / Preferences / Canvas.
In reply to Do you mean on your screen,… by Marc Sabatella
It was in Musescore AppImage. I don't know about pdf or print and such. Does that happen to anybody else with AppImage?
In reply to It was in Musescore AppImage… by [DELETED] 32872726
So if not in PDF or print, you mean on your computer screen only? The try
the option mentioned. If that doesn’t help, tell us your monitor resolution and whether you are using the -D option to specify resolution manually.
In reply to So if not in PDF or print,… by Marc Sabatella
I have deleted it... should I try a newer version or the same one?
In reply to I have deleted it... should… by [DELETED] 32872726
Doesn't matter. If I'm right, it is nothing new, nothing connected to any specific change made, it's just that the nightly builds and the regular builds keep their preferences separate. So if you're saying you don't see this with the release build, that would be because that preference is set differently in that. Whatever preference setting you make in a release build, stays in all updates to that release build. What preference setting you make in a development built, stays in all updates to that development build. So you probably just need to make sure you are using the best setting for your particular OS, display, and device driver. Some do better with the anti-aliasing on, others with it off, and that's why we provide the preference.
In reply to Doesn't matter. If I'm… by Marc Sabatella
oh ok
In reply to So if not in PDF or print,… by Marc Sabatella
It seems like anti-aliasing was active all this time... My screen's resolution is 2560x1440 as shown below.
In reply to It seems like anti-aliasing… by [DELETED] 32872726
It seems you also use OS scaling. Perhaps that is what you're seeing there, the effect of a drawing upscaled 150%? Consider running MuseScore with -D dpi to force that part
In reply to It seems you also use OS… by jeetee
I'm not sure what -D dpi is...
In reply to I'm not sure what -D dpi is… by [DELETED] 32872726
It overwrites the automatic dpi detection of MuseScore, which is likely wrong because of that global scaling factor. I'm suspecting that if you currently have MuseScore open with a score at 100%, that it doesn't match the real paper size.
See also https://musescore.org/en/handbook/command-line-options
In reply to It overwrites the automatic… by jeetee
Wait I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to do... Do I have to type a command in my terminal? Like:
mscore -D dpi or something? I tried some things but didn't work...
In reply to Wait I'm still not sure what… by [DELETED] 32872726
yes, replacing dpi with a real number. Use good old Pythagoras to calculate it ;-)
In reply to yes, replacing dpi with a… by Jojo-Schmitz
you mean I should do 2560x1440?
I tried doing this... mscore -D 3686400 and said "command not found"
In reply to you mean I should do… by [DELETED] 32872726
(sqrt ( 2560² + 1440²))/ screen_diameter_in_inch
In reply to (sqrt ( 2560² + 1440²))/… by Jojo-Schmitz
Ok this gives me: 2937.20956011
mmmmmmmmmm
In reply to Ok this gives me: 2937… by [DELETED] 32872726
Divided by screen diameter in inches gives Dots Per Inch
In reply to Dived by screen diameter in… by Jojo-Schmitz
I have no idea how to find screen diameter in inches xD Is there another way? Or that's the only one? I could try doing the global scale 100% again.
In reply to I have no idea how to find… by [DELETED] 32872726
Seems like turning it back to 100% makes it look perfect... but why does it ruin everything when getting it to >100% ?
In reply to Seems like turning it back… by [DELETED] 32872726
Because MuseScore renders at 100% itself, so it draws the vectorinformation of the musical symbols onto a pixelGrid (the ScoreView) as perfect as it can (with or without antialiasing as configured). This rasterized image is then sent to your graphic subsystem of your window manager to show it on screen.
This is where the 150% of your system settings come into play. It upscales the given image (no longer a vector format) to 150%. Each pixel in the original drawing gets mapped to 1 and a half pixel on your screen. This is where the artifacts come to life.
In reply to Because MuseScore renders at… by jeetee
To me it seems more than a pixel and a half for some reason...
In reply to I have no idea how to find… by [DELETED] 32872726
No ruler at hand? No tech doc? Nothing in the type name that refers to its size?
In reply to I have no idea how to find… by [DELETED] 32872726
Indeed the screen scaling setting does need to get into that formula too
In reply to Indeed the screen scaling… by Jojo-Schmitz
I did:
mscore -D 91
and said "command not found" again
In reply to I did: mscore -D 91 and said… by [DELETED] 32872726
Which OS? Is the directory where mscore sits in your PATH?
Oh, AppImage.... you need to normally call your AppImage and append that -D 91 to the commandline
In reply to Which OS? Is the directory… by Jojo-Schmitz
Uh... does the number have to be EXACT to what I found? I found 91,78.. I managed to run it though nothing seemed to have changed. More specifically, I changed to the directory I kept the AppImage and did:
./(MusescoreAppImageVersion) -D 91
In reply to Uh... does the number have… by [DELETED] 32872726
EXACT = an integer? yes. You can't put in a decimal which is what 91,78 looks like.
In reply to EXACT = an integer? yes. You… by mike320
Now i'm confused... when I meant EXACT I meant exactly the number I found. Not an integer.
In reply to Now i'm confused... when I… by [DELETED] 32872726
a comma , is a separator on a command line so I don't think you can enter any number that uses a , in it. I'm not sure if local settings allow for , rather than the . in the US as a decimal. I've never seen a DPI any way but integers since you don't really expect 0,78 of a dot to be drawn.
In reply to Uh... does the number have… by [DELETED] 32872726
No, but the more exact it is, the more precisely 100% zoom will actual reflect the true size of the score. Rounding to the nearest integer or really even the nearest "round" number is fine. 100 DPI is standard, so no surprise a value only slightly different from that wouldn't have a noticeable effect. Seems the observations about your use of OS-level scaling are more to the point - your OPS is apparently no doing a very good job here. So if you generally are accustomed to 150% scaling done by the OS, instead try setting that back to 100%, but increase your DPI value by 150% (so, for instance, "-D 135". This should achieve the same thing but the scaling will be done by MuseScore.
Are you saying the standard AppImage behaves differently in this regard? Would be useful to trace through all of these things to understand what is different - whether they are running as different users, in different environments (and hence different environment variable settings), with different OS-level scaling options, different settings of the anti-alias option within MuseScore, etc.
In reply to No, but the more exact it is… by Marc Sabatella
When I set it back to 100% it works finely, but everything looks too small in every window normally and I don't want everything in my OS to look so small... That's why I raise the scaling.
I run Manjaro KDE Plasma, probably latest Plasma version, I have only 1 user in this OS. Here is what I tried after I read your message, 150% global scaling, and it resulted in the same stuff as before:
In reply to When I set it back to 100%… by [DELETED] 32872726
Not sure what your images is supposed to be showing, that looks like normal console output. The question is, what difference did it make?
If you need the OS to scale things for you overall, fine, go ahead and do that, but then see if you find a way to force that off for MuseScore specifically, and let MuseScore do the scaling then by choosing the appropriate value for DPI. Things are tricky when scaling is involved, so instead of worrying about calculations, I recommend just using trial and error until the score viewed at 100% is actual life size (as in, literally hold up a piece of paper next t your score to see if the sizes match). You can also try setting or upsetting the environment variable QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR (set it to 1, or completely unset it).
Unfortunately there are so many different variations in how different systems handle scaling it's virtually impossible for a single cross-platform application to always look perfect on every screen, but that's why there are so many controls available, to allow you to customize for your own unique system.
In reply to Not sure what your images is… by Marc Sabatella
Wait I'm not sure if we talk about the same thing... I just need the score symbols to look "well drawn" and not like pixel art. Ok I found that 60 ALMOST does the trick... But the problem is still not solved.
In reply to Wait I'm not sure if we talk… by [DELETED] 32872726
Unfortunately I don't have any better advice than trial and error using different combinations of all of these variables: the system-wide OS scaling, application-specific-scaling by the OS, different values for the "-D" option to MuseScore, setting or upsetting the environment variable, setting or upsetting the anti-aliaising option.
As I said, if it's working in a different AppImage or other installed version, try to determine the settings for each of these in the working version, then compare to the non-working version, that might give clues. But if the only working version is an installed version as opposed to an AppImage (this would be rare), it won't be an apples-to-apples comparison, because they will be using different libraries, and maybe that will turn out to be the relevant difference.
In reply to Wait I'm not sure if we talk… by [DELETED] 32872726
If your screen has a resolution of ~90 DPI and use use a scaling of 150% in the driver settings, then indeed
-D 60
should fit the bill quite perfectlyIn reply to If your screen has a… by Jojo-Schmitz
YES it does! But the problem is the symbols ;-; ...