MuseScore 4 Camera - Image Capture
Where is the image capture feature in MuseScore 4?
I use MuseScore to create a lot of worksheets for my students and image capture is vital to creating the worksheets.
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
It is gone, not (yet re)implemented again, but will come back in a later release
In reply to It is gone, not (yet re… by Jojo-Schmitz
As a teacher this was one of the most useful things musescore had. I hope it coems back sooner rather than later.
In reply to As a teacher this was one of… by davidpowell1
Me too, it's a big problem for me.
The alternative for now is to take a screen shot and edit it in some kind of photo software. Paint in Windows, of example.
In reply to The alternative for now is… by bobjp
How can we import the jpeg file into the Musescore4?
In reply to How can we import the jpeg… by Carmen Chan 4
See https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/working-images
and it is still possible to export a score to PNG image, that could well serve as another workaround.
Windows users can try Win+Shift+s to fire up the integrated snipping tool
Oh NO! I used this ALL the time..........
In reply to Oh NO! I used this ALL the… by ljtflute
Me too!!!!!! The Windows snipping tool is fine but almost impossible to get the same size box. If you don't, when pasting into another app, things don't align as smoothly. The camera tool is just more efficient in that regard.
The importance of the camera tool in Musescore is such that I may have to revert to Musescore 3 until the camera tool returns. That's a bummer I really like Musescore4.
In reply to Me too!!!!!! The Windows… by proverbs2016
How do you revert to musescore 3?
In reply to How do you revert to… by joytrombone
Just use it, that's all. There is no "revert" process necessary. If you have uninstalled it, reinstall from the download available on this site.
In reply to Just use it, that's all… by frfancha
... specifically by following the download link for Older versions:
https://musescore.org/en/download#older-versions
In reply to Just use it, that's all… by frfancha
You have to revert your scores though ! MU3 cannot open MU4 scores and MU4 cannot save as MU3 score. The only way around (which is not bad) is to use MU4 to convert your MU4 scores into the MusicXML format and then open them in MU3.
In reply to Me too!!!!!! The Windows… by proverbs2016
Instead of resorting to settling for the vastly inferior engraving of MU3, better to just try a screen shot tool like Greenshot or ShareX that gives more control than your OS one, if the OS one isn't sufficient. Or create the examples as individual pages in a score where the page size is set to the desired size, and export them all at once. This will ensure that everything lines up perfectly, and the music will actually look its best. Not much good if the images line up perfectly but the music within them is spaced poorly!
In reply to Instead of resorting to… by Marc Sabatella
Marc, i am one of the people who is still using Musescore 3 because I use a lot this function. The image capture button it's much faster and smarter than the OS screen capture.
So, no, until musescore 4 has this feature i will stay on musescore 3, which works very well.
In reply to Marc, i am one of the people… by gholst80
That's fine if you don't need the images to actually look good - MU3's notation is significantly inferior to MU4's. But I am confused about how the MU3 capture can be "faster" than others. All screenshot tools I have used are at least as fast as MU3's. If you explain your use case in more detail, we're happy to help show you how to accomplish it efficiently and get much better notation in the process.
In reply to That's fine if you don't… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Marc. The main point lost is transparency in the background, which was possible then and not now printing literally what is on screen. It's really disappointing not to have that tool in Musescore 4.
In reply to Marc, i am one of the people… by gholst80
If I among the ones still using MU3.6.2 over MU4.0 (I do regret the choice of the MU team to have favoured engraving and sound over workflow and usability), if I somehow disagree with Marc statement about how bad are the scores made with 3.6.2, I do agree with him on the fact that are nice solutions outside of MU for the screen capture. I use GreenShot even in 3.6.2 where I find it easier than the internal screen capture tool of MU. I'm mostly using the one of MU when I need to make screen capture in the SVG format.
What's your use case where tools like GreenShot don't work ?
In reply to If I among the ones still… by parkingb
No one favored engraving or playback over usability - on the contrary, some of the most important changes in MU4 are usability improvements. That was a huge impetus for most of the changes to the UI. Engraving and playback improvements were also important, but at no time did anyone make a decision that favored engraving or playback at the expense of usability.
Scores created in MU3 aren't bad of course - just objectively nowhere near as good as MU4. Say, 6/10 as opposed to 9/10.
In reply to No one favored engraving or… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Mark, congratulations on the work you have at Musescore.
I am a music educator, I recognize the improvements of Mscore4 but I agree with the people who mentioned that the workflow in Ms3 is faster and one of those features is precisely the screenshot option (also the location of certain menus)
The ms3 screeshot allowed capturing directly in print mode or screen mode which saves a lot of time when you have to prepare educational material without having to export to PDF first and then capture (to obtain a print version). I hope the mscore team considers including this feature back in version 4.
In reply to Hi Mark, congratulations on… by osakaiba
I'm sure it's being considered. But, to be clear: you can still very easily take screenshots in print view. The new Publish tab makes that super simple, or you can just turn off display of invisible/nonprinting symbols in just a couple of clicks on the Properties panel.
Also, not sure what you mean about exporting to PDF there capturing - if you're going to export - very useful for educational purposes when you needs lots of precisely-sized images = use PNG, or SVG, not PDF. And it will automatically be sized perfectly - that's the whole advantage of the export method. So for things like flash cards or silide shows or other cases where you need precise control over the size of the image, that's always been the best way. Screenshots are more useful when you don't care about precision but just want a quick grab, such as for a small passage within a larger score. And again, that's dead simple in MU4 - bpuslih mode, screenshot, done.
In reply to I'm sure it's being… by Marc Sabatella
My issue here is that in MuseScore 3, I could export .png of a selection of measures and the background could be transparent, which was INCREDIBLY helpful in creating educational pictures and video. I tried Greenshot as you suggested - and although otherwise really nice - it doesn't allow for quick export without the white background of the score. Do you have a solution for that or another program suggestion? I can remove the background in Photoshop, but that adds a time consuming step every time I need notation graphics. Thanks for the help!!
In reply to Instead of resorting to… by Marc Sabatella
Has anyone identified a step-by-step procedure for entering realizations in a score using MuseScore 4? I've followed Marc's advice to create each realization individually, using my project's MuseScore template to set the staff size. However, when I export to png (260 DPI seems to be about right), the entire page is exported, so I trim the images in Photoshop. Somewhere in this process the quality of MuseScore 4's beautiful engraving is lost. If I try exporting to PDF instead, the quality is high, but I can't drag those realizations into MuseScore.
I'm attaching a portion of the original score that I want to reproduce (the publication date I'm copying is the 19th century, so it's public domain.) How can I reproduce those two realizations?
I have spent several hours patiently trying to find a way to achieve my goal, and I'm reaching the point of just printing everything out and using physical scissors and glue! The general advice seems to be to go back to MuseScore 3. Perhaps I can just use that version of the software for the scores that need realizations. Will there be conflicts if I run both versions on the same computer?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
In reply to Has anyone identified a step… by Cynthia Cathcart
There are no issues running MU3 and MU4 together on the same computer.
However, there is no backward compatibility between MU4 to MU3. Meaning that a file saved in MU4 cannot be opened in MU3. The workaround is to export the files in MU4 to the MusicXML format.
In reply to Has anyone identified a step… by Cynthia Cathcart
For simple things like that, the easy way is to just use the screenshot tool built into your OS, or a third party equivalent. Have your paper set to white background and the score reasonably zoomed in to get a high DPI snapshot. Shouldn't take more than 10 seconds.
Exporting to PNG is useful too when you have dozens or hundreds of them and need a precise size, but really overkill here.
If you do export PNG, I wouldn't use Photoshop to trim - that's also overkill. A simple image editor would do the trick and there should be zero loss in quality if done correctly. Some tools probably exist that can trim the whitespace automatically. Or leave it in - it should be harmless (especially if you send it to the back of the stacking order via the Properties panel).
In reply to Has anyone identified a step… by Cynthia Cathcart
When you already made single projects of each realization then you could try to reduce the page size of each file to only show your single bar. When you then export the page to png it shouldn't need any postprocessing (in my logic).
Just putting my two-penny comment, this is a crucial feature for my needs.
See #334216: No more IMAGE CAPTURE?
To be clear, every OS comes with a built-in screenshot tool that provides the same basic functionality (drag to create a region, click to capture an image), and there are also tons of free third-party alternatives. The facility in MuseScore 3 was nice and had some interesting features, but still, it's still extremely simple to create screenshots using the tools already on your computer, and as mentioned, you can also install others if for some reason the built-in one in your OS isn't to your liking.
In reply to To be clear, every OS comes… by Marc Sabatella
I don't know of such a (builtin) facility for Windows (10/11). Screen- and Window-shots, that's all as far as I can tell
In reply to I don't know of such a … by Jojo-Schmitz
Windows+Shift+S - see https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/open-snipping-tool-and-take…
In reply to Windows+Shift+S - see https:… by Marc Sabatella
Ah, thanks!
(I guess I knew this some time ago, but keeep forgetting it)
In reply to I don't know of such a … by Jojo-Schmitz
In Win 10 and 11 e.g. the Snipping Tool:
Edit: sorry for the duplicate. Had an earlier version of this post open for too long.
In reply to In Win 10 and 11 e.g. the… by MichLeon
Maybe it sinks in better when being told twice ;-)
In reply to Maybe it sinks in better… by Jojo-Schmitz
Nah, I had to look it up again too :-). But I don't use Windows very often.
For completeness:
On Windows, use Windows+Shift+S
On Mac, use Cmd+Shift+4
On Chromebook, use Ctrl+Shift+(show windows)
On Linux, details may depend on your particular distribution and/or window manager, but apparently Shift+PrtScn and Ctrl+Shift+PrtScn are common
In reply to Nah, I had to look it up… by Marc Sabatella
FWIW, these shortcuts leave in everything visible in the score, including "greyed out" markings. The image capture tool presented the score as it would have been printed.
These shortcuts also do not have the transparent background like image capture does.
I would consider these a workaround, not a replacement for what was, for many, an essential feature.
In reply to FWIW, these shortcuts leave… by estevenson91
Yes, it is a workaround. I don't think anyone has said that it wasn't.
You can turn off the display of non-printing elements in the View menu.
In reply to FWIW, these shortcuts leave… by estevenson91
go to the publish tab then use the windows snippet tool. It will not have the greyed out lines.
In reply to To be clear, every OS comes… by Marc Sabatella
Absolutely true but actually, screenshots require an additional tedious step and leave untitled files on your computer. The camera tool in MuseScore3 is so slick and convenient. I do hope it will be included in an update to MuseScore4 in the near future.
In reply to Absolutely true but actually… by ljtflute
Which additional tedious step? The tools I listed above are all single shortcuts, exactly as convenient as the image capture tool was. It is true that some of them may leave files around as well, and there are some other disadvantages, so indeed, I do hope to see the built-in tool return. But meanwhile, the system screenshots tools really do an excellent job and should allow 99% of people to continue doing their great work!
In reply to Which additional tedious… by Marc Sabatella
The more tedious steps are drawing the box around the desired content. Once you draw a box around and then let go of the mouse, the snipping automatically open's the capture in an app. At that point you realize how exact your capture was. If it was not so exact, then you have to repeat the draw. With the Musescore camera app, you just resize the box on the spot!
In reply to Which additional tedious… by Marc Sabatella
The tedious steps are to have to make all non-printable elements invisible before the screen capture and visible afterwards, that the (Window's) Snip tool does not remember the position of the last captured rectangle, that these tools do not provide SVG screenshots (which the old capture tool did - which was really useful for adding snippets to symbol palettes), ...
In reply to The tedious steps are to… by parkingb
Publish mode already hides invisible elements. You can also define shortcuts for the commands to toggle these, if you some reason you need to make them visible and invisible often. So really it’s a couple of seconds tops. Bummer that the Windows tool doesn’t remember position - I wasn’t aware of that - but plenty of third party tools do. So there are definitely still very good options. If you specifically need SVG for some reason (most people don’t), though, that’s definitely something that requires internal support.
In reply to Absolutely true but actually… by ljtflute
>> leave untitled files on your computer
At least for the Windows snipping tool this is not true by default, it is well able to handle the snippets via clipboard only.
In reply to To be clear, every OS comes… by Marc Sabatella
A screenshot is won't give you the same results. Plus, for most people it is not as easy to create an svg file that can be insert in InDesign, for instance. If you are writing a book about music with staff notion in it a screenshot is of little help. Dorico's graphic slices seem to work fine, by the way.
In reply to To be clear, every OS comes… by Marc Sabatella
however, I found the quality different between built-in screenshot vs image capture option of MuseScore 3, when I copied in word document.
In reply to however, I found the quality… by silencetmg123
Yes, System screenshot hasn't the same quality of the built-in image capture.
The temporary solution of screenshooting with embedded OS function is really not an option for us teachers.
We need vectorized images (.svg) and not compromised/scaled images.
Also when you hide notes/pauses, the OS screenshot function can not really hide them.
Hope to be implemented in the near future.
PLEASE bring it back I'm a teacher making worksheets and exams and I hide rests and notes and bar lines to create 'wrong' options. Therefore a screenshot won't work as the hidden stuff still shows in grey.
In reply to PLEASE bring it back I'm a… by wassob1
You can easily turn off display of hidden elements via the Properties panel. With nothing selected - you’ll see icons to control display of invisible elements, frames, etc.
In reply to PLEASE bring it back I'm a… by wassob1
I agree
I'm going back to version 3. There's nothing so useful in version 4 to justify the downgrade. It's not that easy to switch off those invisible markers and controls, colors and so on
In reply to Going back to version 3… by Mestretheo
I agree.
In reply to I agree. by Jazzusa
I'm still on musescore 3 also for this feature missing.
I'll pay for Dorico just to have their "graphic slices" feature. To eliminate image capture from this 4 version is just preposterous.
Just going to chime in, the snipping tool on Windows does not give a transparent background -- I used this feature weekly for church bulletins, have to use 3 till it arrives on 4
MuseScore is getting WORSE. No FREE downloads anymore, only those that are in Public Domain. The screen capture has also been removed which is an essential tool for teaching.
In reply to MuseScore is getting WORSE… by geromemarcilla
That is a) a musescore.com issue, and as sich entirely unrelated to this webseite here, musescore.org and unrelated to the MuseScore editor. and b) is the case since several years now.
The screen capture lack is a known issue in Mu4, and will hopefully come back in a later release
In reply to MuseScore is getting WORSE… by geromemarcilla
For the record, free download of copyright music is a violation of the law. The copyright holders need to be paid for use of their music, so that is why it is necessary for websites to charge for download. The alternative is being shut down for copyright violation. But indeed, further discussion of the steps msuescore.com has taken over the years to upholds the legal rights of composers and avoid being shut down in the process belong over there on that website.
As discussed throughout this thread, image capture is indeed an essential tool for teaching, which is why every single operating system provides this already, and why there are also third party tools to do it. So you can take screenshots from any running program, not just MuseScore, very simply. For example, on Windows, use using Windows+Shift+S. Third-party screenshot tools can provide additional functionality above and beyond what your OS provides, or what previous versions of MuseScore did. Hopefully the new MuseScore 4 tools will be even better still!
In reply to For the record, free… by Marc Sabatella
So you don't want to reintroduce the image capture function?
Ok, but don't tell that the system screenshot has the same flexibility. It require editing of the image before use and hasn't the transparent background.
In reply to So you don't want to… by zorba
Huh? Nobody said that it won't get reintroduced.
In reply to So you don't want to… by zorba
Indeed, absolutely no one said or implied in any way whatsoever that it wouldn't come back. MuseScore is open source, so as soon as a sufficiently motivated person designs and implements a suitable replace, I'm sure it will return.
Meanwhile, though - not sure which system screenshot tool you are using, but it certainly shouldn't require post-editing. All systems I am aware of come with a utility that lets you draw rectangles just as the MU3 tool did. And while it's true the background can't be made transparent (unless you edit, in which case that too is possible), you can certainly make sure your paper is white, or whatever color you need it to be in order to blend correctly with its surroundings in the destination.
If you explain more about your use case - what OS, which screenshot tool, how you intend to use the screenshot - we're happy to help you be more productive today, while waiting for someone to volunteer to redesign/reimplement a tool within MuseScore.
In reply to For the record, free… by Marc Sabatella
It is true that there are ways to do ALMOST everything that MuseScore 3 could do with image capture before. I know and use those tools on Macs all the time. In fact, Command-Shift-5 has completely changed my life in that area. You can choose the box size, choose where the file will be saved, etc. Thanks for the details of how to do other image captures as a workaround for now.
However (and this is a BIG however), those few things that MuseScore 3 could do are THE reasons that I dropped Finale for MuseScore and are THE reasons that I will be using MuseScore 3 until there is an update. So unfortunate, because I LOVE the UI and UX in MuseScore 4. It is a HUGE leap forward (with this one key drawback, that for me is a deal breaker).
I am unaware of any other program (and I have looked, A LOT) that can do these few things in just two steps: Copy and paste an image (without any digital waste left on my desktop, or in my downloads folder) and do it with a transparent background. I know how to do all of those things in about 4 to 20 steps in other programs. The transparent background is especially time consuming.
I really hope there is a way to get this updated soon. If I knew how to program I would do it myself. Does anyone have the email of the person who did it in MuseScore 3? Because I will personally email them, and would even be willing to pay a small amount to get that feature added.
In reply to It is true that there are… by mattdougthorn
If you are ready to pay, MU4 is an open-source software. Maybe you could pay an independent developer to contribute to MU4 to restore that functionality. The chances the current dev team addresses this themselves soon is low. It is one of the 269 tasks in MUX4.x LONGLIST So not planned for a next release (as far as I understand the project organisation).
In reply to If you are ready to pay, MU4… by parkingb
While it's on a longlsit, its already been announced that high priority is addressing all feature regressions. So while it's on a list with 269 other items, it's much closer to #1 than to #269 within that list.
In reply to It is true that there are… by mattdougthorn
Meanwhile, are you aware you can get a white background easily in MU4? It would be quite rare to actually require transparency. But indeed, such special cases can exist. In those cases, if you don't mind much worse engraving quality in order to save the few extra steps t get the transparent background in MU4, then indeed, it's a reasonable option. Just realize you are giving up a lot of quality here.
If you can explain more about your special use case, we can try to show you how to optimize that workflow so you can enjoy the tremendous advances in engraving quality and still get the transparent background that your project requires in the most efficient manner possible.
In reply to Meanwhile, are you away yu… by Marc Sabatella
Well, for example those graphical swing markings need a transparent background to not cover other elements.
Easily done with Mu3, not possible with plain PS means, possible but cumbersome with some external tools and websites.
In reply to Well, for example those… by Jojo-Schmitz
I don't have MU3 on this new computer. But if I remember the steps in MU3, W11 is just as fast saving an image from a score with the prt sc function. Including resize and/or crop.
Yes, transparent back ground requires a few extra steps. Open free Photo Shop background remover web site. Open or drag image into it, and download result.
Power Point will also remove a background. As will many paid photo programs. If it matters.
I get that lots of people need the camera. Or are at least are used to the way it works.
In reply to I don't have MU3 on this new… by bobjp
Hello All!
Don't know if that will help anyone, but I've found out that the "Take Screenshot -> from selection" tool in the Mac OS Preview app provides a completely white background (which makes integration into, say, a Pages document visually seamless - it doesn't generate the slightly grey box/background that the MacOS Screenshot utility does when used on the page you're working on in MuseScore4).
Could be useful if you need to export multiple screenshots from the same score....
--> open a pdf of a score in Preview, then File -> take screenshot -> from selection
After you've made your selection it'll open a new Preview window with the selection, then File -> Save (and make sure the "Alpha" box is ticked.
In reply to Hello All! Don't know if… by Mitch McGasser
Woop, aaaand I've just found what Marc was referring to about the completely white background available in MuseScore4, even simpler....
--->in MuseScore4 Preferences -> Appearance -> Paper, change the colour to completely white (as opposed to the default very slight grey)
Then the Mac OS screenshot utility will deliver plain white backgrounds, no need for the Preview trick I mentioned above....:-)
In reply to Well, for example those… by Jojo-Schmitz
Hmm, what other markings would you want to overlap them? This also would be trivial to generate using export instead of image capture. Here's an version I whipped up in a minute or two in MU4, with the page size set to just enough for the content and no margin sot he graphic sits perfectly within, then exported to transparent PNG:
I've also attached the score itself if someone wants to fiddle with it to improve on this.
In reply to Hmm, what other markings… by Marc Sabatella
At your suggestion, I created a document with a very small page size to show only what I needed, with the intention of exporting to png. However, when I clicked on the publish tab, the program shut down. I tried a couple of more times with the same results. I tried it with a regular full size score, and had no problem going to the publish tab. I downloaded you "swing marking" file above to see if it was just a fluke with my file. When I opened your file and clicked on the publish tab, I had the same result as with my original attempt-- the program shut down immediately. I'm running the following: OS: Windows 10 Version 2009 or later, Arch.: x86_64, MuseScore version (64-bit): 4.1.0-231921402, revision: 2e3a93a. What do you suggest?
In reply to At your suggestion, I… by singinglizard1
First, be sure to update to 4.1.1, which fixes a number of crashes, including some special cases involving the Publish tab.
But also, you don't need to switch to Pubish just to export a file. Just do so directly via File / Export on the Score tab.
That's reallyy a pitty that this feature is gone... Even more terrible that the developers doesnt seem to care about it nor understand users' arguments? Lots of exporting settings that were at hand, and we could export PDF/SVG files from excerpts of the score... No screenshot app can do that actually.
In reply to That's reallyy a pitty that… by Paulo Rios Filho
What makes you think developers don't care or understand? I think every statement made shows we/they do care and understand, which is why a) it's been specifically mentioned as something being redesigned for implementation in a future release, and b) why we work so hard to help you see the workarounds that exist currently.
For the record, the image capture never did PDF, only PNG or SVG. And indeed, no screenshot tool can do SVG. But File / Export can, and it can do so with more precision and better reproducibility and better scalability (in the sense of being able to export many images at once) than the image capture feature ever could. That's why, for the extra-demanding situations where the precision of SVG is required, Export is my recommendation, even in MU3.
In reply to What makes you think… by Marc Sabatella
Hi Marc
You're right, I didn't express myself well when I said you/they don't care. Actually, I'm really glad for all the affort MU team put on the project. So I'm sory for that.
What I really meant is that this is actually a fundamental tool for researchers and teachers, not even comparable to system's native screen shot tools and similar apps. And it used to make a strong difference in favor to Musescore, when compared to other notation softwares, to me.
That we, users, have to drop hundreds of comments argumenting in favor of such a so obvious positive feature is a little frustrating... We all expect that a new version of a software keep the good features, not that they simply leave them out.
MU3 does export image capture in PDF - screenshot attached.
Nevertheless, what is important is to have a tool with such detailed settings to export image and with the possibility to export paths and not only rasterized images. Good to know that it's on the table for a next version of MU4. Thanks!
In reply to Hi Marc You're right, I didn… by Paulo Rios Filho
I stand corrected on the PDF. I guess I never found that very useful and just forgot it even existed.
Still, though, it seems to me that if your requirements are so demanding that the normal PNG screen capture that most educators use with most software won't do, I still don't understand why you'd put up with the imprecision and inefficiency of actually drawing capture rectangles manually, when the export method 0- with absolutely precise control over page size and ability to export multiples images at once - works so much better. Feel free to start a new thread describing the unique requirements of your project in more detail, and we're happy to help show you how to get things done with the best results and the least effort!
Anyhow, again, it's already known that this feature needs to be redesigned/reimplemented, so no need to continue bringing up the desire to have it. But meanwhile, I really do want to help you see how you can achieve better results and faster than you previously may have realized was possible!
In reply to I stand corrected on the PDF… by Marc Sabatella
Hello Marc, thank you for the responses.
The image capture tool in MS 3.6 was very useful for me to:
Export a system or even a staff filled with basic information that would then be used as a draft for a section with graphical or mixed notation in an illustration software, such as Inkscape.
I can achieve the same by exporting the page or the entire score, of course. However, the workflow will be much longer since, in the external software, I'll have to remove all unnecessary systems and information. With the previous capture tool, I just needed to export what I needed and work on it directly in the external software.
For this purpose, the ability to capture in SVG or PDF is very useful, as the capture tools of Operating Systems only export images.
In reply to Hello Marc, thank you for… by Paulo Rios Filho
If you are working in Inkscape then you might find this extension for Inkscape useful:
http://struckkai.blogspot.com/2023/05/inkscape-12-extension-musescore-v…
I wrote it as a workaround for the missing (!) image capture tool.
"Musescore 4 only can export whole pages but you can open such an SVG in Inkscape, resize the page sized white rectangle to your desired size, then press ctrl+shift+r to resize the actual page to your selection. Or use the new page tool of Inkscape (little button at the left bottom) to resize the page. Then run the Extension."
It will remove all stuff outside the page area.
(For Installation you can also watch the video of the "Inkscape 1.2 Extension: Sibelius Viewbox")
In reply to If you are working in… by musikai
Thank you very much for that! I will try it as soon as possible.
It´s simply essential that feature.
you can always do "publish" then "export" and pdf all the files like that
honestly i think thats easier for me for printing too
It's been a year, guys
In reply to It's been a year, guys by Илья Бабичек (…
Man I really do wish they'd bring back the camera tool in MS4. I'm a teacher constantly making charts and lesson sheets and the camera tool was THE thing that made me land on MS over other notation software. So bizarre that it was left out of future versions.
In reply to Man I really do wish they'd… by jdaniel220
Me too. Missing the Image Capture feature! -- Just adding another voice, so you know we still love this and hope you'll be able to bring it back. Thanks!
In reply to Man I really do wish they'd… by jdaniel220
To be clear, as explained elsewhere in this thread - most operating systems provide native screen capture tools, and there are third-party tools to do the same as well. Between those and the ability to export PNG or SVG, almost all use cases for which people formerly used the image capture tool are still very much possible and just as simple. If you're having trouble seeing how to use these for your own specific use cases, just ask for help, describing the specific use case, and we can help.
But the standard thing where you just want a quick grab to paste into a slide show or text document, the screen capture tool already on your computer works beautifully. At most you might want to set your paper background to white in MuseScore - see Edit / Preferences / Canvas. This should suffice for most cases while waiting for someone to volunteer to reimplement a new screen capture facility within MuseScore as an alternative to the one already on your computer.
In reply to To be clear, as explained… by Marc Sabatella
the quality of the os screen capture is lower compared to the old image capture of Musescore 3.
In reply to the quality of the os screen… by zorba
Depends on your screen resolution, but when using older monitors it can indeed be somewhat less, yes - but still not in a way that would actually matter for the vast majority of cases.
Again, none of this is to say that it wouldn't be great if someone were to volunteer to tackle this, in the same great open-source tradition that has brought so many other amazing features to MuseScore. I'm just trying to help people get the most out of the program today. So again, if you have a specific use case you need help getting the best results with, please describe it in more detail and we're happy to help!
In reply to the quality of the os screen… by zorba
And it doesn't support transparency or SVG...
In reply to And it doesn't support… by Jojo-Schmitz
Indeed, but again, this is virtually never an issue in practice. The vast majority of people using this feature simply want to quickly grab an an image to paste into a slide show or word processing document. A few want to create more sophisticated documented with more precise requirements in terms of consistency of multiple images, and for them export is a better answer anyhow.
So again, most people in most cases can do just fine without the MU3 capture facility, and I'm volunteering my assistance here to help them do just that. If people need help seeing how to quickly grab an image to paste, I'm here to help. And if they need help seeing how to sue export to get both higher quality and better consistency across multiple images for more demanding cases, I'm here to help with that too.
In reply to Indeed, but again, this is… by Marc Sabatella
Maybe "most" people do just fine, maybe they don't. But, it was an amazing feature, and for an educator and content maker, a huge plus. I've seen no native app that works as quickly and completely. Yes, there are workarounds, but workarounds suck, when the feature used to exist. And, as some have stated, it was the USP for Musescore. For a minority, as you keep reminding us. But, a minority that's in the business of recommending programs to students.
The issue is this, how is it an improvement to do something in 4 steps vs 1?
Do you know why it was removed?
Since nobody is doing anything, can you help clarify what I would be proposing to a programmer? Is it open, so they can just grab the code from Mus3 and tweak it to fit Mus4?
I wish I could code, but I teach and play almost 20 gigs a month, I haven't had time to learn.
Thanks, I know you do a ton for the community, and that's awesome. I think they're just wrong on this one. It was a great feature they should have kept.
In reply to Maybe "most" people do just… by Jon Garner
> Maybe "most" people do just fine, maybe they don't. ...
Agreed! There are MANY reasons to want MS3's Image Capture present in MS4:
MuseScore 3's Image Capture affords:
• High res. DPI (vs. the 72 DPI via Command-Shift-4 on MacOS)
... I've used Image Capture with its Resolution set to 72, 75, 100, 300. 600 and 1200 DPI.
Very versatile! I don't know its upper limit.
• the choice of a transparent or opaque background
• an easy, one-step way of omitting various visibilities: like Frames, Unprintable, Invisible
... without toggling them individually via multiple trips through the View menu.
• a "capture" rect adjustable handles and coordinates that persist even after being dismissed
• a "capture" rect that's moveable, even from page to page
• the option to Save As PNG, Save As PDF and—of significant importance— Save As SVG
• the option to Save As a screenshot (in cases where you do want to show non printable stuff)
A native MacOS screenshot doesn't hold a candle, except that it's quick and dirty.
It's truly disappointing in MuseScore 4 to see so many great features kicked to the curb ... or left inoperable and seemingly un-prioritized.
I've attached a comparison of a MacOS screenshot and MS3.7's Image Capture. The difference is far more obvious if you zoom in one level.
scorster
In reply to > *Maybe "most" people do… by scorster
Also quite important: the option to export as SVG, esp. usefull when creating items for the palettes
(Edit: now mentioned in the above post)
In reply to Also quite important: the… by Jojo-Schmitz
@Jojo: do you know when this feature will be reimplemented? Or why it take so long to return? The old MS3 code is so difficult to port on MS4?
Can we help in some ways?
On github there's an open issue, maybe it's useful to write here to talk directly with developers:
https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/15912
Other's missing features useful for teachers are count-in and pitch settings
In reply to @Jojo: do you know when this… by zorba
No idea. But see also MuseScore 3 features not (yet) implemented in MuseScore 4
In reply to Also quite important: the… by Jojo-Schmitz
How'd I forget Save As SVG?!
That has proved extremely useful to me. So I've added it to my prior post.
Thanks Jojo
In reply to > *Maybe "most" people do… by scorster
Only if you're using an incredibly low-resolution display is screen capture only 72 DPI. Most modern displays are far higher. And with the score displayed full screen and/or zoomed in, it can easily be close to 300 DPI calculated according to the actual print size. The difference in practice is virtually non-existent
It's already easy to omit frames etc - Publish tab does that, as do the simple commands to toggle them.
Most screen capture tools have movable rectangles. If your current favorite tool doesn't, simply install a new one and it may become your new favorite.
Transparent backgrounds are virtually never needed, but in the rare cases where they are, export is possible, and in most of those rare cases, it's the better choice anyhow. For the very few cases where transparent background is needed and export is not appropriate, yes, for those specific cases, the old tool was objectively better.
SVG vs PNG is also almost a completely irrelevant different for 99% of use cases.
But the vast majority just want a simple way to clip music into worksheets etc, they aren't doing highly complex notational tricks that require small transparent SVG or PNG at resolutions of full 300 DPI.
Anyhow, again as has been acknowledged over and over over and over, yes, every single person involved in these discussions realizes that there exist rare corner case situations where screen capture and export are not sufficient. But I'm not talking about those rare corner cases. I'm just trying to help the 99% of people who don't realize that there are simple workaround that will almost certainly satisfy their needs completely once they learn about them.
Arguing with people who are simply trying to help others does not help anyone. So please, if someone gives someone else advice on how to solve a problem they are having, please refrain from arguing from those of us giving advice to those people just because that particular advice doesn't also happen to cover some particular other use case. Some people really just want to do simply things, and these are easy, and I'm trying to help them.
In reply to > *Maybe "most" people do… by scorster
With MS3 native image caption you can capture more than one page at once in a high resolution, much higher than if you zoom out the score to fit more then one page to the screen and then capture the screen.
MS3 native image caption has fixed DPI (dots per inch) while screen capture results with DPI that is zoom level dependent.
In reply to Maybe "most" people do just… by Jon Garner
It shouldn't any more steps at all. Which OS are you on? We can certainly help you learn to use the available tools to work exactly as efficiently as before.
Again, it wasn't "removed" - the entire UI was redesigned from he ground up to make possible new features that weren't viable before. Certain features simply haven't yet been implemented in the new UI. This particular feature was lower priority because there is already such a simple alternative.
And again, yes, we all agree that someday it will be great if someone volunteers to re-add that feature. But meanwhile, it really is incredibly simple to use the existing tools if you know the appropriate shortcuts, so let us know more about how you are currently trying to do things and we're happy to show you how to do things more efficiently.
In reply to It shouldn't any more steps… by Marc Sabatella
@Marc Sabatella You keep saying no one needs a native image capture feature in MuseScore ("no one" = "1% of MU users). But simply looking at this thread, and the amount of different people complaining about the disappearance of this feature should prove you that there is a request for it.
Maybe is it complicated to re-implement this in MU4, maybe are there higher priorities in MU4. This is something we could hear. But please stop telling us that we are wrong when we request it and we don't need it. This is really frustrating.
In reply to @Marc Sabatella You keep… by parkingb
No one in the entire history of humanity has ever said anyone is wrong for requesting this. Blatant lies help no one, so please stop.
MuseScore has millions of users. A couple of dozen people in this thread is a pretty insignificant percentage. but also, even on this thread (and other similar ones), most of the commenters come from people who simply don't know about the simple alternatives that already exist. The discussions get drawn out more because people insist on continuing to argue with the those just trying to help people use the tools they already have, but still, the number of people with demonstrated cases that are not easily handled by existing tools is incredibly small.
And once again, as has been acknowledge over and over and over and over and over and over, yes of course it would be nice if someone were to volunteer to reimplement this. If the demand is really as high as people seem to think it is, surely, that will be a pool large enough that someone will step forward to volunteer at some point.
Again, continuing to argue with those of us who are simply trying to help people doesn't help anyone.
In reply to No one in the entire history… by Marc Sabatella
You constant repeating that there alledgedly are good workarounds doesn't help much either
In reply to You constant repeating that… by Jojo-Schmitz
There are good workarounds for 99% of cases, and of course it is helpful to inform newcomers to the thread about them. These newcomers typically haven't read through all the previous comments (and who can blame them), so this is extremely timely and beneficial information I volunteer my time to provide.
For the people who are already aware of the workarounds, and who - after experimentation and carefully applying the suggestions - have conclusively decided that these workarounds are insufficient for their particular unusual special cases, that's fine. But it isn't helpful for those people to continue to post about it, especially in response when some of us are simply trying to help newcomers. It doesn't help the newcomers, it doesn't help themselves, it doesn't help me, it doesn't help anyone else volunteering their time to assist here, it doesn't help any other volunteer developers, it doesn't help the core team - it literally doesn't help anyone.
In reply to There are good workarounds… by Marc Sabatella
Hello Marc,
I understand when you say that the MU developers must prioritize examining how the software is used by the majority of its users. However, let me share an opinion that might add some value when you, as developers leading the project, prioritize or choose not to prioritize a particular feature.
Unlike proprietary and commercial music notation software, what has always caught my attention about MU, in addition to being open source and free, is its customization capability, as well as the ease with which some essential tools for the work of those who are not "the majority of users" are implemented by MU (at least until MU3).
Here, I include contemporary music composers, composers and performers of microtonal music, as well as teachers and researchers interested in going beyond a "simple way to clip music in worksheets" - for example, those concerned with fine control over resolution and post-editing (importing an SVG cut of a specific section of a MU score into drawing software, for instance).
This "counter-hegemonic" potential, this attention to those whose practices cannot be labeled within a "majority," is what made me definitively switch from well-known commercial software to MU3. And it is what still prevents me from migrating from MU3 to MU4 - which introduced incredible elements, no one can deny that, but discarded equally incredible solutions that were consistently integrated into MU3.
For me, this is the point that justifies insisting so much on these (and other) matters. I hope you understand that, by doing so, we are not throwing a tantrum like spoiled children but trying to emphatically show why a particular tool is missed in MU4. And why MuseScore is a valuable project beyond the simple wishes of a majority.
Best regards, and thank you for your attention.
In reply to Hello Marc, I understand… by Paulo Rios Filho
Once again, as I have acknowledged over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, every single person involved recognizes there are corner cases where screen capture doesn't cut it. Again, every single person involved hopes to see someone volunteer to reimplement this feature for those cases. No one needs further convincing - certainly not me, as I have absolutely no say on what other volunteers do with their time or what the core team decides to prioritize for themselves.
But can we please not let the existence of that rare corner case get in the way of letting me help people? Please?
The more time is wasted arguing about this, the less time volunteers like myself can spend helping people.
In reply to Once again, as I have… by Marc Sabatella
These ain't corner cases at all, they are the core of that functionallity (as all others can easily get substituted)
In reply to These ain't corner cases at… by Jojo-Schmitz
Of course they are corner cases. The vast majority of people using image capture just want an easy way to grab a snippet of music to include in a text document. That's obvious from the wording of most of the questions about it, and from the various posts about the feature over the years, and there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. Every it's more than 1%, and is actually 10% or even 49%, it still in no way invalidates the worth of the advice I am freely offering to those who do just need a simple way to grab a snippet.
So when you say "as all others can easily get substituted", that's exactly my point - that vast majority of other cases do have simple workarounds that people often just need to be informed about. Which is why I continue volunteering my time to do exactly that.
So again, can we please please please please please please please stop arguing with those of us simply trying to help people? If it doesn't work for your particular case, fine, but there is absolutely nothing to be gained by getting in the way of me and others trying to help others.
In reply to There are good workarounds… by Marc Sabatella
No, there's no good workaround for SVG, none for different resolutions that the OS provided tools have, no point mode. No easy method to create transparent PNGs
In reply to No, there's no good… by Jojo-Schmitz
I don't know what "point mode" is, but Indeed, SVG and transparent and ulrta-high-resolutio PNG's are the rare corner cases I have repeatedly acknowledged require Export instead currently. But make no mistake - hardly anyone coming to these threads needs any of that. It's just not even the slightest bit relevant for the vast majority of use cases. When newcomers pop into these threads just wanting help creating worksheets, confusing the discussion with irrelevant discussion of formats they have no need for is counterproductive.
So can we please just let me help these newcomers and stop derailing the assistance I give with arguments that don't help anyone on this entire planet? If I want to volunteer my time helping people on these forums, please just let me do so in peace, and let the people I am actually responding to followup if they have further questions.
In reply to I don't know what "point… by Marc Sabatella
Print mode.
In reply to Print mode. by Jojo-Schmitz
Ok. Digging Mus3. grazie.
In reply to @Marc Sabatella You keep… by parkingb
> But please stop telling us that we are wrong when we request it and we don't need it. This is really frustrating.
I agree
In reply to It shouldn't any more steps… by Marc Sabatella
If I were to approach a programmer to address this issue, do you know what way would be best to present this to them? I may do it, if not cost prohibitive.
Yes. You have the added steps of hiding and unhiding elements. Not a big deal, once you find out where that is. Still, an added step. I'm on win11, but that doesn't matter. I know how to use the alternatives just fine. I use it with other programs, like GuitarPro, and always loved how Musescore3 saved me time. I've written books using the Capture tool for a lot of it. I know I am the minority. It was good, the alternatives, not as good. But whatever.
In reply to If I were to approach a… by Jon Garner
To be clear, it's a single click to hide unprintable elements (the "Publish" tab).
Anyhow, if you want to approach someone to implement this, I'd recommend finding someone who already is familiar with MuseScore in general, even if they've never contributed code to it before. Then point them to this site, and the Contribute / Development menu at top where they will find the info they need on how to get involved. They'll want to get started by fixing a few bugs first, maybe implementing some simple bit of new functionality for which a design spec already exists on GitHub. Then, probably sooner rather than later they'd want to pop into the Discord channel and propose their idea and see if they can get someone from the design team to whip up a spec to follow.
In reply to To be clear, it's a single… by Marc Sabatella
Ah! Thanks! That is easy. I was still thinking Mus3. Ok, then, problem solved really. Thanks for your help.
In reply to Ah! Thanks! That is easy. I… by Jon Garner
You're welcome! I should also mention, if you find Publish mode too limiting for this work, you can also turn off display of these elements in the main Score view much more easily in MU4 than MU3 as well. Just make sure nothing is selected, then in the Properties panel, untick Invisible, Frames, and Formatting. Also in both MU3 and MU4, you can define keyboard shortcuts for the commands to toggle these.
Also, if you haven't figured it out already, you can set the score background "paper" color in Edit / Preferences / Appearance to be pure white.
Anyhow, as others point out, there are absolutely still situations for which we'd all love to see the native image capture back. But knowing these techniques definitely helps meanwhile!
Me too. Missing the Image Capture feature in MS4! -- Just adding another voice, so you know we still love this and hope you'll be able to bring it back.
But I did use the Print Screen and then cut it to size on Paint. That worked.
I totally agree with the fact that this is still possible with any system, but it is not nearly as simple as it was in MuseScore 3. Now it's a 2-step process which is tedious compared to the former camera capture tool which I used constantly. Anxiously awaiting its appearance in MS4!
In reply to I totally agree with the… by ljtflute
Hmm, which image capture tool are you using? Most have a simple keyboard shortcut to let you draw a region and capture to the clipboard - literally the exact same process as with the Mu3 facility. If you say which screen capture you are using, someone who uses the same one should be able tell you the shortcut to do this. Or if you say what OS you are on, someone should be able to recommend an alternative, if the one built into your OS lacks such a shortcut.
In reply to Hmm, which image capture… by Marc Sabatella
OS Windows 10 Pro.
I just searched for print screen on my OS and found this....
Capture an Active App Window:
Use the key combo Alt + PrtScn. Unlike the whole desktop capture, this method captures only the active window of an app. It’s useful for quickly grabbing a screenshot of an app without including the entire desktop1.
Also it said there is a snipping tool that work well to get different sizes. Anyone have any experience with these?
Search for Snipping Tool using Cortana/Search. This tool allows you to capture specific areas of your screen. You can choose from options like:
Free-form snip
Rectangular snip
Window snip
Full-screen snip
Thanks.
In reply to OS Windows 10 Pro. I just… by Sora Jederan Shpack
[Windows]+[shift]+[s]
In reply to [Windows]+[shift]+[s] by frfancha
TY!
also, if you do need an image editor - IrfanView is an excellent free simple yet powerful image editor. lightweight and fast to learn.
https://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm
In reply to also, if you do an image… by glennmstanton
Any one knows about a Feature Request on GitHUb for the restoration of this tool ? I couldn't find one. I thing that if we all thumb it up, we could demonstrate that we are many to request that.
In reply to Any one knows about a… by parkingb
See: https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/issues/15912
In reply to See: https://github.com… by cadiz1
Thanks. If we are many to thumb it up maybe will it gain more attention form the dev-team.
![vote.png]( "vote.png")
Currently it has only 3 votes :(
In reply to Thanks. If we are many to… by parkingb
Is that an "official" vote system for requests taken into account by MuseScore team, or just the like feature of github?
In reply to Is that an "official" vote… by frfancha
The latter
In reply to The latter by Jojo-Schmitz
not sure it really helps to click there then
In reply to not sure it really helps to… by frfancha
I expect any visibility will be helpful.
In reply to Thanks. If we are many to… by parkingb
👍
Hello! After reading this thread top to bottom, I just wanted to add another respectful perspective on the priority of this tool.
I want to congratulate the Musescore team on creating such a useful and accessible tool. As a music theory professor, Musescore's interface makes it possible for me and my students to create advanced notation graphics far more intuitively than with other commercially available software. I have helped numerous PhD candidates engrave examples in their dissertations with Musescore.
For the research community, the Camera tool is one of Musescore's most valuable features. Academic journals and university presses often require graphics to be submitted in SVG format with a transparent background, which rules out taking a screen shot. Of course, it is possible to export an entire part to SVG and then crop it in another program, but I think everyone (in the foregoing conversation) agrees that the process was more streamlined and customizable with the Camera tool.
I realize features require labor to implement, which is why I merely wanted to contribute another perspective on the tool's value. Yes, we may be a "corner" contingency who depend on this feature, but this is an issue where Musescore risks cutting itself out of a segment of the professional market it had previously captured. If anyone can offer specific instructions on how this feature could be branched and reintegrated to the project, please let us know. Someone on here may be able to commission specialists to make the necessary effort. Until then, I have Musescore 3.6.2 running on an air-gapped Linux computer.
Thanks again to the maintainers for their hard work and consideration!
In reply to Hello! After reading this… by dprincipi
I thoroughly appreciated your thoughtful reply.
scorster
Hi There! I can find it as well! I make musical material for children. I can keep using this software if this feature is gone!
In reply to Hi There! I can find it as… by mibarbaro
Use Version 3.6.2.
In reply to Use Version 3.6.2. by Pentatonus
Or my MuseScore 3.7 Evolution
In reply to Or my MuseScore 3.7 Evolution by Jojo-Schmitz
Can you share how to access your 3.7 Evolution?
In reply to Can you share how to access… by ljtflute
Sure, see https://github.com/Jojo-Schmitz/MuseScore/wiki
As someone who has only had almost no need for the camera, I probably shouldn't reply. I did reply early on so this tread keeps coming up.
However. While I never used it in MU3, I have had a slight need in MU4.
For example, to create a custom text and save it to a palette. Some can't just be dragged to the palette.
MU3
1. Toggle Camera
2. Resize around area in question
3. Save with transparent background.
MU4
1. Export page with transparent background
2. Open in a photo editor
3. Resize around area of interest.
4. save
The results on my system are very sharp. In this case, one extra step that takes very little time. But I get it, it is an extra step. Consider that there are procedures in MU4 that are faster and/or better than MU3.
As a side note, MU4 will also export SVG.
MU4 and MU3 are two different programs that happen to share a development team. Expecting one to act like the other doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. Different programs do things differently. Will MU4 get a camera, or a save button, or the other things that are "missing"? Maybe. There is absolutely no reason to use MU4 if it is not to your taste.
Coding is not simple. If it was, many of these things would have been 'Fixed" long ago.
I was intrigued by the post from the music theory teacher. It is true that some aspects of scoring are easier in MuseScore. This is because MuseScore is not capable of many of the things that paid software is. Some of these things are being slowly added. It is interesting to me that PHD candidates (presumably in music) didn't already learn some kind of notation software well before doctorate work. Also, The three main paid programs don't run on Linux. So there's that.
Everyone uses software differently. Many think of MU4 as "Regression", because of all the things that are "missing". Kind of a misnomer because those things would have had to been in MU4 and then removed. I write for playback. MU3 can't playback even close to being good enough for me. I've tried different fonts and everything. Is MU4 perfect? Far from it. But playback is so much better. I don't have MU3 on my computer.
Everyone needs to forge ahead with whatever version they prefer.
In reply to As someone who has only had… by bobjp
Custom text can definitely be added to a palette, via Ctrl+Shift+drag. There is a known bug where palette customization temporarily is disabled after using the "More" section. It fixes itself when you close and reopen the palettes, or restart MuseScore. The bug is fixed for the next update.