Disklavier

I have a disklavier Mark2xg and love the way it sounds. Is there a 
way to use a scanner on sheet music and then have it play on the 
piano?
Thanks

From: "anresadi" <anresadi@...>

> I have a disklavier Mark2xg and love the way it sounds. Is there a
> way to use a scanner on sheet music and then have it play on the
> piano?
> Thanks


Hi,

 There are a handful of programs out there that do just this. However, this is
not an 'exact' science and you _will_ need to do some followup manual editing to
get it correct. Especially if you have a lot of different types of 'visual'
markings such as dynamics and tempo changes.

Finale, a popular music notation program, comes with Smartscore Lite which is a
bit limited. Another notation program, Sibelius comes with a program called
Photoscore Lite. These programs allow just what you are speaking of. Finale and
Sibelius don't come cheap however.

Smartscore and MIDIscan are two of the 'stand-alone programs that are available
for either using a scanner to scan in score material or they can accept a score
that is already in some of the .TIFF, PICT, WMF, etc. type files. They can then
'create' the MIDI files...


Danny

Danny's advice is well-taken.

Also, be aware that sheet music translated to MIDI and played on a synth 
or DKV is rarely very satisfying musically.  The artist who records on 
keyboard provides expression to a piece that is lacking in the literal 
notation.  In general, written notation is only an approximation of what 
a human artist actually plays.  You may convince yourself of that by 
taking the MIDI version of a well-played performance and converting it 
back to notation.  You will likely get a complex indecipherable mess of 
notes and rests that hardly resembles the notation from which it was played.

Scanning and playing sheet notation can be useful.  Suppose, for 
example, you are trying to learn to play a piece and would like to hear 
some passage played literally.  Converting it to MIDI can be helpful for 
that purpose.

Whether you use Finale or Sibelius, you will first need to learn to edit 
notation using the application.  Although scanning applications, such as 
PhotoScore, have improved immensely over their earlier versions, their 
output still someimes challenges one's ability to edit it.  Sometimes, 
it's just as easy to start from scratch using Sibelius or Finale.

Danny wrote:
> From: "anresadi" <anresadi@...>
> 
>>I have a disklavier Mark2xg and love the way it sounds. Is there a
>>way to use a scanner on sheet music and then have it play on the
>>piano?
>>Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  There are a handful of programs out there that do just this. However, this is
> not an 'exact' science and you _will_ need to do some followup manual editing to
> get it correct. Especially if you have a lot of different types of 'visual'
> markings such as dynamics and tempo changes.
> 
> Finale, a popular music notation program, comes with Smartscore Lite which is a
> bit limited. Another notation program, Sibelius comes with a program called
> Photoscore Lite. These programs allow just what you are speaking of. Finale and
> Sibelius don't come cheap however.
> 
> Smartscore and MIDIscan are two of the 'stand-alone programs that are available
> for either using a scanner to scan in score material or they can accept a score
> that is already in some of the .TIFF, PICT, WMF, etc. type files. They can then
> 'create' the MIDI files...
> 
> 
> Danny
> 
> 
> 
> To Post a message to the group, send it to:   disklavier@...
> 
> To Post a private message to Todd Muncy, the group's founder and moderator, send it to:
> disklavier-owner@...
> 
> To reach our group's web site go to:
> http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier
> 
> Todd's family web site was completely updated 01/15/03.  It contains some fun disklavier content and links to midi sites among many other things, The url is:
> http://MuncyFamily.com 
> 
> THINKING OF LEAVING THE GROUP?
> If you are thinking of unsubcribing because you are getting too much mail, go the the web site and change your email delivery option instead.  That will fix the problem, while maintaining your access to the group.  If you insist on leaving us completely send a blank email to:
> disklavier-unsubscribe@... 
> 
> Know someone who wants to join?  Have them send a blank email to:
> disklavier-subscribe@... or give them this link:
> http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier/join 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Robert Welcyng
Anchorage, Alaska

Hi 

I must agree with Danny & Robert. Having used Smartscore, it would 
have been quicker to learn to play the piece myself, even although I 
can't play very well.

It is realy quicker to type it all in by hand.
By all means try it but don't spend any money on them. I think I got 
Smartscore from the net.

Midi Magic 


--- In disklavier@yahoogroups.com, "anresadi" <anresadi@y...> wrote:

> I have a disklavier Mark2xg and love the way it sounds. Is there a 
> way to use a scanner on sheet music and then have it play on the 
> piano?
> Thanks

For what it's worth, I would like to chime in and add my two cents about 
scanning in music.

Let me begin by saying that I am an adult trying to learn to play my 
DC3A disklavier.  After spending a year with Voyetra's "Teach Me Piano" 
software which I enjoyed very much and felt was an excellent way to 
begin to learn to play the piano (for an adult), I began taking one hour 
per week piano lessons slightly over one year ago.  The core of my 
instruction has been the Suzuki Piano Method and I am now on the 3rd 
selection in book 4 of this method for those familiar with the method. 
 In addition my instructor always assigns me classical pieces from 
several other books including the Hanon and Czerny technical materials. 
 I would thus classify myself as a very inexperienced student attempting 
to learn the piano.

I began scanning in sheet music about two years ago using Smart Score 
and Finale.  Smart Score V. 1.3 (which I began with) did a very poor job 
in terms of scanning accuracy although this improved somewhat when I 
purchased a newer Epson flatbed scanner.  I can definitely state that 
the quality of the scanner plays an important role in scanning music in 
terms of the accuracy of the results.  Another important issue is the 
interface between the scanning program and the notation program.  It is 
always necessary to correct errors, add dynamics, musical expressions, 
text, etc. in the notation program.  Finale and Smart Score work 
together, but in my opinion not very well.  It is necessary to save a 
Smart Score music scan as a .fin file which must then be imported into 
Finale.  The importation into Finale introduces errors that were not 
present in the scan requiring further correction.  Furthermore, in my 
opinion, Finale has a difficult learning curve (I have been using it 
steadily for 2 years and I still find myself referring constantly to the 
manual).  While Smart Score has improved significantly with Version 2.1 
(currently latest version), it still has problems including the fact 
that my computer (running Windows 2000 Pro on a 1.8 GHZ Pentium 4 with 1 
GB of memory) crashes after every single time that I use Smart Score. 
 (No other software that I have produces these crashes but Smart Score.)  

Recently (about two months ago) I purchased Sibelius 2.1 and its 
associated scanning program (Photoscore Pro).  These two programs are 
tightly integrated although Photoscore is more limited in its 
recognition of musical symbols than Smart Score.  Both Sibelius 2.1 and 
Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very stable.  I have never experienced a 
crash with either program even when running other programs and using 
them for hours.  Photoscore's note accuracy in music scanning is 
excellent with my Epson flatbed scanner.  With all of that said, to get 
a piece to play with correct interpretations of the dynamics and other 
expressions in the score requires extensive editing in Sibelius. 
 Fortunately Sibelius is much more intuitive to use than Finale, and in 
only 2 months of working with it I feel far more competent to edit 
notation in Sibelius than in Finale.  Further, Sibelius has some very 
interesting artificial intelligence algorithms which can, to some 
extent, interpret correct musical phrasing and apply rubato in 
controlled amounts to the midi playback of the piece.  I find that the 
playback of Sibelius files on my computer using an Creative Live 
Platinum sound card is very good, and the playback of dynamics and 
pedaling on my Yamaha disklavier DC3A is also very good.  

No one should believe that music scanning can produce a file that plays 
back with all of the expressional nuances that an excellent pianist can 
incorporate into a piece.  We are years away from that point, and in 
fact, I would seriously doubt that computers will every seriously 
challenge a good pianist in terms of playback.  With that said, I do 
find the playback of the music that I have scanned in using Photoscore 
and edited in Sibelius and Finale to be musically satisfying.  That 
statement may reveal more about my lack of musical sophistication than 
anything else, but I have also had these files played back for others 
(including pianists) who are quite amazed and pleased with the quality 
of the playback.  

The bottom line is that scanning in of  polyphonic music (which nearly 
all piano music is) is not a trivial or inexpensive process. It requires 
a great deal of patience to learn these programs, understand what they 
can and cannot do, and a willingness to spend many hours to build the 
kind of playback that will satisfy most,  but not the most 
discriminating listeners. However, it can be done, and the results of 
music scanning have been most helpful to me in learning new pieces, and 
in listening to a wide assortment of music on the web for Finale and 
Sibelius.  

Tom

Hi Tom

May I just say that Sibelius 2.1 and Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very 
expensive around £600 in the UK.
For that money I could hire a proffesional pianist to play them for 
me, without the need to spend hours making it sound good. 

Midi Magic


--- In disklavier@yahoogroups.com, Tom Wheeler <tnwheeler@n...> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I would like to chime in and add my two cents 
about 
> scanning in music.
> 
> Let me begin by saying that I am an adult trying to learn to play 
my 
> DC3A disklavier.  After spending a year with Voyetra's "Teach Me 
Piano" 
> software which I enjoyed very much and felt was an excellent way to 
> begin to learn to play the piano (for an adult), I began taking one 
hour 
> per week piano lessons slightly over one year ago.  The core of my 
> instruction has been the Suzuki Piano Method and I am now on the 
3rd 
> selection in book 4 of this method for those familiar with the 
method. 
>  In addition my instructor always assigns me classical pieces from 
> several other books including the Hanon and Czerny technical 
materials. 
>  I would thus classify myself as a very inexperienced student 
attempting 
> to learn the piano.
> 
> I began scanning in sheet music about two years ago using Smart 
Score 
> and Finale.  Smart Score V. 1.3 (which I began with) did a very 
poor job 
> in terms of scanning accuracy although this improved somewhat when 
I 
> purchased a newer Epson flatbed scanner.  I can definitely state 
that 
> the quality of the scanner plays an important role in scanning 
music in 
> terms of the accuracy of the results.  Another important issue is 
the 
> interface between the scanning program and the notation program.  
It is 
> always necessary to correct errors, add dynamics, musical 
expressions, 
> text, etc. in the notation program.  Finale and Smart Score work 
> together, but in my opinion not very well.  It is necessary to save 
a 
> Smart Score music scan as a .fin file which must then be imported 
into 
> Finale.  The importation into Finale introduces errors that were 
not 
> present in the scan requiring further correction.  Furthermore, in 
my 
> opinion, Finale has a difficult learning curve (I have been using 
it 
> steadily for 2 years and I still find myself referring constantly 
to the 
> manual).  While Smart Score has improved significantly with Version 
2.1 
> (currently latest version), it still has problems including the 
fact 
> that my computer (running Windows 2000 Pro on a 1.8 GHZ Pentium 4 
with 1 
> GB of memory) crashes after every single time that I use Smart 
Score. 
>  (No other software that I have produces these crashes but Smart 
Score.)  
> 
> Recently (about two months ago) I purchased Sibelius 2.1 and its 
> associated scanning program (Photoscore Pro).  These two programs 
are 
> tightly integrated although Photoscore is more limited in its 
> recognition of musical symbols than Smart Score.  Both Sibelius 2.1 
and 
> Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very stable.  I have never experienced 
a 
> crash with either program even when running other programs and 
using 
> them for hours.  Photoscore's note accuracy in music scanning is 
> excellent with my Epson flatbed scanner.  With all of that said, to 
get 
> a piece to play with correct interpretations of the dynamics and 
other 
> expressions in the score requires extensive editing in Sibelius. 
>  Fortunately Sibelius is much more intuitive to use than Finale, 
and in 
> only 2 months of working with it I feel far more competent to edit 
> notation in Sibelius than in Finale.  Further, Sibelius has some 
very 
> interesting artificial intelligence algorithms which can, to some 
> extent, interpret correct musical phrasing and apply rubato in 
> controlled amounts to the midi playback of the piece.  I find that 
the 
> playback of Sibelius files on my computer using an Creative Live 
> Platinum sound card is very good, and the playback of dynamics and 
> pedaling on my Yamaha disklavier DC3A is also very good.  
> 
> No one should believe that music scanning can produce a file that 
plays 
> back with all of the expressional nuances that an excellent pianist 
can 
> incorporate into a piece.  We are years away from that point, and 
in 
> fact, I would seriously doubt that computers will every seriously 
> challenge a good pianist in terms of playback.  With that said, I 
do 
> find the playback of the music that I have scanned in using 
Photoscore 
> and edited in Sibelius and Finale to be musically satisfying.  That 
> statement may reveal more about my lack of musical sophistication 
than 
> anything else, but I have also had these files played back for 
others 
> (including pianists) who are quite amazed and pleased with the 
quality 
> of the playback.  
> 
> The bottom line is that scanning in of  polyphonic music (which 
nearly 
> all piano music is) is not a trivial or inexpensive process. It 
requires 
> a great deal of patience to learn these programs, understand what 
they 
> can and cannot do, and a willingness to spend many hours to build 
the 
> kind of playback that will satisfy most,  but not the most 
> discriminating listeners. However, it can be done, and the results 
of 
> music scanning have been most helpful to me in learning new pieces, 
and 
> in listening to a wide assortment of music on the web for Finale 
and 

> Sibelius.  
> 
> Tom

Midi,

You will note that I did indicate that music scanning was not an 
inexpensive process in my original e-mail.  However, the price that you 
are paying for Sibelius 2.1 and Photoscore in the U.K. is (like most 
things) considerably higher than I paid here in the U.S. I purchased 
Sibelius 2.1 and Photoscore Professional (as a combined package) for 
$512  (including tax).  

While a professional pianist would do a far better job in preparing this 
music for playback on your disklavier than can be done with this 
software, I do have the advantage that in scanning the material that I 
am learning to play, I am also learning the structure of the piece and 
often hearing the music played reasonably properly for the first time.  

Tom

midi_magic2000 wrote:

>Hi Tom
>
>May I just say that Sibelius 2.1 and Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very 
>expensive around \ufffd600 in the UK.
>For that money I could hire a proffesional pianist to play them for 
>me, without the need to spend hours making it sound good. 
>
>Midi Magic
>
>
>--- In disklavier@yahoogroups.com, Tom Wheeler <tnwheeler@n...> wrote:
>  
>
>>For what it's worth, I would like to chime in and add my two cents 
>>    
>>
>about 
>  
>
>>scanning in music.
>>
>>Let me begin by saying that I am an adult trying to learn to play 
>>    
>>
>my 
>  
>
>>DC3A disklavier.  After spending a year with Voyetra's "Teach Me 
>>    
>>
>Piano" 
>  
>
>>software which I enjoyed very much and felt was an excellent way to 
>>begin to learn to play the piano (for an adult), I began taking one 
>>    
>>
>hour 
>  
>
>>per week piano lessons slightly over one year ago.  The core of my 
>>instruction has been the Suzuki Piano Method and I am now on the 
>>    
>>
>3rd 
>  
>
>>selection in book 4 of this method for those familiar with the 
>>    
>>
>method. 
>  
>
>> In addition my instructor always assigns me classical pieces from 
>>several other books including the Hanon and Czerny technical 
>>    
>>
>materials. 
>  
>
>> I would thus classify myself as a very inexperienced student 
>>    
>>
>attempting 
>  
>
>>to learn the piano.
>>
>>I began scanning in sheet music about two years ago using Smart 
>>    
>>
>Score 
>  
>
>>and Finale.  Smart Score V. 1.3 (which I began with) did a very 
>>    
>>
>poor job 
>  
>
>>in terms of scanning accuracy although this improved somewhat when 
>>    
>>
>I 
>  
>
>>purchased a newer Epson flatbed scanner.  I can definitely state 
>>    
>>
>that 
>  
>
>>the quality of the scanner plays an important role in scanning 
>>    
>>
>music in 
>  
>
>>terms of the accuracy of the results.  Another important issue is 
>>    
>>
>the 
>  
>
>>interface between the scanning program and the notation program.  
>>    
>>
>It is 
>  
>
>>always necessary to correct errors, add dynamics, musical 
>>    
>>
>expressions, 
>  
>
>>text, etc. in the notation program.  Finale and Smart Score work 
>>together, but in my opinion not very well.  It is necessary to save 
>>    
>>
>a 
>  
>
>>Smart Score music scan as a .fin file which must then be imported 
>>    
>>
>into 
>  
>
>>Finale.  The importation into Finale introduces errors that were 
>>    
>>
>not 
>  
>
>>present in the scan requiring further correction.  Furthermore, in 
>>    
>>
>my 
>  
>
>>opinion, Finale has a difficult learning curve (I have been using 
>>    
>>
>it 
>  
>
>>steadily for 2 years and I still find myself referring constantly 
>>    
>>
>to the 
>  
>
>>manual).  While Smart Score has improved significantly with Version 
>>    
>>
>2.1 
>  
>
>>(currently latest version), it still has problems including the 
>>    
>>
>fact 
>  
>
>>that my computer (running Windows 2000 Pro on a 1.8 GHZ Pentium 4 
>>    
>>
>with 1 
>  
>
>>GB of memory) crashes after every single time that I use Smart 
>>    
>>
>Score. 
>  
>
>> (No other software that I have produces these crashes but Smart 
>>    
>>
>Score.)  
>  
>
>>Recently (about two months ago) I purchased Sibelius 2.1 and its 
>>associated scanning program (Photoscore Pro).  These two programs 
>>    
>>
>are 
>  
>
>>tightly integrated although Photoscore is more limited in its 
>>recognition of musical symbols than Smart Score.  Both Sibelius 2.1 
>>    
>>
>and 
>  
>
>>Photoscore Pro 2.1 are very very stable.  I have never experienced 
>>    
>>
>a 
>  
>
>>crash with either program even when running other programs and 
>>    
>>
>using 
>  
>
>>them for hours.  Photoscore's note accuracy in music scanning is 
>>excellent with my Epson flatbed scanner.  With all of that said, to 
>>    
>>
>get 
>  
>
>>a piece to play with correct interpretations of the dynamics and 
>>    
>>
>other 
>  
>
>>expressions in the score requires extensive editing in Sibelius. 
>> Fortunately Sibelius is much more intuitive to use than Finale, 
>>    
>>
>and in 
>  
>
>>only 2 months of working with it I feel far more competent to edit 
>>notation in Sibelius than in Finale.  Further, Sibelius has some 
>>    
>>
>very 
>  
>
>>interesting artificial intelligence algorithms which can, to some 
>>extent, interpret correct musical phrasing and apply rubato in 
>>controlled amounts to the midi playback of the piece.  I find that 
>>    
>>
>the 
>  
>
>>playback of Sibelius files on my computer using an Creative Live 
>>Platinum sound card is very good, and the playback of dynamics and 
>>pedaling on my Yamaha disklavier DC3A is also very good.  
>>
>>No one should believe that music scanning can produce a file that 
>>    
>>
>plays 
>  
>
>>back with all of the expressional nuances that an excellent pianist 
>>    
>>
>can 
>  
>
>>incorporate into a piece.  We are years away from that point, and 
>>    
>>
>in 
>  
>
>>fact, I would seriously doubt that computers will every seriously 
>>challenge a good pianist in terms of playback.  With that said, I 
>>    
>>
>do 
>  
>
>>find the playback of the music that I have scanned in using 
>>    
>>
>Photoscore 
>  
>
>>and edited in Sibelius and Finale to be musically satisfying.  That 
>>statement may reveal more about my lack of musical sophistication 
>>    
>>
>than 
>  
>
>>anything else, but I have also had these files played back for 
>>    
>>
>others 
>  
>
>>(including pianists) who are quite amazed and pleased with the 
>>    
>>
>quality 
>  
>
>>of the playback.  
>>
>>The bottom line is that scanning in of  polyphonic music (which 
>>    
>>
>nearly 
>  
>
>>all piano music is) is not a trivial or inexpensive process. It 
>>    
>>
>requires 
>  
>
>>a great deal of patience to learn these programs, understand what 
>>    
>>
>they 
>  
>
>>can and cannot do, and a willingness to spend many hours to build 
>>    
>>
>the 
>  
>
>>kind of playback that will satisfy most,  but not the most 
>>discriminating listeners. However, it can be done, and the results 
>>    
>>
>of 
>  
>
>>music scanning have been most helpful to me in learning new pieces, 
>>    
>>
>and 
>  
>
>>in listening to a wide assortment of music on the web for Finale 
>>    
>>
>and 
>  
>
>>Sibelius.  
>>
>>Tom
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>To Post a message to the group, send it to:   disklavier@...
>
>To Post a private message to Todd Muncy, the group's founder and moderator, send it to:
>disklavier-owner@...
>
>To reach our group's web site go to:
>http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier
>
>Todd's family web site was completely updated 01/15/03.  It contains some fun disklavier content and links to midi sites among many other things, The url is:
>http://MuncyFamily.com 
>
>THINKING OF LEAVING THE GROUP?
>If you are thinking of unsubcribing because you are getting too much mail, go the the web site and change your email delivery option instead.  That will fix the problem, while maintaining your access to the group.  If you insist on leaving us completely send a blank email to:
>disklavier-unsubscribe@... 
>
>Know someone who wants to join?  Have them send a blank email to:
>disklavier-subscribe@... or give them this link:
>http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier/join 
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>

Buffy,

I am presently using Sibelius 2.1 and its associated scanning program 
called Photoscore Professional.  I am using an Epson 2450 Photo scanner. 
  This is a standard flatbed scanner that can also be adapted for 
scanning slides and color negatives.  Of course for music scanning, I 
use it as a straightforward flatbed scanner.  My computer is a P4 1.8 
GHZ with 1 GB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional.  I find 
Photoscore's scanning accuracy is very very good as long as the music 
that you are scanning is clear and well defined, i.e. the case for 
virtually all standard published music.  (I recently scanned in a six 
page score of advanced piano music without a single note error using 
Photoscore Professional 2.1!) Photoscore (nor any other music scanning 
program that I know of) will not handle handwritten or smudged and 
poorly printed music very well at all.   Photoscore places little red 
note symbols above each measure of the score after reading it to show 
you errors that have occurred in terms of the time signature.  Clicking 
on a single button in Photoscore imports the scanned score directly into 
Sibelius 2.1 for further editing.  

I do not attempt to correct all of the errors that are shown in 
Photoscore after it reads a scan.  For example, pickup measures are 
shown as error's after a Photoscore scan, but are best corrected in 
Sibelius rather than correcting them in Photoscore since Sibelius 
requires that a measure which does not have the correct number of beats 
defined by the time signature be created as an "irregular" measure 
within the Sibelius program.  I often do not correct voicing errors in 
Photoscore because they are easier to correct after getting the score in 
Sibelius.  Finally, I use Sibelius for adding any musical expressions 
not immediately recognized by Photoscore.

Be prepared to spend some time in Sibelius after transferring the 
scanned and read file from Photoscore.  This is not only to correct 
errors that were not caught in Photoscore but also to add musical 
expressions many of which are not recognized or interpreted in playback 
correctly by Photoscore.  For example, even though the six pages of 
music that I referred to above were scanned in without note errors, I 
spent about 2 hours after tranferring the file into Sibelius in order to 
add the musical expressions in the score, implement them proeprly in 
playback, and format the score properly.  Thus my total time to scan in 
the score, correct all errors, add all dynamics and other musical 
expressions, and prepare the midi file for playback on my disklavier was 
about 3 hrs for this piece of music.  (I might add that at my skill 
level I have had to work on this piece of music for four weeks at one 
hour per day in order to play it reasonably well.)

Sibelius has some very nice playback features including artificial 
intelligence algorithms for adding rubato and phrasing to the playback. 
 This is retained in the midi file during playback on your disklavier or 
your computer sound card.  

Scanning in sheet music is expensive (in terms of both software costs 
and time to complete the score to one's satisfaction).  However, it is a 
technological marvel to me that this is possible at all considering the 
incredible complexity of musical notation.  By the time I have scanned 
in and corrected a piece for good playback on my disklavier using 
Sibelius and Photoscore, I am in a much better position to understand 
the music's structure and proceed to learn the piece.  

If your piano skills are good, then music scanning is undoubtedly more 
trouble and expense than it is worth with the present state of the 
technology.  However, if you are learning and your skills are not equal 
to the task of real time playback of sheet music that you are interested 
in, then scanning is a much faster way of entering the music into the 
computer than any other method of which I am aware.  

I am not sure if I really answered your question.  If not, please feel 
free to contact me privately by e-mail, and I'll try again.

Tom

buffy@... wrote:

> Tom, 
>  
> I gave up on photoscore cause it took longer to revise the errors.  
> I'm using xp and hp scan jet 6300c.  What are you using.  I get so 
> frustrated that I find it is not worth the time.
>  
> Am I doing something wrong?
>  
> Buffy
>

I second everything Tom has said.  Buffy, in using PhotoScore 2, here 
are a couple of critical points you might wish to check:

*  Be sure to use a recent version of PhotoScore.

*  As Tom has advised, start with very crisply printed notation.

*  If you are scanning with your HP software to produce the BMP files, 
make sure you are scanning to 100% size and are set up for 400 X 400 dpi 
resolution (no more, no less).  I also use an HP scanner, a ScanJet 4C; 
its software user interface is absolutely underwater.  Once I got the 
settings figured out, PhotoScore immediately purred.  A scanned 8.5 x 11 
page will be about 11 to 15 MB.  If your scanned BMP files are not in 
that ballpark, that's likely your problem.

Tom Wheeler wrote:
> Buffy,
> 
> I am presently using Sibelius 2.1 and its associated scanning program 
> called Photoscore Professional.  I am using an Epson 2450 Photo scanner. 
>   This is a standard flatbed scanner that can also be adapted for 
> scanning slides and color negatives.  Of course for music scanning, I 
> use it as a straightforward flatbed scanner.  My computer is a P4 1.8 
> GHZ with 1 GB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional.  I find 
> Photoscore's scanning accuracy is very very good as long as the music 
> that you are scanning is clear and well defined, i.e. the case for 
> virtually all standard published music.  (I recently scanned in a six 
> page score of advanced piano music without a single note error using 
> Photoscore Professional 2.1!) Photoscore (nor any other music scanning 
> program that I know of) will not handle handwritten or smudged and 
> poorly printed music very well at all.   Photoscore places little red 
> note symbols above each measure of the score after reading it to show 
> you errors that have occurred in terms of the time signature.  Clicking 
> on a single button in Photoscore imports the scanned score directly into 
> Sibelius 2.1 for further editing.  
> 
> I do not attempt to correct all of the errors that are shown in 
> Photoscore after it reads a scan.  For example, pickup measures are 
> shown as error's after a Photoscore scan, but are best corrected in 
> Sibelius rather than correcting them in Photoscore since Sibelius 
> requires that a measure which does not have the correct number of beats 
> defined by the time signature be created as an "irregular" measure 
> within the Sibelius program.  I often do not correct voicing errors in 
> Photoscore because they are easier to correct after getting the score in 
> Sibelius.  Finally, I use Sibelius for adding any musical expressions 
> not immediately recognized by Photoscore.
> 
> Be prepared to spend some time in Sibelius after transferring the 
> scanned and read file from Photoscore.  This is not only to correct 
> errors that were not caught in Photoscore but also to add musical 
> expressions many of which are not recognized or interpreted in playback 
> correctly by Photoscore.  For example, even though the six pages of 
> music that I referred to above were scanned in without note errors, I 
> spent about 2 hours after tranferring the file into Sibelius in order to 
> add the musical expressions in the score, implement them proeprly in 
> playback, and format the score properly.  Thus my total time to scan in 
> the score, correct all errors, add all dynamics and other musical 
> expressions, and prepare the midi file for playback on my disklavier was 
> about 3 hrs for this piece of music.  (I might add that at my skill 
> level I have had to work on this piece of music for four weeks at one 
> hour per day in order to play it reasonably well.)
> 
> Sibelius has some very nice playback features including artificial 
> intelligence algorithms for adding rubato and phrasing to the playback. 
>  This is retained in the midi file during playback on your disklavier or 
> your computer sound card.  
> 
> Scanning in sheet music is expensive (in terms of both software costs 
> and time to complete the score to one's satisfaction).  However, it is a 
> technological marvel to me that this is possible at all considering the 
> incredible complexity of musical notation.  By the time I have scanned 
> in and corrected a piece for good playback on my disklavier using 
> Sibelius and Photoscore, I am in a much better position to understand 
> the music's structure and proceed to learn the piece.  
> 
> If your piano skills are good, then music scanning is undoubtedly more 
> trouble and expense than it is worth with the present state of the 
> technology.  However, if you are learning and your skills are not equal 
> to the task of real time playback of sheet music that you are interested 
> in, then scanning is a much faster way of entering the music into the 
> computer than any other method of which I am aware.  
> 
> I am not sure if I really answered your question.  If not, please feel 
> free to contact me privately by e-mail, and I'll try again.
> 
> Tom
> 
> buffy@... wrote:
> 
>> Tom, 
>>  
>> I gave up on photoscore cause it took longer to revise the errors.  
>> I'm using xp and hp scan jet 6300c.  What are you using.  I get so 
>> frustrated that I find it is not worth the time.
>>  
>> Am I doing something wrong?
>>  
>> Buffy
>>
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032012:HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1051824506%3eM=247865.3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032012:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1051824506%3eM=247865.3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032012:HM/A=1482387/R=2>
> 
> 
> To Post a message to the group, send it to:   disklavier@...
> 
> To Post a private message to Todd Muncy, the group's founder and 
> moderator, send it to:
> disklavier-owner@...
> 
> To reach our group's web site go to:
> http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier
> 
> Todd's family web site was completely updated 01/15/03.  It contains 
> some fun disklavier content and links to midi sites among many other 
> things, The url is:
> http://MuncyFamily.com
> 
> THINKING OF LEAVING THE GROUP?
> If you are thinking of unsubcribing because you are getting too much 
> mail, go the the web site and change your email delivery option 
> instead.  That will fix the problem, while maintaining your access to 
> the group.  If you insist on leaving us completely send a blank email to:
> disklavier-unsubscribe@...
> 
> Know someone who wants to join?  Have them send a blank email to:
> disklavier-subscribe@... or give them this link:
> http://Yahoogroups.com/group/disklavier/join
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


-- 
Robert Welcyng
Anchorage, Alaska

Buffy,

I have resisted moving from Windows 2000 Professional to XP simply 
because I have found Windows 2000 Professional to be very stable and to 
meet my needs.  Thus I cannot really comment on whether any part of your 
problems with Photoscore are due to Windows XP.  

I do know that the scanner makes a very big difference in the results 
with music scanning programs.  Initially I was scanning music using an 
HP 6100C flatbed scanner that appeared to give good scans of the music. 
 However when Smart Score (which I was using at the time) read the 
scanned files, it produced a ton of errors.  I actually gave up on music 
scanning for more than a year due to these results.  When I purchased an 
Epson 1200 Perfection scanner, I decided to try once more to use Smart 
Score and scan in music files.  The results were far far fewer errors. 
 I would presume that this would hold true for Photoscore as well.  

Incidentally, when I scan music using Photoscore, I use the Photoscore 
interface set to 300 dpi (the middle setting in the dialog box) and it 
gives very good results with my Epson 2450 scanner. I have never used 
the Epson twain software for music scanning.

Within Sibelius it is possible to save the score as a midi file.  I 
simply save the file as a midi file and then I use Veloset (a very 
useful utility found in the files on this forum) to adjust my velocities 
so that the velocity does not fall below 20 nor above 90.  This gives a 
file that plays very nicely with my disklavier's volume set at 0 dB on 
its control unit.  To play the file in my disklavier, I usually put it 
on a floppy disk, but you can also play it directly from your computer 
on the disklavier with the appropriate cables and drivers on your 
computer.  

Tom


buffy@... wrote:

> Tom,
>  
> Thank you for your lengthy response.  I will give it another try.  I 
> am afraid I may be having problems with xp and my HP Scanjet 6300c.  I 
> have a spare machine and own Win2000 Professional,  so I may try 
> putting it on that and doing the scanning over my network.   But from 
> what I understand about the scanjet 6300c,  it is 2000 and up that it 
> is having a problem with.  So I think my next step may be to purchase 
> a new scanner.
>  
> I do not play.  I use my disklavier for accompianst recording.  I use 
> Sibelius to learn my music.  I am an opera singer and I find that by 
> the time I put my music in Sibelius,  (esp 20century music) I have 
> learned it and memorized it.  So scanning is not that big an issue.
>  
> How do you convert Sibelius to play on your disklavier?  I have an old 
> model purchased 7 years ago with a floppy disk, not cd.  I find the 
> voicing, when I convert it to be an issue.
>  
> Thanks for all your time on the Sibelius/Photoscan issue.
>