How do you get your outlines?

[santynus]

Hi all
I use blueprint and photo for make my shape, I agree with Jesters-Ink the best is start from the original factory blueprints.
cheers

[Hunhunter]

Without question, camera lenses can distort an airframe quite considerably. But some of the "blueprints" are questionable. I prefer to use a good photograph of the plane in profile plan because at least its a case of 'what you see is what you get'. If the plane looks good and distortion free in the photo, in theory that is how it should look in the profile. At least with the photo you are using the 'genuine article' where as some of the "blueprints" are of unknown origin. You can be basing your work on another artists interpretation.

That said, photo's which are good enough to use can be hard to find, especially if the plane is of a rarer type. A search of airliners.net will often produce a usable image and I have found several good ones which I have used on that site.

Unless you are using a set of genuine factory drawings (and I have a set for a certain plane ) then the "blueprints" or line drawings found on certain websites can be just as inaccurate as a poorly composed photo. Its all swings and roundabouts I guess.

[Supah]

I would be very cautious at using photography especially of modern warbirds as these machines are often cobbled together from parts from various marks and sub versions.

[Hunhunter]

I would be very cautious at using photography especially of modern warbirds as these machines are often cobbled together from parts from various marks and sub versions.

Having worked on quite a few warbirds I would be interested to see an example of a "cobbled together" machine. I wouldn't always put a lot of faith in the paint scheme's, but for getting an outline and mapping panel lines, I cant think of many planes that couldn't be used. Sure, there are Avengers and B17's with turrets missing etc, but if you have researched the subject properly, you would know this. Besides, if you are using an outline from somewhere like airwar.ru, how do you know that their artist hasn't drawn a "cobbled together" airframe?

[Jesters-Ink]

Good point Supah, but photographs don't have to be of modern warbirds

[Vacajun]

Would like to know more about resolution used by others for profiles. I use 300dpi for 11- by 17 inch print size, but I know others use as much as 600dpi or even 1000dpi for their applications . My 300dpi files (PhotoShop) usually come out around 150 meg, and seem to be on the fringe of managable for me (PC). Would like to hear from you guys who use higher resolution. Why, and how large are your files/memory/print requirements?

Thanks

[BLOWHARD]

A few notes. Remember that NO object EVER has an outline around it in reality. Also panel lines aren't really lines unless they are butt-joints. A lot of what we think of as panel lines are actually overlaps. These 2 things might not be applicable depending on the level of detail shown but they are both good to keep in mind.
About photos, I've seen WAY too many 3 quarter paintings that are obviously taken from photos. Most air to air photos, especially modern photos are taken with a long lens and a small aperture. This ends up showing a strange perspective shift so that the wings, nacelles and other parts farther away end up looking almost, or as big as the objects closer to the lens. A photo should be a starting point but in the end the artist should take charge and actually do the work, not let the photo do the work for them. Again, with profiles, this isn't applicable but I thought I'd mention it

For size, unless you are aiming for a specific end size, dpi isn't as important as overall pixel count. In printing, however, the dpi will come into play. 300 dpi is the most widely used standard for art but some publications do prefer 36o dpi. Personally, I think the work should be a little larger than it's intended reproduction size. Again, the level of detail you want will dictate how many pixels you need. For me, I was planning approximately 20 x 30 inches, I factored for 360 dpi and then made it much larger than I would need. Just guess work really. I ended yo reducing my original size quite a bit too

[Hunhunter]

Yep, agree with what BH says, but a carefully chosen photo will be more accurate than any 3rd party blueprint or drawing.

To give an example, I started (and never got around to finishing ) a Tiger Moth profile. I spent ages searching for a decent photo just to get the basic shape as all the drawings I could find looked all wrong. Once I found one I was happy with, I used it as a base for the profile.

Check the pics below to get an idea of how I did it, but I am 100% happy that my profile shape is accurate as it is based on a real aeroplane. If I used a line drawing taken from some website which was done by an unknown 3rd party and copied their outline, I would also copy any errors or mistakes that their artist made. That cannot happen if you use a photograph. The trick is to find a really good photograph to use and thats not always easy. you need to be able to recognise the sort of faults that BH mentioned so you dont fall into a trap.

[Clave]

Whatever you use, check it against something else, and when in doubt, ask someone!

I always treat the original line drawing as a 'discard' layer - in other words not a single pixel of that item remains in the final drawing...

I like to think of profiles as 'Illustrations' or 'Art', not as a substitute photograph - because when all's said and done, if you can't tell the drawing from a photo, then you might as well just have a photo...

As for resolution - I don't get too bogged down with numbers - Using Illustrator, my files are 1-3MB, and the final 300dpi 12x18 print is saved as JPG in Photoshop (highest quality of course) and is again less than 3MB...

But, of course pretty much everyone uses Photoshop, and zillions of layers, so all I can advise there is RAM, and lots of it! Just think about the maximum you could ever possibly need, then double it...

Peace out

Clave

[BLOWHARD]

Whatever you use, check it against something else, and when in doubt, ask someone!

No truer words could be spoken! What Clave and Hun say is too true.
I'm working on this Zero and every time I turn around there is something else REALLY wrong with it! I've got expert help in this area and a lot of books and photos for reference. But to me, it seems the more reference you have, the more questions you end up with. Does that me you need even MORE reference?