Panzer Leader Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 Okay after much strife and Hair-pulling I've got some preliminary shots! Special note: these were not done with a digital camer, but the old fashion way, by manual 35mm with a 50mm lens! Oh, then I scanned them and had a HELL of a time scaling 900MB files (how is THAT possible??) down to modern levels. I hope my homestead account still allows cross-linking. First, we have a 250/11: Next we have a schwimmwagen (COme on guys, put it in the game!): Then we have a PzIVD (first model I ever did as an adult): And finally, a not-so-good Hetzer: I will send the gigantic batch to Kwazy soon. Now it is time to finish my Hummel, Grille, 222, 250/9, kubel, Tiger 1 Early... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 The panzer IVD looks awsome! Do they take long to do? i could use some decorations for my computer desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 Iron, I use accrylic paint for my models (its like liquid plastic, with water cleanup. Can mix colors, and it dryes really fast. It peels easily, but you can buy a sealent that protects it) With the accrylic paint, I can grind out a model in one single day of intesnsive work. (most modelers are wondering what they've stepped in, but it IS true.) I wouldn't say my models are the highest of quality, but I think they're damn good myself. Just less than the fanatical and wonderful jobs that go into models on the "missing lynx" page. Also, scale greatly effects production speed. I can make a good 1/72 scale tank in about 4 hoursor less, but I hate that scale for vehicles. I much prefer 1/35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted January 14, 2002 Author Share Posted January 14, 2002 I usually work on 3-4 simultaneously and finish them in a month or so. Mostly 'cause I don't have much time. Thanks for the compliment I.C.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Meyer Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 They don't show right now, even if I copy and paste the file name from the properties onto another browser window. Damn, I wanna see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 900 mg files?!?! That's way too huge! How did you shoot them again? You said 35mm camera and had them scanned. Did you scan them on a flatbed scanner yourself or did you have a lab do it? I'm a photographer and I've worked on images that are for trade show booths but the largest file I've ever had was around 400 mgs. And that was for an image that measured 8'x8'. Also, the models looked great. I haven't worked on scale models for 15 years. What is the name of the liquid you put on decals to melt the edges to make them look more authentic? I can't recall it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Meyer Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 I see them!!! Looks awesome, good job on that Pz-IVD, looks awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Boo_Radley: 900 mg files?!?! That's way too huge! How did you shoot them again? You said 35mm camera and had them scanned. Did you scan them on a flatbed scanner yourself or did you have a lab do it? I'm a photographer and I've worked on images that are for trade show booths but the largest file I've ever had was around 400 mgs. And that was for an image that measured 8'x8'. Also, the models looked great. I haven't worked on scale models for 15 years. What is the name of the liquid you put on decals to melt the edges to make them look more authentic? I can't recall it.<hr></blockquote> FYI The size of the photo file is attributable to the number of d.p.i. (dots per inch) at which it is resolved. Another issue is the type of file that you choose to save in. It is conceiveable that a straight image file saved at a high resolution could be very large, especially if one didn't use a compressed format like .jpg or similar. Another issue is the color level (8-bit, 16-bit, etc that is selected. One doesn't always need 32-bit color when scanning. One problem that comes up frequently is that people scan at way too high a resolution for their intended output, thinking that they somehow will get better quality upon viewing it. The scan resolution, be it 300 d.p.i. or 3000 d.p.i., should correlate to the resolution of the viewing media. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 Yeah, I'm aware of the dpi/resolution issue, gunner. The point that I'm making is that if he shot them and had standard 3x5 or 4x6in. prints made and then scanned them for use on the web, there's no way he would end up with files that size. Even if he wanted them scanned at such a resolution as to be able to be printed in a magazine, at CMYK, enlarging up to say 8.5 x 11 in (just for sake of argument), his file would only be 33 mgs. I do this for a living (if you want to call it that). [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Boo_Radley ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> FYI The size of the photo file is attributable to the number of d.p.i. (dots per inch) at which it is resolved. Another issue is the type of file that you choose to save in. It is conceiveable that a straight image file saved at a high resolution could be very large, especially if one didn't use a compressed format like .jpg or similar. Another issue is the color level (8-bit, 16-bit, etc that is selected. One doesn't always need 32-bit color when scanning. One problem that comes up frequently is that people scan at way too high a resolution for their intended output, thinking that they somehow will get better quality upon viewing it. The scan resolution, be it 300 d.p.i. or 3000 d.p.i., should correlate to the resolution of the viewing media. <hr></blockquote> Gunnergoz, whatever the causes 900MB for a picture file is extreme, perhaps there was a typo in PL's original post. 90MB is a more realistic number for a high dpi scan, and even that is too much for most non printing press use for a single photograph. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Aah, a PzIVD from Die Gespensterdivision... sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 [/QB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Nice weathering on the PZIV. Beutiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Very nice panzerleader, Im looking forward to seeing them in full . Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted January 15, 2002 Author Share Posted January 15, 2002 Thanks Kwazy, I will manhandle my scanner into spitting out the rest of the photos tonight. I will give you straight BMPs scaled down to a reasonable level, around 800 by 600. They will still be big files. Incidentally, hte first scan I did was the PzIV, and it was blown up (but cropped) to about 4 by seven. I set in on 1200 by 1200 dpi with True Color 32 bit. For some reason (thinking it needed to be bigger to utilize the resolution) I set it to 200% scale and it saved as a TIF maybe? The Tif was 868 or so MB large, too large for any paint program I have to deal with so I had to rescan it (same properties but only 100% scale) and this time selected a window right around the tank (as seen above) Then instead of TIF, I had it "Scan to Photoshop" and it rang in at about 100 MB. DId I mention I don't know what I'm doing? From Photoshop I saved it as a BMP and opened Microsoft Paint. The drawing was like 9 feet by 6 feet! I scaled to about 12% of its size, saved it as a Jpeg and you now see the fuzzy but trim 50kb pic above. Is there an easier way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Looking forward to them Panzer Leader! One little suggest thought...how about you send them in at about 1024 x 768 but save them out of photoshop as JPG's. When savinh, make sure you leave compression as far to the right as possible, which should give you the highest quality setting. This should make quite a bit smaller than the BMP's whilst giving us a larger image to work with Dan [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Panzer Leader, scan your pictures at no more than 200 dpi, plain RGB and leave the scaling at 100% Once in photoshop adjust the image size with the image size controls (Image menu -> Image size, set units to "pixels" to make it easier). Something like 800x600 or so is plenty I'd think, maybe 1024 x768 for detail. Then save as jpeg and tweak with the quality setting to get a good compromise between quality and size. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts