Subject: SMML VOL 1833 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:13:25 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: 16mm to prints 2: Plan Rating...looong rant 3: Russian Seal 4: Re: metric, imperial etc 5: 16mm to print 6: Japanese Destroyers 7: Rating Ship Plans - accuracy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: OZMOD'S LATEST 1/144 KIT IS NOW OUT! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com Subject: Re: 16mm to prints Once again thanks all for your information and if and when I get them printed I will post them on my site at some point in time. And hey I just got to ask Steve in Pelham, which commercials was you mother in - hopefully nothing that really annoyed us? :-) Michael Donegan NAVYDAZE Naval & Aviation Artist http://www.navydaze.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: " David and Alison Muir" Subject: Plan Rating...looong rant Hi Folks, As a 'drafty', I must admit to some wry amusement about the proposal to 'rate' drawings. Only problem is that there is no such thing as a totally accurate drawing. Here are just some of the reasons why: · We all see things differently. · The subject themselves. Ships change and evolve over time and can do it quite quickly, even over the course of a single voyage. Drawings can only depict the thing at one moment. · The researcher's skill. Researchers are human and can make errors. Remember that even the best 'as built' drawings suffer from the same sort of errors and distortions (and for the same reasons) that are described below. All require at least some interpretation. · The measurer's skill. Drafters are human and can make errors. Curved surfaces are particularly hard to observe,measure, record and depict...and ships are full of them! Access even to modern subjects is usually limited, if only by time. · The drafter's skill. Drafters are human and can make errors. Remember: if I am drawing at 1/600 then an error of 0.25mm on the drawing is an error of 150mm or 6" in reality... it doesnt take many errors to be a few feet out. · The recording media. Paper expands and contracts with heat and humidity, drafting films are more stable, computers store and record almost perfectly...but are still dependent on other systems for their reproduction. · The reproduction method. All printing processes distort images, only the amount varies. Most modern copiers are pretty good but still distort more in one direction than the other. Even plotters will distort if not immaculately maintained. · The printing media. Paper expands and contracts with heat and humidity, drafting films are more stable. · The modeller. Modellers are vaguely human and can make errorsof all sorts in interpretation and measurement. All of the above is hard reality and occurs before we introduce the question of perception to the discussion. Our hobby is littered with examples of totally crap drawings that, because of the amount of detail, citing of research or even just sometimes the name of the drafty are taken as "accurate". Very few will stand careful scrutiny against the real thing and most will not even pass muster against the photographic record. Which is all very depressing for those seeking to make "accurate" models. Trying to rate anything given the above range of possible errors is clearly a waste of time. So...what to do? My only advice is to check everything you can against everything you can practically find out about your subject. Research and gather material for as long as you can...but set a deadline or it becomes an end in itself. Then accept that there will be flaws in the data... and thus the drawings...and thus the model...and get on with it! The best 'rating' is the one you set for yourself. David Muir ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Barnum" Subject: Russian Seal Can any one out there tell me the design on the badge that was on the stern of Soviet warships. Many Thanks John Barnum Margate, England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: GKingzett@aol.com Subject: Re: metric, imperial etc Richard, when you folks in the UK make tube, do you buy the holes, then tightly wrap the steel around them, or do you push the hole out the end after the steel cools? Inquiring minds want to know. Gary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: james.kloek@kodak.com Subject: 16mm to print I wholeheartedly endorse Steve Wiper's advice on this. Find a good quality film scanner, one that will do positive images (eg slides), and scan the frame in at high resolution. Then, if you can, get this high res digital file printed out on high quality photographic paper. A frame of 35mm film has about 18 megabytes of information on it. With a good scan, and printing out on photographic paper, you will preserve most of that information. Going film to video will not preserve much of that information captured on the film originally. Video display requires the least resolution of just about any output device or medium, so video images don't need to be very good. This is why images taken on an inexpensive digital camera will look good on your monitor, but when printed look pretty awful. The other advantage of having a good scanned digitized image is that you can work on it before you print it.! You can restore color balance, for example, if the print has faded with time. Printing on photographic paper gives you that advantage of image permanence. Today's papers, at least from Kodak and Fuji, are excellent, and will last 100+ years. Inkjet prints however (manufacturers claims to the contrary) fade rapidly, and in a year or two will be losing both density and color balance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Chris Langtree" Subject: Japanese Destroyers Hi All I am going to be moving to Japan soon and as such will be in a position to research a second book which will deal with Japanese destroyers. My publisher is keen on the idea but I have not yet decided which approach I would take and am interested in seeking peoples opinions on the subject as to which they would be most interested in. I can either do:- A Wells and Lacroix approach and cover all classes of destroyer. This would probably cover several volumes and take a long time. The eventual series would probably cost a lot as well. or select a particular class and cover it in depth as per The Kellys. With this approach classes under consideration would be the Fubuki, Shiratsuyu, Kagero and Akitzuki. Let me know what you think Chris Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Cyp Klish" Subject: Rating Ship Plans - accuracy Victor, While I did not state so explicitly in my proposal, accuracy would be a very important feature in the plans rating. I totally agree that it is of primary importance. Further, I suggest that ship plan accuracy has three components: * Dimensional accuracy: the items included are of the correct size and shape. A 50' prototype ship's launch that is inaccurately drawn on the plan so that it measures only 48' would be an example of a dimensional error. * Locational accuracy: the items shown are properly located with respect to their surroundings. A 50' ship's launch that is accurately drawn in size but is shown on the plan in a position on the boat deck that is 10" too far aft of its prototype position is an example of a plan location inaccuracy. * Representation accuracy: the items depicted are a correct portrayal of the vessel as of the date/era that the plan attempts to depict. Showing a 50' launch on a plan when it had been removed from the prototype by the date the plan represents would be a representation inaccuracy. Another example would be showing the fifty foot boat as a steam barge when it had been replaced by a motor vessel, and a third error of this type would not showing something that should be there. (So there are three cases of representation inaccuracy: extra, wrong, missing) Over the years, I've seen errors of all three types on various plans I've acquired. Cyp ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Greg Anderson" Subject: OZMOD'S LATEST 1/144 KIT IS NOW OUT! ENGLISH ELECTRIC CANBERRA B2! Injection moulded with detailed cockpit and wheel wells! Crystal clear vacformed canopy and nose cone (2 supplied in kit)! Three decal choices ... USAF, RAF and RAAF! Price - Aus$29.95 (+ Aus$7 post within Australia - Aus$12 air post overseas) Order now! Phone, fax or E-mail your order - Payment by Visa, Bankcard, Mastercard, Amex, Diners, Eurocard - Or post your order with Cheque or Money Order. (NOTE: If using your credit card, please be sure to also give us the three digit CCV number that appears on the back of your card. These are the three digits that appear after the last four digits of your card number. We cannot process your order unless we enter your CCV number.) OZMODS SCALE MODELS Proprietor: Greg Anderson Postal Address: PO Box 1083, Gailes, QLD 4300, Australia. Phone: (07) 3424 1724. Fax: (07) 3389 0923. Mobile: 0421 044 824. E-mail: ozmods@optushome.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume