SR71 Blackbird

[digitalMedia]

September 12th, 2009, 4:00 am

I've got some pics too, Gray.

Original picture

Attachments:

Cut from background

Attachments:

Make selection from opaque area, fill black, copy and paste into Illustrator(or other vector editor). Using Live Trace and Live Paint, convert raster image to vector.

Boy, this geometry could be useful!

Attachments:

Back to raster, copy and paste full color version into Illustrator(or other vector editor). Using Live Trace and Live Paint, convert raster image to vector - low color range.

Attachments:

Add one more layer of "hand drawn" lines. A simple understanding of bezier curves is helpful. They should feign what a pencil artist would do with contour lines.

Look familiar?

Attachments:

Now forget all that. Copy and Paste a new layer of our cut-out SR-71. Using Live Trace and Live Paint, convert raster image to vector - high color range.

Attachments:

Now clean up the rough edges with a clipping mask. (pssst, you've already got the geometry for the clipping mask.)

Attachments:

All vector. Ready to be scaled and manipulated. Since I have all this broke into little geometric shapes, I can do all kinds of fun things with it. Including, reverse engineering it to look like an animation.

This took me about 30 minutes. It's taken longer to write (//and edit) this post.

Gray, I'm not criticizing your work. I know how you do your work. I'm being critical of your presentation. I believe you are telling fibs. I have no idea why.

[graphixboy]

September 12th, 2009, 7:48 am

Ok I think this is getting a little out of hand. I believe Gray IS NOT using raster to vector software based on the quality of the wireframes provided. I've used a lot of different raster to vector software including illustrator's live trace and several that cost a lot more. Every one of them creates color blocks with lots of crazy jagged and overlapping edges that would take hours to actually clean up by hand (Look at the Image ATNO posted).

Gray is technically doing the same thing by figuring out what shape/color combos make up the image and then building up layers but the lines are much cleaner since the human brain doesn't think in like colored pixels. These the two examples may look similar here but if we were to zoom in there's a huge difference (especially visible around the cockpit windows).

All that said, really who cares. Its been clearly stated that this was a learning exercise. We've all done them (most of the time not worrying if we're using copyrighted reference, the best possible technique or tool). Why are we getting bent out of shape about the technique used for self betterment? Gray and DM why don't you both post a good zoomed detail of the cockpit area (shouldn't be a problem since they're both vector) and we can take a look at the differences...

[digitalMedia]

September 12th, 2009, 8:14 am

No thanks graphix. That wouldn't prove anything. I could zoom in, remove the jaggy bits and replace them with straight lines. That's way too easy and you know it. I could also spend an hour or two playing with the r-to-v filters, clean up some bits and make them perfect. I don't think I need to.

I'll be happy to withdraw from this thread. I've said my peace and offered my proofs.

My last and only point is; outline and perspective were not the only things taken from the image, as it was purported.

// What I posted above was done so because someone asked me how to do this.

[ATNO/TW]

September 12th, 2009, 9:29 am

Actually I'm rather enjoying this thread. Learning a lot. So for that reason I'm glad you have been posting this kind of work gray and hope you continue to do so. I think the only thing I'd like to see in future posts is credit to the photographer who took the original reference pics. It's only fair to them.

dm thanks for all the excellent insight here, and gray thanks for taking the time to help an old fart like me understand some things about digital art that I really was unclear on.

September 12th, 2009, 10:54 am

DM you know you're wrong. You just aren't man enough to admit it. You just keep digging your hole deeper with more silly explanations.
Back engineered, right, and I have a flying saucer in the basement I'm working on. All as you're doing is showing how little you know about graphics.

graphixboy, here's those closeups of the cockpit you asked for. Of course they could just be back engineered.

ATNO/TW the only two work examples I posted based on someone elses reference photo was the Blackbird and McLaren. I stated the first was a U.S. military photo (no copyright) and the second was 50 years old and I have no idea who took the original. End of story.

I won't be participating in this forum anymore. It's apparent that some members know everything there is to know about graphics, although they appear to have missed the vector basic 101 lesson. A graphic forum is supposed to be for the exchange of ideas and techniques not an arena for a bunch of vitriolic mean spirited dribble from some of it's members.

Attachments:

Attachments:

[digitalMedia]

September 12th, 2009, 12:02 pm

Sorry to hear that, Gray. The only issue I have or ever had has been corrupted from what I put forth. Go back to my initial post.

Quote:

You've borrowed a hell of a lot more than just a base outline and perspective. I took the liberty of making a side by side comparison of the original image and your "digital painting".

Call it what you want, it's a copy.

When you place the two images side by side, it isn't contestable. It's a copy. The gradient on the starboard side cockpit windows, the little white patch on the starboard side tail wing. The multiple places where liquid is being forced across the skin of the plane. The placement of shadows. Everything!

Again I say, it's a copy.

Why? Because you said...

Quote:

I used a reference pic for the perspective.

All I require is a basic perspective outline of the major complex shape, in this case the base outline of the aircraft.

... if you have a good picture reference, the most popular method with traditional medium artists, you can also use that for the perspective

When I say I use a photo reference they're not traced, they're used as a reference.

Here's the kicker! I don't even freakin' care how you copied it. You could have done it my way, you could have done it pixel by pixel, you could have WILLED it to happen while you were taking a shower. I really don't give a crap.

You keep posting images with these squiggly lines. They're indicative of r-to-v conversion. Sorry. If you drew them, you draw like an algorithm.

Again, I don't really care! (Please, Lord. Let them read that part.)

Quote:

It's apparent that some members know everything there is to know about graphics, although they appear to have missed the vector basic 101 lesson.

Actually, I've taught Illustrator at a tech college.