BLUENOSE by PIERO

Hi Piero.
You have made some big stept. What a progress!.
But .......... I hope you don't blame me .......... some overview pictures worried me a bit. Because on some shots I saw a bit of twisting in the deck beams.
I'm hoping it's a camera bias with a wide-angle shift? And I worried for nothing.
I mean this photo in particular. I turned your picture a little bit to set your middle rope vertical in the picture and draw some lines even with some deck beams:
Pietro.jpg
But I also noticed it in 2 other pictures.
Regards, Peter
 
Peter Voogt said:
Hi Piero.
You have made some big stept. What a progress!.
But .......... I hope you don't blame me .......... some overview pictures worried me a bit. Because on some shots I saw a bit of twisting in the deck beams.
I'm hoping it's a camera bias with a wide-angle shift? And I worried for nothing.
I mean this photo in particular. I turned your picture a little bit to set your middle rope vertical in the picture and draw some lines even with some deck beams:
View attachment 289335
But I also noticed it in 2 other pictures.
Regards, Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, thanks for your comment!
Keep in mind that each notice can avoid future problems.

And now come to your observation: what you say is correct ... in the theoretical line! If you edit a digital photo (made up of thousands of pixels) by rotating it specifically, the trim is also changed. And what you will see is a distortion in the farthest part of the focal plane. And this is because the edited photo is in two dimensions, it lacks depth, which to be recovered digitally, causes a distortion of the pixels on the theoretical Z axis.

I made a height measurement on the sides of the "incriminated" beams and they are exactly the same height ... It seems to be, therefore, a nice optical effect of digital manipulation.

;)
 
The Sailor said:
If you edit a digital photo (made up of thousands of pixels) by rotating it specifically, the trim is also changed. And what you will see is a distortion in the farthest part of the focal plane. And this is because the edited photo is in two dimensions, it lacks depth, which to be recovered digitally, causes a distortion of the pixels on the theoretical Z axis.
Click to expand...
As you quoted, now for your theory: ... in the theoretical line! I have not yet seen that with similar photos in the BN Group Build.
The Sailor said:
Could be and optical distorsione ...
Click to expand...
Optical, in case of the lens. The end of the table has the same turn clock-wise. But since the tensioned wire is straight, the question occurred to me.
I'm thinking of lens distortion i.c.w. a (light) camera angle. See this: -> Lens Distortion <-
We'll just leave it her at this. Perhaps in the Photographing Thread. This is a build-log!
I am happy that everything is still correct when measured. After this side step, please continue building. Because your 'jigless' build remains interesting to follow.
Regards, Peter
 
Last edited:
Peter Voogt said:
As you quoted, now for your theory: ... in the theoretical line! I have not yet seen that with similar photos in the BN Group Build.

Optical, in case of the lens. The end of the table has the same turn clock-wise. But since the tensioned wire is straight, the question occurred to me.
I'm thinking of lens distortion i.c.w. a (light) camera angle. See this: -> Lens Distortion <-
We'll just leave it her at this. Perhaps in the Photographing Thread. This is a build-log!
I am happy that everything is still correct when measured. After this side step, please continue building. Because your 'jigless' build remains interesting to follow.
Regards, Peter
Click to expand...

Thanks Peter for your ... final encouragement!

I am really happy with how I am progressing in the build. Having the opportunity to work in two different labs, when I am in the Italian lab I'm also able to carry on the whole part of the superstructure, which seems simple ... but it is not at all!

However it is a great project and I have to thank Heinrich for the chance he gave me to have it in my hands!
 
Hello Piero,
What a very interesting conversation between you and Peter!
I noticed the deviation mentioned by Peter as well, but since I'm not knowledgeable about (digital) photography, I decided not to participate in your conversation.
Interesting read, that's for sure.
Whether or not the with the kit supplied jig is being used, it remains a rather challenging build and I am looking forward as to how your "jig less" build turns out.
Regards,
Johan.
 
RDN1954 said:
Hello Piero,
What a very interesting conversation between you and Peter!
I noticed the deviation mentioned by Peter as well, but since I'm not knowledgeable about (digital) photography, I decided not to participate in your conversation.
Interesting read, that's for sure.
Whether or not the with the kit supplied jig is being used, it remains a rather challenging build and I am looking forward as to how your "jig less" build turns out.
Regards,
Johan.
Click to expand...

Hi Johan,
I am attaching the last photo I took before leaving the "SwissLab" and reaching the "Italian Lab". In fact, I notice a deviation to the left but not more than 1mm but I think it depends on the gluing of the keel, and subsequent drying, when I mounted it. This doesn't worries me that much because I get it back when I put up the bulwarks.

As one of my great compatriot said ".. to posterity the arduous sentence ..."!

Cheers!

20220208_122454.jpg
 
1644346930834.jpeg

Seeing that the "distortion" (difference between port and starboard sides" remains entirely consistent and then gets less the closer it gets to the lens, plus the fact that it seems to follow a very gradual and even curvature would suggest that it is "optical" indeed.
 
The Sailor said:
Hi Johan,
I am attaching the last photo I took before leaving the "SwissLab" and reaching the "Italian Lab". In fact, I notice a deviation to the left but not more than 1mm but I think it depends on the gluing of the keel, and subsequent drying, when I mounted it. This doesn't worries me that much because I get it back when I put up the bulwarks.

As one of my great compatriot said ".. to posterity the arduous sentence ..."!

Cheers!

View attachment 289613
Click to expand...
Hey Piero,

That doesn't look half bad!
Hard to tell though from this viewpoint if the hull is warped or not, but the proof is in the pudding; only once the hull is completed, one will be able to tell with certainty.
Your suggestion to use the bulwarks to correct possible deviations does hold merit, although I suspect the hull, with all the beam supports and beams in place, might be a little bit stiff already.

I hope you don't mind, but I noticed two items which might need your attention, see added picture.

I wish you many happy modeling hours!

C39C8477-7404-4496-8542-8FBC57C989F4.jpeg
 
RDN1954 said:
Hey Piero,

That doesn't look half bad!
Hard to tell though from this viewpoint if the hull is warped or not, but the proof is in the pudding; only once the hull is completed, one will be able to tell with certainty.
Your suggestion to use the bulwarks to correct possible deviations does hold merit, although I suspect the hull, with all the beam supports and beams in place, might be a little bit stiff already.

I hope you don't mind, but I noticed two items which might need your attention, see added picture.

I wish you many happy modeling hours!
Click to expand...

Yes Johan, that difference between the keel and the nose is just that slight distortion of almost 1mm that I said earlier. Do not worry about this because I recover it when I put up the bulwarks
 
About the 2 sides on top of the keel, Johan mentioned, this alert was made:

TAKE NOTE of this change on Bow piece and Bowsprit Fitment Beveling

Please review this post by Heinrich as he found some very interesting info concerning the Beveling of the Bow and Bowsprit parts: https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/yuanqing-bluenose-heinrich.6500/page-14#post-149841
shipsofscale.com
The bevel on the 2 side pieces must be on the inside: |\__/|
I did is also wrong and pointed them /\__/\
The bowsprit will be placed between the chamfers.
Regards, Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top