VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: [weathering] File Storage Statistics


Jul 8, 2007

 


----------------------------

#6581 Jul 8, 2007

Hi, Folks:



Recently, a couple of lists that I'm a member of have had topics regarding a preferred file format. I'm not about to join in that fray, as I feel it's a topic that has several "correct" answers - at least one for each person who DOES decide to contribute. However a few contributors to those message threads offered opinions on which format was more compact. I believe I can offer some facts (well, at least one data point).



I've recently started scanning a number of articles from Mainline Modeler so I can store them on a CD - that takes a lot less physical space than the paper magazines.



To that end, I purchased a copy of Omnipage version 15. I've generated some statistics that you folks might find interesting --



I'm using the article "Canadian National 4-6-2's" from Mainline Modeler Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages 16 to 24 as the original data set for all of the following statistics. The article contains a mix of text, line art, and halftone pictures similar to many articles on the model railroad press. My scanner is the scanning portion of a Canon MP-500 all-in-one device.



Here's what I found:



Original MM pages scanned at 300 ppi, Total memory = 16,785,785

Omnipage "OPD" intermediate data file for all 9 pages = 14,168,576

OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one PDF file = 643,623

OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one MS-Word file = 133,794,136

OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by MS-Word 2003 = 244,634,859

OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by OpenOfficeWriter = 65,573,376





It's interesting to me how much larger the DOC files are than either the original .JPG files or the PDF file. the "OPD" file is usually either not saved, or is deleted once your processing is complete, so its size is of no importance. This experiment would indicate that PDF files are potentially the most compact with individual JPG files running secont. I'm guessing that the major difference between the DOC file from open office write and the DOC file from either OmniPage or Winword is due to the quality of the graphics renditions.



Another item of interest is that OpenOfficeWrite did a poor job when displaying the graphics - at it's current state of development, winword has no worried - compared to either the OmniPage PDF or either the Omnipage or MS-Word DOC files. OpenOfficeWrite showed a distinct cross hatch and image degradation in the half tones that would not be acceptable for a "saved" document. Doea anyone reading this know if there are any options to direct OpenOfficeWrite to render graphics with a higher pixel density??



Also, Omnipage does an excellent job of converting printed articles into editable text and maintaining the original format.





-- Jerry Jankura

So many toys.... So little time....







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#6582 Jul 8, 2007

Jerry Jankura wrote: > Another item of interest is that OpenOfficeWrite did a poor job when displaying the graphics - at it's current state of development, winword has no worried - compared to either the OmniPage PDF or either the Omnipage or MS-Word DOC files. OpenOfficeWrite showed a distinct cross hatch and image degradation in the half tones that would not be acceptable for a "saved" document. Doea anyone reading this know if there are any options to direct OpenOfficeWrite to render graphics with a higher pixel density??

>

One thing I found out after I sent my original message -- If I loaded

the 65Mbyte file made by OpenOfficeWriter into Winword, the graphics

looked about the same as either the winword or Omnipage generated DOC

files, which leads me to believe that the issue's I had with

OpenOfficeWriter are with its display, and not with its data generation.

In addition, I printed one page that had a large grayscale half tone on

it. The graphics rendering of that printed page was also good. So, it

appears that my real issues are with how the images are rendered on the

display.



-- Jerry Jankura

So many toys.... So little time....



----------------------------

#6583 Jul 9, 2007

Many thanks for these results.



The following is my opinion and my reasons...



My personal favorite for article archiving is generic .pdf. I find

the size much more reasonable than the more massive files created

from .doc archiving. While I don't have the official Adobe

Acrobat program, I do have a very capable graphics suite that lets me

do anything to any parts of a .pdf including extracting images and

vector drawings for further work including complete reworking or the

embedded vector into standard cad......... as a small part of that

program.



The like might also be possible with the various .doc formats. So far

I've had no experience with that route and have only worked with what

I needed to, with the tools I prefer to use.



Still, I want to stress that the generic .pdf is a very useful format

that is completely customizable. I find it to be much better

than .doc for my needs and software tool-set.



I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

different types that fold together. Both were customized, re-colored

and the original gray windows became transparent; one was re-

engineered to be a more typical US Fairmont like speeder. The work

was done as an experiment in my graphics suite when Adobe reader

couldn't open the file due to a missing font, and the graphics

program asked me if it was alright to substitute the missing font

with another standard font. The files are 6-7 years old and will be

cnc-cut scale models in a month or two from now.



That, my friends, is what I like to think of as a very capable and

quite usable computer file format.



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jul 8, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Jerry Jankura wrote:



> Hi, Folks:

>

> Recently, a couple of lists that I'm a member of have had topics

> regarding a preferred file format. I'm not about to join in that

> fray, as I feel it's a topic that has several "correct" answers -

> at least one for each person who DOES decide to contribute. However

> a few contributors to those message threads offered opinions on

> which format was more compact. I believe I can offer some facts

> (well, at least one data point).

>

> I've recently started scanning a number of articles from Mainline

> Modeler so I can store them on a CD - that takes a lot less

> physical space than the paper magazines.

>

> To that end, I purchased a copy of Omnipage version 15. I've

> generated some statistics that you folks might find interesting --

>

> I'm using the article "Canadian National 4-6-2's" from Mainline

> Modeler Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages 16 to 24 as the original data set

> for all of the following statistics. The article contains a mix of

> text, line art, and halftone pictures similar to many articles on

> the model railroad press. My scanner is the scanning portion of a

> Canon MP-500 all-in-one device.

>

> Here's what I found:

>

> Original MM pages scanned at 300 ppi, Total memory = 16,785,785

> Omnipage "OPD" intermediate data file for all 9 pages = 14,168,576

> OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one PDF file = 643,623

> OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one MS-Word file = 133,794,136

> OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by MS-Word 2003 = 244,634,859

> OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by OpenOfficeWriter = 65,573,376

>

>

> It's interesting to me how much larger the DOC files are than

> either the original .JPG files or the PDF file. the "OPD" file is

> usually either not saved, or is deleted once your processing is

> complete, so its size is of no importance. This experiment would

> indicate that PDF files are potentially the most compact with

> individual JPG files running secont. I'm guessing that the major

> difference between the DOC file from open office write and the DOC

> file from either OmniPage or Winword is due to the quality of the

> graphics renditions.

>

> Another item of interest is that OpenOfficeWrite did a poor job

> when displaying the graphics - at it's current state of

> development, winword has no worried - compared to either the

> OmniPage PDF or either the Omnipage or MS-Word DOC files.

> OpenOfficeWrite showed a distinct cross hatch and image degradation

> in the half tones that would not be acceptable for a "saved"

> document. Doea anyone reading this know if there are any options to

> direct OpenOfficeWrite to render graphics with a higher pixel

> density??

>

> Also, Omnipage does an excellent job of converting printed articles

> into editable text and maintaining the original format.







----------------------------

#6584 Jul 9, 2007

Thanks again Jerry,



I'm setting up my first Mac/Linux/Windows computer this week and I'll

be passing files back and forth between the OS's and their programs.

[Both boot-to's and virtual operations] Your findings will be helpful

guidelines for me.



This is a laptop; the portable version of the arriving later tower

computer that will have the same software set-up. But one heck of a

lot more system ram and hard-drives.



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jul 8, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Jerry Jankura wrote:



> Jerry Jankura wrote:

>> Another item of interest is that OpenOfficeWrite did a poor job

>> when displaying the graphics - at it's current state of

>> development, winword has no worried - compared to either the

>> OmniPage PDF or either the Omnipage or MS-Word DOC files.

>> OpenOfficeWrite showed a distinct cross hatch and image

>> degradation in the half tones that would not be acceptable for a

>> "saved" document. Doea anyone reading this know if there are any

>> options to direct OpenOfficeWrite to render graphics with a higher

>> pixel density??

>>

> One thing I found out after I sent my original message -- If I loaded

> the 65Mbyte file made by OpenOfficeWriter into Winword, the graphics

> looked about the same as either the winword or Omnipage generated DOC

> files, which leads me to believe that the issue's I had with

> OpenOfficeWriter are with its display, and not with its data

> generation.

> In addition, I printed one page that had a large grayscale half

> tone on

> it. The graphics rendering of that printed page was also good. So, it

> appears that my real issues are with how the images are rendered on

> the

> display.

>

> -- Jerry Jankura

> So many toys.... So little time....

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>



----------------------------

#6585 Jul 9, 2007

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

!



----------------------------

#6586 Jul 9, 2007

Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what format you copy from. I have had poor results with small 2" size drawings on a standard 8.5 x 11 page note reproducing ledgeably!



Jack



----- Original Message -----

From: weathering@yahoogroups.com weathering@yahoogroups.com>

To: HOrailroading@yahoogroups.com HOrailroading@yahoogroups.com>; Weathering Yahoo weathering@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sun Jul 08 20:43:11 2007

Subject: [weathering] File Storage Statistics



Hi, Folks:



Recently, a couple of lists that I'm a member of have had topics regarding a preferred file format. I'm not about to join in that fray, as I feel it's a topic that has several "correct" answers - at least one for each person who DOES decide to contribute. However a few contributors to those message threads offered opinions on which format was more compact. I believe I can offer some facts (well, at least one data point).



I've recently started scanning a number of articles from Mainline Modeler so I can store them on a CD - that takes a lot less physical space than the paper magazines.



To that end, I purchased a copy of Omnipage version 15. I've generated some statistics that you folks might find interesting --



I'm using the article "Canadian National 4-6-2's" from Mainline Modeler Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages 16 to 24 as the original data set for all of the following statistics. The article contains a mix of text, line art, and halftone pictures similar to many articles on the model railroad press. My scanner is the scanning portion of a Canon MP-500 all-in-one device.



Here's what I found:



Original MM pages scanned at 300 ppi, Total memory = 16,785,785

Omnipage "OPD" intermediate data file for all 9 pages = 14,168,576

OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one PDF file = 643,623

OmniPage output of all 9 pages as one MS-Word file = 133,794,136

OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by MS-Word 2003 = 244,634,859

OmniPage DOC file read & rewritten by OpenOfficeWriter = 65,573,376





It's interesting to me how much larger the DOC files are than either the original .JPG files or the PDF file. the "OPD" file is usually either not saved, or is deleted once your processing is complete, so its size is of no importance. This experiment would indicate that PDF files are potentially the most compact with individual JPG files running secont. I'm guessing that the major difference between the DOC file from open office write and the DOC file from either OmniPage or Winword is due to the quality of the graphics renditions.



Another item of interest is that OpenOfficeWrite did a poor job when displaying the graphics - at it's current state of development, winword has no worried - compared to either the OmniPage PDF or either the Omnipage or MS-Word DOC files. OpenOfficeWrite showed a distinct cross hatch and image degradation in the half tones that would not be acceptable for a "saved" document. Doea anyone reading this know if there are any options to direct OpenOfficeWrite to render graphics with a higher pixel density??



Also, Omnipage does an excellent job of converting printed articles into editable text and maintaining the original format.





-- Jerry Jankura

So many toys.... So little time....







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









Yahoo! Groups Links











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#6587 Jul 9, 2007

"Winegar, Jack" wrote:

> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

> format you copy from.



It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You obviously

don't have much experience with more complicated documents

which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.



Jan Kok

Eindhoven, Netherlands.



----------------------------

#6588 Jul 9, 2007

Oboy! Oboy! Oboy!!!! Here we go for some exciting exchanges.







-----Original Message-----

From: weathering@yahoogroups.com [mailto:weathering@yahoogroups.com]On

Behalf Of Jan Kok

Sent: Monday, 09 July, 2007 8:47 AM

To: weathering@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [weathering] File Storage Statistics





"Winegar, Jack" wrote:

> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

> format you copy from.



It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You obviously

don't have much experience with more complicated documents

which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.



Jan Kok

Eindhoven, Netherlands.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#6589 Jul 9, 2007

In a message dated 7/9/2007 7:21:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time, racy2@...

writes:



Oboy! Oboy! Oboy!!!! Here we go for some exciting exchanges.







------------------------



I don't want to see these, I like [WEATHERING] as the site title states.



As Harold said, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................



Keevan







************************************** See what's free at www.aol.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------

#6590 Jul 9, 2007

I don't know about you, Harold, but I've found it impossible to

weather *either* .doc or .pdf files without first printing them out.

(Mocha flavored coffee, tea with a hint of lemon, combined with a

smear of butter from lightly toasted bread seems to work very well

after printing. I'm about to try a bit of raspberry flavoring from my

Starbucks Raspberry Mocha Frappachino, so I'll let you know how that works!)



I guess you could "weather" pdf pages in Photoshop and then export

them as another pdf file, but the essentially non-graphic nature of a

doc file would seem to preclude weathering of any sort while still in

its electronic format.



I know you've done a lot of experimenting with various methods of

weathering, so, what say you?



If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, is what I always say... :-)

Ron Hildebrand





At 02:58 AM 7/9/2007, Harold wrote:

>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

>!



----------------------------

#6592 Jul 9, 2007

You are talking about converting .docs to .pdf's ?????



That's like .zip'ng .arc's, or .rar'ng .zip's.



I'm not at all surprised that the re-encoding of the already

encoded .doc's into another form of external compression results in a

more massive file.



Try that with any of the common archive/compression formats on your

own and you'll see just how compounding the encoding of an already

encoded format makes much larger files. Such is the nature of

accurately encoding already encoded sources, the compression

algorithms will perform in such a manner.



I'm pretty sure that was covered in my engineering college education,

decades ago.



However, comparing resulting .doc's and .pdf's from the un-encoded

source material will give you much larger .doc files than .pdf files.



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Jan Kok wrote:



>

> "Winegar, Jack" wrote:

>

>> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

>> format you copy from.

>

> It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

> of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You

> obviously

> don't have much experience with more complicated documents

> which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

> formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.



----------------------------

#6593 Jul 9, 2007

On Jul 9, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Ray Cannon wrote:

> Oboy! Oboy! Oboy!!!! Here we go for some exciting exchanges.



Not when the contention is... "I could give you many examples

of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files."



The man is right, eaxctly as he wrote....... And in general ONLY as

he wrote.



That is why you don't .rar .zips; .lzh .arc's; nor .pdf .doc's The

resulting files become very large. Much more so then a pure .doc -or-

a pure .pdf, or any one type of compression of the original source

material.



Roughly, a compression of a compression is a great deal more

mathematical results as it attempts to find repeating patterns that

were already processed into non-repeating patterns by the first

compression on the original material, resulting in a more bloated

file than using just one compression on the original material and

it's repeating patterns.



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jan Kok

>

> "Winegar, Jack" wrote:

>

>> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

>> format you copy from.

>

> It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

> of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You

> obviously

> don't have much experience with more complicated documents

> which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

> formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.







----------------------------

#6594 Jul 9, 2007

Forget about the software ... I want to know about the $550 CNC cutter!



Rick





Mike Bauers wrote: >

> Many thanks for these results.

>

> The following is my opinion and my reasons...

>

> My personal favorite for article archiving is generic .pdf. I find

> the size much more reasonable than the more massive files created

> from .doc archiving. While I don't have the official Adobe

> Acrobat program, I do have a very capable graphics suite that lets me

> do anything to any parts of a .pdf including extracting images and

> vector drawings for further work including complete reworking or the

> embedded vector into standard cad......... as a small part of that

> program.

>

> The like might also be possible with the various .doc formats. So far

> I've had no experience with that route and have only worked with what

> I needed to, with the tools I prefer to use.

>

> Still, I want to stress that the generic .pdf is a very useful format

> that is completely customizable. I find it to be much better

> than .doc for my needs and software tool-set.

>

> I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

> 'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

> different types that fold together. Both were customized, re-colored

> and the original gray windows became transparent; one was re-

> engineered to be a more typical US Fairmont like speeder. The work

> was done as an experiment in my graphics suite when Adobe reader

> couldn't open the file due to a missing font, and the graphics

> program asked me if it was alright to substitute the missing font

> with another standard font. The files are 6-7 years old and will be

> cnc-cut scale models in a month or two from now.

>

> That, my friends, is what I like to think of as a very capable and

> quite usable computer file format.

>

> Best to ya'

> Mike Bauers

> Milwaukee Wi, USA

>

> On Jul 8, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Jerry Jankura wrote:

>

> >.

>

>

>



----------------------------

#6610 Jul 12, 2007

--- In weathering@yahoogroups.com, Rick rick@...> wrote: >

> Forget about the software ... I want to know about the $550 CNC

cutter! >

> Rick



> > I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

> > 'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

>

>



Bump



Jarp;d



----------------------------

#6611 Jul 13, 2007

I gotta get more organized with my emails.......



here's a full link followed by a shortcut.......



www.stickystuff.biz/catalog/product_info.php?

cPath=47&products_id=221&osCsid=bf70c60c4851fbf249ce425c09026958



tinyurl.com/yvk59o



and another......



www.paperthreads.com/store/index.php?

main_page=product_info&products_id=1209



tinyurl.com/266uyd



This machine can cut about 9 inches wide and as long as you can feed

the material to it.



Similar larger models went up $300 after the introductory price. So

this machine could be $800 or more in a very few months, up from the

present $550



I'm assured by a couple of users that they run styrene sheet in their

machine



I'm going to fold in one of my old messages about this sort of machine



*****************

From: . mwbauers

Subject: .Re: [hotractionmodeling] Re: Desired HO RTR traction models

Date: .June 2, 2007 8:42:11 PM CDT

To: . hotractionmodeling@yahoogroups.com



The Scrap-bookers are absolutely sold on these machines for their

precision card and custom paper cutting..



Here's a Yahoo group where the public can read the messages......

At least I think that's the case...... I joined there a week ago.......



groups.yahoo.com/group/Klic-N-Kut/



Here are some of the specs for the new Klic-N-Kut's



The heavy stock they cut is called chip-board. So you wouldn't have

to stick with the much thinner vinyl.......



Max Cutting Speed 24.5 inches per second

Max Cutting Force 500g

LCD display English

Mechanical Resolution 1000 DPI

Software Resolution 1000 DPI

Repeatability .004 Inches



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:20 PM, cschultz@... wrote:





> Mike Bauers wrote:

>

>

>> Well........

>> Maybe

>

>

>> we have to change some of our modeling.....

>>

>> In the files is a PCC template, in the folder. 'Build a

>> PCC'..........

>> is PCCpatt8-11.gif

>>

>

>

>> I'm

>> expecting delivery of a modestly priced cnc-cutter that will take

>> similar templates and cut them out in seconds. Even ones that have

>> all the window frames and door details in place. You return to the

>> old stacked layer construction of early passenger car modeling or

>> brass models and their separate sheets of layers.

>>

>

> I have been wondering for some time if using a vinyl sign cutting

> machine would

> work for making the layers. The base layer would be clear plastic,

> and would

> supply the required stiffness, and become the windows. The vinyl

> layers would

> be cut on the machine, painted the appropriate color for each

> layer, and then

> stacked on top of each other on the window base layer. Not

> appropriate for PCCs

> with their compound curves, but it might work for older cars, and

> some of the

> boxier LRVs.

>

> Has anyone tried this? Is a vinyl cutter accurate enough? Will it

> make small

> enough pieces for HO? Will it cut sharp corners?

>

> Carl Schultz

> Transit Gloria Mundi



*****************





Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA





On Jul 12, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Harold Minkwitz wrote:



> --- In weathering@yahoogroups.com, Rick rick@...> wrote:

>>

>> Forget about the software ... I want to know about the $550 CNC

> cutter!

>>

>> Rick

>

>>> I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

>>> 'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

>>

>>

>

> Bump







----------------------------

#6612 Jul 13, 2007

MIKE: Can I suggest you post this to the Traintools group.

Over there it would be right on topic. BOB in Orillia



Quoting Mike Bauers mwbauers55@...>:

> I gotta get more organized with my emails.......

>

> here's a full link followed by a shortcut.......

>

> www.stickystuff.biz/catalog/product_info.php?

> cPath=47&products_id=221&osCsid=bf70c60c4851fbf249ce425c09026958

>

> tinyurl.com/yvk59o

>

> and another......

>

> www.paperthreads.com/store/index.php?

> main_page=product_info&products_id=1209

>

> tinyurl.com/266uyd

>

> This machine can cut about 9 inches wide and as long as you can feed

> the material to it.

>

> Similar larger models went up $300 after the introductory price. So

> this machine could be $800 or more in a very few months, up from the

> present $550

>

> I'm assured by a couple of users that they run styrene sheet in their

> machine

>

> I'm going to fold in one of my old messages about this sort of machine

>

> *****************

> .From: . mwbauers

> .Subject: .Re: [hotractionmodeling] Re: Desired HO RTR traction models

> .Date: .June 2, 2007 8:42:11 PM CDT

> .To: . hotractionmodeling@yahoogroups.com

>

> The Scrap-bookers are absolutely sold on these machines for their

> precision card and custom paper cutting..

>

> Here's a Yahoo group where the public can read the messages......

> At least I think that's the case...... I joined there a week ago.......

>

> groups.yahoo.com/group/Klic-N-Kut/

>

> Here are some of the specs for the new Klic-N-Kut's

>

> The heavy stock they cut is called chip-board. So you wouldn't have

> to stick with the much thinner vinyl.......

>

> Max Cutting Speed 24.5 inches per second

> Max Cutting Force 500g

> LCD display English

> Mechanical Resolution 1000 DPI

> Software Resolution 1000 DPI

> Repeatability .004 Inches

>

> Best to ya'

> Mike Bauers

> Milwaukee Wi, USA

>

>

> On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:20 PM, cschultz@... wrote:

>

>

>> Mike Bauers wrote:

>>

>>

>>> Well........

>>> Maybe

>>

>>

>>> we have to change some of our modeling.....

>>>

>>> In the files is a PCC template, in the folder. 'Build a

>>> PCC'..........

>>> is PCCpatt8-11.gif

>>>

>>

>>

>>> I'm

>>> expecting delivery of a modestly priced cnc-cutter that will take

>>> similar templates and cut them out in seconds. Even ones that have

>>> all the window frames and door details in place. You return to the

>>> old stacked layer construction of early passenger car modeling or

>>> brass models and their separate sheets of layers.

>>>

>>

>> I have been wondering for some time if using a vinyl sign cutting

>> machine would

>> work for making the layers. The base layer would be clear plastic,

>> and would

>> supply the required stiffness, and become the windows. The vinyl

>> layers would

>> be cut on the machine, painted the appropriate color for each

>> layer, and then

>> stacked on top of each other on the window base layer. Not

>> appropriate for PCCs

>> with their compound curves, but it might work for older cars, and

>> some of the

>> boxier LRVs.

>>

>> Has anyone tried this? Is a vinyl cutter accurate enough? Will it

>> make small

>> enough pieces for HO? Will it cut sharp corners?

>>

>> Carl Schultz

>> Transit Gloria Mundi

>

> *****************

>

>

> Best to ya'

> Mike Bauers

> Milwaukee Wi, USA

>

>

> On Jul 12, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Harold Minkwitz wrote:

>

>> --- In weathering@yahoogroups.com, Rick rick@...> wrote:

>>>

>>> Forget about the software ... I want to know about the $550 CNC

>> cutter!

>>>

>>> Rick

>>

>>>> I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

>>>> 'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

>>>

>>>

>>

>> Bump

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>



----------------------------

#6620 Jul 13, 2007

Please don't assume things you guess at MR KOK from Endoven, Netheands.



I might not use .pdf formatting daily but I probably do severl times a week. My last project was 97 pages long with 100s of high resolution pictures and included 6-8 CADD drawings for down loading quickly from the internet. So I believe my knowledge level of the best software is quite good.



Challange my weathering skills you may. But challanging someones unknown skills and knowledge base used to support his family very very well is not a friendly thing to do.



Jack L. Winegar

A proude moral American



PS Mr. Kok have someone give you the crass profane definition of the word "assume"



----- Original Message -----

From: weathering@yahoogroups.com weathering@yahoogroups.com>

To: weathering@yahoogroups.com weathering@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Mon Jul 09 07:47:05 2007

Subject: Re: [weathering] File Storage Statistics





"Winegar, Jack" wrote:



> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

> format you copy from.



It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You obviously

don't have much experience with more complicated documents

which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.



Jan Kok

Eindhoven, Netherlands.







Yahoo! Groups Links











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







----------------------------

#6624 Jul 13, 2007

Mike thank you for posting the link. Very cool machine.



Ken the guy from AR



rsparkes@... wrote: >

> MIKE: Can I suggest you post this to the Traintools group.

> Over there it would be right on topic. BOB in Orillia

>

> Quoting Mike Bauers mwbauers55@...

> mailto:mwbauers55%40wi.rr.com>>:

>

> > I gotta get more organized with my emails.......

> >

> > here's a full link followed by a shortcut.......

> >

> > www.stickystuff.biz/catalog/product_info.php?

> www.stickystuff.biz/catalog/product_info.php?>

> > cPath=47&products_id=221&osCsid=bf70c60c4851fbf249ce425c09026958

> >

> > tinyurl.com/yvk59o tinyurl.com/yvk59o>

> >

> > and another......

> >

> > www.paperthreads.com/store/index.php?

> www.paperthreads.com/store/index.php?>

> > main_page=product_info&products_id=1209

> >

> > tinyurl.com/266uyd tinyurl.com/266uyd>

> >

> > This machine can cut about 9 inches wide and as long as you can feed

> > the material to it.

> >

> > Similar larger models went up $300 after the introductory price. So

> > this machine could be $800 or more in a very few months, up from the

> > present $550

> >

> > I'm assured by a couple of users that they run styrene sheet in their

> > machine

> >

> > I'm going to fold in one of my old messages about this sort of machine

> >

> > *****************

> > From: mwbauers

> > Subject: Re: [hotractionmodeling] Re: Desired HO RTR traction models

> > Date: June 2, 2007 8:42:11 PM CDT

> > To: hotractionmodeling@yahoogroups.com

> mailto:hotractionmodeling%40yahoogroups.com>

> >

> > The Scrap-bookers are absolutely sold on these machines for their

> > precision card and custom paper cutting..

> >

> > Here's a Yahoo group where the public can read the messages......

> > At least I think that's the case...... I joined there a week ago.......

> >

> > groups.yahoo.com/group/Klic-N-Kut/

> groups.yahoo.com/group/Klic-N-Kut/>

> >

> > Here are some of the specs for the new Klic-N-Kut's

> >

> > The heavy stock they cut is called chip-board. So you wouldn't have

> > to stick with the much thinner vinyl.......

> >

> > Max Cutting Speed 24.5 inches per second

> > Max Cutting Force 500g

> > LCD display English

> > Mechanical Resolution 1000 DPI

> > Software Resolution 1000 DPI

> > Repeatability .004 Inches

> >

> > Best to ya'

> > Mike Bauers

> > Milwaukee Wi, USA

> >

> >

> > On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:20 PM, cschultz@...

> mailto:cschultz%40qis.net> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> Mike Bauers wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>> Well........

> >>> Maybe

> >>

> >>

> >>> we have to change some of our modeling.....

> >>>

> >>> In the files is a PCC template, in the folder. 'Build a

> >>> PCC'..........

> >>> is PCCpatt8-11.gif

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >>> I'm

> >>> expecting delivery of a modestly priced cnc-cutter that will take

> >>> similar templates and cut them out in seconds. Even ones that have

> >>> all the window frames and door details in place. You return to the

> >>> old stacked layer construction of early passenger car modeling or

> >>> brass models and their separate sheets of layers.

> >>>

> >>

> >> I have been wondering for some time if using a vinyl sign cutting

> >> machine would

> >> work for making the layers. The base layer would be clear plastic,

> >> and would

> >> supply the required stiffness, and become the windows. The vinyl

> >> layers would

> >> be cut on the machine, painted the appropriate color for each

> >> layer, and then

> >> stacked on top of each other on the window base layer. Not

> >> appropriate for PCCs

> >> with their compound curves, but it might work for older cars, and

> >> some of the

> >> boxier LRVs.

> >>

> >> Has anyone tried this? Is a vinyl cutter accurate enough? Will it

> >> make small

> >> enough pieces for HO? Will it cut sharp corners?

> >>

> >> Carl Schultz

> >> Transit Gloria Mundi

> >

> > *****************

> >

> >

> > Best to ya'

> > Mike Bauers

> > Milwaukee Wi, USA

> >

> >

> > On Jul 12, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Harold Minkwitz wrote:

> >

> >> --- In weathering@yahoogroups.com

> mailto:weathering%40yahoogroups.com>, Rick rick@...> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Forget about the software ... I want to know about the $550 CNC

> >> cutter!

> >>>

> >>> Rick

> >>

> >>>> I have on order a $550 cnc-cutter that will get as one of the first

> >>>> 'projects' a .pdf file of two HO and O scale speeders of very

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >> Bump

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>







----------------------------

#6629 Jul 13, 2007

Hi Bob,



Sure, go and re-post that post. I had that list in mind a bit later

as I got some hours in on my cutter that is still being delivered in

about four weeks from now.



You should see the results an email buddy of mine is getting as he

builds the sides of an arch-windowed and fine mullin'd HO trolley

trolley with the separate layer approach.



This works so very close to as clean as laser-cutting !



I really LIKE these machines.........



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jul 13, 2007, at 7:20 AM, rsparkes@... wrote:



> MIKE: Can I suggest you post this to the Traintools group.

> Over there it would be right on topic. BOB in Orillia

>

> Quoting Mike Bauers mwbauers55@...>:

>

>> I gotta get more organized with my emails.......

>>

>> here's a full link followed by a shortcut.......

.............

>> tinyurl.com/yvk59o

...........

>> This machine can cut about 9 inches wide and as long as you can feed

>> the material to it.

>>

>> Similar larger models went up $300 after the introductory price. So

>> this machine could be $800 or more in a very few months, up from the

>> present $550

>>

>> I'm assured by a couple of users that they run styrene sheet in their

>> machine



----------------------------

#6631 Jul 13, 2007

You have an extreme case of a great many high resolution images

bundled into the .pdf



I'd call that a rather definitive test.



Best to ya'

Mike Bauers

Milwaukee Wi, USA



On Jul 13, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Winegar, Jack wrote:



> Please don't assume things you guess at MR KOK from Endoven,

> Netheands.

>

> I might not use .pdf formatting daily but I probably do severl

> times a week. My last project was 97 pages long with 100s of high

> resolution pictures and included 6-8 CADD drawings for down loading

> quickly from the internet. So I believe my knowledge level of the

> best software is quite good.

>

> Challange my weathering skills you may. But challanging someones

> unknown skills and knowledge base used to support his family very

> very well is not a friendly thing to do.

>

> Jack L. Winegar

> A proude moral American

>

> PS Mr. Kok have someone give you the crass profane definition of

> the word "assume"

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: weathering@yahoogroups.com weathering@yahoogroups.com>

> To: weathering@yahoogroups.com weathering@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Mon Jul 09 07:47:05 2007

> Subject: Re: [weathering] File Storage Statistics

>

>

> "Winegar, Jack" wrote:

>

>> Yes I too have found .pdf to be the smallest file size no matter what

>> format you copy from.

>

> It is certainly not as simple as that. I could give you many examples

> of pdf-files that are larger than the original doc-files. You

> obviously

> don't have much experience with more complicated documents

> which include scanned pictures or drawings, screen dumps and/or

> formulas. Please, don't state this nonsense of 'no matter what'.

>

> Jan Kok

> Eindhoven, Netherlands.

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>



Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g