# Aztec Custom Dry transfer decals...



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, 

so who is going to be producing 1/350th Refit custom dry transfer decals for the Aztecing effect?

Anybody have any ideas? ETA?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Wow!

Don't everybody answer all at once!

I've read a couple of you were getting them done custom for you.
Can you perhaps give us a ballpark figure of the cost for a complete set?


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Does anyone sell paper to make your own with an inkjet printer? I'd be interested in that.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Just the thought of doing dry transfer aztecs over the entire ship really rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## frontline (May 4, 2005)

Id be interesting in hearing about this too. Also how do dry rub decals work?


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

{insert rim shot}



Trek Ace said:


> Just the thought of doing dry transfer aztecs over the entire ship really rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Alkalilake (May 13, 2005)

http://www.culttvman.net/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=203


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Alkalilake said:


> http://www.culttvman.net/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=203


Thanks for the effort. But what I'm talking about is something very different.
Those are vinyl friskets for painting.

What I'm talking about is veluum type paper that has decals that you transfer via rubbing them on with a dull pencil.

Sort of like the old rub on stencils people used to use to design printed circuit boards, or to letter oversized blueprints.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

or sort of like the original smoothie rub on transfer decals


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Just the thought of doing dry transfer aztecs over the entire ship really rubs me the wrong way.


:lol:

might be tedius. But the consistency and detail level would be worth it. Not to mention that people like myself with limited airbrush skills could get a great finish. It would just take a bit more elbow grease. You could get panel details at a level you probably couldn't airbrush on even if one were very skilled.

Plus, if anyone ever wanted to make all 12-13 ships, they could get a lot closer to exact duplicates on the finish.


----------



## Alkalilake (May 13, 2005)

How about a company that will custom make dry transfer stickers/labels/lettering to any color? I would imagine somebody could work something up in Photoshop and size it correctly and send it off to them for a set to be made. Here you go.
http://www.stc4color.com/ints.htm


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That's cool!

Thanks!


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

This is what I was looking for:
http://www.rubondecals.com/rubon-paper.html
Making some to fit the contour of the secondary hull will be tricky.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Here's another dry transfer paper 

http://www.pulsar.gs/2_Decals/a_Pages/1_MENU/1b_Overview/Overview.html


----------



## thw196 (May 16, 2005)

*Avoid Photoshop*



Alkalilake said:


> How about a company that will custom make dry transfer stickers/labels/lettering to any color? I would imagine somebody could work something up in Photoshop and size it correctly and send it off to them for a set to be made. Here you go.
> http://www.stc4color.com/ints.htm


My apologies if I have the procedure wrong for replying to a Thread, but this is the fellow who runs the site that you graciously mentioned in your post Sunday. I'm writing to advise anyone considering sending in art for custom dry transfers to http://stc4color.com/ints.htm to not use Photoshop. The reason for this is that at heart Photoshop is a bitmap program. Bitmapped programs such as Photoshop will not have as sharp edges as vector-based art. What you want to use is either a vector-based program such as Illustrator or if your art is composed of custom fonts then Word since it can ultimately be converted to vector-based. This will give you sharp edges, etc. We have had modelers use our transfers and they've written us to say they were happy with how they came out.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Question for thw196...

If one were to do the azteks in Photoshop, but at 600 dpi... with lots of shading and subtle smudginess on purpose... you could still make the dry transfers? ...perhaps doing lettering as a separate transfer in vector based file?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

thw196 said:


> My apologies if I have the procedure wrong for replying to a Thread, but this is the fellow who runs the site that you graciously mentioned in your post Sunday. I'm writing to advise anyone considering sending in art for custom dry transfers to http://stc4color.com/ints.htm to not use Photoshop. The reason for this is that at heart Photoshop is a bitmap program. Bitmapped programs such as Photoshop will not have as sharp edges as vector-based art. What you want to use is either a vector-based program such as Illustrator or if your art is composed of custom fonts then Word since it can ultimately be converted to vector-based. This will give you sharp edges, etc. We have had modelers use our transfers and they've written us to say they were happy with how they came out.


Thank you very much for the heads up. I'm still trying to find enough source material for the patterns, panels etc. I will probably be able convert to vector if necessary even if my source material turns out to be non-vector.

A few questions though: are these decals only available opague? Can they be translucent? Is there different charges for translucency? What's the maximum DPI level available?


----------



## thw196 (May 16, 2005)

When you say shading be aware that there can only be one value for our custom int transfers and that, unfortunately, is 100%. Gradients will not work. The smudginess or "grunge" effect can work if the "broken off bits" are at 100%. We could try 600 dpi, but be aware that in Photoshop if you take a image already created at, as an example, 72 dpi and then say to that image, which has already been saved at 72 dpi, that you know want it to be 300 dpi what happens is that Photoshop dutifully increases the size and will tell you it's 300 dpi, while all it really is doing is taking the original pixels of 72 dpi and increasing their individual sizes. It's a situation where Photoshop leads you to believe you've increased the resolution when, in fact, you've simply increased the size of the individual pixels leading you back to your original problem, i.e., pixelation.
If you can get past the shading issue and if you're mindful of needing a fixative after the transfer has been burnished on, then you're golden. Another modeler who was flying and constructing RC Stukas would take the transfers, apply them, sand, then apply them again, etc. to achieve the effect he wanted. Quite possibly technique could make up for the shading issue, but that is, definitely, my opinion.
Final word on 600 dpi is that if you create an original at that resolution at double the size you need, which would then allow us to import the file and output it at 50% that would increase your chances of a sharp edge. The guarantee is vector-based art, but if you think through the Photoshop process, make it double the size you need, allowing us to output at 50%, you then increase your chances.
Hope this helps


----------



## thw196 (May 16, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thank you very much for the heads up. I'm still trying to find enough source material for the patterns, panels etc. I will probably be able convert to vector if necessary even if my source material turns out to be non-vector.
> 
> A few questions though: are these decals only available opague? Can they be translucent? Is there different charges for translucency? What's the maximum DPI level available?


 DPI is a relative term in terms of size of image. I just replied to another post where I went through a quick survey of dpi and physical size. If your machine has the muscle to deal with 600 dpi then what you need to be aware of is that you can "supercharge" your resolution be taking the physical dimensions and enlarging from the very first in Photoshop. When we output the film for the transfer we do that at 2540 dpi. The overwhelming number of professional publications scan at 300 dpi with a high sampling rate at 100% final output size, which you can't achieve with a desktop scanner. Given this overview you could try Photoshop at 600 dpi and double the size you need. But, here again, I must emphasize that your best bet is vector-based if at all possible.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Okay, I have to ask.

Why dry transfers for such large areas? Compound curves? Gaps, holes, grids, seams?

Not a good surface mating area for large rub downs. Not if you want them to last, anyway.

Lots of potential problems by going that route.

Just curious.

PS - I really love dry-transfer graphics and use them all the time. But, they are intended for things like lettering, logos, nose art, pin striping, etc. Not really to cover such broad areas that may introduce air pockets and gaps.


----------



## thw196 (May 16, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> Okay, I have to ask.
> 
> Why dry transfers for such large areas? Compound curves? Gaps, holes, grids, seams?
> 
> ...


 You're the better judge of than I. I'm not trying to be cute. All of you folks know your processes, etc. far better than I. I was just trying to throw some light on the Photoshop issue vs. vector-based.
Whatever method, every success


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Sorry, thw196.

My question was more about the start of the thread topic, itself.

Your opinion about the bitmap vs. vector graphic programs was right-on.

I was just curious as to why someone would want to attempt to cover such a large and complex object as the refit model with dry-transfer graphics, not in the value of dry-transfers themselves.

There are as many advantages to using dry-transfer graphics vs. water-slide decals as there are disadvantages. This particular application would seen to be at a disadvantage. Just wondering what the thought process was for deciding on this course to take. That's all.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

My most basic reason for this thread is that I believe I can get a lot higher level of detail with the transfers then via airbrushing. At least with my level of skill(haven't used mine in about 20+ years).

The tediousness of the process of cutting and placement is not a big deal to me, compared to not getting as detailed a finish.

I understand that many wouldn't think it worth the bother. And I'm sure there are many many people who could get excellent results with stencils and airbrushing.

Just trying to use a bit of technology to overcome a lack of practiced artistry on my part. While others might have the airbrushing skills to be satisfied with stencils and airbrushing. The way the dry decals *might(I have no way of knowing until I try it)* end up being more detailed then airbrushing is also part of the attraction of the process.

I'll readily admit I have no practical experience with what I'm talking about(As if that's not already blatantly clear :lol: . I've never tried anything but waterslide), but *if I screw up dry transfers or decide they are undoable* - no big deal. 

Just sand lightly and paint. If I screw the pooch on the paint job halfway through the stenciling, that's a little tougher to undo.

Anyhow, those are my reasons. I'll admit they aren't backed up by *any* practical experience with the dry transfers, but to boil it down they are:

1) because of the added detail possible,

and

2ndly) because of a lack of confidence in my airbrushing skills.



But again, let me stress that I'm only speaking for myself. I can see someone with great airbrush skills still going this route because they think the extra detail is worth it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^P.S. I'll still be airbrushing the base colors and clear coatings of course. But I should be able to handle that.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

thw196,

what about translucency?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Personally I will be doing the masking myself as I can't really afford the Vinyl ones that aren't accurate anyway. With the layouts provided in the Kit, masking it shouldn't be that big of a problem or take that long.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm hoping that I can go a little bit further then the gross Aztecing. Perhaps even down to the plate level.

Again, if it doesn't work, no big deal. I can always paint it after the attempt.

Just need some more info on translucency of the dry transfers.

I'm not sure what thw196 meant by the values having to be 100%, "Gradients" not working, and "broken-off pieces." Perhaps he meant each part had to be a single color value, maybe he was talking about translucency. It's pretty clear that he was saying that gradual weathering of seams wasn't possible, but I still don't know if he was commenting on translucency as well.


----------



## thw196 (May 16, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm hoping that I can go a little bit further then the gross Aztecing. Perhaps even down to the plate level.
> 
> Again, if it doesn't work, no big deal. I can always paint it after the attempt.
> 
> ...


 Using the process available at http://www.stc4color.com/ints.htm you get 100% coverage or none at all. The transfer itself is not translucent. You can weather, etc. using whatever technique after applying the transfer, but directly off the transfer sheet the transfer is not translucent. And, indded, each sheet is one color value.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks for the info, thw196.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Since no one seems to be making dry transfers I'll probably be trying my hand at it myself.

Right now I'm busy "shading" pieces of plain paper in order to get the 2D sections right...


----------

