anyone interested in high-res performance charts?

[buttman]

I'm in the process of vectorizing all the charts in the PA-28-161
Warrior III POH. I am mostly doing it to make it easier on me and my
students when reading them. The takeoff roll charts you almost need a
microscope to get an accurate reading, the lines are so close together.
I plan on doing all the ones in my Warrior III POH, then I'll plan on
doing the PA-34-200T manual I have, then hopefully if I can get my
hands on one, I'll do a Baron 55.

Anyways, is anyone else interested in these charts? Is there any other
service out there that does the same thing I'm doing? Here are a couple
examples of what I have so far:

http://isodrosotherm.info/5-19.pdf
http://isodrosotherm.info/6-13.pdf

If anyone has a POH with hard to read charts, and they'd like me to
vectorize them, fell free to contact me with some scans.

[Stubby]

The charts look very nice. Do you reenter them? They are too good to
have been scanned in. I'm always interested in the Warrior II and
C-172. W&B charts are most important. Thanks.

buttman wrote:
> I'm in the process of vectorizing all the charts in the PA-28-161
> Warrior III POH. I am mostly doing it to make it easier on me and my
> students when reading them. The takeoff roll charts you almost need a
> microscope to get an accurate reading, the lines are so close together.
> I plan on doing all the ones in my Warrior III POH, then I'll plan on
> doing the PA-34-200T manual I have, then hopefully if I can get my
> hands on one, I'll do a Baron 55.
>
> Anyways, is anyone else interested in these charts? Is there any other
> service out there that does the same thing I'm doing? Here are a couple
> examples of what I have so far:
>
> http://isodrosotherm.info/5-19.pdf
> http://isodrosotherm.info/6-13.pdf
>
> If anyone has a POH with hard to read charts, and they'd like me to
> vectorize them, fell free to contact me with some scans.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> The charts look very nice. Do you reenter them? They are too good to
> have been scanned in. I'm always interested in the Warrior II and C-172.
> W&B charts are most important. Thanks.

"Vectorizing" means that he is taking the original charts and essentially
redrawing them, using a vector-based description (that is, rather than
drawing the charts in a manner similar to painting or printing, the charts
are described as lines from one point to another).

Google "raster versus vector" for more info. The bottom line is that the
resolution of the displayed chart is matched to whatever medium they are
being displayed on. Only the endpoints of each line used to describe the
chart are stored (ie vector data), and during display the actual raster data
required to show the charts on the chosen medium (computer screen, printed
page, etc) is derived from that vector data to match the resolution of the
raster device being used.

So, yes...they are necessarily "reentered" and not scanned (that is, they
may have been scanned as part of the vectorization process, but the end
result you're seeing is not the scan itself).

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

You can work from FAA data, it is public. But you can't
legally copy a manufacturers pages, that is copyrighted.
Also be sure you put make/model and serial number ranges on
the product. Remember you to can be sued if somebody uses
your product and is injured. Talk to your lawyer and
insurance man.

That said, those charts are for speed and convenience, they
are created from mathematical data points by teams of
engineers. That's why you see terms such as "straight line
variation between point" on so many charts.

Even more than that said; as the end user you can scan at
1200 dpi, the charts from you own airplane and they will
print out very big and easy to read.

Good luck, BTW, when I use a performance chart, I always
take the least favorable number if it is too close to call.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Stubby" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > The charts look very nice. Do you reenter them? They
are too good to
| > have been scanned in. I'm always interested in the
Warrior II and C-172.
| > W&B charts are most important. Thanks.
|
| "Vectorizing" means that he is taking the original charts
and essentially
| redrawing them, using a vector-based description (that is,
rather than
| drawing the charts in a manner similar to painting or
printing, the charts
| are described as lines from one point to another).
|
| Google "raster versus vector" for more info. The bottom
line is that the
| resolution of the displayed chart is matched to whatever
medium they are
| being displayed on. Only the endpoints of each line used
to describe the
| chart are stored (ie vector data), and during display the
actual raster data
| required to show the charts on the chosen medium (computer
screen, printed
| page, etc) is derived from that vector data to match the
resolution of the
| raster device being used.
|
| So, yes...they are necessarily "reentered" and not scanned
(that is, they
| may have been scanned as part of the vectorization
process, but the end
| result you're seeing is not the scan itself).
|
| Pete
|
|

[buttman]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You can work from FAA data, it is public. But you can't
> legally copy a manufacturers pages, that is copyrighted.
> Also be sure you put make/model and serial number ranges on
> the product. Remember you to can be sued if somebody uses
> your product and is injured. Talk to your lawyer and
> insurance man.
>
> That said, those charts are for speed and convenience, they
> are created from mathematical data points by teams of
> engineers. That's why you see terms such as "straight line
> variation between point" on so many charts.
>
> Even more than that said; as the end user you can scan at
> 1200 dpi, the charts from you own airplane and they will
> print out very big and easy to read.
>
> Good luck, BTW, when I use a performance chart, I always
> take the least favorable number if it is too close to call.

Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.

[Jim Macklin]

Still you'll be advise to have a prominent disclaimer, even
if your rendition is perfect, you could be sued.



"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > You can work from FAA data, it is public. But you can't
| > legally copy a manufacturers pages, that is copyrighted.
| > Also be sure you put make/model and serial number ranges
on
| > the product. Remember you to can be sued if somebody
uses
| > your product and is injured. Talk to your lawyer and
| > insurance man.
| >
| > That said, those charts are for speed and convenience,
they
| > are created from mathematical data points by teams of
| > engineers. That's why you see terms such as "straight
line
| > variation between point" on so many charts.
| >
| > Even more than that said; as the end user you can scan
at
| > 1200 dpi, the charts from you own airplane and they will
| > print out very big and easy to read.
| >
| > Good luck, BTW, when I use a performance chart, I
always
| > take the least favorable number if it is too close to
call.
|
| Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1
hour each to
| do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website
for all to use.
|

[john smith]

> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.

What software/hardware do you use to vectorize the images?

[buttman]

john smith wrote:
> > Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
> > do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.
>
> What software/hardware do you use to vectorize the images?

First, I scan the charts with my scanner from the POH. Then I open the
charts in an image editing program (I use Adobe Photoshop), and rotate
the image so the axes are straight. Then I open the file in Adobe
Illustrator and just use the pen tool to trace over the lines. The
hardest part is making the grid, since the lines aren't perfectly
parallel with each other (I have to do each one individually). All in
all, it takes anywhere from 1 to 2 hours to make a single chart. It's
something I do while I'm at my computer listening to music.

Unfortunately, Illustrator costs like 500$, so unless you have money to
burn, or have other uses for the program, it's not cost effective.
There may be free alternatives to Illustrator, but Illustrator is the
industry standard.

[Peter Duniho]

"buttman" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> [...]
> Unfortunately, Illustrator costs like 500$, so unless you have money to
> burn, or have other uses for the program, it's not cost effective.
> There may be free alternatives to Illustrator, but Illustrator is the
> industry standard.

Well, Photoshop has a line/pen tool as well, as does its little sibling
Photoshop Elements. You can get Elements for under $100 (assuming it wasn't
included in some other bundle one has already purchased...that happens a
fair amount).

Illustrator has lots of great, fancy vector-type tools, but for something
like this they probably aren't needed. Of course, if you already happen to
have Illustrator, I guess that's the way to go. :)

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

buttman wrote:

>
> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.
>

Selling isn't an issue. Copying is.

[Stubby]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> buttman wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
>> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.
>>
>
> Selling isn't an issue. Copying is.
>
They are new creations, not copies.

[Ron Natalie]

Stubby wrote:
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
>>> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.
>>>
>>
>> Selling isn't an issue. Copying is.
>>
> They are new creations, not copies.

No, they are derived works. Tracing over them in photoshop
isn't any more legal that dropping them directly in the old
Xerox.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> No, they are derived works. Tracing over them in photoshop
> isn't any more legal that dropping them directly in the old
> Xerox.


Is everybody here a lawyer? Just curious.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Stubby]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Stubby wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>> buttman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
>>>> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to
>>>> use.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Selling isn't an issue. Copying is.
>>>
>> They are new creations, not copies.
>
> No, they are derived works. Tracing over them in photoshop
> isn't any more legal that dropping them directly in the old
> Xerox.

I believe I could recreate the graphs from memory. Is that copying?
Where is the line between derivative works and original works?

[Jim Macklin]

You trace the copyrighted chart, that is copying.

If you make an error in your tracing, you become liable for
any accident.


"Stubby" > wrote in
message . ..
|
|
| Ron Natalie wrote:
| > buttman wrote:
| >
| >>
| >> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe
1 hour each to
| >> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my
website for all to use.
| >>
| >
| > Selling isn't an issue. Copying is.
| >
| They are new creations, not copies.

[Jim Macklin]

I'm not a lawyer, but we all ate at a Holiday Inn Express.



"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| Ron Natalie wrote:
| > No, they are derived works. Tracing over them in
photoshop
| > isn't any more legal that dropping them directly in the
old
| > Xerox.
|
|
| Is everybody here a lawyer? Just curious.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

[PPL-A (Canada)]

buttman wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > You can work from FAA data, it is public. But you can't
> > legally copy a manufacturers pages, that is copyrighted.
> > Also be sure you put make/model and serial number ranges on
> > the product. Remember you to can be sued if somebody uses
> > your product and is injured. Talk to your lawyer and
> > insurance man.
> >
> > That said, those charts are for speed and convenience, they
> > are created from mathematical data points by teams of
> > engineers. That's why you see terms such as "straight line
> > variation between point" on so many charts.
> >
> > Even more than that said; as the end user you can scan at
> > 1200 dpi, the charts from you own airplane and they will
> > print out very big and easy to read.
> >
> > Good luck, BTW, when I use a performance chart, I always
> > take the least favorable number if it is too close to call.
>
> Oh, I'm not planning on selling these. They take maybe 1 hour each to
> do. I was just planning on putting them up on my website for all to use.


Selling your reproductions insn't the point. Copying them is.

You are infringing on the copyright of the copyright owner as soon as
you reproduce them by any means. I don't believe you can dance around
the issue by refering to the means by which the copies were made.

Making the reproductions public is a worse offence, as you become more
visibly subject to legal action for damages and or loss of income.

The only exception is for product review, a principle which is called
"fair-comment" and allows limited reproduction of copyright material
for the purpose of reviewing the work in question ... typically in the
media. Fair-comment wouldn't apply in your case.

I would't even want to speculate about the liability that you would be
exposing yourself to by proposing that people use your reproductions.
You could make an error, after all.

I suggest you contact the aircraft manufacturer and try to get
permission from them, or try to sell your charts to them.

Otherwise ... keep 'em to yourself. And as you know, technically it's
not legal to use anything other than the actual POH of the aircraft in
its operation.

I came by some of this knowledge the hard way - I had to hire a
copyright and intellectual property attorney to pursue a (bad) client
that illegally used one of my photographs for profit to promote a
professional trade conference. I learned a lot in the process about
copyright and misappropriation of personality and/or image (the model
in the photograph hadn't released the rights to reproduce her image
either to promote the trade show).

Best of luck

PPL-A (Canada)