It's funny that I get all this resistance towards looking out. If you don't think I am correct. Perhaps you would take this advice from Airbus instead:
A320 FCTM
Takeoff:
Rotation is conventional. The PF must perform the rotation mainly head-up, using outside visual reference until airborne, or at least until visual cues are lost, depending on visibility conditions. The PF must then (*after airborne*) monitor the pitch attitude on the PFD.
This is the advice of the most computerised aircraft manufacturer. Boeing doesn't write it as explicit. Note Airbus' use of the word
conventional. It keep me wondering that people resist doing a rotation visually. Hence, why I brought it up in this landing thread, because it's an unfortunate trend that people doesn't trust their vision anymore, because they are afraid it's less accurate than instruments. Hence, they make poor landings, because they use a wrong technique (looking inside instead of outside)...
As long as visual reference is available, your eyes are the most finely tuned instruments in the cockpit! 
It was already discussed intensively in the following thread (I repost one of my replies):
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/22385...tations-2.html
I have in other recent threads been advocated strongly that people look out the window when completing the final part of the approach. By that I mean stop looking at the instruments (except for airspeed) and maintain lateral and vertical path by looking at the touchdown point at below 300 feet latest (weather dependent of course).
Apparently, the need to look out the window needs to be emphasized when it comes to takeoff as well.
When PM calls V1, I have a confirming look myself and thereafter
only look out the window until established in the climb, completing the takeoff by going back to the instruments and adjusting pitch to maintain V2+20.
By looking out you have a complete feel for how the aircraft is reacting to the rotation and adjustment is then much easier. Plus it makes spotting drift and maintaining centerline much easier as well (from lining up behind departing aircrafts apparently a discipline that few care about in these days). The feel for the right rate is much easier to spot in a real 3 dimensional world, than on a 2D instrument.
To look out the window you have to be seated properly at the designed eye reference position. All too many are seated completely wrong, too low and too leaned back (but I guess they think this increases the coolness factor
).
You don't loose outside reference until long after airborne if you are seated correctly.
Cosmo Kramer: During the takeoff rotation phase once sight of the runway is obscured by the coming of the cockpit can you explain why it is better to stare at the blank sky and not bother to check the progression of the rotation attitude with a view to ensuring that a tail scrape attitude is not achieved until after lift off? This is a particular concern on 4 eng./ long bodied aircraft which do not "leap" off the ground like most twins.
You don't need to see the runway itself, you need to have outside reference. Do you think looking at the runway (long ahead of the aircraft), will help you know how close your tail is?
It's like with flare, you don't need to look at where you want to touchdown (you look at the end of the runway).
For rotation, all you need is a combination of lateral reference and peripheral vision. Peripheral vision does wonders in judging a rate. If you keep the correct rate, your don't have to worry about tail strike, because you performance calculations take care of that for you:
When a smooth continuous rotation is initiated at VR, tail clearance margin is assured because computed takeoff speeds depicted in the PI chapter of the FCOM, airport analysis, or FMC, are developed to provide adequate tail clearance.
Otherwise, see my replies to Dani in the mentioned thread.
RAT5:
Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required
Please enlighten us.
It needs experience, hence commanders takeoff only. The experience that you have done countless rotations previously, and that you know exactly how the rotation is supposed to feel. That combined with an early transition to instruments, which is then less likely to be screwed up because of said experience. Watching the PFD at from 0 feet is not what I would recommend. The aircraft is still on the runway and you wan't to keep a good look at those center line lights for as long as possible. Once those center line lights are lost, you obviously switch to the PFD - when that happens (which it won't until well into the rotation) you should already have a smooth rate established, that you can safely continue to pull.
Not to derail the subject, perhaps it is better to continue rotation technique in that thread? Since most of the questions have already been asked and answered there.