80 replies to this topic

[Eshaver]

Looks super nice!!!! A VERY refreshing change from '64 Impalas and '65 GTO's that while OK, have become pretty boring, you have to admit. R?M and Moebius are bringing some long neglected and forgotten orphans into the fold and hopefully, they will all be well received and sell in huge quantities. Now how about a '58 Ford hardtop and convertible and a crisp new '66 Chrysler 300? Thank you Moebius..    

I can't add a thing to what Gary just said !

[Luc Janssens]

Think I'm gonna break my son's piggy bank

He's 5 what does he know LOL

 

Bad dad

Edited by Luc Janssens, 21 February 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[Rob Hall]

Definitely looking forward to this...'56 was the better looking of the two years, IMO..    as far as other years, I'd love to see a '60 and a '65 300...

 

Edited by Rob Hall, 21 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[Cesar Bossolani]

I can't waiting for get mine!

[carsntrucks4you]

Here the first pictures of Moebius new 1956 Chrysler 300B http://dmetzner.smug...04141&k=H6cSMBd

[Gluhead]

Thanks for posting the link, Michael. I can't wait for it to come out.

 

I'm curious about the roof in the test shot...it looks squashed in the front half. I know the '55 doesn't have that issue, so I'm hoping it's a fluke on this one. Otherwise, it looks fantastic.

[azers]

I want. Can't wait for this one.

[Harry P.]

Definitely looking forward to this...'56 was the better looking of the two years, IMO..    as far as other years, I'd love to see a '60 and a '65 300...

 

 

Dang! That is one beee-yoo-tiful car! 

[Brett Barrow]

Thanks for posting the link, Michael. I can't wait for it to come out.

 

I'm curious about the roof in the test shot...it looks squashed in the front half. I know the '55 doesn't have that issue, so I'm hoping it's a fluke on this one. Otherwise, it looks fantastic.

Nah, 55 has it too.  Only shows up in certain angles, like from a dead-on side profile. I don't think it detracts from the finished model too much.  Early mockups of the 55 were even worse, they got it better, but never got it perfect.

[Gluhead]

Yep, you're right. I went back and looked over the test shots for the '55 and it's on that one, too. I never noticed it on a build, so it'll probably be fine.

[niteowl7710]

For some reason (perhaps hobby black magik) the roof's taller in the back aspect is a great deal less notable in the kit when it's built than in raw styrene.

[Cato]

Dave,

A wonderful job of tooling and the test mock-up looks great. However, in the interest of constructive criticism, I'd like to raise a question.

 

To my eye, the front fender top seems to dive a bit to the headlamp. This begins at the leading edge of the front wheel well and the slope seems steeper than the black 1:1 car pictured in post #1. It may be placing the headlamp too low, crowding the parking light. Clearly seen on the conceptcarz.com web site, the white car featured makes this very apparent.

 

In contrast, the roof concern mentioned earlier does not strike me as a flaw.

 

Anyone else think this or am I off-base?

Edited by Cato, 02 March 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[Cato]

Hello-Dave?

Any comment to my observation?? ^^^

[Casey]

Dave,

A wonderful job of tooling and the test mock-up looks great. However, in the interest of constructive criticism, I'd like to raise a question.

 

To my eye, the front fender top seems to dive a bit to the headlamp. This begins at the leading edge of the front wheel well and the slope seems steeper than the black 1:1 car pictured in post #1. It may be placing the headlamp too low, crowding the parking light. Clearly seen on the conceptcarz.com web site, the white car featured makes this very apparent.

 

In contrast, the roof concern mentioned earlier does not strike me as a flaw.

 

Anyone else think this or am I off-base?

 

To be honest, when I look at the 'vert pic in post #11 I noticed the taper more than on the black car in post #1, and this is the same thing I discovered when I looked at the rear edge of the roof on real cars online, too. I couldn't find any images which would definitely confirm or refute the "correctness" of the roof, so I chalk it up to being gone of those very subtle things which can change in appearance depending upon the angle at which the car is viewed/photographed...and upon who is doing the viewing. 

[Harry P.]

ok... since Moebius actually does take feedback into consideration, here are my observations...

 

 

I lined up the model with the real car based on the wheelbase, and took several reference points off the real car and transferred those points up to the model via the red lines. When we line up the two cars by wheelbase, you can clearly see the differences between the model and the real car. On the model,

 

1. The front bumper and the headlight bezels stick out too far forward. On the real car, the distance between the vertical end of the front fender and the leading edge of the front wheelwell is much shorter.

2. The position of the A pillar looks good, and the vent window divider (the third line from the left) lines up perfectly.

3. However, you can see that the door is a bit too long on the model (fourth line from the left).

4. On the model, the intersection of the lower edge of the rear glass and the horizontal body surface happens at a point directly above the center of the rear wheel. On the real car, that intersection point happens much further back, almost in line with the rear of the rear tire.

5. The model's rear overhang is much too short, and the angle of the taillight/fin is too vertical... it should be slanted more.

 

To my eye, the single biggest mistake is #5... the sleekness of the real car is missing

[Casey]

What's really interesting is the difference in position between the tip of the right rear fin in both pics Harry posted. Not sure if this is due to perspective, scale, parallax view, or something else, but it's very noticeable. 

[Cato]

Well done Harry. A perfect visual analysis using graphic tools.

Strange if model companies don't analyze like this during the design phase.

We may have set the release date back a few months...

[Brett Barrow]

Well done Harry. A perfect visual analysis using graphic tools.

Strange if model companies don't analyze like this during the design phase.

We may have set the release date back a few months...

They don't do it this way.  You'd be constantly chasing your tail doing it this way.  You need to know specifics of how each photograph was shot, focal length of lens, distance from subject, point of focus, etc...   Then you need a way to replicate that same camera set up on the model and "scale" it down to 25th scale.  It's nearly impossible.  You need a set of orthographic photographs, or an orthographic drawing.  Something that is free from parallax (and our own eyes aren't even immune to parallax). About the only way to do it with one photograph is to get as far away from the subject as you can and shoot it with the longest camera lens you can, that makes about as distortion-free a photograph as you can make in a single exposure.  Orthographic photographs are done with a rig that keeps the camera's focal plane (the film or digital sensor) exactly square and equidistant from the subject and the camera's focal length and focus point are kept constant throughout the series of photographs.  You then move the camera into different positions, creating a distortion-free "mosaic" that you can then use to base measurements and make drawings from.  

 

Lost yet?  Here's a little primer that hopefully explains it better through photos than I can with words...  http://smallartworks...ints/Ortho.html

Edited by Brett Barrow, 05 March 2013 - 05:02 AM.

[Brett Barrow]

ok... since Moebius actually does take feedback into consideration, here are my observations...

 

 

I can tell from these two photographs that the front of the model is closer to the camera (this shot appears to be very close to square-on), while the rear of the real car is closer to the camera.  Any comparison is moot, these aren't anywhere close to being shot from the same perspective.  

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the model is correct.  These just aren't a good pair of photographs to use for comparison.  

Edited by Brett Barrow, 05 March 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Harry P.]

I can tell from these two photographs that the front of the model is closer to the camera (this shot appears to be very close to square-on), while the rear of the real car is closer to the camera.  Any comparison is moot, these aren't anywhere close to being shot from the same perspective.  

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the model is correct.  These just aren't a good pair of photographs to use for comparison.  

 

The point where the rear glass hits the body may be due to the photos, but regardless of the "correctness" of using the photos as a comparison, the fact that the model's headlight bezels stick out too far, the rear overhang is way too short, and the angle of the taillights/fins is off, is obvious.

 

Also, it's apparent that the C pillar on the model is too thin (distance between the side glass and the back glass).