'Animated GIF' to compare two models

[robdebie]

While making kit reviews, I noted that it can be very useful to compare two different kits of one subject. You will spot the differences between the models, and then check which manufacturer got it right. It works even better if you can photograph the models in exactly the same position. I did that with the AMT and MPC 1971-1973 Mustangs some time ago. It requires careful work to put the bodies in the same spot, but you can make small corrections in the image software (Photoshop etc).

But only a few days ago I got the idea (from a friend) to make an animated GIF from each set of photos. And it works really well I think: if you study the alternating photos for a while, you'll see more and more differences.

Just in this view, I noted the following differences, with AMT in white and MPC in tan:

• the AMT windscreen is angled slightly steeper, and slightly longer at the top
• the AMT A-pillar is thinner and more accurate, and has a slight curve
• the upper edge of the AMT door opening is positioned 2 mm higher than the upper edge of the windscreen, on the MPC model this is around 1 mm. MPC is more correct in that respect
• AMT's side window is about a millimeter taller at the rear
• AMT molded the NACA ducts in the hood 2.5 mm further back, and they are shallower and closed. I measured some distances in a photo, and found that the front edge of the NACA openings are at 33.0% of the local hood length. The length of the inlet piece is 2.75% of the local hood length. That shows that the MPC inlets are 2.5 mm to far forward, and the AMT nearly spot-on (0.5 mm to far forward).
• AMT's fold in the sides is more restrained than on the MPC model, and faired in the sheet metal with a radius. The MPC has sharp folds, and that's what the real car shows
• the AMT fender flares are also faired in with a radius, but it should be more of a fold like the MPC model
• AMT has raised trim strips on the lower body, MPC forgot them. The Mach 1 version had them to cover the factory paint break (earlier I reported the opposite)
• the 'Mach 1 Mustang' logos the front fenders are molded raised on the AMT, whereas it is a sticker in reality on the 1971 and 1972 Mach 1 cars. Most other Mustang models have a raised 'Mustang' script, as does the 1973 Mach 1
• the AMT grille and headlight area is modeled differently, likely more correct than on the MPC model
• the AMT hood has no vent slots near the windscreen, which is correct

Here are three more, but I won't list the differences, see: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/mustang.htm

 

 

I'm curious what you all think of this method.

Rob

[Mike 1017]

This is great. IMO you need more time between pictures to study each one before it switches. It is just to fast for me. Looking forward to more comparisons  

Mike

 

[afx]

This is a great way to compare/contrast the subjects.  I agree the switching is too fast.  Can it be made manual to switch back and forth when you click on it?

Edited March 22, 2022 by afx

[Bainford]

Yeah, neat stuff indeed. It would be interesting to see other comparisons. I can think of quite a few off the top of my head. Nice work here, this is really cool. 

[peteski]

That's pretty clever Rob.  But I'm curious how long did it take you to physically align the models perfectly.  How many tries?  Or did you do the aligning in your image editing  program?  I also assume you used a tripod mounted camera.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Great technique, most useful.   

I find the change speed to be just right for carefully comparing specific areas, one at a time.

But it still boggles my mind that "professional" adults can measure the same thing and get different results.  

[Bills72sj]

That is a very cool technique for comparison! I am building two twin semi rigs with subtle differences. I would really like to try to duplicate your efforts when they are complete.

[Bugatti Fan]

Interesting technique for comparing.

A thread with a dossier of these would need to be made up with captions about what one is more accurate to be useful to would be kit buyers. Mind you, if you have already invested in a kit and it looks about right, this becomes a bit academic really.

Bill has made a good point about how differences in the measurement process of a prototype can vary from one manufacturer to another. Back when photography and tape measurement were the norm, I guess this is where discrepancies creep in. For example if an angle of a windshield was taken and about one of two degrees out it can make a lot of difference by having a knock on effect on the roof line and pillars on a model body. These days with laser scanning technology this should not happen in theory. But I have seen an odd review criticising something on a modern kit being wrong about a body, so who knows? Maybe an odd compromise has to be made to suit manufacturing, but with modern moulding technology I would imagine this should  not be so in theory.

If you have a kit, just build it and enjoy it if it looks about right.

[robdebie]

Thanks for all your comments. I made a slow version of the first picture, to see if that suits you guys better.

AFAIK, there is no way to make the GIF's speed variable. You can download the file and use graphics software to change it, or run it through one of many online speed converters.

The photos were indeed taken with a tripod. Once I photographed the first model, I put some heavy objects as stops against the body, then switched bodies while using the stops to position the body, then removed the stops, lastly made the second photo. I did some  fine-tuning of the exact positioning in graphics software. But all in all it's not too much work.

Rob

[robdebie]

BTW, I also made an animated GIF of the box art of the Matchbox 1/72 MiG-21PF, when I found a photo that must have been the inspiration for the box art artist:

He changed the pitot tube, the canopy and the spine to make it a PF version. He added a parachute to make it more dynamic, but you can see this is from his own imagination, since he attached the parachute to the bottom of the fuselage, whereas it should attach to the base of the fin. Also, the centerline tank, that he also added, has fins that look rather crooked, since he had to sketch them free-hand. The tank appears to be yawed to the right too, now that I look at it closer.

Rob

 

 

 

[Mike 1017]

  On 3/23/2022 at 3:48 PM, robdebie said:

Thanks for all your comments. I made a slow version of the first picture, to see if that suits you guys better.

AFAIK, there is no way to make the GIF's speed variable. You can download the file and use graphics software to change it, or run it through one of many online speed converters.

The photos were indeed taken with a tripod. Once I photographed the first model, I put some heavy objects as stops against the body, then switched bodies while using the stops to position the body, then removed the stops, lastly made the second photo. I did some  fine-tuning of the exact positioning in graphics software. But all in all it's not too much work.

Rob

Expand  

This much better

Thanks

Rob