Moebius 1961 Pontiac news

[MrObsessive]

Sigh........the more I see of the test shot, the more I see that needs to be fixed. Thankfully, there's time to get it right------I hope!

[Harry P.]

The photo comparison is neat....but I don't think it is accurate enough to draw hard conclusions.

I disagree. But it's very easy to check out by measuring the model vs. the real car.

[Luc Janssens]

Question for the model kit engineers on board, would it be helpful in kit design, using a wire mesh panel (painted black for a light car, white or yellow for a dark one) when shooting a body of a vintage car.

Or would it interfere with the camera lens, just wondering...

Edit;

The wire mesh panel can be custom made in aluminum and coated with some sort of soft plastic, so one can't damage the vehicle, one is getting data from.

or

Edited October 5, 2014 by Luc Janssens

[Junkman]

Hard or soft evidence or none at all, the rear deck/overhang of the Moebius appears too long and I see this without any comparison photos.

Also,the beltline kickup is too far forward. It starts half a foot aft of the door on the real car and immediately behind the door on the model.

Can this be corrected? Wouldn't the necessary alterations to the tool be too severe?

The other inaccuracies Harry and Bill pointed out I wouldn't even have noticed, but it looks to me like both gents are right (well spotted!).

This is Ertl's 1/18 diecast effort for comparison:

The rear overhang length appears to be correct, whether it is or not. The rear window reaches behind the rear wheel centre line.

But the belt line kickup is also too far forward and let's agree not to talk about the C-pillar treatment, which is already way better on the Moebius as is.

What about the distance between the bonnet (sorry, hood) and the windscreen (sorry, windshield)?

Certainly too big on the Ertl, but I'm not sure whether I'm entirely happy in this respect with the Moebius either.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Junkman

[Dave Metzner]

How much too long is the rear overhang??? Can we find more dissimilar photos to compare the test shot to?

What would be enough evidence that the test shot is not terribly out of proportion?

are there minor details to clean up - yes there are - is the roof too short - not according to my information regarding these cars - is the overhang too long - I can't seem to see it..

Do I have the test shot to measure - you bet, I do..

Is the length of the 61 the same as the 62 - 62 is 211.6 inches 61 is 210 - less the 2mm @ 1/25 difference - ( that 1.6 inches is in the front bumper of the 62 if you need to know)

Is the wheelbase different between 1961 & 1962 NOPE no difference -

I may not be a professional photographer, but I do know that focal length of lens, and angle of a photograph has a tremendous effect on the proportions of the object being photographed..

comparisons of real car photos against photos of models are rarely valid comparisons! The photo of our test shot has been taken with a fairly short lens - I'd guess somewhere between 55 and 70mm while the photos of the real cars were probably made with longer lenses - probably 110mm or longer - the short lens being a wider angle lens produces more distortion than the longer lens.

Here are shots of two similar bodies shot at the same angle with the same lens - now tell me that the rear overhang is too long again.

Now, let me fix what I can, and see what the finished product looks like in a few months!

I'm done here, for now

Edited October 5, 2014 by Dave Metzner

[John Goschke]

There we go! Those're the shots we needed! Looks great, Dave!

Please take a well-deserved rest from the carping from us Nervous Nellies of the modeling community!

[unclescott58]

Dave is right about focal lengths of lens changing things. It my younger days, before college I worked for two different local camera shops. First Brown Photo. Then West Photo. I sold everything from Kodak Instamatics to Hasselblads. A lots of Nikon F-3s. The favorite 35mm camera of professional photographers at the time. Look at the difference in length, in the photo everybody's been using for comparison, of the model's two rear fenders. This photo was taken with a fairly wide angle lens. This type of lens will give a distorted image. I think Dave's photo comparison between the two Pontiac models is much better for passing true judgements on the new kit. And sorry to say Dave...... Just kidding, Dave I think it looks great.

Scott

[charlie8575]

At Classic Plastic, Art brought the Ventura samples.

Aside from the kick-up, the body looked very well-proportioned to me.

The wheels were decent, I wasn't quite sure about the spacing, but once assembled, I think they'll look good.

Overall, from what I saw, I was quite impressed and I'm looking froward to this one.

I also grabbed a Parts-Pack 421 to cast the Hydra-Matic off of so I can build my car as an automatic.

Charlie Larkin

[Darin Bastedo]

Here's another side-by-side with a different shot of the real car.

As you can see, I have again lined up the cars by wheelbase. Note that the wheel openings match almost perfectly, and they are shaped correctly, so no problem there. Front overhang looks right on target. But again, you can see that the rear end of the model looks quite a bit too long, and I see that same discrepancy where the lower edge of the rear glass meets the body. That happens behind the center of the rear wheel on the real car, but ahead of the center of the rear wheel on the model.

Not trying to be a jerk here,,, just trying to present visual evidence to back up some of the opinions that have been posted.

You cannot compare photos of a 20' car and 200mm model kit and expect accurate results. The lens distortion effect are not the same in both pictures. just look at the apparent position of the driver's side vent window. Are we to assume from this photo that Moebius made the driver's door too short? Look at how much shorter the drivers side of the car appears in the model rather than the shot of the real car. The depth of field in the model shot is much shorter making the forward part of the model appear much longer than it is, I will wait for the actual plastic to reach my hands and base my review on actual measurements.

[Bob Ellis]

Comparing the two models with the same lens makes sense.

Both Catalinas look the same length to me. I guess the 62 is the ERTL recent?

I think Dave's model looks great. The only thing I see is that little flip up at the rear side window to the roof bottom (C post). I could fix that while building the model, but if Dave can fix it, all the better.

I would like to buy a few of these 61s for myself. Great work Dave.

[Brett Barrow]

I'll just leave these here, without comment. Top pair are two real cars showing distortion when shot at slightly different camera positions, bottom pair is the model and real car shot at nearly identical camera positions.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Brett Barrow

[Matt T.]

Gerry, will you post more pictures if others promise to not draw lines over them and plot points to incongruent 1:1 pics?

Please?

[Dave Metzner]

Thank you unclescott58, Daren Bastedo & Brett Barrow!

Yes, Bob, the white body on the bottom in my photos is an AMT 62 Catalina - which happens to have the correct dimensions for the 1962 body and chassis.

Guess that a bit of calm has been restored here for now..

Started working on revisions to the test shot today - mostly stuff like locator pins and holes that need to be revised - a couple of missing parts to be added - like the starter that somehow, got overlooked...

Will try to get 8 Lugs fixed as well as details of C pillar and kick up in body line behind door opening..

Hope to have all the work done on this set of test shots in a couple more days. I plan to have all the notes off to the factory by Wednesday or Thursday..

Then we wait for the second test shot!

[impcon]

Dave, I just want to say a sincere, heartfelt thank you for the extra effort that puts your company heads and shoulders above the competition. I see that you have a sincere heart and want to listen and do your absolute best to make your quality product that is as accurate as possible. Simply put, thank you. The world would be a much better place if more manufacturers of everything cared even a fraction as much as it is obvious that you do. Again, a simple, but very sincere thank you for caring enough to listen and to try harder. This should be one stunning kit when it comes out and I suggest, worth the wait.

[mike 51]

I couldn't be happier to hear our concerns about the body proportions were unfounded....looking forward to building this Pontiac.

Thanks for the followup Dave

[Danno]

Dave, I just want to say a sincere, heartfelt thank you for the extra effort that puts your company heads and shoulders above the competition. I see that you have a sincere heart and want to listen and do your absolute best to make your quality product that is as accurate as possible. Simply put, thank you. The world would be a much better place if more manufacturers of everything cared even a fraction as much as it is obvious that you do. Again, a simple, but very sincere thank you for caring enough to listen and to try harder. This should be one stunning kit when it comes out and I suggest, worth the wait.

x2.

Thanks, Dave!

[Exotics_Builder]

Gerry, will you post more pictures if others promise to not draw lines over them and plot points to incongruent 1:1 pics?

Please?

Let me try this one more time.

Photos of built models are for information purposes only. These were not photographed for review or accuracy analysis. Per the manufacturer, in many cases review models are composites of multiple test shots and may show issues already being addressed, such as the cab of the 1971 Ford Long-Bed or windshield wipers on the Ventura.

Photos were shot with zoom lens in the 45-55 mm focal length and with auto-aperture and auto-ISO. This is to allow for the dynamics in a show environment where there is no stationary booth for photography. In an effort to reduce distortion, most shots were done at distances between 1-2 feet from the subject and the image cropped. Some close-ups were done at higher zoom.

[mike 51]

Everything looks great...Thanks for the updates Gerry

[Danno]

SWEEEET!!

[MrObsessive]

Not much of A Hudson guy, but I DO like that black and white one!

[Harry P.]

Hey, if Dave says the model is correct, then that's great. If I was wrong, I was wrong. But like I said before, the time to hash this stuff out is now, not after the kit is in production.

Thanks to Dave and Moebius for taking an active part in this thread. It's more than some other manufacturers would do.

[rasafyff]

Is the Ventura going to have this factory tach?

That clear steering would be cool too.

[Harry P.]

Brett, I assume you posted your photo comparisons to show that mine is invalid. Fair enough. You may be correct. But just for fun, I added a few lines to your "legitimate" photo comparison. Just for fun...

A. The point where the bottom of the rear glass meets the sheetmetal.

B. The corner of the rear glass.

C. The point where the roof meets the top of the rear glass.

D. The point where the roof meets the top of the windshield.

E. The front edge of the door.

It looks like points A through D would line up if the greenhouse on the model was moved back. But I may be way off base.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

No, Harry, you're not.

[Phantomphan]

Greetings everyone! Thanks for the heads up, Luc!

The grating idea is a good one. However, I doubt highly any car owner would allow the grates to be near their car. When I was gathering info for projects, some owners would barely even allow me to even touch a car. One owner about panicked when I reached for the door handle. He insisted on opening the door himself via an old, clean, diaper cloth. When we worked on the Edsel, the owner opened his shop door, gave us the keys and said, "Be careful and call me if you need anything."

Lenses, camera and distances from subject all make a difference in results. I learned that the flattest photograph you can make, the better. We had a couple tool models arrive with perspective modeled in. Even after dimensions were given. There is also another factor here. The artists eye. What looks "right" to one person could look off to someone else. The best anyone can do is take your best shot at creation with all the information you gathered. When the steel is cut, it's tough to fix the problem. Sometimes the only option is to start over. On a car body, that gets expensive.

In regards to the AMT Catalina, Mueller and I spent 1-2 days photographing and measuring a Swiss cheese car in Illinois. I'm certain it's accurate.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Phantomphan