Jump to content

Fiat 806 -"Gangshow"- build album.


Recommended Posts

Dear Olivier and all,who are interested  in this Topic.I finally found the reason for our misunderstanding.Olivier believes, that those blueprints Show the reality.They don´t regarding the grills view.The real reason,why you are sceptical,lies within an Information,that you  probably don´t have.

If you look to page 1 of this thread there´s apicture showing the start of the Monza race by PTcruiser.This Picture is very blurred compared to the one I own.It is on the backside of my Protar´s instruction booklet.

On this Picture you can clearly see the shape of the grill.

On ptcruiser`s Picture it´s not possible !

I don´t see any reason´not to believe,that this Information lies within a twisting camera. all the other cars and persons Show correct sizes.

Sorry, Olivier for our misunderstanding,I thought, you were meaning the photo of the start when saying it´s the only frontal one.The only real frontal on is this one ,I am talking about.

So please try to find a sharper Picture in the net.If you cant´t find one,I´ll send you my own picture.IÍt clearly Shows the whole shape of the grill and it´s case.

All the best for you all! Hannes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wRWoay.png

 

Dear Hannes,

the photo you mention on p.1 is so blurred that I even can't recognize the Fiat on it. Please post yours if it is much better, so that we can analyze it.

Looking for this picture, I fell on another one, posted by Rich too on 29/12: the start of the race. If I refer to this picture, 7G is correct, not too short. and this is confirmed by Bruno Betti's drawing and the plans of the car at the end the instructions sheet. The proportions of 7G are different from the picture VT posted on the same day (29/12) on p. 2.

Definitely, I will not make any change on this part 7G, it's a good new because it made things complicated...

 

Best regards

 

P.S: when I made comments on the photo (in red), I had not yet seen that this reality (7G is right) was confirmed by B.B drawing and the plans of the car. So I said "aux autres documents". Now, I would say "à d'autres documents" (to other documents)

Edited by Olivier de St Raph
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlD7KC.jpg

 

Hello chaps,

take care with this 16th step, it is really uneasy to do alone. I did it like that, but if you can be helped, it will be better. Take time to study the instructions and understand them well. I renonced to put the 02 screws across 121D, it is nearly impossible with the distributors in the middle. I cut the screw and cemented it with the nut on top of 124D. I recommend to cement also 11B bottom on the engine before threading the 08 screw. The steering column is very close from the brake pedal, I suppose it was not exactly like this because I wonder how the pilot could use the pedal in such conditions.

All the best

Olivier

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I can help a bit here. It's time for me to do something back to the forum that I've learned so much from.

 

First let's make an overview of all photographs and drawings found in this thread:

 

DRAWING 1

Fiat-1927-806-d2_zpswfaffmfx.jpg

(found here)

 

DRAWING 2

29644179413_74e034257f_c.jpg

(found here)

 

DRAWING 3

oaaLPi.png

(found here)

 

PHOTO 1

fiat806a.jpg

(found here)

 

PHOTO 2

fiat_806_corsa_1_zpsiauufiey.jpg

(found here

 

PHOTO 3

fiat_806worksopt-a_zpsevkegvc3.jpg

(found here)

 

PHOTO 4

prewar-racing-197.jpg_1927_milan_gp_monz

(found here)

 

PHOTO 5

Fiat%20806-406099_zpsvz5k7gpf.jpg

Bordini0001.jpg

(found here and here)

 

PHOTO 6

Bordino08_zpsuzizn9v2.jpg

(found here

 

PHOTO 7

Pietro_Bordino_at_the_1927_Milan_Grand_P

(found here

 

PHOTO 8

20161016_135455_zpsk70qjxu9.jpg

(found here

 

Pictures of Protar's model with the 'correct' wheels:

 

SHummel_C3516102618551_zpsgeevqliv.jpg

SHummel_C3516102618570_zps3hmzvtqw.jpg

SHummel_C3516102618561_zps9cisomkc.jpg

(found here)

 

SHummel_C3516103014020_zpssmqbac1s.jpg

(found here)

 

Then there's @vontrips' overlayed photo.

 

IMAG4258_zpssqqrteqi.jpg

(found here)

 

I recommend you guys to take a look at this magnificent thread on photogrammetry written by Witold Jaworski on this forum. The thread was recommended to me by NickD, who also knows how to do this. Witold explains how best to take measurements of photographs and how to correct lens distortion. 

 

Unfortunately I don't have time to dive into this too deep, as I'm currently busy on my own photogrammetry (see for example here on how this can be implemented on a car model) but I'll give you a few thoughts that arise in my still subject-inexperienced mind.

 

1. First I rotated drawing 2 so that it becomes perfectly horizontal. They were both a bit off. 

 

2. The wheel in drawing 1 was not perfectly round, so I scaled the picture height only. The wheel in drawing 2 is almost perfectly round, should be a bit sheared. Here the difference before and after the correction of drawing 1:

30517608430_c1a8fd934f_b.jpg

 

3. I added a bottom line to drawing 1.

 

4. Then I overlayed corrected drawing 1 and 2, using the wheelbase as matching point. 

 

30186748714_b20df4c0d1_b.jpg

 

Clearly there are major differences. Using the wheelbase as criterium, drawing 2 is too small compared to drawing 1: the car is longer according to drawing 1.  Also the wheels would be too small. So I think (and already thought) that the wheelbase in drawing 2 is too short. More striking differences to be found already, but let's assume the length of the car in both drawings should be equal. 

 

I thereafter overlayed both drawings using length as a matcher:

 

30730493491_5a83444546_b.jpg

 

Now the difference in wheel size is small, which is good. 

 

5. The differences between the drawings are apparent. In the front section it is clear that the bonnet is lower on drawing 2, like @vontrips noted before. 

 

30818772085_76b9e418a9_b.jpg

 

In the middle section, the windscreen in drawing 2 is much higher than in drawing 1.

 

30730671401_9cd947dbfc_b.jpg

 

The aft section shows a completely different shape. Also the wheel is in another place. 

 

30183788993_793d4cbac0_b.jpg

 

Now what's my theory and based on what? 

 

My theory is that drawing 2 is the more accurate of the two. That was my first impression upon comparing both drawings with the photos. But I am an academically educated guy so I am always looking for proof. Also I'm a criminal defense lawyer so I'm always looking to defend 'the usual suspect'. In this case, the usual suspect is drawing 1. To go on about my theory, I think that Protar used drawing 1. They might have even used the same, vertically distorted, drawing as shown above. Before correction, the hood is even higher. So if drawing 1 is incorrect, and if Protar used the distorted image, the hood was made too high for two completely different reasons. 

 

When I study the photographs it strikes me that the height of the front wheels (at their horizontal center) is almost the same as the height of the radiator housing. There's a height difference that's about 40% the height of the vertical radiator ornament (probably a thermometer or something... let's just call it an ornament for now).

 

6. See here a couple of rotated and guidelines-applied pictures. The guidelines indicate the difference between top of tyres (approximately) and top of radiator housing (approximately), made on the basis of what I see instead of on the basis of a pre-wished result. 

 

30519237210_b415912231_b.jpg

 

30519237420_ef94bde486_b.jpg

 

30519237430_e2194be990_b.jpg

 

30519237580_38333c7d54_b.jpg

 

30185544543_b2aa1ec53e_b.jpg

 

7. In final I took the last picture, an almost full-frontal view with very little lens distortion (because the photo was taken using a telelens) in a comparison with the drawing Protar probably based its kit on (still I'm not sure of that, perhaps someone can take a full frontal view of a finalized Protar model). But all clues point to this conclusion. For example, compare the pictures from Tamiya Magazine of the original Protar Kit to drawing 1, taking a specific look at the back of the car. It's clear Protar based itself on the shape as seen on drawing 1, NOT on the shape as seen on drawing 2. 

 

To point out the differences I made a video. Carefully keep in mind the guidelines. The matched subject is the height of the tyres. 

 

 

To summarize, the comparison shows that the width of the car (tyre to tyre) is considerably larger than the drawing suggests. The radiator is quite a bit lower than on the drawing suggests.The grille is very slightly wider than on the drawing. The bottom assembly is just at the right height

 

My conclusion based on this research: Protar probably used an incorrect drawing as a basis for their kit. The height is wrong in itself and to make matters worse the drawing was perhaps the same as we now have at our disposal and should be rescaled vertically. To achieve a realistic image, the Italeri grill should be widened very slightly and should be lowered considerably. The width of the car should be enlarged quite a bit. 

 

To me the most surprising finding is that the width of the real car was quite a bit larger than on the drawing (and, looking at some pictures of completed Protar / Italeri models, also on the kit). Keep the extra width in mind and then have another look at all the photos. What you see makes a lot more sense now. At least it does to me.

 

Further research would be welcome of course, but not by me as this is not a kit I'm working at and I should really resume working on my own :) Those who want to use my Gimp files can download them here: 

 

Amended photos:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jz2q1mvvbg97oje/Photo 8.xcf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ljcb9hhkhitf0vw/Photo 7.xcf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n3pvoeq7lm7ioq5/Photo 6.xcf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iiv043695pk0ihm/Photo 5.xcf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a64nh9bnevryjfs/Photo 2.xcf?dl=0

 

Main file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fust6j03cks65f7/Fiat 806.xcf?dl=0

 

Good luck to you all. Whatever way you choose, it's never the wrong way and it's never the only right way. 

Edited by Roy vd M.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy @Roy vd M.  what you have done is amazing !! Thank you for this impressive effort.

 

First, i was a bit bored and not attracted to the question, but now reading your analysis - measured and therefore factual -  has got me all attentive.

 

so Hannes is right to say the grill has to be wider and possibly shorter and the car longer.  And you say wider, with providing facts.

 

I have been following your and Nick's @NickD amazing exchanges on other threads with great interest.

Soon manipulating such softwares and 3d printers ( for simple parts ) will become important to all ( serious ) modellers. 

also, for those who are interested Witold Jaworski is a member of this Forum and contributes to the aviation section.

 

Thanks a mil Roy !

Edited by sharknose156
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome @sharknose156. I must emphasize that without @NickD this would not have been possible. 

 

@Hannes You're welcome, I sincerely hope all are not discouraged by these findings. 

 

 

I admit... I was curious. I took Drawing 1 and amended it to align to photo 5. This is what happened:

 

(Edit: radiator grille was set too low... some original text, pictures and video deleted insofar irrelevant now... I'll leave the bits that are relevant for understanding my next post)

 

(...)

 

After that I matched Drawing 2 (side view) to the amended Drawing 1 (front view), from bottom of tyre to top of ornament. I must say it fits quite well. Only significant difference I see is that the tyre in Drawing 2 is slightly smaller.

 

30192115044_7cb04e682f_b.jpg

 

 

 

GRRR made an error... radiator should be slightly higher; used the wrong guideline. I'll redo.

 

Positive view: this might mean that Drawing 2 is even 'more correct' than I thought. 

Edited by Roy vd M.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another outstanding analysis Roy.

 

As Roy is demonstrating (and I do not consistently) and @Witold Jaworski exemplifies, methodical and patient analysis is key. Judging by the content of this thread so far, patience is not in short supply. The tools are free and the techniques are, in many cases straightforward.

 

It's a pity that the raw material, the kit in this case, is so far out. Based on Roy's analysis, a revised set of lines is required. A discussion by the experts on this thread is probably required on how this might be done. Perhaps more importantly when accurate lines exist, that are lower, wider and with a slightly different wheel base, what does that mean for all the magnificent examples of the 806 discussed in this forum.

 

I look forward to seeing what you will all do next.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As our posts crossed, I just wanted to comment on the namechecks above. They are always welcome but I am not sure I feel they are very justified. Part of my motivation when replying is to share what little skill and knowledge I have as so many others do on this forum. I have learned much. If others do too that is to the good.

 

I'd also like to echo @sharknose156 comment about the power of these tools. I am firmly of the view that we will soon have the tools to address many of the issues discussed in this thread. That is likely to be exciting and interesting. Whether we choose to use them or just reach for the card and filler, as we so long have is a matter of personal choice.

 

It should be an interesting ride

 

Nick

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so I corrected the drawings (not only the raised radiator, I had forgotten to mention that the tyres were made slightly thinner... sorry guys :( ). Again, here are the differences between original Drawing 1 and what I fetched from the frontal photograph:

 

30190019193_725451016b_b.jpg

 

30190019243_c8d01085d9_b.jpg

 

30736975581_53a1299679_b.jpg

 

And the video:

 

 

 

Check some of the original pictures to see whether the final result makes sense to you:

 

fiat_806_corsa_1_zpsiauufiey.jpg

 

fiat_806worksopt-a_zpsevkegvc3.jpg

 

prewar-racing-197.jpg_1927_milan_gp_monz

 

Bordino08_zpsuzizn9v2.jpg

 

Pietro_Bordino_at_the_1927_Milan_Grand_P

 

20161016_135455_zpsk70qjxu9.jpg

 

30736975581_53a1299679_b.jpg

 

To me it's convincing enough, but I leave the final thoughts to the builders (insofar they care about these matters, of course... as I said before, I enjoy following every build of this great model).

 

Of course I was curious to know to what extent the amended Drawing 1 (based on the photo) would now match Drawing 2. 

 

And we have a winner... the lines match almost perfectly, now that the radiator was slightly raised in accordance with the photo. Maybe the wheels on Drawing 2 are slightly smaller (appr. 1 or 2%). This could however be due to my incorrect interpretation of some crucial pixels in the photo.

 

30824908675_93377290f1_b.jpg

 

I had not expected it to be this close. But in the end my opinion is that Drawing 2 is a far more accurate source than Drawing 1 whereas Protar most probably used Drawing 1 for their kit. 

 

As said, more research would be welcome. I now REALLY have to get back to work :D 

Edited by Roy vd M.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a very large version of Drawing 2 (see here for full size version, not sure if it was posted in this thread before).

 

fiat-806.gif

 

The site also contains a large version of Drawing 1 although I would almost advice to forget about that drawing. 

 

While I was studying the drawing I noticed:

 

- that on the drawing the front wheels (ONLY the front wheels) have a positive camber, to say the least. That's exactly as they appear on the frontal photograph;

- that the engine was located on the left side (not centrally!), probably because to create a balance with driver's weight as well as for easy positioning of the gearbox. 

- Likewise, the cardan axle is located off center. 

- The rear wheels have a height equal to that of the rear body between them. You can check the photographs: it seems correct (again). Drawing 1 appears not to be correct in that aspect (again). 

 

If Drawing 2 is correct, one can simply calculate the size of the radiator grille by measuring the width (top view) and height (side view)... 

 

One check I had not done yet: match top view of Drawing 2 with the amended Drawing 1 front view. Here's the result:

 

30826403315_39bca8ac69_b.jpg

 

Again, a convincing resemblance. Note: the rear wheels were used for alignment because the front wheels are off-camber. Comparing the pictures, the tyres in Drawing 2 are slightly lower than the tyres in the amended Drawing 1. The tyre width is almost matching. On Drawing 2 the grille is slightly wider than on the amended Drawing 1. But it seems that whoever is responsible for the creation of Drawing 2 knew that the car was wider than as suggested by Drawing 1. The drawings match 95% or more. 

 

If someone wants to continue what I've been bringing forward now, my advice would be to further check the accuracy of Drawing 2. I think it is highly accurate, based on all the above considerations, but we can't know for sure until it has been further researched. Feel free to use the new Gimp file I created. After checking and, if necessary, correcting Drawing 2, it would be opportune to enter both drawings in the powerful 3D software tool Blender. Or maybe this is something Nick would like to tend to :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Roy for this impressive work, and your willing to search the truth. 

Personally, I will not go on this way, too many changes, too complications, and at the end, I wonder if the model as Protar made does not please me more than the original shape.

If someone feels able to make these corrections, I will follow him with interest...

The only reservation I have regarding your conclusions is that you took in consideration the photo 5, that is in contradiction with all other documents (except the photo 6, also taken during the race).

All other docs, when the car is stationary (including Bordino's photo after the race, betti's drawing, etc.) would take us in different conclusions.

I made my choice, I will not try to convince anyone I am right, Now go on with yours and good courage!

All the best

Olivier

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Olivier @Olivier de St Raph,  i don t think Photo 5 and 6 contradict photo 8 for instance . The angle as VT @vontrips once said is the problem. the marking "15" on the radiator is only closer to the edge on the photo due to the angle.

 

Although this is a single seater, what Roy @Roy vd M. says about the engine's position being slightly off center to accommodate the driver's weight is logical. the driver is clearly on the side on all photos and illustrations and not in the center, is logical and can be seen on absolutely all photos. It is a problem of steering wheel column principally. The driver was only properly placed in the center when the engine was moved to the back.

 

As you say in french "y'a pas photo"...:photo: on Roy's amazing work.

 

As for your article, you are building the Italeri car for your article right ? not reproducing the real car, so no regrets i would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Sam,

you meant photo 7, not 8, I suppose. I made measures on this photo (see above) that showed the proportions of the grille were quite good. It is the same with Betti's drawing and with the 4 documents on photo 3. My comment concerned the calander, not the height of the body, for which I think we all agree about the fact it should be lower...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2016 at 5:45 AM, Olivier de St Raph said:

wRWoay.png

 

Hi Chaps, and sorry Olivier, but I've quoted your post for the image!

 

Interesting technical discoveries here, will have to read the Gimp example posts again.

 

There is another issue with the grill that has been overlooked, though I mentioned it pages ago in a reply to Olivier. Study the photo above closely! I believe the grill surround it not flat in the side elevation (unlike the Protar part). Follow the top of the grill across the car. The top of the surround is parallel to the front bonnet line. To me that suggests the slope of the grill (in side elevation) bends near the top to become vertical. I should really sketch it to explain but if you imagine the kicktail on a skateboard (side on) you are there. Admittedly this is difficult to see in other views and I think it contributes to top curves looking tighter than they are. Drawing 2 alludes to it, but it's wrong. The grill top is to low relative to the top of the surround and the surround top is flat and follows the bonnet line. The drawing shows it looking more like a Bullnose Morris radiator!

 

Very bad, quick side elevation sketch:

 

IMAG4319_zps4k3zsokq.jpg

 

I exaggerated this to show the problem. 

Edited by vontrips
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

Personally, I will not go on this way, too many changes, too complications, and at the end, I wonder if the model as Protar made does not please me more than the original shape.

 

 

Indeed it's a lot of changes and I have to agree with you that Protar's model is very pleasing to the eye. 

 

Quote

The only reservation I have regarding your conclusions is that you took in consideration the photo 5, that is in contradiction with all other documents (except the photo 6, also taken during the race). All other docs, when the car is stationary (including Bordino's photo after the race, betti's drawing, etc.) would take us in different conclusions.

 

I do not see what you mean. To me (and as said I'm not biased in any way, I don't have the kit and I won't buy it... just wanted to help you guys with my analysis) the photographs match each other quite well. Meanwhile I found out that I made some errors which I have corrected, making for a wider grille and a slightly narrower car width. The new drawing also seems to match the other photographs very well (or they do in my eye). This proofs all the more that non-perpendicular photographs cannot be trusted.

 

2 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

you meant photo 7, not 8, I suppose. I made measures on this photo (see above) that showed the proportions of the grille were quite good. It is the same with Betti's drawing and with the 4 documents on photo 3. My comment concerned the calander, not the height of the body, for which I think we all agree about the fact it should be lower...

 

I don't know what you mean by 'calander'. If you mean 'radiator' or 'grille' I'll tell you that your measurements are not reliable, simply because they are not orthogonal / perpendicular. As Hannes pointed out before to you, the only orthogonal photograph taken from the car's front is photo 5. There is no reason to doubt reliability of that photo 5, especially since it was taken from a large distance AND because it was taken when the car stood still. The closer you photograph an object, the more likely there will be lens distortion in that photograph. If there is ANY photograph left of the Fiat 806 that isn't lens distorted, it would be photograph 5. And if there is ANY picture that is a reliable source in learning the front / grille measurements from, it is photograph 5. The only reservation one could have is that the photograph we now use as photo 5 doesn't have the original width or length anymore. We'll never know that for sure.

 

Coming back to your measurements, they were the reason I started this research session. I wanted to know who was right, Hannes or you. When you measure like you have, and even if compared to a kit part, you abstract from several factors such as the original photo lens distortion, the fact that you were much closer to the part so the photograph taken by yourself probably has even more lens distortion (=2x lens distortion!) and a lack of measured objects relative to one another. For example, to check whether my theory about the width of the car is correct (be it slightly narrower than my previous drawing indicated, it's still considerably wider than on drawing 1), IF you wanted to use the pictures you chose as measurement aids, you'd have to compare the grille width to the tyre positions. But even then, your measurements would be prone to inaccuracy. 

 

I used to take measurements, for scratchbuilding purposes, just like you did and just like you I was a bit stubborn (if I may) when people warned me about non-ortogonal and non-perpendicular data. Having measured a lot of stuff since then and comparing those findings to the information to be found on photographs with non-perpendicular objects I have come to the conclusion that the latter are really not reliable at all for the purpose, most importantly because you cannot recognize depth in them. Especially with lens distortion, if the photo was taken slightly to the left, or slightly to the right (the photographer would have stood in a slightly different position), it would make a difference in the conclusions (!) of your measurements.

 

So unless you have a viable conspiracy theory as to why and how photo 5 is somehow not giving a reliable representation of the car's front I'd recommend you cherish that photo very dearly, as it is the only really trustworthy photographic source Fiat 806-builders have at their disposal to learn the car's front shape from, as far as we know. 

 

To me the only question that remained was whether the grille should be wider (like in Drawing 2). After a good night's sleep I went back to Gimp and noticed that photo 5 had, at one point during my editing, been rescaled so that it didn't match the guidelines anymore. This implies that the grille should be WIDER than I drew before and the car should be slightly NARROWER than I drew before. Note to me: if in a hurry, leave this kind of work to a later moment. I should have rechecked all guidelines in the end... 

 

Anyway here is the corrected front view, checked and double-checked:

 

30835187535_c59f495b90_b.jpg

 

30200234263_69c3703ccf_b.jpg

 

The grille now matches Drawing 2 perfectly. The tyres in Drawing 2 remain smaller but this could be my wrong interpretation of certain pixels in photo 5. 

 

Here is the new Gimp file.

 

Here's another video, as a bonus showing comparisons with Drawing 2 and Photo 5 as well. 

 

 

3 hours ago, sharknose156 said:

Hello Olivier @Olivier de St Raph,  i don t think Photo 5 and 6 contradict photo 7 for instance . 

 

Quote

As for your article, you are building the Italeri car for your article right ? not reproducing the real car, so no regrets i would say.

 

I agree in both cases. 

 

31 minutes ago, vontrips said:

There is another issue with the grill that has been overlooked, though I mentioned it pages ago in a reply to Olivier. Study the photo above closely! I believe the grill surround it not flat in the side elevation (unlike the Protar part). Follow the top of the grill across the car. The top of the surround is parallel to the front bonnet line. To me that suggests the slope of the grill (in side elevation) bends near the top to become vertical. I should really sketch it to explain but if you imagine the kicktail on a skateboard (side on) you are there. Admittedly this is difficult to see in other views and I think it contributes to top curves looking tighter than they are. Drawing 2 alludes to it, but it's wrong. The grill top is to low relative to the top of the surround and the surround top is flat and follows the bonnet line. The drawing shows it looking more like a Bullnose Morris radiator!

 

That could be true but I'm not sure... difficult to establish as a certainty. As for now I feel for your interpretation rather than that of Drawing 2. 

 

By the way I think that Drawing 2 is either a CAD-optimized Fiat blueprint or the result of work just like what I did, only then continued in Blender or a 2D-cad program or the like. So although I think it's mostly correct, as with almost any drawing / blueprint it has its flaws... especially in case it was drawn recently on the basis of the 8 available pictures. 

Edited by Roy vd M.
Video added
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For completeness' sake: the one thing about photo 5 that needs careful attention is that it was taken with a wide angle lens. There's a slight amount of pincussion distortion, mainly at the edges of the photo. Where I said in my last post that the image of the Fiat wasn't distorted I meant barrel distorted as seen in pictures taken from nearby. 

 

Regarding the pincussion distortion, for example, the pole seen at the left is very slightly angled to the left (the picture is slightly rotated to the left), and the stands seen at the right of the photo tilt very slightly to the right. However in my estimate for the Fiat there's only some degree of skewing visible and I abstracted from that while making my own drawing. As said, further research (among which correcting the pincussion distortion of photo 5) is welcome. 

 

Bordini0001.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting aspect is the question about the frame´s rails and the consequences,if they were altered,

In my opinion The kit´s rails don´t have the same dimensions (height!) as shown on our Pictures , Besr regards! Hannes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roy when you say 'tilting to the right", do you mean 'azimut' ? or do you mean compressed from the right side only?

would this means the Bordino car on this pic not wide enough even by a few 0.mm ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roy vd M. said:

For completeness' sake: the one thing about photo 5 that needs careful attention is that it was taken with a wide angle lens. There's a slight amount of pincussion distortion, mainly at the edges of the photo. Where I said in my last post that the image of the Fiat wasn't distorted I meant barrel distorted as seen in pictures taken from nearby. 

 

Regarding the pincussion distortion, for example, the pole seen at the left is very slightly angled to the left (the picture is slightly rotated to the left), and the stands seen at the right of the photo tilt very slightly to the right. However in my estimate for the Fiat there's only some degree of skewing visible and I abstracted from that while making my own drawing. As said, further research (among which correcting the pincussion distortion of photo 5) is welcome. 

 

Bordini0001.jpg 

Sorry, but you are flogging a dead horse with that shot. I'd wager that the aspect ratio of that shot is at least 15% over on the x axis! Try stretching the y axis to 115% and check again? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...