Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
More circumstantial evidence for my theory that original ILM fuselages (both hero and pyro) may well turn out to be more drawn-out looking than this pyro casting, and it connects with Nighteyes' front canopy width bug. Take this image of Red 3 below. For my purpose, treat it as a flat 2d shape. Now, using a protractor, measure the angle between the lower forward fuse outline and the upper forward fuse outline. I make it about 8 degrees. Standing back from my pyro, and viewing it from the same angle, I'm getting about 11 degrees. This would account for the steeper, stunted feel I always get from the pyro and the V3 from this angle.
Now, I'm aware of camera distortion effects, but whether it could account for this discrepancy I doubt, especially since it's an effect I get from every image of ILM Xs at this angle, regardless of camera lens, distance or date, while the V3 and Cerney from this angle betray the steep, stunted look in photos as well as by eye, a look I have yet to see in any ILM photo.
I may be wrong, though, of course. So it may be an interesting exercise to try and photograph our pyros such that this angle of 8 degrees obtains. I suspect it can't be done, not without resorting to a greater degree of distortion than we see in this Red 3 photo.
Now, I'm aware of camera distortion effects, but whether it could account for this discrepancy I doubt, especially since it's an effect I get from every image of ILM Xs at this angle, regardless of camera lens, distance or date, while the V3 and Cerney from this angle betray the steep, stunted look in photos as well as by eye, a look I have yet to see in any ILM photo.
I may be wrong, though, of course. So it may be an interesting exercise to try and photograph our pyros such that this angle of 8 degrees obtains. I suspect it can't be done, not without resorting to a greater degree of distortion than we see in this Red 3 photo.