Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:

Gorlack wrote:@Luna: yes it will in fact change in favour of more volume in the gw bottle.

The op claim that 25% of the top of the bottle (like the top ofthe empire statee buildings needle) is free of paint. but as the picture shows, in a top down picture (like the OPs) the top part ofthe bottle will be exagerated in size when compared to a "straight on" photo.

this means that the 25% may be 10-15% in reality. but we can't know for sure, or even estimate closely based on this.

and I'll stay out of the whole cost/quality thing. My point is just that this thread was filled with bad sciene and anger based on it.

@dropper vs gw: there is a lot of gripe about gw paint and quality. but thats not what this thread is about. this thread is about actual mL content. Don't mix everyhing else into it.

See, you asked me what I was talking about, the part I highlighted in red.
I told you... I own both paints. I dont need to look at the photo for reference -_-

What "both paints"?

The picture just shows a bottle of GW paint emptied into a generic brand dropper bottle.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The OP related the bottle to the Vallejo dropper bottles which are marked as 17ml.

These are 15ml, although if Vallejo are 17ml, these are more likely 16.5ish as they are about .5mm shorter at the neck.
GW paints are listed as 12ml. So in all good theory, a single GW pot of paint should take up about 75% of my dropper bottles.

Still sort of an estimate.

Gorlack wrote:None taken, Im doing a masters in Chemistry so I have actually taken math at quite a high level.

I am beginning to think that we are talking about different things. I am talking about our shared ability to judge from the picture in the OP how much paint is in that bottle.

Perspective is only tricky if we don't own those bottles, since I mentioned numerous times I own both of those bottles,
the angle and perspectives means nothing to me.

As proven by pictures of the empire state building, the degree of the camera is quite important when talking about sizes because things closer to the camera increase relative to things far away from the camera. Thus, when the OP says 25% and meassures it from the photo, that is useless because if the photo was taken looking UP at the bottle it might look like 8%.

Angle means nothing if you can see the edge of where the paint filled. Especially if we are familiar with the bottle's shape.
e.g if you can count how many floors are in the photo of the Empire state building with a line drawn across the building, picture angle means nothing.

So... What is it that you dont understand, cause I will be happy to supply further examples of camera angles.

Perhaps thats it. I work with film camera all the time, I don't get tricked by angles at all.

n0t_u wrote:The OP related the bottle to the Vallejo dropper bottles which are marked as 17ml.

These are 15ml, although if Vallejo are 17ml, these are more likely 16.5ish as they are about .5mm shorter at the neck.
GW paints are listed as 12ml. So in all good theory, a single GW pot of paint should take up about 75% of my dropper bottles.

Still sort of an estimate.

Yeah, but that's completely irrelevant.

The OP did not accurately measure the volume of paint.

I think lunahound is saying the OP did, because he (lunahound) owns a vallejo bottle?

I don't care how many of what kind of bottles you own. Simply eyeballing a picture (especially one taken by someone else!) is not an accurate way to measure anything.

Kaldor wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Gorlack wrote:@Luna: yes it will in fact change in favour of more volume in the gw bottle.

The op claim that 25% of the top of the bottle (like the top ofthe empire statee buildings needle) is free of paint. but as the picture shows, in a top down picture (like the OPs) the top part ofthe bottle will be exagerated in size when compared to a "straight on" photo.

this means that the 25% may be 10-15% in reality. but we can't know for sure, or even estimate closely based on this.

and I'll stay out of the whole cost/quality thing. My point is just that this thread was filled with bad sciene and anger based on it.

@dropper vs gw: there is a lot of gripe about gw paint and quality. but thats not what this thread is about. this thread is about actual mL content. Don't mix everyhing else into it.

See, you asked me what I was talking about, the part I highlighted in red.
I told you... I own both paints. I dont need to look at the photo for reference -_-

What "both paints"?

The picture just shows a bottle of GW paint emptied into a generic brand dropper bottle.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Sigh.... math, surface area,
thus, volume (in ML)

Guys, Im not gonna teach math class just to make a point o_o

I think Kaldor and I finally understand Luna. But yeah, like I have said many times before I think we need a more accurate measurement than this before we can agree on anything :-D

and we know how to calculate volume, but its impossible from a picture of a bottle filled with some of the content of a gw bottle to make actual, solid calculations, so don't try to imply we are dumb, aye?

LunaHound wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Gorlack wrote:@Luna: yes it will in fact change in favour of more volume in the gw bottle.

The op claim that 25% of the top of the bottle (like the top ofthe empire statee buildings needle) is free of paint. but as the picture shows, in a top down picture (like the OPs) the top part ofthe bottle will be exagerated in size when compared to a "straight on" photo.

this means that the 25% may be 10-15% in reality. but we can't know for sure, or even estimate closely based on this.

and I'll stay out of the whole cost/quality thing. My point is just that this thread was filled with bad sciene and anger based on it.

@dropper vs gw: there is a lot of gripe about gw paint and quality. but thats not what this thread is about. this thread is about actual mL content. Don't mix everyhing else into it.

See, you asked me what I was talking about, the part I highlighted in red.
I told you... I own both paints. I dont need to look at the photo for reference -_-

What "both paints"?

The picture just shows a bottle of GW paint emptied into a generic brand dropper bottle.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Sigh.... math, surface area,
thus, volume (in ML)

Guys, Im not gonna teach math class just to make a point o_o

But you're operating with incomplete data. You don't know the mass of the paint, the volume of the paint, the size of the bottle, the size of the inside of the bottle, how much paint is left inside the GW pot, or if there are any other factors.

You're just looking at someone else's photo and saying "Yep, looks about right".

Which is not an accurate way to measure anything.

Gorlack wrote:I think Kaldor and I finally understand Luna. But yeah, like I have said many times before I think we need a more accurate measurement than this before we can agree on anything :-D

Im fine with that :3

however you been a chemist sort of peaked my interest.

There is a formula to liquid density in ratio to gravity. It calculates how thick or thin a liquid can latch to a surface
before sliding down the bottle. In other words, how much paint is left stuck in the bottle wall can be calculated lol :'D

Kaldor wrote:

n0t_u wrote:The OP related the bottle to the Vallejo dropper bottles which are marked as 17ml.

These are 15ml, although if Vallejo are 17ml, these are more likely 16.5ish as they are about .5mm shorter at the neck.
GW paints are listed as 12ml. So in all good theory, a single GW pot of paint should take up about 75% of my dropper bottles.

Still sort of an estimate.

Yeah, but that's completely irrelevant.

The OP did not accurately measure the volume of paint.

I think lunahound is saying the OP did, because he (lunahound) owns a vallejo bottle?

I don't care how many of what kind of bottles you own. Simply eyeballing a picture (especially one taken by someone else!) is not an accurate way to measure anything.

That's what I was saying... An approximation/estimation is not a precise measurement. It can get close, but it will be pretty unlikely to be correct. It is relevant in the sense that it gives a basis for the estimation to be built upon. As I mentioned before it is also going to be pretty unlikely that every GW bottle will have 12ml in it, some may have 13 some even as low as 10 it depends more or less on what the manufacturer's level of tolerance is. Just like every other product that states a net measurement for its contents it is an approximation that they will aim at and hope to not deviate too far from. However a lot of times the amount it does change from the labelled contents is such a small fraction it is ignored, small as in a fraction of an ounce, ml, gram, etc.

Luna. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography). Then meassure with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syringe

And remember to actually empty the GW bottle unlike the OP.

Or you can just use these...



99cents for 59mls?

Oh baby I'm there!

...and perspective be damned.

I know Gorlack.

But as not_U said, there could be more,or could be less,all different in every bottle, and I believe that too.

And as I mentioned, the measurement could be tempered with if anyone felt like it, hence its sort of pointless.

The main thing I was responding to is, measurement and formulas can give quite an accurate measurement even if visually.

Couple of things... This is an interesting observation, but that is all. The next step would be actually measuring to see if the observation is true.

But there are some basic problems with the assumptions being made by OP:

There is going to be a margin, variance, variability in the label claim. How many decimal places of measurement are significant? How many decimal places are you willing to pay for? You see, 12 ml is completely different range from 12.0ml. Each decimal costs more, though, because it requires more production control.

Second, there is a pretty big assumption that the dropper bottle is accurate, and that "full" is to the top neck or whatever. What if dropper is "full", I.e 17mls, is at some point below that point, and the other manufacturer over fills, I.e. labeled as 17 mls but they fill to 17.5 or 18? It happens, to keep customers happy, allow for evaporation, any number of reasons. But GW could chose to fill to the low end of the allowed range, completely legally and validly.

Also, weight alone won't work unless you know the density of the fluid... All the crap suspended in the paint means water is not a valid reference. . So unless you know the density of that particular paint and can calculate volume from measurement of mass (weight), you're going to have to actually do some measurements for volume. Easiest way is a graduated cylinder. Then you need to know the actual product fill specifications. Once you know those things, you can clearly show it us underfilled.

That said, yes, underfills do occur in any filling operation. I got a drybrush paint that had half what the others on the shelf had... This was clearly just an error, and was demonstrated by comparing like to like.

What you are showing us is different. To show absolute underfill, you have to measure all of the product in the pot in a valid way. . Others have discussed the other problems with what we're being told... You just can't draw any conclusions with what we have here.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Or you can just use these...
99cents for 59mls?

Oh baby I'm there!

...and perspective be damned.

Aha.... I have a bottle of those in gold.
Unfortunately it fell on my foot and the lid broke off so I stuck a chopstick in the pouring hole.

I wonder if it dried up.....

LunaHound wrote:

Gorlack wrote:I think Kaldor and I finally understand Luna. But yeah, like I have said many times before I think we need a more accurate measurement than this before we can agree on anything :-D

Im fine with that :3

however you been a chemist sort of peaked my interest.

There is a formula to liquid density in ratio to gravity. It calculates how thick or thin a liquid can latch to a surface
before sliding down the bottle. In other words, how much paint is left stuck in the bottle wall can be calculated lol :'D

It most certainly can, but not with the knowledge any of us posses

A mate of mine actually did his bachelor degree in bioengineering on the amount of youghurt stuck to the inside of a carton its frigthenly much actually.

Why not fill a dropper to the desired level, then squeeze the dropper into the empty washed out paint pot? If the liquid amount is so different, it should be overflowing the paint pot in seconds. Just use water.

Sounds a lot easier than pouring from the pot into the dropper.

Putting GW paints in dropper bottles sounds tedious and sounds like you would lose a lot of paint. If I was that interested in droppers, I would just buy paint in droppers

Best way to do it is to put an empty dropper bottle on a set of scales, put 12g of water in it (which will be 12ml) then compare the levels side by side.
Without knowing the specific gravity of the paint, weight will tell you nothing, but we know the sg of water, and we're looking at a comparison of volume.

I yeah... there's bad science here; everyone could use a dose of Occam's razor... simpler is better. In this case... you need direct measurements... preferably of volume but length may work if done correctly.

My suggested method:
Mark the height of the paint in a settled, full pot. Empty the pot into your dropper bottle. Clean the pot. Fill the pot with water up to the line you made earlier and then pour the water into a graduated cylinder or weigh the water in a tared vessel to determine the volume.

In a way, this whole test and comparison is moot.

Vallejo has more per bottle
cheaper per bottle
supposedly way better than GW ( so says Jen Hailey and other
GW golden demon winners, though only on their websites)
they certainly said they use GW paints during GD interview :>

anyways, either way, buy Vallejo, everyone wins!

We can learn much about biased science from this thread.

Sound like a storm in a paint pot to me....

LunaHound wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Or you can just use these...
99cents for 59mls?

Oh baby I'm there!

...and perspective be damned.

Aha.... I have a bottle of those in gold.
Unfortunately it fell on my foot and the lid broke off so I stuck a chopstick in the pouring hole.

I wonder if it dried up.....

Their metallic colored paints are rubbish imo, but the rest of the colors are sound and match GW colors well enough.

Their metallics are decent enough for dry brushing on terrain (An example), but I agree with your point on the metalics, otherwise.

Aerethan wrote:So today I was transferring the few new GW paints that I wanted(only bases and select metals that weren't around before) into dropper bottles, as I do with all new paints as needed.

The bottles I use are http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=44774&catid=530 (Note that the one pictured is 10ml, not the actual one I linked).
These are 15ml, although if Vallejo are 17ml, these are more likely 16.5ish as they are about .5mm shorter at the neck.
GW paints are listed as 12ml. So in all good theory, a single GW pot of paint should take up about 75% of my dropper bottles.

.

/discuss.

I would suggest measuring out 12ml and seeing if it fills the entire GW paint bottle. My first thought is that the GW bottle is 12ml and it isn't a measure of the actual amount of paint.

brettz123 wrote:
I would suggest measuring out 12ml and seeing if it fills the entire GW paint bottle. My first thought is that the GW bottle is 12ml and it isn't a measure of the actual amount of paint.

The amount listed on a container is always the minimum amount of the material that the container MUST contain. To put in less, intentionally or otherwise, is illegal and can lead to significant fines.

Anpu-adom wrote:
My suggested method:
Mark the height of the paint in a settled, full pot. Empty the pot into your dropper bottle. Clean the pot. Fill the pot with water up to the line you made earlier and then pour the water into a graduated cylinder or weigh the water in a tared vessel to determine the volume.

That is probably the best approach as all others involve mixing the paint with water or losing some in transference between containers.

The other approach would be to weigh just 1ml of the paint, or some other known volume. You could then weigh the pot full and empty, and the differece would allow you to work out the volume. Given the volumes of liquids being described here, most people are not going to have a balance with a suitably high precision. If like me you work in a lab you will, but I don't fancy spending money on GW paint just for the sake of settling this one...

Although, I do need some black paint and I'm told that GW's current paint is actually quite good, so in the name of science I could do this.

My feeling though, is that GW wouldn't be so daft as to mislead the customer in this fashion, it would be plain illegal. So the volume will be appropriate.

Gorlack wrote:We can learn much about biased science from this thread.

Or we can learn about GWs internet white knights riding to their rescue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
My feeling though, is that GW wouldn't be so daft as to mislead the customer in this fashion, it would be plain illegal. So the volume will be appropriate.

When I went to buy washes I would always look for the one that was the most full, because some were noticeably lower than others. I started doing the same thing with foundation plaints too after asking the FLGS owner and telling him why. It may not be deliberate but it does happen.

If you want to do a comparative test then you need two measuring cylinders with a fixed quantity of water in both. In the first submerge completely so no air is trapped a completely scoured clean empty GW paint pot and measure change in volume.

In second submerge a full open pot of GW paint ensuring no air is trapped and measure the change in volume.

Deduct the first change in volume from the second to determine the volume of paint present.

You can then do all that % shenanigans, there will be variance due to the tolerances of the production machinery but it will give you an indicator of how loose those tolerances are.

Ok wow. I didn't expect science nazis.

I tell you what, I take one of my never used colors, syringe it up as best I can without adding water to the pot and then I'll post the syringe volume. I'll also post a pic of 12ml precisely in that same dropper bottle as the original pic.

Jesus H. Christ the white knights really came out on this one, that or some people are mad at my late night science which I said was me eyeballing it.

Pointing out flaws in your methodology doesn't make anyone a white knight. Some people throw the term white around too much, it doesn't apply to everyone disagreeing with you.