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.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
First, levels manipulation on the image, and one thing becomes very apparent - The greaves, and possibly the gorget and scanner pad thingie are procreate, completely different color than the plastic.

Not only does the image suffer from massive colour artefact problem, you're also comparing areas with different light exposure.

For what it's worth, the reflectivity seems consistent enough across the model.

If that is what the Mk X looks like, I welcome our Gmen-Overlords

What happened to Mk IX?

One thing that seems oddly placed to me is the small thing with what appears to be a skull in it on his belt, why would that be there of all places?

At first i thought it was a cut-down version of this but it doesn't seem to be the right sort of size:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
One thing that seems oddly placed to me is the small thing with what appears to be a skull in it on his belt, why would that be there of all places?

At first i thought it was a cut-down version of this but it doesn't seem to be the right sort of size:

Yeah if it was that bit he would be huge.

 n0t_u wrote:
What happened to Mk IX?

Ask Sad Panda

SeanDrake wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
One thing that seems oddly placed to me is the small thing with what appears to be a skull in it on his belt, why would that be there of all places?

At first i thought it was a cut-down version of this but it doesn't seem to be the right sort of size:

Spoiler:

Yeah if it was that bit he would be huge.

It more closely resembles the small charms found on the GK sprues.

Bottom row, second from left is my bet.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Why on earth would you think that something that blatantly has nothing to do with the image quality has anything to do with the image quality?

It was merely an observation, I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious I wasn't making any claims that it affected image quality, largely by the fact that I didn't make any.

I'm trying to figure what's the importance of it being in roaming mode. Doesn't matter in picture quality nor in whether it's legit or conversion.

(Just to point out, I'm not saying it's a conversion (I personally don't think it is), just that that part has a familiarity to an existing aesthetic element on other models.)

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Why on earth would you think that something that blatantly has nothing to do with the image quality has anything to do with the image quality?

It was merely an observation, I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious I wasn't making any claims that it affected image quality, largely by the fact that I didn't make any.

I'm trying to figure what's the importance of it being in roaming mode. Doesn't matter in picture quality nor in whether it's legit or conversion.

It shows he is not at home taking a snap of a conversion on his shelf ?

I am on the fence me, if it was a conversion, surely people would be able to pick out the parts used, it is also understandable that the photo could be blurry due to him rushing to get a quick photo in a room full of people, with a crappy phone.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Why on earth would you think that something that blatantly has nothing to do with the image quality has anything to do with the image quality?

It was merely an observation, I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious I wasn't making any claims that it affected image quality, largely by the fact that I didn't make any.

I'm trying to figure what's the importance of it being in roaming mode. Doesn't matter in picture quality nor in whether it's legit or conversion.

as someone else said, the implication from it is the guy was not at home when he took the picture, and was elsewhere.

Can anyone identify the phone make and model from the bits at the top?

Reason I ask is that the 'R' for roaming isn't something I've seen on any UK phone I've ever owned (iPhone and Sony Experia). Instead, I either get a little 4G, 3G or E....and if the phone isn't in the UK, then it seems unlikely the owner and assumed photographer was at the Studio, which is of course in Nottinghams.

It definitely says R for roaming on some of the older samsung phones I have had in the past, the models are not something I can remember though, sorry.

Hmm...

Older model phone would also offer insight as to why the pic is such low quality.

Yep, 12 years with phones and if I had to bet the farm on a mainstream manufacturer it would be Samsung.

The reason it looks familar and I beleive the reason Gulimarines will exist is in relation to the CH debacle and Design Rights which are roughly as follows.
Design right is a sui generis intellectual property right in British law. There are two types of design rights: the registered design right (Registered Design Act 1949) and the unregistered design right.

Design right protects the shape of a three-dimensional design. It subsists if the design is recorded on paper, or if an article has been made according to that design. It does not subsist in designs made before the commencement of part of the 1988 Act relevant to design right.

The registered design right provides up to 25 years protection. The unregistered design right is similar to copyright in that it attaches automatically when a new design is created. However, its length is much more limited, since it only lasts for 10 years after it was first sold or 15 years after it was created - whichever is earliest.

Now the bit that is of most interest is the following.

Licence of right
You can allow someone else to use your design by selling or giving them ‘licence of right’.

In the final 5 years you must give a licence of right to anybody who asks.

In light of this and the fact derivatives of the original design only get the originals protection, leads me to think almost none of the current marine range for GW or FW has any protection.

 n0t_u wrote:
What happened to Mk IX?

What Happened to Windows 9?
Same thing

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
First, levels manipulation on the image, and one thing becomes very apparent - The greaves, and possibly the gorget and scanner pad thingie are procreate, completely different color than the plastic.

Not only does the image suffer from massive colour artefact problem, you're also comparing areas with different light exposure.

For what it's worth, the reflectivity seems consistent enough across the model.

It's a miniature, not a 100ft statue. There is no falloff, at least none that matters at that scale relative to the lens. This is not a matter of selecting one band of a gradient arbitrarily to suit my argument. There is an abundance of non-fall off effected, low fresnell, even lit surface. If you think there is an exposure difference, you don't know how exposure works. If you think there is a lighting difference, again you would be wrong. There is some shadow from a dominant light source and ambient occlusion. Angle of incidence is more than sufficient to yield measurable values.

The greaves are procreate, there is no argument.

My face when trying to follow comments about the photography and stuff.

This thread has been fantastic

We just need one of the NZ/AUS BMWers to come in and work out what that conversion would cost in AUD.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
This thread has been fantastic

We just need one of the NZ/AUS BMWers to come in and work out what that conversion would cost in AUD.

Mate that's like AUD4000!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did we get a scale comparison shot for the Demo Bloke compared to modern GW?

I happen to own that last chancer model so here's some comparasion pics.

I don't have any newer GW humans but I think those old Catchans are about as bulky as humans get.

Catachan, Last chancer, Tactical marine (not the newest version, the one that was around in 3rd 4th edition)



Catachan, Older Tactical marine, MKIII legionaire from the prospero box, Last chancer, Cataphract from the Calth box.

@Thebiggesthat: Probably at least $100 and a 1/4 of your soul.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
The greaves are procreate, there is no argument.

You just saved me 15 minutes of time I'd otherwise spend arguing your points. Thanks, I guess.

nekooni wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
This thread has been fantastic

We just need one of the NZ/AUS BMWers to come in and work out what that conversion would cost in AUD.

Mate that's like AUD4000!

$3999.99 and a kidney.

It's been years and years since I've looked at a mini, but that first pic is so obviously not a conversion I'm really surprised at the numbers of people arguing that it could be or even definitely is. That's a production mini, no doubt.

From B&C because someone asked about the comparison.

LutherMax, on 12 Mar 2017 - 03:58 AM, said:

I've scaled the images so that the Guardsman is the same size in both:



Now if we move the right image down so the marines' feet start at the same position, the top of the current marine's head comes up to the top of the shoulder pad of the "2.0" marine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
What is procreate?

It's how we make more people.

I laughed way too much at this.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
The greaves are procreate, there is no argument.

You just saved me 15 minutes of time I'd otherwise spend arguing your points. Thanks, I guess.

You're welcome! Let me amend my comment in the interest of fairness, I can't guarantee they are procreate, but I can guarantee the thighs, greaves and feet are entirely different materials. As mentioned, this alone ends the debate as to whether this is a conversion or not definitively. I reject any argument that somehow this photo is taken under such insane circumstances that an assessment coming to that conclusion is impossible. That being said, you are, of course, entitled to believe as you wish, but, when it comes to the specifics of your arguments re:exposure, you are wrong, and I could get into the science if I needed to.