Discussion in 'Transformers Toy Discussion' started by Scornstream, Sep 20, 2021.
I have never had him out in natural light. Next sunny day he's doing yard work with me!
Just go read the threads and the examples I gave earlier are just some that were quite common... Tracks' legs are such a bad scenario that it's beyond just bad QI, it's bad design altogether to have made it with such a fault.
And to me, yes, Sunstreaker's horribly matched plastic/paint is probably the worst since the beginning of TFs... every yellow figure I have are from perfectly matched to darn close and not an issue, so it's a major screwup. Sadly, those with colour blindness to the shades of these particular tints tend to argue that it's not "that bad". Odd that not seeing colours right is a blessing for this particular figure. (and no, the colours are still off even under the sun... sorry).
I just want seekers that have proper landing gear than can deploy or fold away without needing 3rd party kits or having to burn hundreds on MP seekers.
That is all.
also in terms of seekers I'll buy.
Well... I own the big 3. the 3 that matter.
ER SC/TC/SW. that's enough for me.
Nah, UV reactivity means that paints/plastics will never match 100%. Differing types of plastic, as well.
The problem is where the averages lie. Sunstreaker's colours don't match under the scenarios where most people will experience the toy, which is the problem.
Some colours are easier to get closer than others, however. Reds/Yellows are always the biggest culprits. Cooler colours are frequently just as off, but the differences tend to be less "glaring".
Well, I can easily pick all of the figures that are yellow in just my office alone, including a few that are from WFC, and not a single one is a disaster like Sunstreaker is. I could take pictures of them side by side under several lighting condition and already know that he will always look terrible and two shaded. And that's regardless of how much I'd play with my white balance and chromatic adjustment, as unless I un-tuned my cameras on purpose, the difference isn't going to disappear (the cameras would just be forced to blend the range of the colours, but the colours in real life will still be off). It's been a recurring debate that I've tired of, but sadly, many cannot understand or accept that their spectral range may not be as "perfect" as they assume it to be and it's hard to explain that it's just what it is, no different than being upset about their hair colour.
I already said that Sunstreaker looks terrible under artificial light (fluorescents, LEDs), but looks pretty damned decent in full sunlight.
And that's the problem, because nobody's photo booths use natural UV lights. Always with the bright white spotlights and camera flashes.
The answer is NO, yet again, if you aren't seeing the difference it's due to a level of colour blindness in the spectrum of those shades of yellow. The sunlight might impact your perception of the shades and so you have a partial colour blindness, nothing that bad, but it's a fact (if you can't see the difference).
I just took this picture outside this very morning, and again, this is how it actually looks:
The BB saucer has yellow plastic and paint, and the difference is minor (aka they nailed it). If you look close enough, you'll see that the "cockpit" area is different to the front part of the saucer, but it is not that bad and is acceptable. Sunstreaker is almost a shade of orange for the plastic and bright yellow for the paint. If I could find my colour meter (it's in a box somewhere), I'd be able to tell you the Pantone range.
UV does NOT impact colours as you think it does, and I have no idea who gave you that notion (I have actually taught photography and have a fairly good notion of light and impact on the human spectrum).
To you under those exact lighting conditions (it's obviously overcast/cloudy and has rained) and viewed on your display under its exact lighting conditions.
Neither Bumblebee nor Sunstreaker's plastic are anywhere near as pale as your photos suggest that they are under my lighting conditions. Sunstreaker is so pale in that photo that it looks like a light source is behind it (showcasing that it's not entirely opaque due to the thickness) and, that's true for Bumblebee as well. Your photo makes both toys look like someone mixed an early 90s Dodge Viper Dandelion Yellow with a super pale orange from a creamsicle and then the colour faded to a pale AF banana yellow (like how the Dandelion Yellow substantially faded after a few years) hue.
You can't proclaim "this is how it actually looks" when someone can literally hold their copy of something up to their screen and see that absolutely everything possible with both toys looks completely different. That issue alone invalidates the sweeping generalization and oversimplification that anyone that thinks/sees different is colourblind (everyone is to some degree as no one's eyes perceive light in the same way but, that doesn't validate how you are trying to scapegoat that).
Yet your photo makes it look like a substantial difference (specifically the "hood" compared to the roof and chest) because, photos exacerbate certain things.
Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee is going to have a better match overall though because, it used an entirely different paint process than Earthrise Sunstreaker did. If you look at both toys under their roof sections, you will see what I'm talking about:
Earthrise Sunstreaker has a silver base -coat applied under the translucent blue plastic. The flat yellow paint however, was applied directly on top of the translucent blue plastic which is going to give the paint a green push if it's not on thick enough. The paint is thinner than Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee on my copies.
Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee has a base-coat applied directly on top of the translucent blue plastic which is either white, grey, or silver (it's hard to tell since the translucent blue plastic is tinting it) and then the semi-gloss yellow paint is applied on top of that. The paint is thicker than Earthrise Sunstreaker on my copies.
That would only be valid for your copy due to the variances in paint thickness from copy to copy as well as the batch of paint. That's also true for the plastic because, it's also going to inevitably vary since everything manufactured has a tolerance range. Numerous people would need to do this to have any sort of meaningful dataset to work with and even then, the overall average of that wouldn't invalidate someone's personal results due to what is being discussed.
They probably meant the colour temperature of the light source which has a substantial impact on colour just like the CRI of the viewing light source does as well as the lumen level, the display calibration, bias lighting, wall/room colour, and a litany of other variables (e.g. photo editing to match what you see) which quite frankly should have all been discussed in your replies.
You most recent reply is effectively: "everyone that doesn't see what I see is colourblind so they're wrong, trust me I used to teach photography" which pretends that no other possibility nor variables exist.
Just...No. (btw rain/overcast doesn't affect UV light like you are trying to imply... just fyi)
It's the opposite actually, you are trying to defend your position as you are taking offense to the possibility that your visual range isn't as "perfect" as someone else's.
I have actually met in person with other fans/members and the color variance in regard to Sunstreaker was discussed in length (and so far, everyone agreed to the color variance without hesitation), and on top of that, a LOT of members have expressed the exact observation. It's just a few that has this particular difficulty with accepting that they may be slightly color blind that have, as you have done here, debated with extreme vigour that "there has to be X reason"..
Sorry but I've seen several Sunstreaker figures during the year, at different stores and such and they were all identical, there is no signs or proof of any mystical unicorn alternative version in colours or plastic confirmed, only some people that debate that their version is "better" but yet if they photograph it to "prove" such, their version turns out the same as every other one, and then the person blames their camera or the lighting, etc. On top of 30+years of photography (graphic design and such too) on my side, I think that I have a clue about such things.
I'm not trying to offend you, but at some point, either you'll accept that you have a tiny bit of blindness for the colour within the range of these particular colours, or you continue arguing it and trying to twist anything said on the matter.
Anyways, I've already have done enough posts in regard to this in the past year, with examples, links, etc. and again, no offense, but I have no interest in continuing this and we should get back to the topic of the thread.
You going to break your neck making leaps of logic while hopping around on your jump to conclusions mat.
I'm not offended at all.
I'm not defending a position. You don't even know what my position is.
What I stated are facts which you can not counter so you're trying to deflect with outlandish claims of hurt feelings, denial, entrenchment, and so on.
At no point did I ever say there wasn't a variance. If you had read what I actually said instead of rushing to a response you would see that I explicitly stated why there are variances in the colour matching as well as how colour perception works.
This is more deflection. Stop jumping to conclusions and declaring someone is doing something that they aren't.
Again I'm not offended. Again, you need to stop jumping to conclusions. Again, you need to stop issuing proclamations that someone is doing something they are not.
None of what you said refutes the fact that your picture is vastly different from what someone else is going to see. Widen your focus and stop fixating on the colour variance then go back and re-read what I actually said and you might realize that I was pointing out that the colour of the actual plastic in your photo isn't going to match that in someone else's viewing environment. It wouldn't match even if everything about the toy matched 100% because the viewing environment is going to affect the colour.
The only one twisting anyone's words is you which isn't shocking as you clearly did read them and rushed in to make a reply that is beyond entrenched . It's not a zero sum game.
Since you edited your reply . . .
Are you really going to sit there and pretend that something that blocks out and alters light isn't going to change how light is refracted thus altering the perception of the colour? You're literally making the argument that luminescence changes don't alter colour at all.
Again, you need to read what I actually said.
Final comment and I'm done here as you've decided that you need to prove yourself "right" by moving things around, could be a miscommunication, or such, doesn't matter, you've started being condescending and projecting now (I didn't assume anything, I stated how your arguments comes out as being, but you have and still are):
Environment is not going to change an actual and factual detail: the colour(s) will always be the same (the tints used in the fabrication are a constant). Perception is what the variant is and what you're arguing.
I’m not too much into « background » characters seekers, didn’t get the rainmakers and other repaint, but maybe I’d make an exception and get Sunstorm if he was made
I would like voyager Earthrise versions of neon green Acid Storm and Dreameave Sun Storm, and a deluxe Slipstream with a deluxe Windblade remold.
I didn't move anything around nor change the context. The only edit I made to my reply was due to a bracket coding error for the quote tags that mobile insisted on changing which presented large sections as a single quote or the entire reply as a single quote and/or a spelling error. I've also not moved any goalposts if that's what you meant.
I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to have a discussion and to clarify what I was trying to convey.
There's literally no way that I can even begin to try to change that perception. I'm not sure why its OK for you to state how my relpies come across but, me doing the same qualifies as being condescending and projecting (which is something that I chose not to accuse you of).
That constant also has a tolerance range just like printed material (which a printing press goes to great lengths in order to trick the contracted company into thinking the QC samples are outstanding and I highly doubt its limited to the printing industry) just like all manufactured items do. That tolerance is rarely if ever disclosed externally.
It sounds like you are under the impression that I was making an argument that any variance would go beyond that and into drastically different colours of the yellow plastic as well as the paint in the container/sprayer. The only possible area that has any potential for a drastic difference is the thickness of the paint (which is never going to match due to being "off" in colour and no base-coat under it which gives it a blue push and a darker tone). Paint thickness has varied widely in the WFC lines when it's on large sections like a roof and even smaller apps like the grey paint on Tracks's forearms (first copy looked like was dipped and the second copy looked sprayed). A thicker coat of paint will reduce the blue push and gone alteration but, that's only going to push the paint closer to the colour that it's supposed to be which isn't the same as the colour of the plastic (which is nothing new for Hasbro/TakaraTomy).
For clarity my replies have never been "there is no mismatch". They were about how someone holding a 100% matching copy up next you your picture isn't going to look the same and why as well as how variations in production can affect that mismatch. The bulk of my replies have litteraly been about colour perception and what affects it and, you seem to be under the impression that I don't understand that.
e.g. This is what I meant by your photo having pale plastic and drastically exacerbating the mismatch:
The mismatch is there but, someone is going to see your photo, shake their head, and think that's a horrible copy because it's not what they are going to see since Sunstreaker's plastic is going to typically look far more opaque (and thus darker) than translucent.
You're immediate response to me trying to convey that was, that I was being defensive and hurt about colour perception even though I explicitly stated everyone is colourblind to some extent (because no one percieves light in the same way) further along in my reply.
The miscommunication (which is important) is mostly centered around thinking I was taking a stance that I wasn't. I'm in no way saying it's your fault, obviously something in my initial reply set off a chain reaction of "not this shit again" which I'm not privy too due to being inactive for 16 years and not reading every current post/thread (though I know it can feel like I do based on my current activity level). Neither of us can help that intent wound up getting steamrolled by perception.
I'm genuinely not trying to drag this out nor get the last word, I just wanted to try to add some clarity to what I've been trying to convey in my replies because, communication is really important to me and my intent likely wasn't clear to other readers. I don't want anyone to misconstrue my intent or worse, use it as supporting evidence to prop up a PoV I wasn't making.
I have all 3 molds and like Earthrise slightly more. The Igear has the best undercarriage in Jet mode but the bot proportions are off in the forearms, I don't like the head sculpt, and those pieces hanging off the shoulder. MP-11 fixes the bot proportion/head sculpt issues but I like how Earthrise has the feet tailfins swivel so they don't just stick out the back. Also, I can pick up Earthrise with out it coming apart at the waist.
I actually don't have the waist issue on my MP11 TRU Starscream. Every other copy of that mold I've owned had it though. My TRU Thundercracker does it, but having the torso loose like that actually frees up the mold to access the waist swivel so it never bothered me much.
The Igear Raptors are definitely stylized and I was never in love with the headsculpt either. Articulation on them was next level for a Seeker though. Waist, butterfly, double elbows and knees, null rays on an independent swivel, wrist rotation. I like the ER seekers, but the Raptors are definitely more fun toys imo.
I love the mold tbh. I still want Starscream, Skywarp, Thundercracker and the coneheads Dirge and Ramjet
You two! That was a fun battle to read. I decided to upvote you both because I love spirited discussions. I guess it's gotten kind of off-topic, though, so I won't weigh in with pics of my own Sunstreaker. (My eyes are not exactly MISB, heh heh)
I like all 3 as well. Earthrise just has that look that works best for me. Why is it though Hastak refuses to put an actual waist swivel in their earth jet Seekers?(not counting Siege Tetra Jets) Even MP52 doesn't have one.
Separate names with a comma.