CPCWiki forum

General Category => Amstrad CPC hardware => Topic started by: Gryzor on 18:59, 25 March 16

Title: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 18:59, 25 March 16
How about that?


[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: EgoTrip on 19:11, 25 March 16
I didn't know that.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Poliander on 19:24, 25 March 16
I think it's an optical illusion due to shape/perspective. Let's compare our sizes, shall we?  :D
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Token on 19:32, 25 March 16
funny angle of view  :D
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 01:18, 26 March 16
I'd say their elevated at different heights.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvnKXOGYKM8[/youtube]
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 20:08, 26 March 16
Yeah, ooooohkay, any real input? :D
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 23:01, 26 March 16

Yeah, ooooohkay, any real input?


There was an example from the 80s Curiosity Show which dealt with Illusions & Angles, but I haven't been able to track down the video. :(
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: 1024MAK on 00:21, 27 March 16
As said above, it's a trick. Taking advantage of the way perspective works in images (and so fools the brain...).

Mark
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: chinnyhill10 on 02:34, 27 March 16
As said above, it's a trick. Taking advantage of the way perspective works in images (and so fools the brain...).

Mark


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0[/youtube]
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 12:40, 27 March 16
I'd sure like to see one of those 464s spinning around an Ames Window.  :D


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KrpZMNEDOY[/youtube]
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Dizrythmia on 15:15, 27 March 16
Awww, the Curiosity Show. I grew up with that every Saturday morning :)


As for the 464s, I recently had an original 1984 model and a 1988 model with the new logo. Both were the same physical size, so I'm also going with it being a matter of perspective.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 19:46, 27 March 16
I don't think we're dealing with perspective here. The angle is very high and the difference in size really noticeable. Even if you mentally continue the edged of the top machines they won't fall on the contour of the bottom one...
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Zoe Robinson on 20:44, 27 March 16
I recall my tall-button 464 being slightly longer than the short-button 464 my sister had, which had a the later logo on it. It seems these 464s are from different manufacturing times.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 20:52, 27 March 16
it'd be really interesting if they actually produced new cases at some point...
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: chinnyhill10 on 21:04, 27 March 16
it'd be really interesting if they actually produced new cases at some point...


The final batch of 464's must have had new moulds as they had dual English and Spanish text moulded into the cases.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: villain on 22:16, 27 March 16

The final batch of 464's must have had new moulds as they had dual English and Spanish text moulded into the cases.

Do you mean the description of the ports on the backside?
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 22:48, 27 March 16
 :picard: You're not serious! Really? The back of the 464 is higher than the front, so it's closer to the camera and will appear bigger/wider. This is a primary school perspective trick.

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: chinnyhill10 on 23:29, 27 March 16
Do you mean the description of the ports on the backside?


And the volume and power controls on the side.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 23:49, 27 March 16
Awww, the Curiosity Show. I grew up with that every Saturday morning :)


Do you remember the episode with the Amstrad in it?


They were playing around with Flight Path 737
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: dcdrac on 00:06, 28 March 16
I remember they had a 464 on, Only Fools and Horses when Rodney was learning how to programme
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: EgoTrip on 00:08, 28 March 16
I remember they had a 464 on, Only Fools and Horses when Rodney was learning how to programme

It was a 6128 and Del Boy wiped his work.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: dcdrac on 00:24, 28 March 16
and here it is


http://www.starringthecomputer.com/snapshots/only_fools_and_horses_cpc6128_2.jpg (http://www.starringthecomputer.com/snapshots/only_fools_and_horses_cpc6128_2.jpg)
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 00:31, 28 March 16
Let me guess the caption: "It's a bloody computer, init!". :)

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 01:39, 28 March 16
I remember they had a 464 on, Only Fools and Horses when Rodney was learning how to programme


Unfortunately I don't have any proof to connect "The Curiosity Show" with the Amstrad I recall seeing, so I cannot say what Amstrad it was apart from it having a Colour Monitor, though I guess to setup a game for the programme, a Disc based system could be loaded and ready to go during a commercial break.
The segment it was on was about the Flight Path 737 game. I guess they were impressed with how Simulation was becoming a more realistic in games and it just happened to be demonstrated on an Amstrad.  :)


I've never been able to find a video clip of it though. :(
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Zoe Robinson on 03:06, 28 March 16
and here it is

http://www.starringthecomputer.com/snapshots/only_fools_and_horses_cpc6128_2.jpg (http://www.starringthecomputer.com/snapshots/only_fools_and_horses_cpc6128_2.jpg)


Is it just me or is the monitor in that picture not actually connected to the CPC Rodney is supposedly using?
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Dizrythmia on 12:04, 28 March 16

Unfortunately I don't have any proof to connect "The Curiosity Show" with the Amstrad I recall seeing, so I cannot say what Amstrad it was apart from it having a Colour Monitor, though I guess to setup a game for the programme, a Disc based system could be loaded and ready to go during a commercial break.
The segment it was on was about the Flight Path 737 game. I guess they were impressed with how Simulation was becoming a more realistic in games and it just happened to be demonstrated on an Amstrad.  :)


I've never been able to find a video clip of it though. :(
I honestly don't recall that episode. Here's hoping it shows up on YouTube at some point.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: PulkoMandy on 12:54, 28 March 16
There are definitely different molds and cases. The first one was flat, and the joystick port and volume control were on the back. Later on the back was higher than the front and some ports moved to the side (so they could make the motherboard smaller - it did not need to be the full length of the case anymore).


But I don't know if these cases have the same length or not.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Token on 17:35, 28 March 16
(http://zone.bomberoza.net/Autres%20ordinateurs/Amstrad/cpc464-cpc472-mars2006.jpg)
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: villain on 18:52, 28 March 16

And the volume and power controls on the side.

As far as I know you could make this part of the moulds exchangeable, to avoid massive costs for localisation of the cases.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 22:20, 28 March 16
The molded text on the case would have been an insert, no need for extra tooling for different markets.

@Token (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=210): With enough CPCs you could make the nearest one look twice the length of the furthest.

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: mattl on 09:20, 29 March 16
So my CPC desk as a kid was measured on my friends fat key CPC and when I got my Xmas 90 model it was smaller than the width we thought, which was good as the joystick (which didn't fit) and volume were on the side.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 11:18, 29 March 16
I would like to think I do know about perspectives and all that, thank you :D


However, this should take care of the perspective issue, wouldn't it?


[attachimg=1]


I'm not saying it's so, just that it's weird.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 11:20, 29 March 16
The bit that "tells me" that it can only be a perspective trick is the fact that the bottom one is the newer logo and there is no way, that they made the case BIGGER over time!

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 11:21, 29 March 16
That's certainly logical. I wish he had put them one on top of the other... all my machines are boxed away :(
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 11:52, 29 March 16
I would like to think I do know about perspectives and all that, thank you :D


However, this should take care of the perspective issue, wouldn't it?


There maybe another explanation, but because I did 6 years of Graphics at School, perspective is the foremost explanation I consider, but a single image taken from above isn't giving enough information because there is no side or front view.

Quote
I'm not saying it's so, just that it's weird.


The alternative is photo manipulation by simply resizing, but why would anyone do that?!?  ???  And as Bryce said a newer 464 just wouldn't be in a larger box.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: gerald on 21:09, 29 March 16
The bit that "tells me" that it can only be a perspective trick is the fact that the bottom one is the newer logo and there is no way, that they made the case BIGGER over time!

Bryce.
Having 464 from tall key to cost down, I can tell you that of them have the same length ;)
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 22:02, 29 March 16
Having 464 from tall key to cost down, I can tell you that of them have the same length ;)

I was just waiting for someone who owns them all to bring some sense and reality into this thread :)

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: arnoldemu on 22:07, 29 March 16
The bit that "tells me" that it can only be a perspective trick is the fact that the bottom one is the newer logo and there is no way, that they made the case BIGGER over time!

Bryce.
They didn't make it shorter either! In the cost-down there is a lot of empty space..

Almost enough to make an echo.... echo... echo...  :picard:
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 22:46, 29 March 16
Having a new tool made would have cost more than the plastic they'd save.

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 10:53, 30 March 16
Indeed, I have a v1 tall keys one and definitely a cost down version (and a couple in-between) and I didn't remember them being different in size - just the cavernous empty space inside. But then again I never compared them...
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 11:36, 30 March 16
just the cavernous empty space inside.

You mean "potential mod / expansion space" :)

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Gryzor on 11:51, 30 March 16
Oh yes, that, we're talking about the same thing.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: AMSDOS on 13:00, 30 March 16

Having 464 from tall key to cost down, I can tell you that  ____  of them have the same length


I was just waiting for someone who owns them all to bring some sense and reality into this thread


Bryce.


But was the word meant to be "All" or "None"?
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 14:54, 30 March 16
If they were different lengths I'm sure we would have got a comprehensive list of models and dimensions.

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Zoe Robinson on 18:47, 30 March 16
If they were different lengths I'm sure we would have got a comprehensive list of models and dimensions.

You make us sound like a bunch of geeks.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: 1024MAK on 19:41, 30 March 16
You make us sound like a bunch of geeks.
What, on a retro Amstrad computer forum?  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: gerald on 20:26, 30 March 16


But was the word meant to be "All" or "None"?
I let you guess[nb]My keyboard has some suden Alzheimer crisis[/nb]  ;D
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: remax on 23:11, 31 March 16
I would like to think I do know about perspectives and all that, thank you :D


However, this should take care of the perspective issue, wouldn't it?


[attachimg=1]


I'm not saying it's so, just that it's weird.


That would take care of it if you assume that all CPCs are perfectly parallel to the ground. (ie a Parallelepiped on a planar ground).


But if, as i believe, the units are tilted toward the camera (or on some kind of a small stair), then you can explain the fact that the perspective line are not the same for each CPC.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: seanb on 13:37, 08 April 16
Seen this today and thought of this thread

The train track optical illusion that's bewildering the internet - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35989211)
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: Bryce on 13:55, 08 April 16
Seen this today and thought of this thread

The train track optical illusion that's bewildering the internet - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35989211)

This just confirms that the average internet user is actually dumber than I previously thought. Do they not teach these things in schools anymore??

Bryce.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: seanb on 14:01, 08 April 16
I sort of remember being taught things like this but that was long ago and isn't something that's come up too often for me to remember.

That said if I had posted the video I'd have said it was a very nice optical illusion knowing someone would've given the correct explanation eventually then I would have pretended I knew the science behind it the whole time.
Title: Re: CPC464 sizes
Post by: 1024MAK on 18:24, 10 April 16
Alas, people don't realize that it is the brain that gives them 3D vision. So all kinds of perspective type "tricks" will fool people who don't know, or who have forgotten this.

You sometimes get similar weirdness when people use an inappropriate camera lens and wonder why the straight lines they see with their eye end up as curves in the picture....

And don't start me on aspect ratio.... or lighting issues...

Mark