Club Obi Wan

Hello guys.
I would like to know if there are any 40/42 jacket wearers out there which went for a TN Crystal Skull jacket with HF measurements?

Regards

orb

My TN CS is HF spec, and fits perfectly. I'm a 40 - 42 jacket wearer, more 42.

Got any pics RCSignals?

Thank You!

Greetz

orb

I don't, but if you are a 42, about 6' or 6'1 and wear a 34" shirt sleeve, you should be just fine.

Talk to Tony, maybe he can send you that sizing jacket Lantz just had!

Hey Orb,

I usually wear size 40 jackets, but I went for the Nowak CS size 44 in HF measurements except for the sleeves which I ask Tony to reduce from 26" to 24".
I'm 5' 8" and 150 pounds and the jacket is roomy enough to wear a sweater under it, although in that pic I'm just wearing a shirt under the jacket.
The pic was taken with a 50mm Dslr lens so there's no wide angle distortion; something I noticed in a lot of pics posted on this forum ;-)

Hope this helps.

Hey chagwa!

This really helps! Thanks.
I'm 5ft 10 also 150 pounds.

Jacket looks great on you.

Regards

orb

Chagwa, that jacket does look really great! I really like the color and distressing work. Very CS to me.

So if you were to to use the wide angle it would look more like my size 52 - like an ice hockey enforcer goon? ;-)

Don't Call Me Junior!, that was funny...

It's just sometimes I find this forum a little funny, you get people analyzing pics taken from cheap point and shoot cameras without taking in consideration focal length and barrel distortion. Even worse, you get people arguing about the different shades of color in different leather on pics that were obviously taken with the wrong white balance setting. That doesn't even take in consideration the fact that most people don't even have a properly calibrated monitor that displays accurate colors...

My point is pics can be deceiving...
Which might explain why many members on this forum seem never satisfied and have owned a staggering amount of Indy jackets!

chagwa wrote:Don't Call Me Junior!, that was funny...

It's just sometimes I find this forum a little funny, you get people analyzing pics taken from cheap point and shoot cameras without taking in consideration focal length and barrel distortion. Even worse, you get people arguing about the different shades of color in different leather on pics that were obviously taken with the wrong white balance setting. That doesn't even take in consideration the fact that most people don't even have a properly calibrated monitor that displays accurate colors...

My point is pics can be deceiving...
Which might explain why many members on this forum seem never satisfied and have owned a staggering amount of Indy jackets!

I'm sure you're correct about all that, but you must realize that many of us have never heard of a single one of the parameters you mentioned. We pick out a digital camera based on price and appearance, point and shoot. The pics come out amazingly well most of the time.

191145 wrote:

chagwa wrote:Don't Call Me Junior!, that was funny...

It's just sometimes I find this forum a little funny, you get people analyzing pics taken from cheap point and shoot cameras without taking in consideration focal length and barrel distortion. Even worse, you get people arguing about the different shades of color in different leather on pics that were obviously taken with the wrong white balance setting. That doesn't even take in consideration the fact that most people don't even have a properly calibrated monitor that displays accurate colors...

My point is pics can be deceiving...
Which might explain why many members on this forum seem never satisfied and have owned a staggering amount of Indy jackets!

I'm sure you're correct about all that, but you must realize that many of us have never heard of a single one of the parameters you mentioned. We pick out a digital camera based on price and appearance, point and shoot. The pics come out amazingly well most of the time.

I agree with you on that, Chagwa. 100%. I have learned to take what I see in a lot of the images posted here with a grain of salt. For simple demonstration purposes they can be useful and entertaining but beyond that it is near impossible to draw any rock solid conclusions because of the variables that exist. Since the very same variables exist in the original films themselves I feel it's hard to use what might be considered a great screen cap as conclusive evidence of certain characteristics such as color and measurements.

191145, no worries on the terminology and the point and shoot camera. They can be surprisingly good for what they are. Heck, I have quite a few thousand dollars of Nikon gear but for the sake of convenience I carry around at nearly all times a little point and shoot which takes some really great pictures in my opinion as long as you understand what its limitations are i.e does this image faithfully reproduce what was actually there - bear in mind that human eyes make corrections to what we see on the fly with such amazing efficiency that we often aren't aware that our eyes and brain are actually making these corrections. Cameras aren't as forgiving. They are made nowadays to automatically take a well exposed picture (overall not too dark or to bright in layman's terms without knowing exactly what it's subject is so it's a generalization really) in most situations. Well exposed and accurate are not the same thing.

Depending on the camera and the settings of said camera a jacket that our eyes perceive to be a dark brown color in person given the lighting conditions might show up as a black, very dark brown, light brown, etc. Throw in white balance then the picture may add a slight bit of yellow or blue depending on the light source i.e. tungsten indoor, florescent, sunlight. Our eyes do this as well but the brain compensates for it. The camera can exaggerate such things. As far as the final image goes, they may all "come out amazingly well most of the time" but is the image accurate? It's hard to say unless you are aware of the true conditions under which the image was captured.