Again, not facts. Opinion. You make a quip about calibrating a monitor but do not seem to grasp how comparing two photos at different angles, poses, cameras used, lights, focus, focal length and ten other things can effect how you see the item. Nor are you taking into account any of the actual "facts" that even if every single difference you pointed out turned out be correct..it's only one version out of nearly a dozen that where used to "create" the illusion of a fully functional 3d suit. The prop you used to compare does not have functioning flaps. Does not have air brakes, missiles, the under skeleton, wiring, battery's, switches...the hips don't need to actually work. The crotch piece doesn't need to articulate so that the legs can move. There's a reason the actors and stunt people almost never wear the bottom of the suit, and when they do its a near static scene..becuase they can't move. If you want it exactly to match that suit in that pose..buy a statue. If you would like the suit to actually move, and not be a "brick", then there are going to need to be allowances.
Yes, there are things not spot on. But that is the case on EVERY SINGLE IRON MAN suit. Not just the mk3. And again(and again and again)...comparing it to one screen cap or prop doesn't mean the figure is wrong. There are multiple versions created, both digitally and practically, and it's all blended together to make the film. The figure must then pick and choose which parts from which scenes to use. And then take a computer drawing and make it fully functional in a 3 dimensional figure that works..even though the suit in the film was never designed with actual joints and articulation. The only way to achieve 100% faithfulness to it would be to print off the scene you like and frame it. You may be able to get close with a statue, depending.
Oh, and those shoulders that are too big, adjust. And I'm sure you know they are to big becuase you compared them directly with the prop? Same with that distance between shoulders? Not like you used that photo to compare, since it's impossible to do with a photo and the lack of info about camera, focal length, fixed point ect. And that the 1:1 prop suit is at a decent angle (notice the offset hips and legs) and the 1/6 figure is nearly flush with the camera. And one is close to the camera, one further away. My point is..unless you actually have the measurements for that suit (and more to the point..every single suit used on set and digitally) and compared them you don't have facts you have opinions. Based on..
im by inigou, en Flickr
comp_tweaked by inigou, en Flickr
They have the way to do it and they didnt made it. It pretends to be a MOVIE MASTERPIECE, not a "practical suit" or "IM visiting hospitals or conventions" figure version.
