^ sure wrote a lot. Just pointing out that at the end of the day, these still are just your opinions. No need to get defensive and press your views onto others =\

 

Lol @ 'magical voodoo'

Dude it's simple fact that different body lines, colours, etc, etc, all create a vastly different appearance. A big part of this is where your eyes are drawn to. When you look at a car you look at all of it, one part to the next type deal. The body lines of the car direct that flow. Sorry to tell your ego, but yes, the car's design is what directs your initial view, not unlike a buildings structure or artwork or any other thing.

Your actual viewing of it is done almost subconscienciously, and often very fast. Even when giving a car a quick glance your view is directed from one part to another, in some cases you're drawn to a central location, in some cases you're drawn all over the place (poor design), and some have a nice smooth transition from one location to another.

Of course, after the initial view, you are free to look where ever you want, etc.

This is why a lot of times you see a car or a modification that SHOULD look good, and really, doesn't look bad, but for whatever reason, it just doesn't "flow"
You might not be able to put your finger on the reason, but that doesn't change the truth that there's something 'off'

This, is what I was trying to point out. There's no point in changing his tailights because his current setup actually favours the 03/04 tailights, and their design. It's also a lot more unique.

This kind of thought process is why some guys cars look immaculate and well done, and some look like they just had parts and modifications thrown at them with a gattling gun.
The OP's car is heavy in the latter category as things are right now.

 

So changing his tail lights is going to change the cars body lines, colors, overall design, etc.

Would you also argue that 4DGS should change his tails to the older design to make his car 'flow' better?

 

Dude, are you just arguing for argument sakes?

I'm not going to repeat what I've already said about 3 times now. It's not rocket science. I'll elaborate once more because you seem to be ignoring simple fact.

Circles make your view centralized, not complicated.

Lines make your view linear, in this case, mainly horizantal, causing you to look from tailight to tailight instead of with circles where you're prone to just stare straight ahead.
And for 4dgs, his car is sweet, I've seen it in person. I don't dislike it, nor would I dislike the OP's if he had the 05/06 tails.
Personally I have a shaved trunk with the 05/06 tails, but I still have reverse lights.

If I were to nit-pick Blains car, which I wouldn't normally do with a car that is flawless in almost every aspect imaginable, I'd say yes, his trunk looks bare, there is something missing in the rear end visual. Does it look bad? Fuak no it looks incredible. But we have very square flat trunks, with little character. To have it completely shaved and draw focus onto that empty, flat canvas, is probably not the best idea from a design aspect.

OAN as for his finances, i never commented on them at all, I said that 'wasn't the case' because he is a painter/body man, so cost to pay someone to paint it isn't a factor.
I know nothing of his finances, that would be a complete assumption.


If you're going to argue another point just for fun at least bring something to the freakin table dude.

 

Please post reputable research that states conclusively that lines vs. circles have such an effect on human perception as you claim, and I will concede that you were right all along. Kthxbie

 

Google is your friend. Since you don't know even the basic principles of perception or design, it's totally on you to do your on research if for whatever reason you doubt the very clear and obvious principles that shape (no pun) our view of the world.

As a last attempt I did google some links that look promising to teach you something, at the most basic easy to read level I saw.
Though with your failure to listen and unwilligness to learn, I'm not sure how much help they'll be.

You can show someone the door.......



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/

 

^ exactly. Just because you yourself see it, that doesnt mean it makes it so.

 

Neither of those links qualify as reputable research, especially the one with the url that says psychic in the name. I've seen every single one of those optical illusions before. Also I read that entire wiki articl and it does not support your argument, in fact it explains that this argument is vastly outdated at best.
I'll do some actual research on the subject when I get to a computer and get back to you.
Also, I am comfortable with any level of writing so don't let that stop you from posting something that's actually peer reviewed.

 

I didn't read them, as I said, they were quick google searches. I'm not doing the research, no, admittedly, I left that job to you. I already know what looks good, what attracts the eye and what causes it to wander, etc.

Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Yes.

Is everyones perception different? Yes.



Does a big blank trunk with no lights, emblems, curve, crease, or otherwise look out of place? Yes. If you'd like to tell me it doesn't go nuts.

Let me know how your 'research' goes.

 

i agree with tuner, but i wouldnt care, i would still get the 05-06 tails because i think they look more classy when lit.

 

I want to see the "up to date," peer reviewed sources that support your argument. See? it could work both ways..

 

It is commonly believed that vision is a unified, coherent sense; that people perceive objects and surfaces, manipulate objects under visual guidance, and move around using visual information that is seamless and integrated. This notion, however, is false. There are at least two pathways for visual information in the brain, each with its own representation of visual space. These representations have distinct functions, and under some conditions they can hold contradictory spatial information.

Bruce Bridgeman, "Visual perception," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, 1999, http://www.accessscience.com

 

Iblove watching his thread, all the pointless back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and in the end the OP does what he wants.

 

which basically states that perception is different for everyone, supporting my argument. So, stop saying it looks like a tc! It is a matter of fact, just your opinion.

 

Sure you win.

Though I don't read anything that refutes my comments. That whole quote seems to be referring to movement, and perception during movement