Thanks for the heads-up on the Force-Z graphic, EJ.
Sutho, work on unravelling the PoW disruptive scheme continues. Two key roadblocks remain: the shades of the paints themselves are in question; the B&W images and the colour footage can only be seen, in my opinion, as indicative.
I suspect that we will have a better understanding of the shades at some stage, but I am purposefully avoiding any repeat of my earlier endeavours to put some 'science' into comparing contrasts in the B&W images, or the colours in the colour stills/photos. It is an essay into madness for all the reasons previously explained by me and others-more-knowledgeable of the pitfalls of orthochromatic and panchromatic photography. Short of finding a contemporary record of the paints applied to PoW, I do not believe we will ever have a definitive answer. We may be able to say which paints our A to E are likely to be, and not to be, but I doubt that we will get further than a range of options.
To give just one example of the difficulties with the B&W images: B5 is approximately 14% reflectance and is a bluish paint; blues appear lighter in panchromatic film; B5 could therefore easily be mistaken for MS3 which has a 20% reflectance, but is not blue, so does not appear lighter in panchromatic images. In simple terms, these two paints of considerably different 'colour' will be very difficult, if not impossible, to tell apart in panchromatic B&W images, even were the images taken in excellent conditions and developed/reproduced perfectly.
You can see this for yourself iin the below images of HMS QE, freshly painted out of Norfolk Yard in what Raven tells us is MS2, B5, MS3 and MS4A (Warship Pespectives Camouflage Vol 3 RN p 29). Yes, in some areas the two mid-range paints (B5 and MS3) may seem readily discernible, but can anyone say in all honesty that they can name the paints for each and every panel?
https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 11679.htmlhttp://i.imgur.com/mq2vkZB.jpgRegards,
Lindsay