Nissan has developed an awesome new paint. The Scratch Guard Coat is a clear paint, made from synthetic resin that will offer cars with stronger resistance to scratches. Not only does it resist scratches from car-washing machines (the main culprit of scratches) 5 times better than conventional paint, it can even “heal” itself of any light scratches. Depending on the seriousness of the scratch and the surrounding temperature, it can take anywhere from a day to a week to repair itself. The pictures above shows how the paint photoshop-ically repaired itself from some serious vandalism.
This water-repelling paint will debut as an optional feature on Nissan’s X-Trail SUV. For a mere 52,500 yen (£251, US$435), they’ll coat your new X-Trail with this magical paint. If the response is good, I’m sure we’ll see this paint available for every other Nissan vehicles very soon.
Update: Thought I should mention this, the pictures are from Nissan’s official website.
[via Engadget]
December 5th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
Wow, were almost in 2006 and ppl are still taking us for morons when its time to view fictionnal facts through the web.
Look at first picture, look at second…
notice:
same shadow (same sun position then), same flash from kodak. Same everything !
It’s a pretty cheap photoshop job. Hey nissan, give me a minute and i’ll will invent water which in 30 minutes will turn into wine. I’ll show you the before and after pics, it’s true !
December 6th, 2005 at 3:41 am
LMAO
Funny, if you take both pics and place em in photoshop, and then lower transparancy on one of them they look identical (light included) plus the sun shine is same spot… ?? Wow one week later and no clouds still!
December 6th, 2005 at 3:54 am
here’s a thought:
A STUDIO.
A STUDIO LIGHT.
CAR IS STILL.
THE LIGHT IS STILL.
BANG 2 PICTURES.
bang 2 smarty pants persons trying to be smart.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:57 am
both reasons for the light and whatnot to be in the same place could be true. although i highly doubt that it works very well. or that Serious vandalism would be repaired. or any vandalism that involved thinking
December 6th, 2005 at 8:21 am
here’s a thought:
A STUDIO.
A STUDIO LIGHT.
CAR IS STILL.
THE LIGHT IS STILL.
BANG 2 PICTURES.
bang 2 smarty pants persons trying to be smart.
I totally agreed.
But if I may,
Except a studio is usually inside, from what i know off. Look bottom right… it’s a road, parking lot, not really my kind of hardwood floor.
I guess i can keep my pants up!
December 6th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Sorry to say it, but even the Sun Glare is photoshopped. Thankyou and Goodbye.
December 6th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
It’s photoshopped….
They just took a picture of a car, drew some random marks on it and made radial blur. Maybe it’s just a “virtual example” of what the paint might be capable of doing?
December 6th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
If you re-read the article it tells you that the picture was photoshopped to simiulate what the paint does.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Wow…look how many people DID not see that hahahahah full-blown out argument when it said it SO plainly in the article
December 7th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Really lol.
well sorry to all then.
hehe
December 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
You guys are idiots, if they really wanted to make it look real they woulda took a picture, scratched the car. Used the after picture saying it was the before one. Just read the article next time kay?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:48 am
wow, maybe the reading comprehension factor affected the prior four posts (with the exception of Common, as he was apologizing)…but if you actually take the time to read and comprehend the article, you will see that the author uses the term “photoshop-ically” to imply that the way the paint redeemed its original quality made it seem as though it had been photoshopped. not once did the author claim the picture was photoshopped.
that being said, i feel that the picture may have been photoshopped…or they could have just set up the camera and lighting in a showroom or whatnot and done a time-lapse style shot. the latter idea makes more sense to me, as i would think that nissan would like to see how long the paint take to work it’s magic.
either way,
December 8th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
well if you look at the hood, it looks like a guy was in the middle of waxing it and streaked it, then snapped the picture, finished the top and took the second.. camera on tripod of course.. $475 for the coating? so what happenes after three years? the paint shatters like glass and falls off?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
nissan’s press release does not mention the photoshop effort
December 9th, 2005 at 1:25 am
Did anyone think they took the ‘after’ picture first, scratched the car and then took the ‘before’ picture, leaving them with a scratched car. It takes a second to scratch a car, hence the sun not moving etc….. thats a theory not that I back it up whole heartedly as theres not much texture to the scratches, making it seem photoshopped and the fact weve been told this in the article. Just thought I’d ofset your basis of argument about the possible setup of this
December 9th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Um, hey guys…
The sun is a constant. If there is two clear days in a row, it will be the same effect, it will look identical.
Furthermore…
Considering Nissan has to prove itself, this isn’t far off. If it looked like it was in a studio, people would go even more easily to the photoshop idea.
It does not say it was photoshopped, it says it has the effect, meaning that is how well it works.
Why in the world, do you think Nissan would lie about this.
Now I could be wrong, but none of u guys sound like u have any experience in photography, let alone car photography. Take some shots of yourself witha brand new car, you will see “photoshopped” sun glares abound. Also the basic marketting principals are also getting past you(the whole need for the photo’s before and after to have a duplicate setup). Minimize distractions from the point. It’s simple.
Also, google something before you make such horribly idiotic statements because you yourself have a warez version of photoshop.
http://www.google.com/search?q=nissan+self+healing+paint&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
F*cking idiots.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I got a bridge to sell you.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:49 am
actually i hav reasons to think it was photoshopped.
note the scenery below the sunglare.
if you bring up the two photos and contantly swith between another you will notice everything is exactly the SAME including the scenery from below the sunglare(clouds n shit).
chance of exact same place where clouds r put are virtually impossible.
so in my opinion i think this is photoshopped.
but it duz not mean it doesnt work, like mentioned before if could be a virtual interpretation on wot the paint can do.
i have made my point.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:51 am
Maybe it was photoshopped. For a kick-off the scratch doesn’t really look like a real scratch. The direction of it makes it look to me as though some photo-shopper has just ran a paintbrush over the picture a few times and faded it out.
Secondly: think of the last time you saw an advert for some stain removing product. Would the people who make these ads stain their subjects first? Not likely. It’s all a part of the advertising. Just to show you what it will look like when it actually has been used. Most of the times I see something like this it is for Vanish or something like it. The clothes they use look the same for the whole ad. Down to the creases and wrinkles left in them. Another way to show that advertisers do this is to go and look at most DIY hair dyes. Look closely and you will see that the hair is always the same. This would suggest it hadn’t been washed or anything. Only explanation: a bit of photoshopping.
December 11th, 2005 at 3:13 am
IT SAYS IT WAS PHOTOSHOPED YA IDIOTS. SOMEONE SAID THAT A WHILE AGO BUT YOU TO THINK TO ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE. RETARDS
December 11th, 2005 at 6:21 am
it says photoshopically repaired itself dumbass. the author was trying to say that it repaired itself similar to a photoshop job.
Retard, maybe make it past 7th grade then start posting shit.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Either it’s just a virtual example or they’re using Photo Shop to bring out the scratches to make it look like this new paint does more than it should. Something called advertising folks.
Although I must say that the article isn’t half as specific as it should be and I don’t consider “photoshop-ically” to be a word. Not so much.
December 19th, 2005 at 8:09 am
regardless if it was photoshopped or not.. Audi had this technology about 15 years ago!! remember that pearlescent white that was hip in the 90’s with all the Audi’s… well, it had the same properties.. if it was scratched, a lower layer which was still fluid would slowly fill the scratch.. so what “new” feature is nissan shilling?
Coleman/
December 26th, 2005 at 7:56 am
“f you re-read the article it tells you that the picture was photoshopped to simiulate what the paint does.”
Its funny how many people DONT read the article and go straight to the bsing, thanks for telling the kids who are ADD.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
its not that they don’t read.. perhaps they don’t understand? LOL