It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:33 am

All times are UTC


THE PROP DEN is primarily a Darth Vader Prop Discussion Board, but we also deal with other Star Wars Props as well as Prop Replicas from other movies. If you do not yet have an account, set one up, sign in and jump into the Vader Prop Discussions!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Enter your Message here
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
SithLord wrote:
Yes, it's impossible to scale it without the VP mask looking bigger. Therefore the proportions are not identical to the original. That was part of why I showed it.....it looks great but something was still off. That's why I tried a near/far comp. But thanks for pointing that out.


So, to address your earlier request in another thread to show you what flawed size comparisons you made, your challenge needn't have been made so aggressively, since you gently described it so well in the above sentence. In the past, when using the GH Master dome as a size reference, you often made whatever masks you paired with it look larger than the screen used.

Thanks for acknowledging the differences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Sure, no problem. I knew the limitations of that particular comparison. I might disagree with you about a comparison or distance or something and I don't mean to be harsh about it....if you show me what you think is wrong with it or that affects the interpretation of it, I don't actually mind that someone takes the time to pick it apart or even says ya but this doesn't look right. The only time my dander gets up is that if there is a problem with a comparison and someone (not necessarily you) thinks there is some ulterior motive to it. Sometimes one either doesn't have handy or can't get the exact angle or distance and we all know how much that affects the face to dome perspective. I'm not sure which GH comps you mean, but I'm sure we'll have opportunity to touch upon that again if I show them. I have shown quite a few in the past...maybe for another thread. I'd rather we all work together on understanding these interesting castings. If we can make the comparsions better, then I'm all for that. I appreciate your attention to detail.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
SithLord wrote:
Sure, no problem. I knew the limitations of that particular comparison. I might disagree with you about a comparison or distance or something and I don't mean to be harsh about it....if you show me what you think is wrong with it or that affects the interpretation of it, I don't actually mind that someone takes the time to pick it apart or even says ya but this doesn't look right. The only time my dander gets up is that if there is a problem with a comparison and someone (not necessarily you) thinks there is some ulterior motive to it. Sometimes one either doesn't have handy or can't get the exact angle or distance and we all know how much that affects the face to dome perspective. I'd rather we all work together on understanding these interesting castings. If we can make the comparsions better, then I'm all for that.



Well, when you contest that a certain helmet is larger than something else you're comparing against, and your various photos consistently show size bias - and if on top of that you dispute all evidence to the contrary and fight with corrections to your photo comps, then can you see how difficult it is for someone to not feel there is an ulterior motive?

Thank you for understanding.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
If I make a statement about size, it's not a bias, it's really a difference in size. In time those difference will bear themselves out if other people get a hold of a VP and can compare it to other castings, for example. Well, I'm just trying to be nice. :wink: If I show a straight on shot from six or more feet away there can't really be bias. If there is a scaling issue with helmets not in the presence of each other, that is something that can be discussed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
SithLord wrote:
If I make a statement about size, it's not a bias, it's really a difference in size. In time those difference will bear themselves out if other people get a hold of a VP and can compare it to other castings, for example.


If you make a statement that's based on upon flawed photo comparisons, is the statement then supposition and not factual? Especially if the photos (flawed size comps) are presented as evidence of those factual statements?

SithLord wrote:
Well, I'm just trying to be nice. :wink:


Then you're doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work. :thumbsup

SithLord wrote:
If I show a straight on shot from six or more feet away there can't really be bias. If there is a scaling issue with helmets not in the presence of each other, that is something that can be discussed.


Using the same camera lens and photographing both at the same camera distance then yes, there should be no bias. You're also comparing the VP and GH dome against a screen shot where Vader may have been more than 6 feet from the movie camera. The movie camera lens will be of a wider diameter than a small consumer camera's lens. Each person's camera's lens will be of a different width. The 6 feet distance does not eliminate perspective distortion, but it reduces it enough. Knowing that something was taken 6 instead of, say, 10 or 14 feet, allows one to understand the distance context of a cropped photo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
All I will say is that it's based on measurements. Mac, I don't mind discussing this with you but perhaps we should start a new thread about helmet size comparisons?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
SithLord wrote:
All I will say is that it's based on measurements. Mac, I don't mind discussing this with you but perhaps we should start a new thread about helmet size comparisons?


If you feel it's absolutely necessary. I agree with you when you said:

SithLord wrote:
i scaled the domes....the original dome is larger in proportion to the mask than a GH dome to a VP mask.


To illustrate this, I took your VP photo and reduced it in size. Instead of matching the dome size, I sized according to the distance of the cheek corners. That is assuming, all thing being equal, that the camera distances are correct and the mask orientation to the camera is correct.

Image

Here in this case, there is a notable difference in dome size. However, the photo only tells a partial story. A difference in dome alignment can significantly produce false positives. This is said so that people don't think the GH Master is really that much smaller than the screen-used, although it really merits some study to see if there is a real life size difference that would create this much of a difference in 2D photo comparisons, assuming the camera distances and perspective distortion are all accounted for - which is a challenge in of itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
(I apologize to Chris....shouldn't we start a new thread?)

That's fine but keep in mind that it's only a relative comparison....the VP mask and GH mask which are the same size are both smaller than the original, as is the GH master dome. That's to be expected. There's both the issue of mask to helmet proportions and the issue of overall size relative to the original. So when I try to scale a photo of a fanmade casting to the original, there will have to be a compromise...either in relation to the mask or the helmet (if they are not proportioned the same as the screen helmet) or in terms of size. For example, this comp of the GH helmet with the original is ok but it won't represent absolute scaling, only relative. But it's only meant to represent the proportions, and to test whether a helmet holds up in that regard independent of whether it's smaller or not. One could expect any casting to be smaller than the original if it's a copy, even if by a minute amount, but if it holds up in the proportions, that bodes well for an argument of accuracy. Details, proportions and size, all things to consider.

This was another comparison I did back in the original VP thread, showing that problem. If this time I scale the mask, the GH looks bigger and it's not. So either the VP mask is smaller, or the GH is bigger, if we assume one is the right size, but it turns out both are smaller. But one can still try to match them to examine the proportions. But anyway at the time I didn't take a million photos of the VP like I would now for a casting to match every possible angle. At the time I wanted to show the accuracy of the proportions of the VP from the side. The VP has no mount so a helmet without a spacer will tilt back and look longer. So that's my intention behind the comparison. When you move back as in the near/far comparison above, the mask is smaller in relation to the helmet, for example.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 am
Posts: 251
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
By larger, do you mean overall size? I may well be mistaken here, but if I read correctly, your size differential is not a good way to discern which cast is further up or down the generational scale. I hear you can get two different sized helmets from the same mold depending on a lot of variables. Frankly, the only one I know who can answer this one is AnsonJames.


Too much catalyst can cause exotherm which in turn causes shrinkage and/or warping. Removing a cast from the mould too early can create distortion also. Certain silicones shrink more than others - tin silicon shrinks more than platinum silicon for example.

The biggest cause of shrinkage is over catalysed resin, casts can get hot and can even start smoking if the amount of catalyst used is great enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:12 pm 
Random avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:48 pm
Posts: 251
AnsonJames wrote:
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
By larger, do you mean overall size? I may well be mistaken here, but if I read correctly, your size differential is not a good way to discern which cast is further up or down the generational scale. I hear you can get two different sized helmets from the same mold depending on a lot of variables. Frankly, the only one I know who can answer this one is AnsonJames.


Too much catalyst can cause exotherm which in turn causes shrinkage and/or warping. Removing a cast from the mould too early can create distortion also. Certain silicones shrink more than others - tin silicon shrinks more than platinum silicon for example.

The biggest cause of shrinkage is over catalysed resin, casts can get hot and can even start smoking if the amount of catalyst used is great enough.

So, it is possible that different helmets from the same mold can be of different size? Another question for you is if there were a mold made from a second or third gen item, would the size difference be negligible or noticeable? The reason I am asking is I am of the mind that this whole business with "This helmet is larger, therefore better" is all hogwash. If I read you correctly, there are a couple of ways to get a different helmet from the same mold.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 am
Posts: 251
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
So, it is possible that different helmets from the same mold can be of different size? Another question for you is if there were a mold made from a second or third gen item, would the size difference be negligible or noticeable? The reason I am asking is I am of the mind that this whole business with "This helmet is larger, therefore better" is all hogwash. If I read you correctly, there are a couple of ways to get a different helmet from the same mold.


If correctly moulded and cast generational shrinkage would be negligible, certainly not enough to be able to see.
If incorrectly cast it's completely possible for two casts from the same mould to be different sizes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:42 pm 
Random avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:48 pm
Posts: 251
AnsonJames wrote:
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
So, it is possible that different helmets from the same mold can be of different size? Another question for you is if there were a mold made from a second or third gen item, would the size difference be negligible or noticeable? The reason I am asking is I am of the mind that this whole business with "This helmet is larger, therefore better" is all hogwash. If I read you correctly, there are a couple of ways to get a different helmet from the same mold.


If correctly moulded and cast generational shrinkage would be negligible, certainly not enough to be able to see.
If incorrectly cast it's completely possible for two casts from the same mould to be different sizes.

Sounds to me like we can pretty much dismiss the whole "Size is an indicator" as a fallacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
So, it is possible that different helmets from the same mold can be of different size? Another question for you is if there were a mold made from a second or third gen item, would the size difference be negligible or noticeable? The reason I am asking is I am of the mind that this whole business with "This helmet is larger, therefore better" is all hogwash. If I read you correctly, there are a couple of ways to get a different helmet from the same mold.


I'll let Anson speak on the size differences achieved through chemistry, but there are structural differences that create the illusion of size.

I have a dome that appears to be bigger than others, but the way it was made or pulled, the front and back were pushed together, creating an appearance of greater width. The challenge with being treated to only a frontal view is that people would be left to assume that the entire dome was larger - rather than being larger only on one axis.

The issue is: is the GH Master the same size as the screen-used? We finally have an admission by SithLord that it's not, and yet when the GH Master was used in past photo comparisons, it was used as a size baseline without revealing to us that it is indeed smaller than the screen-used. Thus, resizing photos of whatever mask was paired up with the GH Master as the GH Master was sized up to match a screenshot, it would make the mask look bigger. I'm not saying there is an ulterior motive. It's just bad choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
Sounds to me like we can pretty much dismiss the whole "Size is an indicator" as a fallacy.


By size definition, this mask below would be the largest in the fandom and therefore must be the screen-used itself.

Image

It's clearly larger than the GH Master.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: VP revisited
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3112
Qui-Gonzalez wrote:
Another question for you is if there were a mold made from a second or third gen item, would the size difference be negligible or noticeable? The reason I am asking is I am of the mind that this whole business with "This helmet is larger, therefore better" is all hogwash.


All I've done is get measurements of helmets and found a relationship between size and lineage. If you think it is hogwash then do your own measurements and prove me wrong.
And larger isn't necessarily better, there are many other factors I mentioned like proportions and details.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Hosted by Freeforum.ca, get your free forum now! TOS | Support Forums | Report a violation
buy web visitors
MultiForums powered by echoPHP phpBB MultiForums