It is currently Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:41 pm

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  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Enter your Message here
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 74
Location: Australia
:as2


Last edited by gizmo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:29 am 
Random avatar
Correct.
Every helmet maker out there uses either scratch built earcaps (SDS), ears from the Brian R. helmet (which are horrible because they were cast horribly), or the Dave M. helmet (which is what I use and TE2 uses).
The Brian R. helmet ears are so messed up from a botched casting that they cannot be considered film accurate. That is why we use the ears from the Dave M.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:37 am 
Random avatar
I didn't slam your work. I think you did a nice paint up and weathering.

Also,
TE wasn't the one who removed that detail from his mold.

Also, my faceplate has not been modified. A certain detail was left off for very specific reasons on my replicas.
My wider versions you may have seen for hero helmets were not due to an altered mold with the exception of the removal of the eye bump.

If you were a purist, and had one of my v2 helmets in your hands (which you don't) I guarantee that you would have some serious questions for your buddy Matt.
But since you pretty much burned your bridge with me, I guess you'll never know.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 74
Location: Australia
GINO wrote:

If you were a purist, and had one of my v2 helmets in your hands (which you don't) I guarantee that you would have some serious questions for your buddy Matt.
But since you pretty much burned your bridge with me, I guess you'll never know.




:cry :cry :cry My life will never be complete without one of your helmets.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:57 am
Posts: 941
Location: Germany
ok, guys - stop it right here and now !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:37 pm 
Random avatar
We already know you ruined the mold by taking the eye bump out. Duh...

There is another detail I removed before you and Dave stole the molds. You have no clue what it is and never will since it barely shows in photos gino. If you had molded an original as you would like people to believe, then you would know this. Sadly you didnt and you wont and one day might figure it out.

A pursit? LOL... Hardly. your helmet is so badly assembled to the way the original SFS was done it isnt even funny. Sorry.. Thats just the truth. You have a ton to learn and quite honestly you are only agreeing with yourself.

T*E


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:03 pm
Posts: 657
Location: UK
Do to other commitments I've not been able to read this forum for a few days.

I've returned to this thread today and have read some pretty tasteless, spiteful and aggressive posts - and I have to say that the chief instigator of these appears to be Matt G (aka self professed "trooper expert")

Mods - unless your keen for this forum to take over from the "Battlezone" with no holds barred name calling and threats, then with respect may I suggest you take appropriate action!

Cheers

Jez


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 816
Location: Essex UK
I think Gino's point here is he claims the moulds he has are unaltered the helmet he makes is from 2 originals but neither has been altered. Whereas he claims that neither TE nor anyone else is in possesion of unaltered moulds so in Gino's eyes that makes his more accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
Defstartrooper wrote:
I think Gino's point here is he claims the moulds he has are unaltered the helmet he makes is from 2 originals but neither has been altered. Whereas he claims that neither TE nor anyone else is in possesion of unaltered moulds so in Gino's eyes that makes his more accurate.


Fair enough, but the point he has not made is what his criteria is for determining what's accurate. I realize that, in his defense, he has to be selective with what comments to respond to in order for his statements to make him shine, but after seeing the same questions unanswered indicates a deliberate avoidance of the topic even after giving him much benefit of doubt.

If we as the general public have to be exposed to "Most accurate ever made" with each post and/or signature link, we should have a right to know how exactly "most accurate" is quantified, regardless of whether it's legitimately more accurate than TE's work or not. If GINO's work is in fact more accurate than TE's then knowing that criteria is important to establishing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:15 pm 
Random avatar
I've repeated my criteria several times in this thread.
The most important criteria is the integrity of the molds. Being unmodified and unaltered is paramount for screen accuracy. You cannot have it without this. You cannot re-work something back to screen accurate. It either inherently is, or it is not.

Assembly, detailing, etc.. are all important also, but take a back seat to mold integrity. Reasoning being that you can do awesome screen accurate finishing work to a piece, but if the fundamental pieces are incorrect it doesn't matter. For example, you could utilize film accurate detailing, painting, etc... on a fx helmet, but that won't make it more screen accurate.

This is why people's attempts to re-work or "fix" other props that had shortcomings will always fall short of the mark, no matter how talented the artist is. Undisturbed, unaltered form is EVERYTHING.
Doesn't matter if it is a vader helmet, armor, etc..
Things might look good in pics, but when placed next to the real thing, they will not hold up.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:38 pm
Posts: 816
Location: Essex UK
CSMacLaren wrote:
Defstartrooper wrote:
I think Gino's point here is he claims the moulds he has are unaltered the helmet he makes is from 2 originals but neither has been altered. Whereas he claims that neither TE nor anyone else is in possesion of unaltered moulds so in Gino's eyes that makes his more accurate.


Fair enough, but the point he has not made is what his criteria is for determining what's accurate. I realize that, in his defense, he has to be selective with what comments to respond to in order for his statements to make him shine, but after seeing the same questions unanswered indicates a deliberate avoidance of the topic even after giving him much benefit of doubt.

If we as the general public have to be exposed to "Most accurate ever made" with each post and/or signature link, we should have a right to know how exactly "most accurate" is quantified, regardless of whether it's legitimately more accurate than TE's work or not. If GINO's work is in fact more accurate than TE's then knowing that criteria is important to establishing that.


I think he has made his criteria pretty clear he says his moulds are unaltered whereas everybody elses have been altered.
Whether you, i ,or anyone else agrees is not relevent these are his criteria when describing his helmet as the most accurate.
And i agree with Jez aswell this thread was dormant for ages all of a sudden TE registers a fresh account and starts baiting Gino and the lack of action by the staff is putting this forum in danger of looking biased you apply one rule to one member and not another.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
GINO wrote:
I've repeated my criteria several times in this thread.
The most important criteria is the integrity of the molds. Being unmodified and unaltered is paramount for screen accuracy. You cannot have it without this. You cannot re-work something back to screen accurate. It either inherently is, or it is not.

Assembly, detailing, etc.. are all important also, but take a back seat to mold integrity. Reasoning being that you can do awesome screen accurate finishing work to a piece, but if the fundamental pieces are incorrect it doesn't matter. For example, you could utilize film accurate detailing, painting, etc... on a fx helmet, but that won't make it more screen accurate.

This is why people's attempts to re-work or "fix" other props that had shortcomings will always fall short of the mark, no matter how talented the artist is. Undisturbed, unaltered form is EVERYTHING.
Doesn't matter if it is a vader helmet, armor, etc..
Things might look good in pics, but when placed next to the real thing, they will not hold up.


Well said, but here is the question that was never answered in relation to your criteria, specifically.

Quote:
So you're accurately reproducing parts of two helmets, but you're piece-mealing them together into one. In your mind, does that make the resultant piecemealed helmet film-accurate since it does not correlate to any one specific prop that was screen-used?


Your helmet's an amalgam, right? You mentioned the faceplate comes from one, the backplate comes from another. Since this is not a direct reproduction of any one particular helmet, isn't the amalgamation basically a modification? How do you see your criteria being congruous with this?

I had asked you a while back why your backplate differs from the original screen used helmet. The tube shape is different, and the bevel under the traps are different. If I remember correctly, you mentioned the backplate being from the Dave M. and not the Brian R. but never elaborated.

Image

The back plate here is a different shape (tubes as well as the angle of the back of the head as it slopes down to meet the bulge of the tube) of the V2 is different than the original. So do you still see this as being screen-accurate?

Image

Notice the screen used has a sharper under-the-trapezoids bevel than the V2.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
Defstartrooper wrote:
And i agree with Jez aswell this thread was dormant for ages all of a sudden TE registers a fresh account and starts baiting Gino and the lack of action by the staff is putting this forum in danger of looking biased you apply one rule to one member and not another.



If you want fair, call for banning them both. Consider that GINO has had the Den as his anti-TE soapbox for the last several months, and TE has posted very few posts in proportion. GINO started posting long before TE did. They both have past history and different people hear different sides. But the Den was without all this crap until GINO joined and started pre-emptively attacking TE. If GINO had said nothing, I think TE would not have responded. GINO provoked TE and continues to do so by not addressing TE's questions but instead addressing the mods and referring to TE, as it were, in the third person.

One could even argue that during those soapbox months, the mods "biased" the situation in favor of GINO, unless you want them to also act retroactively on GINO's past behavior. Both are guilty. One is guilty of pottymouthing, swearing, confronting for past offenses and attacking. The other is guilty of pre-emptively spreading libel and defamation of character, slander.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:07 pm
Posts: 488
Location: Norwich UK
GINO wrote:
I've repeated my criteria several times in this thread.
The most important criteria is the integrity of the molds. Being unmodified and unaltered is paramount for screen accuracy. You cannot have it without this. You cannot re-work something back to screen accurate. It either inherently is, or it is not.

Assembly, detailing, etc.. are all important also, but take a back seat to mold integrity. Reasoning being that you can do awesome screen accurate finishing work to a piece, but if the fundamental pieces are incorrect it doesn't matter. For example, you could utilize film accurate detailing, painting, etc... on a fx helmet, but that won't make it more screen accurate.

This is why people's attempts to re-work or "fix" other props that had shortcomings will always fall short of the mark, no matter how talented the artist is. Undisturbed, unaltered form is EVERYTHING.
Doesn't matter if it is a vader helmet, armor, etc..
Things might look good in pics, but when placed next to the real thing, they will not hold up.


The way i see it if you have the faceplate of helmet 'a' and join it to the back plate of helmet 'b' no matter how unaltered the molds of these individual pieces are you have what i would call a bastard helmet.

This would be like buying a cut and shut car, 2 halves of the same model welded together in the middle, why???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:19 pm 
Random avatar
It's true, it is a replica using the face and back/cap from one helmet and ears from another. No helmet out there utilized parts all from one helmet.

Either way, they are true to the pieces they were taken from. The individual pieces themselves are perfectly screen accurate.

However, trying to produce a perfect replica of a specific helmet is impossible unless you use molds taken all from the same helmet.
That is why you see slight discrepancies in my comparisons. The face and back/cap do not come from the helmet being compared. The ears however are the same as what is compared in the photos.


The ears from the 1st helmet (Brian R.) are complete junk due to poor casting. They are out of the equation.
The 2nd helmet (Dave M.) was NEVER molded either inside or outside except for the earcaps.
The only way to produce a screen accurate replica is to take molds directly from the inside of the vac formed piece.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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