This might be helpful to everyone, given P&T's post.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal1 ... TF541B.HTM

This explains roll, pitch, and yaw. There are basically three axis of rotation. Click on any of the three purple squares to see the animation for each term.

Then on perspective distortion (I did not author this, BTW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectiv ... ography%29

Any comparison we do is only an approximation, so the goal is to get as close as possible with reason.

Once you get close enough, it's possible to see similarities or differences of certain structural features. Some are very obvious. Some are not.

Now in the case of comps, some people become myopic and only see one feature and they completely forget about all other features. Sometimes myopia gets people into debates where someone is so clear with what he sees that he becomes blind to all the other aspects he's failing to see. At times artists have to take a break from their own work in order to be able to come back and look at it afresh.

Good post!

Thanks!

And I kept it short too!

Ya'll know how chatty I get when it's about something I love!

Yeah I agree. I think however that the only way to do a true comparison is with

a] all the helmet reproductions in the room with
b] opposing parties making their point
c] and an objective juried audience.


Otherwise, there is so much foredrawn conclusion based on subjective participants and poor forensic evidence that its ludacrous. I have a BA and graduate work in history of technology/archeological -forensic studies, and these debates amaze me as to how weak or faulty so much of the evidence is.

I can appreciate the effort and neat helmets....but the participant need to be far more careful with the assemblage and comparison of their "evidence."



.

] and an objective juried audience.

So in other word....we need Star Trek fans to look at them.

P&T, you said, extremely clearly, exactly what I've been trying to say forever!
Well done!!!

Dave

P&T, when you say "participants" are you talking about those making the point using poor comparative photos, or those who participate but disagree with the poor comp analysis and provide reasons for their disagreement?

You used this image...



.. to say



In the above image, I had pointed out the pitch, roll and yaw were a mismatch by taking the left helmet's dome and copying it over the right helmet to prove this point.

Are you saying that disproving the mismatch was wrong? Or that unless people can meet the three point criteria you indicated that shouldn't even try?

Gotta say this... what will that do? Absolutely nothing. It will only compare the fan-helmets... from what has been discussed in this thread we are comparing with the SCREEN WORN helmet. How do you propose we do that if not in this fashion? Cannot be done, so I simply don't understand your argument.

I think it could be done....but its unlikely.

What I would love to see is a GH, an SPFX, etc etc etc....in the same room, on the same table....with several objective photographers....

and proponents of each helmets closer provenance....ie, those who feel the GH is better....those who feel the SPFX is better etc.

Like a court, Id like to see a real world (not internet) hands on demostration by each party to make the case as to why their preferred helmet is more accurate....

Let me say this...I dont own an ANH helmet. I would LOVE to. But before I commit I would like such a court-like demonstration replete with live people who can adjust the helmets to movie stills showing why something is less accurate or why something is more accurate.

Because as it is now....these debate are endless and fraught with issues regarding flawed comparisons. Id sorta like to be there to say....'hey, wait a minute...that helmet isnt aligned with the photo correctly' or something like that to know for certain there was no buddy-plugging, editting, AND to understand where and why some parts may have been modified.

Nothing beats a live hands on demonstration, thats what Im saying.

I went through endless arguments with people on the RPF about the Don Post Deluxe Fett helmet....to the point that I began to realize some were trying to bash my research and work on purpose as they had invested fett helmet projects themselves *yes I was naive. Neverthless, I knew I was right (meaning the DP deluxe was definately derived from a real helmet, albeit modified.....but the question was how was it modified. So as I began to post my research and experiments essentially to prove the legitimacy of my reconstruction ....the bashing slowly began (for obvious reasons...competition for $$$ and egotrips.

Now having learned a good lesson in human (internet) behavior, I find myself applying that same caution and realty ...or virtual reality check when it comes to these friggin he said, she said vader helmet threads....that are longer than a trip to the moon and back.

I have no doubt others would like to see some live, hands on comparisons and partys arguing for their helmet preference and why....without the dubious problems regarding photos that can be editted or poorly compared.

btw....Im not picking on anyone or supporting anyone here. Just speaking my mind that I think others probably feel too.

Good post Drew, very level headed and unbiased as one should be.

that's right Father...........

Still, I don't see how that can be done and would actually persuade anyone not being at that live "court" thing to change their view!?

We are from all over the world, so I do not find it very practical. The idea is good, no doubts there... but just wouldn't change anything.

This thread was originally only about the original helmets and not about fan-made versions and it should probably have been stopped as soon as the fan-mades were mentioned to keep the thread on track, but now that it has gone WAY OT from the original purpose of the thread topic it would probably be stupid to stop it now.

Though, you cannot compare a 3 dimensional object to a picture - something about vision and perception and having to interpret 2d to 3d shapes and vice versa. There is only picture to picture to give the most accurate comparison, and even THAT is flawed because of different cameras, focal lengths and zoom, etc, but still far better than a physical object compared to a picture.

I agree with Drew when he says that comps should be done more carefully. Like him, I've had bad experiences too when I first joined the community. There are indeed kind people and great sites like the Den where people own more than one helmet and share photos of their collections. There is a lot of information on this site to help a person starting out to develop an eye to spot the subtleties and idiosyncracies of the different vendor brands.

It's always a good thing when one does not allow their past experience to color their future. I'm sure Drew is not saying to blast any and every comparitive analsys for all time.

We simply need to recognize the limitations of our comps and use them wisely within those limits. There is still a great deal of graphical information that can be derived from a comp, howbeit imperfect.

If someone's just being myopic, well, we simply have to tell him nicely.

Thank you fellas.

I do think it is possible to show the results online...maybe via a high resolution video.

Another question that arises is the difference between


A] a helmet of true provenance that has been modified along the way

&

B] a helmet of true provenance that has been modified along the way that could be restored to its former glory


.....because I have noticed that there are several distinct supportive arguments that need to be seperated for the objective benefit.

1] those who favor a helmet delivered straight from the set
2] those who argue their helmet preference is closer to the set/
3] those who favor restoring/restored helmets as being the same thing

# 1] is unlikely ...or less likely we may never really know the truth.. Partly because a really good artist or team of artists can modify an existing helmet to look extremely close to an original.....unless we strap up folks to lie detectors as to the origins of their helmets

#2 ] is the key argument used by most

#3] and #1] is the argument I would actually make because even a fiberglass cast from an """original mold"" could still be warped, and often such pieces are individually touched up per each persons opinion as to touch ups look better.

So I think the key here is what helmet could be restored totally......and that is where the live juried court concept comes into play...with live participants arguing for or against a detail or modification concept.

And the last argument, less I overlook it is....$$$$. Make no doubt that the people who own original or close to original molds have made good money all these many years. Figure that an average uber accurate helmet cast runs about 400 (in some cases thats really lowballing it). Now multiply that price tag times the theoretical number of people who own helmets.....and you will find that said mold owners have arguably made enough over several years to buy a car...or a healthy downpayment on one ......so if that doesnt suggest bias for one helmets vs. another.....we would be living in dreamland.

So in the end, my suggestion might be rhetorical...moot I guess. I doubt I or anyone would be allowed to see all the major helmets in person along with several other people *maybe even non-fans, because I doubt the williness of most mold owners to allow their work to be so closely scrutinized against other helmets with live results.

I'm still not clear with what you want from this now.

If you want the argument to be about which helmet can best be worked back to look like the original or which helmet "as it is in the form known to people" is the closest in look and shape to the original.

These are two very different topics.