I was recently asked to help determine the size relationship between the ANH dome and the ANH mask. There is often a difference between how the prop appears in real life versus how it's filmed or photographed. Camera angle, lighting, dome positioning, etc. all come into play and makes this a fascinating topic.

More specifically, it was to ascertain whether or not the TM dome was proportionately too large for its own mask.

Image of the TM mask courtesy of its owner who wants to remain anonymous. The forward tilt of the dome is not the same as that of the screen-capture, but this is all I had to work with.



Now notice the profile of the helmet to the right. My initial impression was if the dome was too wide, as the dome-to-flange angle was more subtle than I remembered it.

When I did an overlay, it turns out my perceptions were wrong.



It turns out the TM overlaid extremely well onto the screenshot of the screen-used helmet.

Then it dawned on me: much of the time, our impressions of Vader come from popular pictures or the shots that we happen to view the most.

Many of you have seen this photo:



Well, this looks like the dome cap is much narrower than the TM, doesn't it? But what if I were to tell you that it was lighting that created this impression? You see, due to lateral light reflecting off the gloss paint, you don't truly see the profile.

Well, it turns out the above shot seems to have come from this shot:



In this above shot, you can see the profile of the helmet more clearly, but because there is light reflecting off of the (camera's) left side of the dome, it creates the illusion of a narrower dome cap.

I thus did an overlay to ensure that both images were aligned as closely as possible to make sure the details and features matched up, and then created an outline of the dome:



And I placed the outline on the first image.

Would you have believed me if I told you that in reality the dome looked like this:



So now in this final image, I've removed the red line but darkened its inside space, and made the darker image a little transparent.

This is what, I believe, the ANH dome really looks like, in this picture.



The domecap certainly looks a lot broader.

By the way, this is actually the screen-used. The dome features match up with screen-caps.

Well I hate to say I told ya

Great comps, and nice of you to take the time to put this on here for all to see.

Wish I had those photoshop skills, impressive stuff

Yep Mac you are 100% correct...the camera does amazing things doesn't it? It shapes our perceptions like you can't believe. Great comparison pics!

btw, this phenomenon is largely responsible for making me appear the way I do in photographs. In reality I am the spitting image of Brad Pitt.

There is something about contrasting colors that causes us to perceive things differently.

Have you guys seen those women's dresses for plus-sized women that are black down the center but lighter colored (e.g. red, white) on the sides? The idea is that it makes their waists and thighs look narrower.

The opposite emphasis works too. Star Trek: The Next Generation uniforms operate on the same principle. Everyone had shoulder pads. The chest area was smaller than the sides, so it created a V-shaped chest illusion and an athletic look.

Something about contrasting colors causes the brain to perceive things differently.

I've never had doubts about the TM being proportionately off..
after looking at a ton of photo's I don't think their is another Helmet
out there more accurate in every detail..

Mac what are you doing shoping in the womens section

Trying to find a nice Leia outfit, but I'm too fat and my booty is spreading.

The original photo isn't as contrast-y as that first image you posted.

Clutchy,

That's the point. In situations where the ANH dome is around a lot of white or even brighter light sources off-screen (off to the side) the sides of the domecap and flange will pick up the light, and appear whitish. When you have a white background, it makes it even more difficult to make out the profile. The brain locks onto what it can see and thus it locks onto the non-reflecting portions of the helmet.

The white background photos were fan scans of the same photos but at different scanner settings, then passed around on the Internet. This was an exercise of simulating the removal of light reflection around the profile of the dome to see its actual shape.

It's also to draw attention to how it looks in darker situations where you don't have strong light reflecting off the sides.

Here's some great examples of the dome silhouette that's not impacted too much by surrounding lighting.



This one makes the face look smaller in comparison to the dome. It's all lighting and dome positioning.



This one too, and it's in a brighter setting!

Interesting.....ya usually when I do an overlay I line up the bottom edge of the flaring and the center ridge as that right side is rather bright...definitely how we see the dome onscreen influences it's apparent size and also the tilt of the dome....when it's tilted back it seems smaller in the crown, larger in the flaring....when tilted forward it's larger in the crown and smaller in the flaring...it's just an amazing piece of geometry....

Especially with the ANH being all over the place, dome-wise, from scene to scene. Makes it even more difficult.

Nice pictures though. Just love that corridor picture - had that as a real photograph all the way back from the late eighties.

I have studied the domes for many years as some are aware. I have said for a long time now what Mac is able to demonstrate with photo analysis.

The truth is the TM dome look's initially wrong because we are used to seeing fanmades for all these years. In time this will be evident.

Right. Another thing that is interesting is that this shot has been the Holy Grail look:



The GhostHost dome's advantage in recreating the look is because the dome is proportionately smaller (in terms of the size of the dome in relation to the facemask) than the screen-used.

The above shot is definitely a money shot, but suffers from perspective distortion (PD). As a result, the dome looks smaller.

The various Death Star scenes are shot anywhere from - my guess - 8 feet to 16 feet +. That reduces PD drastically.

To illustrate:



Here on the left, I took a screenshot from a similar timeframe to the previous "money shot." You can see that the dome was cropped at the top of the screenshot. I did a composite to rebuild the dome to approximate the proportions of this perspective. The movie camera lens is going to probably be affected by PD differently than a regular still-photography camera lens. Anyways, you can see that the dome looks small and the face looks big.

However, on the right, we have an unmodified screen capture of a Death Star scene showing Vader's remarkable dome silhouette. The face does look smaller in relation to the dome's interior space. Notice that this is basically dome positioning. The dome appears to be vertically tilted back farther, causing the rear flange to be more visible to the camera. Many vendors and hobbyists have tried lengthening the flange to create this look, and Carsten has said all along that it's dome positioning. As a result, the vendors and hobbyists have unnecessarily turned their Vader domes into Mary Poppins' skirts!

The scene on the right is obviously the screen-used, and given that Sir Alec Guinness stood between Prowse and the movie camera, Prowse's distance to the camera would have been at least 8 feet.

We're not used to seeing these size proportions of the dome and the mask because people focus primarily on the Tantive IV scenes (white interior of the ship). I admit the lower dome brow positioning is attractive, and everyone tries to go for it, but the Death Star dome positioning, while it varies, is still a very interesting thing to study.

Good stuff Mac. You can even learn this old dog, wow.
And you used my holy grail photo...nice. (Sorry thats was funny in my head but not on second reading....)