Bingo

Thanks for posting the photos, but it's a little overwhelming to see so many. The large number of photos are lovely, but they don't help with the photo analysis because you've photographed them too closely.

I'd still would be deeply appreciative if you could rephotograph one standing 5 feet away to reduce perspective distortion so we can get a good standard and undistorted photograph for comparative purposes. I can also ask the owner of the Laws helmet to do the same, so we have an apples-to-apples comparison of angles, distance and perspective.

Again, thanks!

AA's Mohawk mould was damaged so this part was redone.
Everything else is untouched on the SDS bar the lower faceplate - changed to help AA remove the faceplate off the buck.
I'm pretty certain of this - I've removed vacforms from the faceplate buck we have and it's a real pain in the ass.

I have to say nothing beats the quality of workmanship on the SDS Tie helmet - very nicely formed and VERY shiny

Anson

Edit - oops missed page 2 hence this is yout of kilter.....

Mac - Regarding your point about the originality. There are a number of very subtle tells on the SDS TIE that suggest to me that its descended from original moulds (or potentially an original TIE helmet). However the mohawk is wrong suggesting either that bit isnt or had to be rebuilt after damage during storage.

IMO the most impressive thing about the SDS tie was when looking on the INSIDE how much it looks like an original

I will try and take some more pics but I'm pretty sure those were from around 5 ft away as I always try to be 2 meters to reduce lens distortion. I'll also have a search now for those other pics I took.

NHM - Sorry 'bout the rude JJ comment. Yeah thoose originals do have a certain "je ne sais quois" about them

Anson - right with ya!

Cheers

Jez

AnsonJames,

So the lower faceplate is still based on Ainsworth's molds. Has it been determined if there has been any mold deformation over the last 30 years?

If so, my feeling is that basing a stormtrooper or TIE pilot on a positive is going to give you more integrous results than a distorted 30 year old mold.

http://www.looksirdroids.com/davin_replica2.html

See the above link's screen-used helmets and Gino's closeness to them, and you'll understand my point about preserving proportions based on using a positive (a casting) versus a negative (a mold). A postiive is less prone to structural warpage over time than a mold is.

If Ainsworth's stormtrooper offerings show distortion after 30 years of storage of the mold, then would it mean his TIE pilot would also suffer similar distortion?

Jez,

I appreciate your thoughts and explanation on this. So basically it's descended from original molds but Ainsworth's TIE helmet is not entirely screen accurate due to the mohawk he rebuilt? That was the point I wanted to make. I'd prefer something screen accurate, regardless of lineage to the original molds. I don't want to say because he's Ainsworth that anything he makes is automatically the holy grail of TIE Pilot / Stormtrooper collecting. His work is fabulous, but something just looks "off" to me. Perhaps you can help in that regard: if you have Hi-Def screen captures of the TIE Pilots or photos of the original prop, that would be of immense help.

Thanks.

Mac,

The clear problem with the SDS Stormtrooper helmet was the cap/back and imo not the face.

With regard to the TIE, like I said previously there are some real tells on the SDS that arent on other helmets, including the XWIng hemispheres and ears.

IMO if youre looking for the most accurate it sould be a toss up between the SDS and the IH (Anson's mate) - as I would be stunned if anyone could show me pics sughgesting the Laws was more accurate

looking for those pics

Cheers

Jez

AA's moulds are positives as are 95% of vacform bucks.
I don't have an IH Tie(can't give out the makers name - gotta be careful!) but I can get hold of one in a couple of weeks to photograph for you.

AA's moulds wouldn't have distorted over the years - they're made from materials that don't really distort.
I would say that he did alter some of his moulds to make it easier to manufacture his helmets.

He's only really 'tweaked' a couple of pieces...

Anson

Thanks. Please bear in mind that in the volume of things that have been said, sometimes it's hard to make out what was actually said. As a newcomer to the TIE Pilot helmets, some of this is information overload for me. But then again, with my Work In Progress threads, I probably have that same "Here, drink from a firehydrant" effect to people!

So if I read you correctly, there are distinct characteristics in the Ainsworth stormtroopers faceplate to original props, and being that the faceplate carries over from the stormtrooper to the TIE Pilot, these distinct characteristics would carry over.

That part I understand.

But are his helmets proportionately and structurally integrous to known 1977 props/castings? This is an important question for me. A mold that suffers any kind of deformation or deterioration will result in a casting that has the same distinct characteristics, but it's proportions are going to be flawed, be it sagging or be it warpage.

So you will thus have details of the original but not quite the same shape as the original.

If you can help clarify this, that would be great!

Just throwing out a question Jez, which I think I have asked you before - think I got the answer, but I'm a forgetful bugger and thought it would be nice to have the answer posted here too.

Looking at the original helmet vs the SDS, am I right to notice that the original face is attached further out at the tubes to the rest of the helmet compared to the SDS?



Any reason why SDS decided to attach the face tubes further into the helmet part... or where the TIE helmets as individually assembled as the stunt Stormtrooper helmets to make any assumptions on accuracy be flawed based on merely one original helmet, if you know what I mean?

Anson,

I really appreciate it. And please, yes, keep IH's name confidential.

With respect to phography, I'm calling upon everyone -- as they are able -- to stand 4-5 feet back (5 feet is preferred, depending on how powerful your zoom is). What various people have found in another thread is that if you stand back 4-5 feet, you get a very different sense of proportions than when you photograph something a mere 2-3 feet away.

A Vader mask photographed up close will show a very large facemask and a small dome. The proportions would just be plain wrong.

Basically this is a bothersome fish-eye effect that people are starting to realize is throwing off photo analysis.

So please do photograph 5 feet away, and at various angles of vertical tilt. I can then volunteer to take the closest of yours, Bingos, and the Laws owner's and create a far more accurate and apples-to-apples comparison of all three helmets.

Thanks!!!

Just a little metric to imperial conversion.

2 meters is roughly 6 feet!

http://www.initium.demon.co.uk/converts/metimp.htm

Hi all,

I do like this thread!
This place is civil - we can learn stuff!

There's a possibility that the Laws face looks skinny because of the way the faceplate has been screwed on to the APH halves.
If the mohawk area on the Laws is based on the Don post Deluxe it would look wrong also as the DP is narrower - this would pinch the faceplate making it look thin.

I've got to say that I've seen a few pictures of the Laws helmet and they all have this particular trait

Right, been down to the starwarshelmets archives and found some interesting pics. I'll load them onto a temp server and post in a bit

NHM to answer your qurestion - the original I had access to had missing bolt on one side so had a bit of a "hole" in it. IIRC if it had the bolt the tube would have been in place lower down. However as with all these hand made things I bet all the TIE's were slightly different

Mac - I THINK the current SDS helmets would be the right size/shape proposrtions as the orginals - although having never had both side by side its hard to say for sure. IMO the only real way you can tell is to have the 2 helmets in front of you at the same time

Anson - I agree that the moulds shouldnt have deteriated over 30 years - however there could have been physical damage while in storage over such a period.

Cheers

Jez

Okay - First up, these photos have not been doctored in any way other than cropping/lightening of the entire image. In all photos the two helmets were side by side in a straight line as much as possible.

No tricks, no enlarging, nor have I "chosen the best angles" which some fool on the RPF accused me of when I showed the 2 original stormtrooper helmets with the SDS sandwiched in the middle

These pics were taken a year, maybe two ago with the SDS on the Left and the Laws on the right. Ive still got the laws so I could dig it out the attic some time and take more






off to bedforshire now

Cheers

Jez

Jez,

What was the distance between you and the camera when taking these shots?