It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:46 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  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Enter your Message here
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
Now consider these items also...

One thing that always struck me, is how funny the area over the eyes on the dome looked in the screenshots. It seemed to be twisted and distorted.

Not sure if you can click on this and make it bigger, I can, so hopefully you can. The original is twice as big.

Image

Looking at the newer picture of the Christie's 94, I began to notice deformations in the shape of the eye overhangs. Due to lighting they're not very noticeable
on the original picture, but they are very noticeable on the new picture. Returning to the screenshot, the skirt overhang above the eye seems to flatten out on
the left side and the right side seems to curl under as it comes down to meet the center strip at its leading-edge. So I hunted through my archives, and found
a picture taken from the same angle with somewhat similar lighting. Although the lighting is not quite correct (high spots at 12 o'clock, as opposed to
diffused at one o'clock)
and it is in ANH, it still gives me a good idea what I'm looking at. So using that as a guide, I reworked the picture on the right to show
how the helmet should more correctly look like without these deformations.

As I began to do this. I noticed that I could actually make out certain details, more than I previously thought, so I haven't tried prior. So I put this together and
hopefully it can help point them out and make sense of them.

The top row of these pictures is meant to be used more or less as a map or guide to what I'm talking about. The second row allows you to see what I've marked without
it being marked, and the third row is only meant to suggest the more appropriate appearance.(The fact that I have used an ROTJ doesn't make any difference)


Image
Again, I wish I could figure out why these pictures are posting so small, the original is twice as big and a lot easier to see.


Comparing the screen shot and the new Christie's image. I could now see a reason why that dome looks distorted over the left eye. There is a large upside down, chevron
shaped depression just where the rise of that overhang should be. This have pushed down on the outer portion of the overhang and pushed up on the inner portion of the overhang
giving it the tilted up flat appearance. If you look at the original Christie's image, you can see that they trimmed the overhang below the original trim line which is visible just above
the eye in the shape of the black line or shadow.
If you move to the tip of the center strip, you can see the two small side-by-side next right on its edge. Moving further to the
right, the leading edge of the overhang comes down (moving right to left) and then curves up to meet the center strip. This curve is very easy to see on both images of the
Christie's 94. There is also a depression in that overhang above the eye as well causing the shadow that can be seen coming in from right.

Image

also, I did this last night. Comparing it to the TM, as I mentioned, I actually put the images through all kinds of different filters and such when I examine them. In negative, features tend to jump out more.
This was meant to illustrate just how more noticeable the dents and such are on this helmet as opposed even the TM, which has a bunch a dents there's a real good one on the upper right corner. However,
it now helps also to illustrate a lack of definition in the front area of the dome.

And finally, as I said, one of the main things I do is I asked the question," why?"

Why would this helmet be built without any eyes you can see through? And now looking at the newer picture, have a grille that is also blocked off. And the answer is simple,

Halloween comes only once a year.

Hopefully this would help you understand what the scene might've looked like during the explosion, if this helmet actually had eyes and see through grills.

Image


Last edited by Darth Obsession on Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
Quote:
No Humor Man wrote:
The green outlined "dent" is likely just a reflection. Please be aware that you are looking at painted gloss black surfaces that easily reflect things.


gonk27 wrote:
I tend to agree that the artefacts you're seeing could very well be reflection, but who knows? Admire your enthusiasm though


Why these objects are not just reflections...

All the light you see is a reflection. But lights and shadows indicate a surface's ability to reflect light in the observers direction.

The first thing you need to remember, is that the dummy Vader is in a comparatively low light situation.

If you will notice the helmet on the right, it is polished to a near glassy finish and reasonably well lit. Although distorted, all it's surroundings can clearly be seen reflected in it's surface.
It shows two reflections of something in the room that is dark, vertical and possibly changes direction about half way up. Once on the bowl and once on the skirt. The image gets wider,
bowing out as you go down the rounded part of the bowl and on the skirt, the image is bigger and gets wider as you go down.

Likewise, the light reflection on the dummy dome does the same. But with some important differences...

First, the helmet is tilted back and to the left, away from the camera. It may be polished, but it's surfaces are far more un-even and the primary light source is diffused and overhead (as in, there is a
diffusing screen between the set and the light
). So, with one exception, the only thing reflected off of this helmet is a broad diffused, light source from above. You see it,
because the tilt of the helmet has put it at a sympathetic angle to the camera. The stage is also filled with fake smoke or fog which adds further diffusion to this light.
The only thing being reflected otherwise, is the in-shadow side of the light saber rod, which can be seen paralleling the rod, but due to the unevenness of the helmet's
surface, the reflection is broken and distorted. And to be clear, this is a reflection not a shadow.


ImageImage


Now, for the object on the back of this helmet to be merely a reflection of a light in the room, it's light source also has to be at a sympathetic angle to this camera. For the object to appear
as it does, approximately 2 to 2 1/4 inches tall, by a quarter inch wide, the light source would have to have a similar shape and be either very bright, or just a few feet from the back
of the helmet (..this is due to the fake fog). I tried this out with my own helmets, and found that the sympathetic angle would have that light being almost directly behind Vader's helmet or off to the left in the pic, at 90°
horizontally, from the camera angle. Yet the back of the helmet is in near total shadow. If you look hard, you can just barely make out the edge of the centerstrip. Also, if you look at the image
from the screen cap, there is no direct light source behind the dummy in that direction.

Image
(thank you Lord Kahnt)

In fact, there is no source, strong enough to cause that reflection anywhere in the field of view. (And from this angle, it would be straight behind Vader.)

So I put this little piece together, to help anyone who isn't sure what I'm saying...
I mapped out the general light reflections on the helmet in this drawing, and indicated where the cameras are and the lighting is. While it is not all exactly to scale (Vader is), the principles are still correct.


Image

What you're seeing is light reflected off the far side of a vertical dent, which due to the tilt of the helmet, is now at a sympathetic angle to the light above, the same light as on the side of the dome.
If you will note, the right side of the object has a sharper edge and the left edge is much more gradual. The sharp edge of the light is the bottom of the dent and the more gradual side is the curve of the climb
out of the dent on the far side.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:16 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10565
Location: Denmark
The lightsaber pole is a specific width. Light hits the dome, but is split by the saber being in the way. You cannot put that much faith in just 1 image. Images lie. You need multiples to make any sort of solid claims or conclusions, and if you don't have that, all you can do is speculate. What is clear to me is that the lightsaber pole is covering part of the light hitting the dome and see nothing that in my view constitute damage. Also, that small streak has exactly the correct contour of how the dent at that part of the dome curves, as seen in the other ESB shot, so again, all I'm seeing is a light reflection partly blocked by the lightsaber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
Him him him
No Humor Man wrote:
The lightsaber pole is a specific width. Light hits the dome, but is split by the saber being in the way. You cannot put that much faith in just 1 image. Images lie. You need multiples to make any sort of solid claims or conclusions, and if you don't have that, all you can do is speculate. What is clear to me is that the lightsaber pole is covering part of the light hitting the dome and see nothing that in my view constitute damage. Also, that small streak has exactly the correct contour of how the dent at that part of the dome curves, as seen in the other ESB shot, so again, all I'm seeing is a light reflection partly blocked by the lightsaber.


I'm not sure, but are you trying to say that's a shadow, and not a reflection of the rod or pole as you called it?

I tried to duplicate this photo, but I only have one overhead light source anywhere in the house, and that's in my kitchen. And the only problem is that I can't get far enough away,
as the original picture was taken from somewhere around 15 to 16 feet away, and the most I can get is five or 6 feet.
(And yes, that is my ANH to ROTJ WIP in the background - shameless plug LOL)

In the first picture, the light source is off to the side or behind me as I take the picture, because the helmet is tilted back, the dome hardly reflects any light at all.
On the second picture, the light is overhead, and even though the light source itself is not the same as what's on set, you now get a light reflection that's much more like what you see in the original photograph.

ImageImage

Even though it's not an exact match, I'm still able to determine a few things from this picture.

When I look at the pictures of my EFX helmet, compared to the dummy helmet, I notice a couple of things. Yes there's lots of dips and bumps, but I am very aware of all these.
The first thing I notice, is that the helmet on the dummy is not much shinier than my EFX, which I feel is not very shiny it all. It definitely is not capable of sharp image reflection.
And what is reflected on the back of my EFX is the dark underside of the cabinet above, but the edge of the center strip is lit up because it is also facing the same overhead light source,
just as that dent on the back side of the dummy helmet is lit up also, because it runs parallel to the center strip.

ImageImage

I tried to duplicate the light saber pole, and the image behind it. But I do not have anything that is the diameter of that pole, other than a mop handle. And at this distance, it appeared to be over an inch wide through the camera,
compared to the helmet. And you could not see anything. If I move my head out slightly from behind the camera, I could see a reflection that was similar to what's in the picture (as in broken up). But it was not a shadow as the blade
was not directly between the light source and the side of the helmet. And just to test this theory, I took one of my MR light sabers and got the same result. Only when I turned on the light saber. What was now dark was now bright red,
( i.e. a reflection not a shadow).


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:34 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10565
Location: Denmark
The eFX dome is a lot less shiny than the Dagobah helmet. That one is also in a smoky room, that diffuse the light even more. I'm not talking about anything but light from the stage light(s) reflecting on the dome, but the lightsaber rod obscures some of the light, as it appears to be between the light and the dome, leaving a dark shadow on the dome. Without the lightsaber rod in the way, the lit area on the dome would appear wider and reach all the way back to that tiny strip of light you see further back. Also, in the other pictures and in the movie you see foliage all around and clearly obscuring the light as well, so you have a lot going on in terms of light and shadow. At least that's how I interpret it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
There's just no way it can be a shadow, I had to get the light saber pole and the mop handle practically right next to the helmet before I saw a good shadow.
And the shadow wasn't broken, it was solid, just like a shadow on the wall and very fuzzy. The screen cap shows the light saber pole is about a foot away
from the helmet. At a foot away, there was no shadow at all. I didn't start to see a shadow, until about 6 inches, and that was only on the bottom skirt of the helmet.
I literally had to get the pole within 3 inches before I started seeing a good shadow, and literally right on top of the helmet before it was as sharp.

NOTE: I would just like to take this moment to say the Dragon software sucks. For everything. It types you have to go back and fix half of it. Such as this last line, I just typed.
Which was supposed to read, for everything. It types, you have to go back and fix half of it. It still didn't get it right. Errrrr...


This is ambient room light cast on a helmet that's tipped away from the camera like the helmet on the set. My EFX may not be polished shiny,
but it's still shiny enough to reflect light. Yet there is little or no light reflected off of this dome. For these items to be a shadow, there would have to be a light shining on the helmet
from the same direction as the person who took this picture, just over their left shoulder. The only light in the room, besides the small amount of light reflecting off of trees, foliage,
lizards and faux stone is coming from overhead.


ImageImage

The bottom line is..

... That this helmet has a very uneven, lumpy bumpy surface, with some pretty deep dents. The dents are distinctive, and consistent with those on the Christie's 94 helmet, and are not consistent with those found on any other helmet, ESB, or otherwise.
While the TM does have some serious dents, they are not consistent with the dents on this helmet. The frontal areas of the dome on the dummy helmet are mis-sharpened, and distinctive, and are also consistent with the corresponding area of the Christie's 94 helmet.
The fact that the Christie's 94 helmet had solid eye lenses and solid grills is completely consistent with the purpose of the cave dummy Vader, whose pyrotechnic nature, necessitated these features to prevent light from being seen inside the helmet during the neck explosion.
Since after all, there is supposed to be a head inside the helmet.
The eye lenses have been changed. And I hope the owner of this helmet, chooses to do no further modifications.

And therefore, my conclusion, is un-wavered, the Christie's 94 helmet and the cave dummy Vader helmet are one and the same. I would stake my job on it.


Just as a reminder, I'm not a 20-year-old who just decided to start looking at pictures a few weeks ago and is prone to quick decisions. I am 50+ and have been doing photo analysis for more than 25 years. And this is one of the easier things I've had to figure out.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:21 pm
Posts: 478
Location: London, UK
Darth Obsession wrote:
There's just no way it can be a shadow, I had to get the light saber pole and the mop handle practically right next to the helmet before I saw a good shadow.
And the shadow wasn't broken, it was solid, just like a shadow on the wall and very fuzzy. The screen cap shows the light saber pole is about a foot away
from the helmet. At a foot away, there was no shadow at all. I didn't start to see a shadow, until about 6 inches, and that was only on the bottom skirt of the helmet.
I literally had to get the pole within 3 inches before I started seeing a good shadow, and literally right on top of the helmet before it was as sharp.


This would be because the EFX dome you're using is not as reflective as the dome in that production photo. You're not going to be able to reproduce the effect seen in that still with that dome, you would also need to reasonably match the on-set lighting conditions.

Do you have a glossier dome you can use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:29 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10565
Location: Denmark
I can only tell you that your analysis is severely lacking to make such a conclusion. Since you have no access other than the eFX dome to high end domes and how the uneven bumpy surface actually looks and reacts to light sources and changes shapes when moved, you are at a disadvantage if you are basing it all on grainy pictures. Since you do not have that kind of reference, you need other identifying markers, which simply hasn't been provided to make such a claim. The only compelling suggested similarity presented is the anomaly seen at the brow area of the dome, which could indeed be a casting flaw which could be why it was used as a blow-up helmet for this scene. Still nothing remotely conclusive. You need rock solid evidence to make an identification. Something unique to that helmet only. Distinctive paint scheme, scratches, damage... anything that sets it apart and can be verified from other sources. There's just not enough there. It may be that helmet, it may not be. More needs to be found to link the Christie's helmet to that particular helmet used in that scene before any conclusions can be made and since the Christie's helmet looks repainted... such may be very difficult to find.

What would be interesting to me is what kind of detail richness hides under all that paint? But we'll likely never know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
gonk27 wrote:
This would be because the EFX dome you're using is not as reflective as the dome in that production photo. You're not going to be able to reproduce the effect seen in that still with that dome, you would also need to reasonably match the on-set lighting conditions.Do you have a glossier dome you can use?


Working on it. Hopefully I will have my ROTJ conversion finished by the end of this month and it will be shiny. However, shadows cast better on dull surfaces.

No Humor Man wrote:
I can only tell you that your analysis is severely lacking to make such a conclusion. Since you have no access other than the eFX dome to high end domes and how the uneven bumpy surface actually looks and reacts to light sources and changes shapes when moved, you are at a disadvantage if you are basing it all on grainy pictures. Since you do not have that kind of reference, you need other identifying markers, which simply hasn't been provided to make such a claim. The only compelling suggested similarity presented is the anomaly seen at the brow area of the dome, which could indeed be a casting flaw which could be why it was used as a blow-up helmet for this scene. Still nothing remotely conclusive. You need rock solid evidence to make an identification. Something unique to that helmet only. Distinctive paint scheme, scratches, damage... anything that sets it apart and can be verified from other sources. There's just not enough there. It may be that helmet, it may not be. More needs to be found to link the Christie's helmet to that particular helmet used in that scene before any conclusions can be made and since the Christie's helmet looks repainted... such may be very difficult to find.


I've actually found that often, it easier to make out details in a black-and-white photo than a color one. That's why when I do my analysis, I will often switch photos to black-and-white, or to a negative image.

The funny thing is, that I have been sitting on my ESB and ROTJ helmets thread for over a month now. And I want to post it, but I'm very reluctant to actually post it, because if I get this much rebuttal from just one helmet, imagine what I will get for 16. But while I've got you guys, let me ask you this: if I were to post them, should I post them in a new thread, one for ESB and one for ROTJ, or should I just tag them into the 'what we know about ESB and ROTJ' thread to which no one has posted a reply in nearly 4 years?

Here is just a small preview,

I'm glad you can still see these pics even though they are pretty small. I'm starting to think there is something wrong with photobucket. This should be twice as big. This is supposed
to be the just the heading of the first page.
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:26 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10565
Location: Denmark
When it comes to making conclusions and claims, you should expect people to comment on it, because we do not take such lightly. What you need to understand is that it requires irrefutable similarities and individual identifiers before anyone should take any claims and conclusions seriously. You need more than you have presented to make the claims and conclusions you do. It may be the helmet. It may not be. There is just nothing presented that screams slam dunk. I love a good debate, but there's simply no need to so adamantly hold onto any sort of claims and conclusions when it is shown there's not enough to back them up. A better approach would be to present your findings, take the debate and then leave out any conclusions until the end, if it is found that you have actually presented irrefutable evidence and identifiers linking the two presented helmets. Making claims and then not being open to alternatives is not a good approach and is what brings about this type of debate. Just present your findings and see where it goes - an already made up mind often refuses to view alternatives and explanations against the claim with an open mind, which makes the debates even more heated.

I say you should present your findings on other helmets in a separate thread and if it is later deemed worth merging with another topic, we can always sort that later. This forum is FULL of debates like this that goes back and forth.

I've presented several theories in the past, but I have been very reluctant making claims that it is what I think it is... I always leave it open to interpretation. Such as my theory of the screen used ANH helmet having been turned into ESB style and possibly used in the other movies. I had a few identifiers I highlighted, but they were simply not enough to make a claim regarding it being fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:45 am
Posts: 231
Location: Northern California
No Humor Man wrote:
When it comes to making conclusions and claims, you should expect people to comment on it, because we do not take such lightly. What you need to understand is that it requires irrefutable similarities and individual identifiers before anyone should take any claims and conclusions seriously.


I am all about learning, teaching and understanding. I completely expect comments, I want comments. But all too often, I feel the comments are simply dismissive. What would somebody have to see before they would decide that this is actually the same helmet? It's very unlikely that you would ever see a picture that is clear, well lit and highly detailed of this dummy helmet, as it just wasn't that important.

It is my hope, that someone would pop up with a new image, or some detailed account from the production that might further verify my findings. I understand skeptical. I myself, am very skeptical. As I said about this helmet when I first saw it, my first thought was; NO FRAKING WAY! But after studying literally thousands of detailed photographs of Vader helmets on display and then having examined some in person myself, I've reached the point where I can literally tell almost right away whether helmet is the real deal or not. I know that last part is a bold statement, but I firmly believe it. And it's not just because I think I'm special. The simple fact is, it actually freaks me out that other people can't seem to see this stuff. And I'll use an example:

Sometime shortly after I joined the forum, I did the thread: 'The Darth Vader eyes challenge'. I did this thread because I had spent a bunch of time trying to decipher Vader's eyebrows. In some pics they were very broad and solid, in some pics they were thin and sharp and in some pics you couldn't see them at all. I was trying to detail helmet and was getting very frustrated because every time it seemed that I matched one picture, it would totally disagreed with the others.

My first mistake was, thinking that they were all the same.

So I spent a bunch of time studying pictures that I had, trying to solve the problem. And then one day I noticed something. And once had I noticed it, it was a matter of going back and seeing was this really the case or was it just this pic making it look this way? But now that I knew about it, I could literally see it in every single picture. It was obvious. I was working on an ANH helmet but every time I painted it, it looked more like an ESB or an ROTJ. What I had finally realized, was that the faces of the ANH eyebrows were painted black, just like the underside of the eyebrow. Why this was done, I cannot say. I can only guess, that maybe George had looked at it, with the helmet as low as it is on an ANH and said, if you're not gonna see the entire eyebrow you might as well just paint it black. But it is painted black. Likewise, most ROTJ helmets have eyebrows where the bottom 75% of the brow face is painted black, highlighting only the upper edge and thus making the eyebrow look sharper and more angular. The full eyebrow is still there in all its thickness, you just can't see it, because of the black paint. Only the ESB's and two ROTJ's have fullface highlighting on their eyebrows.

The only reason I did this thread, was because I had noticed many people doing ANH helmets, and bending over backwards to get details like the C scar and the brush painting down correctly, yet the look was thrown off by the helmet having highlighted eyebrows. Some people want to have the highlighted eyebrows and that's fine. My only hope was that people would go back and look at the pictures for themselves and see that the eyebrows were painted black.


But if the eye brows were actually highlighted, the pictures would look more like this. The dome is tipped up way more than enough to see those eyebrows.

ImageImage

Take the pictures below. The picture to the right is the original. I did nothing but lighten it up. But as bright as it is, you still can't see the eyebrows and the dome is sitting as high or higher than any ESB. I did not just draw in eyebrows on the other picture, I duplicated the picture, then
highlighted it until I could see the eyebrows, isolated them and then duplicated them, then transfered them back to the original picture and used a little Photoshop to blend them in. Yet that image looks completely natural as if the helmet always had highlighted eyebrows.

ImageImage

I have held onto this picture for at least two or three years, but didn't want to post it because I figured people would get all hurt or pissed off. Take it personally.

Image


Sorry. It is not my intent to do an eyebrow discussion. But I felt so dismissed with the 'eyebrows challenge' that I just gave up on it. And I spent so much time and effort on the ESB and ROTJ research that I don't know if I could handle it just being dismissed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 211
I read your eyebrow thread and totally agree. But then again I always knew the brows were black scuffed up with gunmetal since way back when. Ive always pondered why ESB showed though very nicely as compared to ANH in alot of scenes where the dome at times sat even higher than ESB and STILL no brow outline. All the helmets ive finished with the brow gunmetal NEVER took on the nuance of ANH eyes until of course I blackened the brow and WALLA !!! The other way of course is to cheat and lower the dome concealing the top brow in Tant IV. And no, it DOES not depend how low or high the dome sits....

Any how, the proof was revealed in the ANH faceplate prop standing showing its whole left side and a clear indication of splotches of black on the brow scuffed up with minute gunmetal. Whether or not this was done on purpose or if the silver had been scuffed up to the point the underlying black pierced thru, still concedes to the fact they were B L A C K :cool:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:24 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10565
Location: Denmark
Darth Obsession wrote:
I am all about learning, teaching and understanding. I completely expect comments, I want comments. But all too often, I feel the comments are simply dismissive. What would somebody have to see before they would decide that this is actually the same helmet?

I want to make something clear. I like your theory, but it is just that: a theory. It makes you think and makes you look at helmets you didn't think were connected and it makes you look for similarities. So far, there simply isn't enough to say they are the same helmet. Stormtrooper helmets were screen identified from paint peeling and paint details and mistakes matching between screen captures and the real prop. You need the same with any Vader helmet or any other prop, when you want to make any kind of conclusion. Please be aware that I do not question your theory, I question your conclusions, which you simply do not have enough evidence to make. I am only trying to make you see that you cannot make claims or conclusions based on such weak evidence. You need something rock solid.

I love the debate and love theories and I've been looking at the Christie's helmet and the helmet during that scene. As it stands now, the scene is just way too darkly lit and the photo reference we have available just makes it impossible to really conclude that they are the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:21 pm
Posts: 478
Location: London, UK
Darth Obsession wrote:
What would somebody have to see before they would decide that this is actually the same helmet?

Well a photo of the Christies helmet showing it's right side at the very least.
We'd need to see both props from the same angle in order to spot the same features on each, surely? We've no idea what the right hand side of the Chisties helmet looks like.


Darth Obsession wrote:
It's very unlikely that you would ever see a picture that is clear, well lit and highly detailed of this dummy helmet, as it just wasn't that important.

That's possibly true, but it's exactly the sort of reference that's needed to make any kind of conclusive decision! It might mean we never know for sure where that pyro stunt is. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong by the way, maybe the Christies helmet is the pyro stunt? we just cannot make an adequate comparison with the photos we have, sadly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 1994 Christies's ESB helmet, a new look
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:06 am
Posts: 3
Location: Las Vegas NV
Very well put! I have been following this forum for years and being a collector/buyer of screen used or production made SW props, it is important to note that someone paid good hard money for that helmet! (At the time that owner spent his 10k in 94 for that helmet they all called the winner crazy i assure) today $$$ different ballpark$$$! :) In terms of speculating and publicly posting speculative opinions about someone's Vader helmet who is not present to defend his baby that was sold thru the same auction house that has sold 100 million dollar single paintings?? This is nothing to joke about as it is so easy for someone (even myself) with NO financial interest in the said helmet (or any SW prop) to sit and post about how it cannot be what you/we think. The collector who won that auction knows the story as did the consignor....nuff said. You see verifiable (hopefully) provenance is part of what a collector pays for when they step up to that plate and try to win it. This is why we are so flippin scared to show any of our stuff publicly on forums but thanks goes to the Guys that have been here long enough to know when to slow down some. No Humor and Sithlord have really earned my respect here and maybe its time to come forward with our UK Helmet.... Carsten, you can have TM contact me as i know why his helmet came secured the way it did.....This is my first post and glad to have had this site as a helpful reference over the years so thanks!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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