CRAP...scarf man said:
Oh wait...
Thank you for your kind words! I greatly appreciate it,especially at a very difficult time in my life!scarf man said:
I might be a noob but not a child so please don't patronise me. Bit of friendly advice will do.
Nope. I was stating fact. New members should read the rules before posting on a forum such as this, no matter how long they have been lurking.
Any attitude you read in that post is a fabrication of your imagination.
Come on.
Last edited by scarf man; Jan 23, 2009 at 12:46 AM.
Ok, it just didn't come across that way. It's just I started this on page 3 and it wasn't intill page 13 and some attitude, not necessarily from you scarf man was I told about the coc. I took on your advice and read it, then felt ridiculed for doing so.
No offence.
All I wanted to do was gain some insight into what is accepted and what is not. If you read my posts my attitude was of a light nature and tried to diffuse any Agro that took place.
So please can we start again on the right foot, as I have said I am a noob and don't know all the do's and dont's, I am learning as I go along.
Thank you.
This recastingisationment is disgraceful and should be banned.
Can we talk about SDS now?
Cheers
Jez
what would you like to discuss Jez?BingoBongo275 said:
What is SDS?
I'm as slow as a drunken hamster.
I'm not sure if I am allowed to name names so please delete if necessary. SDS is sheperton design studios. They vac formed the original stormtrooper armor and lids in the 70's. There is much controversy over the origins of the armor he now produces and sells "made in the original molds".madrobot said:
Last edited by sskunky; Jan 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Added more.
Wow I didn't think this would be resurrected, hehe. Interesting discussion.
GINO said:
In spite of our previous differences, I have to agree here.
Although I'll mention that one can do a scan of sufficient resolution to obtain a faithful replica of an original prop. That isn't to say it has been done yet but it can be done. Weta Digital relied on a company from Canada to do some high resolution scans for them.
I have a question related to my first post here. How do we distinguish between an original production mold and a mold taken off an original prop? Are the rights someone has to each the same? It seems so. But then if the copy mold is sold the new owner gets rights to a mold that is not an original production mold. So then why does that not then apply to castings?
Related to my question above, it seems the recasting rules do not apply to this. They only seem to apply to original props, sculptures, or molds from original props.GINO said:
Hi sithlord,
Glad you could join us. I thought I would ressurect this discussion as I have never got to the bottom of why it is right for one but not another. But I think the guys here have cleared up for me anyway what is accepted here morally not legally in terms of casting and recasting, rights etc. within the replica prop community.
I'm glad to see that some others do "get it" regarding recasting and the concept of honor amongst thieves.
SithLord said:
Also, digital scanning is not all it's cracked up to be, and it is a misconception that it can be produce results similar to the act of taking a direct casting. This is just not the case.
It's great for recording extremely detailed data, but the problem is the limitations of the tooling that creates the 3d form.
The tooling cannot replicate much past the basic shape/proportions, and you can forget about replicating any subtle surface nuances. The rest has to be sculpted in by hand and there is a lot of room for human error.
Also, when the item is scanned in, a digital 3d wireframe is constructed that can be adjusted/altered even before the piece is cut out in 3d real life. These shapes are always adjusted beforehand to make 'adjustments', either for production purposes or for artistic license.
Nothing is a good or even close to a casting taken from a silicone mold of an original prop, or casting of such (as long as the integrity of the original is preserved in subsequent castings).
But I suppose a digital scan is the next step down when the original can't be molded. But it's a BIG step down.
It's just important to debunk this myth that there is hardly any difference between direct casting and digital scanning/repro.
People should realize that there is a significant amount of original characteristics that will be lost using the digital scanning/repro. method of replica making.
Well, at least until the day we have those replicators or whatever they're called from star trek.
.
Last edited by GINO; Jan 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM.
This is perfectly illustrated in the TE SFS Stormtrooper Helmet, although in some areas it is very accurate, areas like the chin are way off.GINO said:
Joe
Properly applied measurement and examination can replicate the shapes and sizes of anything.
The only thing it can't replicate is the incredibly subtle bumps, scratches and gouges of an original piece.
Only the nit-pickiest folks give a hoot about that. But some people pin their entire self-worth in this hobby on exactly those things, so it is important to them.
I posed this question on another thread and curious to people's responses:
Why is it NOT OK to recast someone's work yet some people (in general) think that it is OK to to recast "original" movie props. Aren't the "original" movie props considered to be someone elses work as is an individuals recast?
Again I own several recasts from "original" movie props so this is not aimed at anyone.......
I posted the answer to that several times previously in the thread.
People like to ignore the truth when they choose to disagree with it.
No. It belongs to the studio in which the work was done.Capn_Jack_Savvy said:
Aren't the "original" movie props considered to be someone elses work as is an individuals recast?
Again, anyone in the hobby of replicating props (not collecting licensed pieces) has no choice but to look past the studios.
Scratch building items based on licensed properties is no different than casting an original prop in the eyes of the studio/law.
.
Utter nonsense.
People who COPY studio props have no choice.
They can be replicated easily, just not the nit-picky bumps, scratches and gouges.
Even with silicone molds 100% is not possible. There is ALWAYS shrinkage. However minimal. And 90% of the re-casters of studio items don't bother to worry about it at all.
Last edited by micdavis; Jan 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM.
micdavis said:
I copy studio props. You saying I have no choice due to lack of building skills?
Because that would be ridiculous.
They cannot be replicated easily. You could get the most talented sculptors in the world set to try to resculpt the vader, trooper, or fett helmet (for example) and all they could do is match or mimic basic forms, shapes, details. It would still be EASILY distinguishable upon close inspection from the real thing.
Something that is not true for many of the direct cast props I and others like me own.
People who collect REPLICAS OF THE FILM PROPS could give a crap about someone's scratch build outside of a place holder for the real thing (if/when it ever comes available.)
All those bumps, nicks, crooked lines that you trivialize, are critical characteristics for us. Especially when you can screen match those characteristics and match them up to your direct casting.
For us, there is no greater satisfaction in this hobby than being able to do that. It is the closest thing to having a piece of the actual movie production we're ever going to have, outside of owning the original. An unmodified, uncleaned up casting is the next best thing to owning the original.
You think we're ridiculous for caring about such 'trivial things', but what you don't seem to realize is that we think the same of you for not caring.
.
Last edited by GINO; Jan 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM.
Beware the monsters from the ID.
Who is "we"? Are you they're official spokesperson?
I was generalizing, not targeting anyone specific.
Last edited by micdavis; Jan 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM.
'We' in context to my last post is referring to people who's primary drive in this hobby is to collect accurate replicas of the film props.
Not watered down or idealized representations of them (which I realize some people actually prefer). But those people want prop representations, not film prop replicas.
Their official representative? Surely no.
Just one of the more vocal ones.
.
Last edited by GINO; Jan 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM.
Reply with Quote
Lighten up.
