Fate of the Original ANH Vader Mask Confirmed: ESB

[CSMacLaren]

With the high-def version it should be possible to get pretty close on the helmet when capturing frames - saw that when someone posted zoomed in pictures of the brooch worn by Gary Oldman in Dracula. Would be really cool if someone could do a lot of grabs from that entrance scene.

On another forum, someone stated that HD broadcasts are MPEG-2 and may be lossy due to low bit rates. If that is true, we're possibly missing some details from the HD screenshots of ANH.

When I watch some 3D animation HD movies (e.g. by Pixar or Dreamworks) it's amazing. Iron Man in HD looks great. Consequently, the first Terminator movie in HD that I have sucks and is barely better than an up-converted DVD. It all depends on the source material and encoding process.

 

[SithLord]

Just FYI I am using HD screen grabs it is just they end up being so dark that I have to up the gamma and adjust the levels a bit and that compromises resolution. Plus my HD player (VLC) on my computer is a bit buggy so it takes me a long time to get just the right moment (it is a challenge for an older graphics card). But the side view of Vader I show is the best I had since he's in motion that whole movement toward the door. The moment he turns and looks up his head stops briefly and that's when I try to capture at the peak of action.

As for the overlay. Maybe I'll make a movie of it for you later showing the transition from 0-100%. It just lines up it is that simple...and that is based on the distance of the vertices from the edges of the triangle. Usually when you get to the edges, there will be deviations in where the vertices fall if the grills are not lined up. It is easy, sure, to line them up in the center of a frame, but if they also match at the edges then they are the same. The angle of the mask in this case isn't great enough to discount the effect and even if it was greater I would still be able tell if it is the same grill or not. I've done that with the mouth grill at very different angles and although trickier it is still possible to confirm if it is the same grill in the mouth with different angles. It is a matter of the relative position of vertices to the boundaries of the object they are contained in, not just how they overlap.

 

[SithLord]

A few more details that may match...comparing the light reflecting off Vader's left upper cheek corner with that of the original ANH mask as seen in the Corbis photoshoot. Admittedly this was a bit of a stretch but I found it interesting how a few points lined up nevertheless. I wouldn't put as much weight on this as with the grill but still to me it is interesting. One could argue that a copy of the mask would have this but I think it unlikely that the details show up in reflected light as well if they had been painted over (as an ESB mask would have been) rather than being the real details. To the right I show the process of darkening on the image of Kenny Baker mask to bring out the detail as seen on the left closeup image (Baker ANH).

 

[RoCKo]

i really can´t participate in this discussion as i´m no Vader expert at all but try the KMPlayer for screenshots...

 

[CSMacLaren]

Thomas,

Unless you have some ultra high resolution scans that no-one else has, I'm wondering if you're distinguishing between artifacts of the prop surface versus artifacts of the printed surface of photos versus "noise" and dust picked up by bed scanners, versus artifacts arising from lossy compression of .JPG images.

And versus the grain of the actual silver-based film used and it's ISO value. (The higher, the more grainy the photograph.)

As mentioned before, the HD version of SW that's been floating around the fandom suffers from MPEG-2 compression, which is considered "lossy". You may not notice the artifacting depending on your flat panel TV, and when you're looking at everything in full motion.

Most period images of stills that we have today started out as scans out of magazines, scans of photos, scans of duplicated/rephotographed photos.

But if your image of the Kenny Baker photo is not uber-hi-res (e.g. scanned from a large footprint negative or slide) compared with what everyone else seems to have access to, there comes a point where you're comparing artifacts that arise out of not only the physical limitations of the recorded media, but also noise gained from the process of transferring from one medium to another.

(I find that period B&W production photos often have a grainy quality to them. It's almost as if they shot using film of higher ISO values on purpose to get a grainy appearance on purpose so that the resolution of the newspaper and magazine B&W printing process of the time could handle mass printing easier.)

These things have to be taken into account. Otherwise you can match up artifacts and interpret them loosely as physical structures even if those artifacts did not exist on the actual prop. When comparing noise, you have to eliminate the false positives, otherwise - as the saying goes - you're seeing what you want to see.

 

[SithLord]

Unless you have some ultra high resolution scans that no-one else has, I'm wondering if you're distinguishing between artifacts of the prop surface versus artifacts of the printed surface of photos versus "noise" and dust picked up by bed scanners, versus artifacts arising from lossy compression of .JPG images.

I would find it unusual if a scanner picked up exactly the same artifacts as an HD screen capture in both something as large as the grill and as small as those details I point out on the cheek, or the detail on the neck for that matter.

And versus the grain of the actual silver-based film used and it's ISO value. (The higher, the more grainy the photograph.)

The grains are too small to be relevant here.

As mentioned before, the HD version of SW that's been floating around the fandom suffers from MPEG-2 compression, which is considered "lossy". You may not notice the artifacting depending on your flat panel TV, and when you're looking at everything in full motion.

If anything compression just smooths out the details, but what is left is what you see. If there is enough point-to-point resolution that details match then the amount of compression is not going to be important.

Most period images of stills that we have today started out as scans out of magazines, scans of photos, scans of duplicated/rephotographed photos.

But if your image of the Kenny Baker photo is not uber-hi-res (e.g. scanned from a large footprint negative or slide) compared with what everyone else seems to have access to, there comes a point where you're comparing artifacts that arise out of not only the physical limitations of the recorded media, but also noise gained from the process of transferring from one medium to another.

Again, then is it a matter of coincidence these details match? No because you can do the same amount of enlargement/refinement with a ROTJ mask and you won't get the same effect. If by your logic one could, then the mere process of scanning a photo or doing a screen capture would lead to the same result regardless of what film the mask came from. That doesn't happen. But you are free to prove it does.

(I find that period B&W production photos often have a grainy quality to them. It's almost as if they shot using film of higher ISO values on purpose to get a grainy appearance on purpose so that the resolution of the newspaper and magazine B&W printing process of the time could handle mass printing easier.)

Again, the details I look at will be larger than the size of individual silver grains which are on the order of microns in a photograph like that. The Corbis photos were taken with Tri-X pan black and white film which even though it is ASA 400 isn't going to be an issue with flash. When you get to ASA 1600 or more in film then it could be an issue. It is no different than the size or density of pixels on CCD chips. They won't be large enough to interfere with most macroscopic detail unless you enlarge something rediculously large, and that isn't something I've done. The image I show for the light to dark comparison for the Baker helmet isn't the one I used to get the higher resolution section of the cheek.

These things have to be taken into account. Otherwise you can match up artifacts and interpret them loosely as physical structures even if those artifacts did not exist on the actual prop. When comparing noise, you have to eliminate the false positives, otherwise - as the saying goes - you're seeing what you want to see.

Well I've been doing scientific imaging since 1988 so I think I know what I am doing. But as I said, I don't put as much emphasis on that last comparison as I do on the chin vent or neck detail. I just show an example of my research. Take it as you will.

 

[CSMacLaren]

It sounds like you're scanning from a photo. How are you making the determination that the grains are too small to be relevant? How large is the Kenny Baker mask in the photo - 1 square inch? If you're scanning it at high resolution to where photo grain doesn't matter (ah, there's another thing: the grain of the photo paper, not just the film) then why does it look like you enlarged a 72 dot-per-inch image in your 4-image comparison?

So let's take the Baker vs Corbis shot. You have 3 yellow rectangles. T he upper left rectangle has one spec that appears to line up. You have a lower rectangle with to red lines, but the Corbis details are barely visible. Then the upper right rectangle with the larger thing - the Baker shot shows two bright dots but the Corbis shows something roughly like the greek symbol "Pi". I'd like to be able to agree with you, as I'd love to say beyond doubt that the Kenny mask is THE screenused ANH and not just a copy.

But saying "... a scanner picked up exactly the same artifacts as an HD screen capture in both something as large as the grill and as small as those details I point out on the cheek, or the detail on the neck for that matter. " Well, the neck is a larger detail and easier to match up, but the cheek comparison isn't a slam slam dunk yet for the following reasons:

1. The Corbis shot's cheek surface is far garner than the Baker shot. Have you eliminated the false positives? There are white specks on the Corbis that do not appear on the Baker s hot.

2. Why does the Corbis shot cheek corner look cut off and the Baker shot looks sharp?

3. If a few white specs seem to line up, how do you explain all the white specks that don't.

In other words - especially #3 - you have to eliminate the false positives before stating something so confidently as "proof".

Also, the production of ESB should have been after Chronicles, correct? We know that during the Chinese Theater and the Chronicles photoshoot, the mask was repainted. That would mean the cheek surface would have been altered.

"If anything compression just smooths out the details.... "

Sorry, it doesn't. I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately that's not accurate. If you're fortunate enough to have a TV that has artifact-removing technology by adding a gaussian blur, then more power to you!

I think you'd find the following article quite informative in this matter. It shows that MPEG-2 compression does not necessarily smoothe out the details , but can add noise.

High Definition Blog » HDTV Artifacts

On the topic of noise, have you familiarized yourself with the various scanning modes of your bed scanner? Some software may add dithering (noise) to improve some images. My page scanner is a LED-based flatbed. It's a $100-120 cheapie but it has different modes that each yield different results, and an advanced mode that allows a combination of settings until you feel you have the best image possible. However, going from optical to digital still relies on software to interpret data and to present an image. Each time I do a scan and zoom in, the noise is different.

"The Corbis photos were taken with Tri-X pan black and white film which even though it is ASA 400 isn't going to be an issue with flash. When you get to ASA 1600 or more in film then it could be an issue. It is no different than the size or density of pixels on CCD chips. "

I've done B&W photography 20 years ago and did the whole dark room and developing my own prints thing. If you're scanning at 72 dots per inch, you may not notice much. If you scan at 300 dots per inch, if you're saying you won't see the grain, then here is a great example:

http://elliottmccrory.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aug_1993_047_handsonly1.jpg

Here the person used a Canon F1. You can see the grain of the ASA 400 film. Lots of white dots too.

Thomas, I really want to, but I don't see unmistakable coincidence just yet. You've made a good effort (so has Carsten). I encourage you to keep looking.

 

[ghostryder]

I know NOTHING about Vader, and I'm sure you've seen these a million times, but just in case they're useful to someone:

No idea on the source?

I think these are Jedi, but maybe there's a better quality pic out there:

 

[SithLord]

So let's take the Baker vs Corbis shot. You have 3 yellow rectangles. T he upper left rectangle has one spec that appears to line up. You have a lower rectangle with to red lines, but the Corbis details are barely visible. Then the upper right rectangle with the larger thing - the Baker shot shows two bright dots but the Corbis shows something roughly like the greek symbol "Pi". I'd like to be able to agree with you, as I'd love to say beyond doubt that the Kenny mask is THE screenused ANH and not just a copy.

It is just like triangulation. If you line up one dot it is a coincidence, two and it is looking more like it could be related, three or four and one gets further to it being the same source. It is playing the odds.

But saying "... a scanner picked up exactly the same artifacts as an HD screen capture in both something as large as the grill and as small as those details I point out on the cheek, or the detail on the neck for that matter. " Well, the neck is a larger detail and easier to match up, but the cheek comparison isn't a slam slam dunk yet for the following reasons:

1. The Corbis shot's cheek surface is far garner than the Baker shot. Have you eliminated the false positives? There are white specks on the Corbis that do not appear on the Baker s hot.

Well that is because the Corbis shot is higher resolution to being with. Why would you expect them to be identical? What I am trying to do is pinpoint any detail no matter how slight that lines up. But again it is a matter of lining up as many small details as possible. Sure it could all just be a coincidence but that shape in the upper right corner is remarkably similar. Just the fact that there is a dominant irregular shape in that exact location is of interest. But again, I stated that I myself do not put that much weight on that comparison as much as I do on the previous ones. But I thought people here might like to see what else I am looking at. I'm not entirely sure myself about that area, but I still find it compelling and I would never present just that comparison as proof.

2. Why does the Corbis shot cheek corner look cut off and the Baker shot looks sharp?

Brightness. Edges change based on resolution of the original image and the alterations in the LUT. Not to mention I had to sharpen things and the sharpening algorithms will do different things to edges. Why would that be so surprising? Look at the way light hits that edge on both images and you will see similar bright areas with similar irregularities.

3. If a few white specs seem to line up, how do you explain all the white specks that don't.

In other words - especially #3 - you have to eliminate the false positives before stating something so confidently as "proof".

Simple. Resolution. How can you reasonably expect the two images to have identical resolution and to be identical in the angle of light that falls on the surface of the mask? Oblique angles show more detail, frontal angles show less. All you have to do is take a portable light and move it around a mask you have and you should notice that.

Also, the production of ESB should have been after Chronicles, correct? We know that during the Chinese Theater and the Chronicles photoshoot, the mask was repainted. That would mean the cheek surface would have been altered.

That front left surface of the cheek I think was painted over. Do you think they would have stripped down the mask, re-sand it to repaint it?

There are many instances where painting over an area of a mask still shows the detail underneath and I've shown that before when talking about fanmade masks. Otherwise how for example could I compare the TD ANH to other masks when it has four or five coats of paint on it? Just because it is painted, or had an additional layer of paint put on, doesn't mean the details will be completely gone. But clearly there are fewer details picked up by the light because of the repaint on the Baker mask than the Corbis image. But the larger details...or taller ones, that are not as affected in relation to the height of the layer of paint will still stand out. It is a simple signal (a detail) to noise (the layer of paint) issue.

"If anything compression just smooths out the details.... "

Sorry, it doesn't. I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately that's not accurate. If you're fortunate enough to have a TV that has artifact-removing technology by adding a gaussian blur, then more power to you!

I think you'd find the following article quite informative in this matter. It shows that MPEG-2 compression does not necessarily smoothe out the details , but can add noise.

High Definition Blog » HDTV Artifacts

If you have a sharp edge will it be retained in a highly compressed image? No. Compression introduces loss in image quality and invariably when you increase compression you reduce edge quality and resolution. As I said, compression smooths details. And at any rate, I only do image processing using TIFF files which are inherently uncompressed.

On the topic of noise, have you familiarized yourself with the various scanning modes of your bed scanner? Some software may add dithering (noise) to improve some images. My page scanner is a LED-based flatbed. It's a $100-120 cheapie but it has different modes that each yield different results, and an advanced mode that allows a combination of settings until you feel you have the best image possible. However, going from optical to digital still relies on software to interpret data and to present an image. Each time I do a scan and zoom in, the noise is different.

I haven't scanned any of the images I show myself. But if I do scan something important I simply go with no auto scaling and the highest dpi that is reasonable (usually end with a single image that is a couple of a hundred MB).

"The Corbis photos were taken with Tri-X pan black and white film which even though it is ASA 400 isn't going to be an issue with flash. When you get to ASA 1600 or more in film then it could be an issue. It is no different than the size or density of pixels on CCD chips. "

I've done B&W photography 20 years ago and did the whole dark room and developing my own prints thing. If you're scanning at 72 dots per inch, you may not notice much. If you scan at 300 dots per inch, if you're saying you won't see the grain, then here is a great example:

http://elliottmccrory.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aug_1993_047_handsonly1.jpg

Here the person used a Canon F1. You can see the grain of the ASA 400 film. Lots of white dots too.

Thomas, I really want to, but I don't see unmistakable coincidence just yet. You've made a good effort (so has Carsten). I encourage you to keep looking.

Ya, when I was a grad student in the first couple of years I had to photograph, print, and develop my own 35mm film where I worked for scientific publication. I actually lost my sense of smell almost entirely during that time from the photographic chemicals. Thankfully the nasal epithelium regenerates . There were no digital cameras back then. But I know that silver grain structure is minute compared to pixel size.

But anyway, I didn't scan anything, but when I find something I usually work with it at 1000 dpi. But if I do scan something important it is at 1200dpi.

And the bottom line is, the images come from different sources. What I do is take whatever I have and look at similarity in detail. But again I am looking at different kinds of detail in order to put together a larger picture of what something might or might not be. I cannot say that all those little details shared are not false positives, however, consider the probability of those details falling in the same place with the same size, intensity above background "noise" and proximity with the rest of the macroscopic feature. But again, I wouldn't call that one comparison proof. But it is indicative. Of course there is a lot more I won't show in terms of details I've found but what I try to do is base it on images that are commonly available.

 

[SithLord]

Darth Jones took this one in the archives when he worked for ILM in the early 90s. The left is a promotional ANH the right is a production ROTJ. Since based on my own findings the chin vent would have been cut out on the original ANH mask during ROTJ long before this image was taken, that would rule out this one being the original but DJ was pretty confident it wasn't when he saw it. But it would be fun to have a another look at the grills on that one.

Apparently these are promotional suits (with one original helmet) taken after ROTJ. Whether the original is the same as what Warwick Davis was wearing would be interesting to look at, if there is something with higher resolution of the image taken just before this one.

 

[SithLord]

Let's try this dance again. This time, let's step into Vader's TIE fighter as he is spinning around helplessly after getting b-slapped by the Millennium Falcon.

I noticed there was a better angle of Vader's chin from that scene in relation to the angle of the photo of Kenny Baker in ESB wearing the Vader helmet. So performing the same exercise this is what I got...

You can argue all day with me about artifacts. But I'll let you judge for yourself if this is the same grill or not.

It is. And I don't think I need to go through the whole image analysis thing on this one and point out which intersection points on the grill match up.

Same grill. Same mask.




So the next time you talk to Kenny Baker, let him know that he had the honor of wearing the original ANH Vader mask. Lucky guy.

This also means something. If they had the original ANH Vader mask during the production of ESB, and maybe someone here can specify when the Hoth entrance scene was filmed exactly in relation to the rest of the ESB production (early? late?), they had the original ANH mask with them and could have molded it at the time of ESB. Or did they? Did they even know it was the original? They just took a mask that was available and threw it on Prowse and did a quick scene....maybe?

If they had it and molded it, then they would have had to fill in the chin vent. Is the filled chin vent a consequence of this? Or was the original ANH mask actually molded earlier on during ANH.

Stay tuned.... :love

 

[ghostryder]

Cool, thanks for the info SithLord!

 

[Too Much Garlic]

How about presenting the whole thing instead of this cat and mouse thing you keep doing and then complain about others preventing you from showing the rest when commenting on what you've already shown.

I presented all my findings in one go. Sure, it wasn't much, but I never did make the claim that I had proof of anything. You are claiming proof, so you gotta present it and so far all you've proven is that it's the same style grill in those two masks, nothing more. Alignment can be a happy accident.

EDIT: Especially since I was just able to MATCH the screen used to the ESB Poster helmet grill.

Those are two different angles, but line up pretty convincingly, so I'd say that proof is sunk.

You need to present something irrefutable, something that cannot be questioned.

 

[CSMacLaren]

You need to present something irrefutable, something that cannot be questioned.

Quoted for truth.

Thank you. I couldn't have phrased it better.

 

[SithLord]

Not quite. The original mesh on top, the ESB poster in the middle, and the 50% overlay on the bottom. Look especially at the right side and the difference in distance of the vertices to the edge. Let your eye jump from the top to middle image back and forth and look at that side (Vader's left).

Let's look closer.

Original ANH on the left panels, top middle is the screen ANH from the Death Star photo, right is the 50% overlay. Note the similarity even in the shapes of the vertices.

Then in the middle the original ANH versus the Baker ESB mask (center). The Baker ESB even has similar intensity in areas of the connections between the vertices. And it lines up nicely in the 50% overlay.

Bottom row, the ESB poster ANH mask. If you look in the box you'll see three vertices common to images of the original mask. However the ESB poster mask has a fourth. Lighting effect? Perhaps, but it also doesn't line up in the overlay.

And if you try to line it up on the right side (Vader's left), this is what happens.

So even though it is misleading because it is close, it isn't the same. You just need to look more carefully.

 

[SithLord]

You need to present something irrefutable, something that cannot be questioned.

No matter what I present, you guys will always question it.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

You are claiming proof of the ANH being the Hoth helmet - so, prove it and quit whining when questioned. I'm not seeing it. I've never claimed proof, because if I did I would have to present a damn definitive, unquestionable amount of details that match up. The grills are not proof.

Bring the proof to the table, or this is nothing more than what I presented: theory.

 

[RBJ]

"Bring the proof to the table, or this is nothing more than what I presented: theory. "

QFT

 

[ghostryder]

Not sure if these help, but found a few more shots (again, I'm sure the Vader experts are familiar with all these).

 

[CSMacLaren]

Alienscollection,

The only image that applies is the last one. That's the screenused ANH. The one on the top is an LFL promo but not used in any of the movies. The second shot is ESB with a wider chin triangle and different kind of chin mesh altogether, so not applicable. Hope that helps.