nwjedidave
Sr Member
John
could you explain the picture above? I'm wondering why its so dark?
SL ANH Darth Vader Helmet Discussion Thread
- Thread starter SithLord
- Start date
could you explain the picture above? I'm wondering why its so dark?
I think he was just trying to emphasize the profile of the domes particularly the front flaring on Vader's right side, lower corner (left bottom of each image). The left image is the SL but modified according to what he saw as more accurate. The middle is the original ANH in a screencap and the right is the original photo of the finished SL copy.
3phase
Sr Member
OK i don’t want to start anything here but i would like to know once and for all. In the left pick you can clearly see the C scar and presuming this cast has no paint on it, it would seem it is physical and not some paint as Geno and others say. If it is physical why it is not on the Baker mold now if this cast is from the same mold. Please take it easy on me if i am missing something here. If the reply is a good one then every time this debate arrises we can just copy the reply and it will be the end of any future wasted thread space on the topic.
DynamicMenace
Well-Known Member
Sithlord is right as far as the domes of the original and the SL looking different. as he mentioned, you have to keep this mind. it has a lot to do with how the dome its self is positioned sitting on the faceplate. not to mention the positioning of the entire helmet itself. if you look closely. the shot of the original is at a higher angle than the shot of the SL. plus it appears to me that the SL dome is tilted forward more on the faceplate than the original to where the widows peek meets the top groove mark on the bridge of the nose..the original's dome is tilted back more than the SL's to where the widows peek is well above the top groove of the bridge of the nose. that would explain the differences in the looks of the dome's right side and left side for that matter. plus you have to keep in mind, the lighting, distance, camera angle, camera lens. and the age difference of the cameras and lenses used to take each photo..meaning the original helmet was shot with a 54 yr old + motion picture camera onto film. (i believe it was the same camera that was used to film Ben Hur) while the SL was shot with a modern still camera (digital?). and im talking about the image Obsession posted. now the other images Sithlord posted comparing the original with the SL in black and white (the ones on the bottom) you can clearly see what i am referring to when it comes to the widows peek and the placement or tilting of the domes. the front on shots of the domes on the other hand, although are somewhat at slightly different angles, (and the domes are positioned differently as well) looks to me to be the same lid. and again..angle, lighting, different cameras and age has a lot to do with he discrepancies that were pointed out by Obsession. i think if the finished SL was shot in same exact way as the original was in the film image, and with the dome positioned exactly the same as the original. with the same exact lighting, camera, camera lens, camera angle and distance..my guess it would look exactly the same. and this is concerning the images of the finished SL and the original helmet of the screen grab.
now as far as the black and white photos that Sithlord posted. (the front on shots) when comparing the raw unfinished casting with what im not quite sure of what that front on shot of the original ANH helmet is. (im pretty sure its not a screen grab) the grill mouth area does seem to be a bit different than the SL's..but again..that all could be with camera angles lighting and such. it also could be a pre production shot of the helmet and could have been retooled later to what it looks like in the screen grab..becasue if you compare the film used helmet and that black and white front on shot of the ANH helmet. the mouth grill areas do seem to be different from one another. it also could be one of the 3 helmets that were made but weren't used in filming.. correct me if i am wrong Sithlord. possibly explain what that front on shot is? and maybe why the moth grill looks a bit different? becasue if you really examine every little minute nick ding & dent on both the dome and the face plate of the raw casting and the photo in the middle. you'll see that they match up with one another.
the only true way to know for sure is to have the SL and the original ANH helmet that was used for filming side by side to compare. and i dont think that will be happening anytime soon.. so from what i have witnessed and observed throughout the forums. i believe the SL is a true copy of the original film used helmet..
as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
now as far as the black and white photos that Sithlord posted. (the front on shots) when comparing the raw unfinished casting with what im not quite sure of what that front on shot of the original ANH helmet is. (im pretty sure its not a screen grab) the grill mouth area does seem to be a bit different than the SL's..but again..that all could be with camera angles lighting and such. it also could be a pre production shot of the helmet and could have been retooled later to what it looks like in the screen grab..becasue if you compare the film used helmet and that black and white front on shot of the ANH helmet. the mouth grill areas do seem to be different from one another. it also could be one of the 3 helmets that were made but weren't used in filming.. correct me if i am wrong Sithlord. possibly explain what that front on shot is? and maybe why the moth grill looks a bit different? becasue if you really examine every little minute nick ding & dent on both the dome and the face plate of the raw casting and the photo in the middle. you'll see that they match up with one another.
the only true way to know for sure is to have the SL and the original ANH helmet that was used for filming side by side to compare. and i dont think that will be happening anytime soon.. so from what i have witnessed and observed throughout the forums. i believe the SL is a true copy of the original film used helmet..
as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
Last edited:
Obsession
New Member
Hello,
Before I continue, let there be no doubt, I consider this helmet to an excellent specimine of a direct decendant of the screen used ANH.
...and to answer the question of the source of the middle helmet image:
I originally submitted the post without the pic, but then thought, I should have some kind of teaser. Hense, no comment or text regarding the pic.
As I said in my thread on the Den about my visit to Seattle to see the ROTJ Vader display, "There something about a 'real' Vader helmet."
They have a 'look' that no replica I have seen, so far, quite manages to capture. My own helmet which I posted as a WIP on the Den back in November shows just how hard I have tried to capture this 'look'.
In November....
And as it looks today....
So I am obviously not satisfied with my own helmet.
As to the 'three helmet' picture, it was just an exercise, to see what it would take to make the SL look more like the real thing to me. I then found a similar frame cap image to his pose, cut it out of the image and pasted it next to this, to remove the background from the equation. Then decided to place an un-altered image on the other side. The dark color was just to make the color of the SL images look more like the screen cap image.
Before I continue, let there be no doubt, I consider this helmet to an excellent specimine of a direct decendant of the screen used ANH.
...and to answer the question of the source of the middle helmet image:
I originally submitted the post without the pic, but then thought, I should have some kind of teaser. Hense, no comment or text regarding the pic.
As I said in my thread on the Den about my visit to Seattle to see the ROTJ Vader display, "There something about a 'real' Vader helmet."
They have a 'look' that no replica I have seen, so far, quite manages to capture. My own helmet which I posted as a WIP on the Den back in November shows just how hard I have tried to capture this 'look'.
In November....
And as it looks today....
So I am obviously not satisfied with my own helmet.
As to the 'three helmet' picture, it was just an exercise, to see what it would take to make the SL look more like the real thing to me. I then found a similar frame cap image to his pose, cut it out of the image and pasted it next to this, to remove the background from the equation. Then decided to place an un-altered image on the other side. The dark color was just to make the color of the SL images look more like the screen cap image.
Last edited:
That photo is actually post production and there's very little difference in the helmet in that photo and what you see on the Tantive IV screencaps, apart from perhaps a bit more paint wear here and there.
.. so from what i have witnessed and observed throughout the forums. i believe the SL is a true copy of the original film used helmet..
as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Yes, it is physical, and as I demonstrated in the post below it is retained in the Baker mold as well:
http://www.therpf.com/f9/efx-anh-darth-helmet-sample-137816/index26.html#post2316367
3phase
Sr Member
Thanks for that but why do Gino and EFX say otherwise. If it is in the mold EFX had a great opportunity to capitalise on it and im sure it would have been the first thing Gino looked for if he had looked at the molds himself. I understand this is a sore point with some so if you want to I will just leave it be.
Obsession
New Member
So...
Looking at the pics, the second or third thing I noticed, but what was obvious at a glance to me, was too much flare on the dome.
So what I decided to do, was see what the helmet would look like with less flare.
And of course, that lead to another one.
In the end I couldn't stop at just the flare, I had to address some of the other things that IMO were not quite hitting it. In the end here are some comparisons.
Modified SL compared to Actual SL...
ANH screen cap image compared to actual SL...
And finally the Modified SL compared to the ANH screen cap image. It should be noted that the screen cap image is somewhat further away. Filmed with a regular lense. The SL is turned about 3-5 degrees furthur to the left than the screen image. The SL dome is also shifted further to the left relative to the faceplate, while the screen cap image helmet is not.
The variation in flaring appears to only at the mid point as if someone picked up the dome before it was completely cured and spread them either on purpose or by accident.
Looking at the this comparison, the SL is about a foot closer than the 'Kid' picture. While the bottom right (photo right) edge of the dome skirts seem to match, the dome on the 'Kid' image
is not straight, if it were, these would not line up. The SL seems to have a much sharper, more square edge to the flare to the left, whereas the 'Kid' appears more rounded.
I am assuming the cast in this image is the same as the finished helmet. If this is the case, then there has been a fair amount of clean up as the nose opening appears a lot rougher and smaller on the SL than the actual nose on the 'Kid' image, but seem to be OK on the finished helmet.
Looking at the pics, the second or third thing I noticed, but what was obvious at a glance to me, was too much flare on the dome.
So what I decided to do, was see what the helmet would look like with less flare.
And of course, that lead to another one.
In the end I couldn't stop at just the flare, I had to address some of the other things that IMO were not quite hitting it. In the end here are some comparisons.
Modified SL compared to Actual SL...
ANH screen cap image compared to actual SL...
And finally the Modified SL compared to the ANH screen cap image. It should be noted that the screen cap image is somewhat further away. Filmed with a regular lense. The SL is turned about 3-5 degrees furthur to the left than the screen image. The SL dome is also shifted further to the left relative to the faceplate, while the screen cap image helmet is not.
The variation in flaring appears to only at the mid point as if someone picked up the dome before it was completely cured and spread them either on purpose or by accident.
Looking at the this comparison, the SL is about a foot closer than the 'Kid' picture. While the bottom right (photo right) edge of the dome skirts seem to match, the dome on the 'Kid' image
is not straight, if it were, these would not line up. The SL seems to have a much sharper, more square edge to the flare to the left, whereas the 'Kid' appears more rounded.
I am assuming the cast in this image is the same as the finished helmet. If this is the case, then there has been a fair amount of clean up as the nose opening appears a lot rougher and smaller on the SL than the actual nose on the 'Kid' image, but seem to be OK on the finished helmet.
Last edited:
Davy Jones
Sr Member
Everyone just remember how nearly impossible it is to line things up to screencaps. Lets not turn this into that kind of thread.
I appreciate the intent but its all mental masturbation at the end of the day because you cant tell much about the actual shapes/sizes in question. The Vader helmet is especially tricky.
That said, I think Obession is right. I have always perceived the SL as having flare in the dome and especially the face. That isnt a slight to the origin or details of the casting, its just the fiberglass looks to have traveled a bit.
Thomas why can't we see pictures of the original? I dont think it had as much distortion and being an unpainted casting must show detail much better than this copy.
I appreciate the intent but its all mental masturbation at the end of the day because you cant tell much about the actual shapes/sizes in question. The Vader helmet is especially tricky.
That said, I think Obession is right. I have always perceived the SL as having flare in the dome and especially the face. That isnt a slight to the origin or details of the casting, its just the fiberglass looks to have traveled a bit.
Thomas why can't we see pictures of the original? I dont think it had as much distortion and being an unpainted casting must show detail much better than this copy.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
........
Last edited:
I was going to say perhaps it is best not to go into it further since the presence of the C-scar was known already for a long time. It is always possible for a detail to be misinterpreted or even missed, as in this case. I don't think it is something that is very obvious to resolve and even with best efforts to preserve it, it could have been easily lost in the process of prepping a mask. But I think the place for that kind of discussion would be in a thread about the eFX helmet. And after all, it is only one detail.
DynamicMenace
Well-Known Member
again, you cant compare the screen grab with the modern photo of the SL. as Sithlord explained. the positioning (tilt & rotation) of the two domes are resting differently on the face plate. not to mention the positioning and tilt and rotation of the entire helmet. and again, the two different cameras and lenses. the screen grab was shot with a very, very old motion picture camera with a panoramic lens. and the SL was shot with a modern still camera & lens. shot from different distances with different lighting. i believe the flaring of the SL does match the original. reason i think it looks to have more flare is because of the different positioning (tilt & rotation) of the dome resting on the face plate. along with the positioning and tilt and rotation of the entire helmet. becasue when the SL is altered with less flare the angles of the the helmet's flare does not match as they do in the unaltered image when comparing them with the original. if you compare all three, you can clearly see what i am talking about.
and again, if you look at the widows peek on the original screen grab. it is (and im guessing) about a 1/2 inch more or less above the top groove of the bridge of the nose. to where the finished SL's widows peek is right at the groove. and if you line up the corners of the flaring of the domes right side you will see the the original is about a 1/2 inch more or less higher as well.
also..you really cant compare the raw casting to the finished original becasue it is a raw casting. not to mention that it is a "copy". so im sure a finished helmet such as the original would have some differences form a raw casting "copy". specially the nose becasue the nose is painted and the casting is not. so the paint could make the nose appear to be thinner around the edges. becasue if you compare the finished SL with the original (both original images) you can see that the edge around the nose is the same. plus i really think it has a lot to do with the lighting. and the age differences of the cameras. what appears to be thinner on the original isn't really what you are seeing do to the glare or the reflection of the lighting around the edge of the nose.
as far as the domes are concerned. again, positioning (tilt & rotation) of the domes and entire helmet is different. as is the lighting and angles of the two different cameras & lenses with a major age difference being used. so this would also apply to what appears to be a harder squarer flaring edge on the SL casting when comparing it to the original helmet photo. and again, you are comparing a casting with a finished helmet. plus its really hard to see the edge of the the flaring of the original in that image anyway. so it could be flat as well. but you just cant see it. the fact of the age differences in cameras has a lot to do with that also. not to mention the finished work that was done to the original helmet helmet.
no matter how many comparison shots you do with all of the photos in the world with the helmets. its going to be very difficult to get an accurate dead on comparison of the two helmets unless you have them in hand side by side. this is why you really need to compare all the dings and the dents. becasue these are the fingerprints to identify what the the SL is. a copy of the original film used helmet. and one of these major finger prints is the C or L scar. and if you look very carefully. you can clearly see it on the SL and the original in the black and white photos. so like i said, the SL is clearly a copy of the film used ANH Vader helmet.
and again, if you look at the widows peek on the original screen grab. it is (and im guessing) about a 1/2 inch more or less above the top groove of the bridge of the nose. to where the finished SL's widows peek is right at the groove. and if you line up the corners of the flaring of the domes right side you will see the the original is about a 1/2 inch more or less higher as well.
also..you really cant compare the raw casting to the finished original becasue it is a raw casting. not to mention that it is a "copy". so im sure a finished helmet such as the original would have some differences form a raw casting "copy". specially the nose becasue the nose is painted and the casting is not. so the paint could make the nose appear to be thinner around the edges. becasue if you compare the finished SL with the original (both original images) you can see that the edge around the nose is the same. plus i really think it has a lot to do with the lighting. and the age differences of the cameras. what appears to be thinner on the original isn't really what you are seeing do to the glare or the reflection of the lighting around the edge of the nose.
as far as the domes are concerned. again, positioning (tilt & rotation) of the domes and entire helmet is different. as is the lighting and angles of the two different cameras & lenses with a major age difference being used. so this would also apply to what appears to be a harder squarer flaring edge on the SL casting when comparing it to the original helmet photo. and again, you are comparing a casting with a finished helmet. plus its really hard to see the edge of the the flaring of the original in that image anyway. so it could be flat as well. but you just cant see it. the fact of the age differences in cameras has a lot to do with that also. not to mention the finished work that was done to the original helmet helmet.
no matter how many comparison shots you do with all of the photos in the world with the helmets. its going to be very difficult to get an accurate dead on comparison of the two helmets unless you have them in hand side by side. this is why you really need to compare all the dings and the dents. becasue these are the fingerprints to identify what the the SL is. a copy of the original film used helmet. and one of these major finger prints is the C or L scar. and if you look very carefully. you can clearly see it on the SL and the original in the black and white photos. so like i said, the SL is clearly a copy of the film used ANH Vader helmet.
Just a quick note in reply that the comparisons I did front and 3/4 views were with the original. So anytime you see an unfinished SL ANH, that's the master, if it is a finished version, that's a copy.
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Thanks for bringing this up. I need to point out a few things. These points are for those who have arguably become hostile against TM and SL owners in the eFX thread.
I can't speak for all TM or SL owners because I don't know them all personally and I don't know what they've said or done. But instead of speaking about individuals, this concerns more the arguments and untruths that caused such hostility in the first place:
1. There is a great lie that all TM or SL owners are against the eFX because it devalues their collections. (As the saying goes, if enough people repeat the lie, without understanding where it originally came from, eventually the lie is passed around as truth.) Have you actually seen everyone's collections? They are usually comprised of more than one make, brand or lineage of helmet.
There are TM and SL owners who are also eFX owners. PROUD owners. They are ecstatic because, right out of the box, it gives that feel of movie magic that an unpainted cast with original textural details simply doesn't radiate. :love
2. The C-scar debate is not an anti-eFX attack. The C-scar was not some recent realization that was concocted to win the debate or devalue the eFX. In fact, it's been discussed years before eFX existed, but not necessarily on the RPF.
It's been something people have had physical evidence of for years, but have not made public because, years, back, the Vader community was dominated by trolls and personalities who bullied people with possessions they claimed were the best of the best of the best, and those bullied saw no reason to add to their power.
The TM was one of those game-changer castings that put a wealth of knowledge into the hands of regular people instead of the usual bullies. Why it wasn't discussed openly was because we saw no reason to give bullies more knowledge, evidence and high res photos - especially when they, for years, claimed superiority superiority without providing evidence themselves. (Case in point: knowledge gained from the TM helped expose false claims of originality made by a recaster and online bully known as SPFX who is banned on more than one forum).
Another reason why the C-scar wasn't discussed openly was primarily because of a gag order by Jesper who made the TM castings. But for many of us TM owners, we were quiet folk who liked quiet enjoyment; there was no ego stake to win an argument, as the TM presented a lot of truly educational opportunities in the spirit of "archaeology". :thumbsup
So to conclude, please don't lump everyone into singular categories when in truth people are very diverse in their opinions as well as what they collect. The fashion was to attack TM or SL owners, but doing so, people are attacking eFX owners. Think about it.
Some may have observed that no "direct from molds" cast looks 100% one hundred percent of the time. You have to fuss and fuss and fuss with silly things like lighting and dome positioning, dome height, etc. One casting from one effort may have superior details, but another effort's castings may lack details but is structurally more handsome.
Some people never notice or care about the subtleties. While others are fussier about these things, but that lack of fulfillment simply makes them more miserable, not superior in any way (shared from personal experience!) :darnkids
The variation in flaring appears to only at the mid point as if someone picked up the dome before it was completely cured and spread them either on purpose or by accident.
Looking at the this comparison, the SL is about a foot closer than the 'Kid' picture. While the bottom right (photo right) edge of the dome skirts seem to match, the dome on the 'Kid' image
is not straight, if it were, these would not line up.
Actually if you have had experience photographing Vader helmets, it should be clear that the "kid"(?) picture is closer, but they are close enough that the necks lower edges match up (if you were to overlay the necks). Closer images show a larger mask in proportion to the helmet than those taken further away. If there was a distance difference, you would not be able to match both the dome and the mask in terms of size, because one would be proportionally larger than the other. I'll try to show that later on.
And yet the shape of the edge, even the details on the edge, match what we see on the original when seen in a straight on front view. So how could the corner be more square on the SL if there were no difference in detail? If it is square, then surely the details or shape of that edge seen straight-on should be different? It isn't. Yes, even if the shape of the edge is the same, the whole flaring could be angled outward or inward from the face, but the corner itself to be more rounded would have to then have a totally different edge profile. That corner looks rounder onscreen because of the tilt of the helmet, probably because of the type of lens used (they shot across the table and wanted a tight shot so they would have to use a medium-telephoto).
If the paint is lighter inside the nose that makes it appear larger on the inside. I'm surprised you think there is a difference because if you look more closely they are identical in edge thickness/size/shape. But I guess I'll show that later too. There was some residual material inside the nose from the Baker mold that isn't seen on the original ANH mask, yes, but no difference in size or shape. The only reason it looks ok on the finished helmet is because it is painted. I am curious why do you call it the "Kid" image? It isn't a child, if that's what you mean, as I know who was wearing the helmet.
