HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey

For amusement purposes I compiled some shots of prominent HAL locations on the set. (I think there's one more in the Emergency Airlock, and probably others I forgot to grab)

In theory these could all be the same Nikkor lens, since you never see two HAL panels in the same shot. :lol

hallocations.jpg
 
By any chance do you have a higher rez view of the photo labeled "bridge" that is next to the one labeled "centrifuge"?

That looks like a very good image to work from.

-tnx,

Jeff
 
Blu ray shots would be much better. I am just enhancing standard DVD grabs as best I can (but at least this is the later 2-disc remaster that came out a few years ago)

hal001.jpg
 
Many thanks! Even of there are different HAL panels of different sizes around the Discovery.....that's the one that I picture when I think of Hal. :)

-Jeff
 
Extra quatloos to the first one of you geniuses who manufactures a run that sings "Daisy" when you press the lens.

Seroiusly, I'm loving this discussion - watching 2001 right now because of it - and if a run goes through, something like that would be a hoot to include. (Not that I wouldn't cpough up for a static in a millisecond...)
 
Yeah but the Centrifuge panel has got his own spotlight. :lol

To tell the truth, I kind of like the Podbay Console version, with the square panel that includes HAL plus the one view screen. You could actually build a display like that and it would look really cool, with an LCD panel reading out status animations and such. More than just the HAL lens anyway, but not a big deal to build.

podbayhalconsoleskarchi.jpg


K
 
Extra quatloos to the first one of you geniuses who manufactures a run that sings "Daisy" when you press the lens.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. :sleep

Actually he should cycle through movie quotes. Then when you unplug him... "Daisy". :rolleyes

We can get bogged down with electronics later. Right now I just want to see it built. And have that red light down in there. :love
 
Is it just me or an optical illusion, or is the Pod Bay Control Room HAL curved to match the wall?

It's an illusion due to the extreme wide angle of the camera lens shooting the film. The wall and HAL are both straight but objects at the sides of the field of view get distorted.

Screen grab
podbaycontrolrm.jpg


De-spherized in Photoshop
podbaycontrolrmwarpfix.jpg
 
I did some checking on my end and can offer up some tidbits -

They only had a couple of the Nikkor lenses at their disposal. There is one scene where the camera pans around the room and, in the same shot, you can see two HAL interfaces. Apart from that, they just moved a lens from set to set.

All of the HAL interfaces were the same size. Different ratios and layouts were experimented with, but eventually they settled on the long slender layout seen in the Pod Bay and Centrifuge set.

The short/stubby HAL interface that was discussed here, though made for the film, was not ultimately used. It was a prototype of sorts, but the proportions changed down the road. Story goes it was discovered in a junk shop (or would that be 'shoppe') in London along with the Brain Room key (which is screen used) after filming. It followed the same construction techniques, has an original decal, but is not the actual (final) size. Also, the screen is probably not original.

I suspect that since there were multiple interfaces and only a couple of lenses that the interfaces had some sort of mounting ring that was a copy of the mounting ring from a Nikon camera body for the lens to securely mount to. The short/stubby interface posted here doesn't seem to have anything more than a beveled ring.

The HAL 9000 decal is a decal. Not some sort of plate that was affixed. White outlines on blue/black. (Though I have to admit I wouldn't mind an aluminum plate with the lines in the bare aluminum.

13" - 15" high with corresponding proportional width "sounds about right".

So, with that being said I've always thought that the plan of attack should be to find a decent lens that is the approximate shape and size and build the interface around that - keeping the proportions the same as what we see on screen. That way, it will "look the part", even if it isn't made of OEM parts (so to speak). I will call around some camera guys I know and see if I can get 15minutes alone with a real Nikkor lens.......

Like I said, I would be up for getting a bunch of those little HAL 9000 labels made. Surely we could do some sort of printing on a stamped metal plaque?

Gene
 
Thanks for the awesome info! :thumbsup

Well maybe that's the ticket then.. find some "inexpensive" super-wide-angle lenses that "look the part", and scale the HAL panel around that. If the size is CLOSE to being the 13.75" which I scaled off of the NIKKOR, it should be fine.

k
 
I just went wandering, and I don't think 'cheap' is going to do it; the diameter of the Nikkor 8mm fisheye was 123mm, and the only thing I found close was a Sigma - same diameter, and 1,000 bucks more.

Correct me if I have the wrong Nikkor lens., but if I don't it's bad joss.
 
Last edited:
Well, since I don't think revealing the exact lens is going to cause a dramatic uptick in the prices on the collector's market (it's already considered a collector's item amongst camera geeks) - check out this page:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...rces/6070nikkor/fisheyes/rjohnson/8mmfish.htm

This, or so I'm told, is the exact model used in 2001. While there are other models similar in appearance, some of them differ in size. Hopefully, we can come up with a spec sheet with measurements.....

Gene

edit - Will try to confirm, but according to one website I came across, 79mm looks to be the diameter of the glass element. It was referring the the diameter of the lens cap that screws on to the thing. The black ring protrudes out from this a bit more. It looks like we are looking for a lens that is roughly 3 1/8" to 3 1/4" OD (total).
 
Last edited:
Well, since I don't think revealing the exact lens is going to cause a dramatic uptick in the prices on the collector's market (it's already considered a collector's item amongst camera geeks) - check out this page:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...rces/6070nikkor/fisheyes/rjohnson/8mmfish.htm

This, or so I'm told, is the exact model used in 2001. While there are other models similar in appearance, some of them differ in size. Hopefully, we can come up with a spec sheet with measurements.....

Gene
That certainly looks the part!
 
Yes exactly.. 8mm Nikkor (Nippon Kogaku) fish-eye. We knew this three years ago. Prices were sky high then too. :lol

But that's a Nikon professional quality lens. And a historically significant one, which was the first pro-sumer lens of its type that the photo enthusiast could acquire, back in the early Sixties. Stanley Kubrick, being first and foremost a photographer, would have been well acquainted with it.

BUT... we don't need a professional photo-quality lens. We just need a cheap lens. Doesn't have to have the same number of elements, or be refined to the same tolerances. Let's look at cheap scientific surplus or obsolete educational parts. Projectors, copiers, viewgraphs. Hell maybe an empty snow globe would do the trick. :lol

artofpixarp75.gif
 
Another, perhaps cheaper possibility.

Since that 123mm dome is the irreplaceable monster, how about having that hemisphere simply created by a custom glass house, then set another lens beneath it?

As this image from the site linked above shows, the Nikkor 8mm look seems to be very much like that anyway, as viewed from dead on.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/fisheyes/rjohnson/Fisheye8mmf8_4.jpg

EDIT: I've been nosing around a little bit more, and there are custom glass houses that offer Custom 3D mold services. One place I found suggested that the cost of a custom mold would be between 200-500+; but the shape is extremely simple, so I would guess a run would divide the cost down easily to 10 bucks a buyer or less. The real trick, I guess, is getting the correct shape to them for molding. Anybody got a means to create an accurate, positive non-glass shape replica?
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top