Gino ANH Helmet...cast from the original?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SithLord

Sr Member
I started this thread since some question as to my opinion of the Gino ANH helmet came up recently. Rather than continue discussion in another thread, I thought I would post the basis for my opinion. Gino states this in general about all his Vader helmets...

"My helmet and armor are derived from untainted original production pieces/molds and have been replicated using all the same materials, detailing, accessories, and finishings."
Since ANH Vader is close to my heart, I'll focus on that. First I'll show a few comparisons of Gino's helmet against the original.

In this image below there are a number of discrepancies. To list the differences in no specific order, the Gino mask has wider teeth gaps on the mouth triangle, the chin vent is cut too close to the lower lip, the neck is trimmed too short and it is too straight on Vader's right rear side, the paint blemish on Vader's right front cheek triangle face is in the wrong position (you'd think that if he had a cast from original that at least he'd get that right), the notches in the teeth are too shallow, the noseslots are more like ROTJ than ANH, and the eyes seem smaller than the original. In terms of the helmet, the center ridge is flatter, the Y-crease on the widow's peak is inaccurate, the left eyebrow is nearly symmetrical with the right in terms of height (like a GH btw), whereas the screen helmet has a distinctly higher right eyebrow, the front dome flaring angles downward more steeply on Vader's left than on Gino's and has sharper curvature, and the eyebrow-to-crown boundary is sharper on the original than on Gino's. Independent of the lack of fine details, Gino's dome is sitting too low, the mouth grill is not in the screen-accurate position, and the helmet doesn't seem black enough, but that could just be the lighting.
GinoANHJun08vsORIG.jpg



GinoANHvsOrig.jpg



So, if you are going to make a claim about a prop replica, then that replica should hold up to the claim, and there's no way that this helmet came from an untouched original production mold (which one, the one taken from the clay sculpture that Brian Muir sculpted or the one taken from the plaster master?) or the original screen used helmet (which I suppose one of your friends has?). Given that, for a while, you didn't even have a helmet for your mask and used the Ghosthost helmet as a temporary display, I doubt from this that you suddenly came across an original ANH mold or the original ANH screen helmet. You have your own forum and website and that's great, but if someone makes claims like that without providing any background whatsoever to them, and the helmet replica itself doesn't support the claim, then there must be a reason why such a claim isn't backed up. And I'll wager that I'm not the only one who thinks this helmet is not cast from the original ANH or from the original ANH production mold.
 
Please just get on with your own projects and stop worrying about other peoples. You're loosing valuable time sitting infront of the computer screen. Just get to work sanding, filling and fettling those lumps of fiber glass till you come up with something YOU can be proud of.

Phil
 
I don't care what you want to or don't want to focus on; you can obsess about people or things to your heart's content...

...but your comparative science here is inadequate to support any of your conclusions. Your comparison doesn't meet the most liberal standards of photogrammetric analysis. You don't have anything approaching correct angles or equipment to use as controls, making reliable conclusions impractical if not impossible to derive; certainly not at the tolerances you're scrutinizing. The slightest deviation in filmback, focal length and distance produces radical proportion shifts - that's fact and science; if you don't accept that, then you're in the 1+1=3 camp and I can't help you. I know that thousands of hours of photo comparisons have been wasted on this board over the years, and a billion joules of energy debating dubious conclusions, but the bottom line is that the science you're after is well-understood, predictable, and unforgiving, and you have not even begun to invoke the scientific method here to any degree that would yield results worth talking about. In short; you could be 100% right, but cannot begin to make a compelling case with any of the evidence you (or anyone else I've seen to this point) are proffering.

It's not easy. I've been working on analysis of the ANH lens colors using nothing BUT the strictest science and a team of optical physicists from one end of the freakin' planet to the other and we STILL aren't ready to call it. So don't feel bad.


_Mike
 
I don't care what you want to or don't want to focus on; you can obsess about people or things to your heart's content...

...but your comparative science here is inadequate to support any of your conclusions. Your comparison doesn't meet the most liberal standards of photogrammetric analysis. You don't have anything approaching correct angles or equipment to use as controls, making reliable conclusions impractical if not impossible to derive; certainly not at the tolerances you're scrutinizing. The slightest deviation in filmback, focal length and distance produces radical proportion shifts - that's fact and science; if you don't accept that, then you're in the 1+1=3 camp and I can't help you. I know that thousands of hours of photo comparisons have been wasted on this board over the years, and a billion joules of energy debating dubious conclusions, but the bottom line is that the science you're after is well-understood, predictable, and unforgiving, and you have not even begun to invoke the scientific method here to any degree that would yield results worth talking about. In short; you could be 100% right, but cannot begin to make a compelling case with any of the evidence you (or anyone else I've seen to this point) are proffering.

It's not easy. I've been working on analysis of the ANH lens colors using nothing BUT the strictest science and a team of optical physicists from one end of the freakin' planet to the other and we STILL aren't ready to call it. So don't feel bad.


_Mike

That pretty much sums it up concisely and eloquently put.
 
Please just get on with your own projects and stop worrying about other peoples. You're loosing valuable time sitting infront of the computer screen. Just get to work sanding, filling and fettling those lumps of fiber glass till you come up with something YOU can be proud of.

Phil

Quoted for truth :thumbsup
 
Your going to need to put lines on all those pics, lots of lines. The lines are what keep us ignant folks reading these threads.

Popcorn anyone?
 
I don't care what you want to or don't want to focus on; you can obsess about people or things to your heart's content...

...but your comparative science here is inadequate to support any of your conclusions. Your comparison doesn't meet the most liberal standards of photogrammetric analysis. You don't have anything approaching correct angles or equipment to use as controls, making reliable conclusions impractical if not impossible to derive; certainly not at the tolerances you're scrutinizing. The slightest deviation in filmback, focal length and distance produces radical proportion shifts - that's fact and science; if you don't accept that, then you're in the 1+1=3 camp and I can't help you. I know that thousands of hours of photo comparisons have been wasted on this board over the years, and a billion joules of energy debating dubious conclusions, but the bottom line is that the science you're after is well-understood, predictable, and unforgiving, and you have not even begun to invoke the scientific method here to any degree that would yield results worth talking about. In short; you could be 100% right, but cannot begin to make a compelling case with any of the evidence you (or anyone else I've seen to this point) are proffering.

It's not easy. I've been working on analysis of the ANH lens colors using nothing BUT the strictest science and a team of optical physicists from one end of the freakin' planet to the other and we STILL aren't ready to call it. So don't feel bad.


_Mike


Mike, I fully respect your ability to analyze images. But I think you are assuming what I have or don't have to base my observations on. Angle/distance won't affect certain details I mention such as the tooth gap width, nor the sharpness or symmetry of the eyebrow flaring, etc. It will affect proprotions, yes of course. But those distinctions should be obvious to you. I've been doing scientific imaging since 1988 so with all due respect to your own expertise, you don't have to lecture me about methodology...

It wouldn't matter how you photograph it, it isn't cast from an original or came from the original ANH production mold.
 
I've been doing scientific imaging since 1988 so with all due respect to your own expertise, you don't have to lecture me about methodology...

It wouldn't matter how you photograph it, it isn't cast from an original or came from the original ANH production mold.

I'm not sure how scientific imaging qualifies you in photogrammetry, but if it does, then you should know better. Your conclusion is not supported by your evidence. If you have evidence, and have applied rigorous scientific method, show the process and end the debate. That goes for everyone on every analysis as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, broad-brush statements made without scientific method, compounded by poor photo comparatives work completely against your own position. If you don't do this, then all of this devolves from objective analysis into baiting and trolling. Which, last I checked, was uncool.


_Mike
 
So how about something a little closer to home then in terms of perspective...eyebrow flaring asymmetry, incorrect chin vent, tooth gaps too wide, center helmet ridge too shallow, front flaring profile inaccurate, neck too short and straight, tube ends too narrow, I don't see any grooves on the front flaring edges, and so on. And yes this does approximate the distance reasonably well.

GinovsScreen2.jpg
 
I'm not sure how scientific imaging qualifies you in photogrammetry, but if it does, then you should know better. Your conclusion is not supported by your evidence. If you have evidence, and have applied rigorous scientific method, show the process and end the debate. That goes for everyone on every analysis as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, broad-brush statements made without scientific method, compounded by poor photo comparatives work completely against your own position. If you don't do this, then all of this devolves from objective analysis into baiting and trolling. Which, last I checked, was uncool.


_Mike


Well, how long did it take you to come to a conclusion about lens color?

I've studied optics, physics (mainly lasers), microscopy (EM, confocal, fluorescence, etc.), photography, digital imaging, image processing, 3D reconstruction, deconvolution, morphometry, etc. so I don't need a lesson from you on how to approach a comparsion. I'm showing screen caps as a first approximation and going from there. I don't need to have Gino's helmet sitting next to the original screen helmet to see the differences. This isn't a color analysis, it's an examination of details that should be there which are not. I am not focusing on relative proportions at this point, otherwise I would indicate as much.
 
If you don't do this, then all of this devolves from objective analysis into baiting and trolling. Which, last I checked, was uncool.


_Mike


And last I checked, this is a forum to discuss replica props, freely and with due respect to people's opinions. Last I checked, it is uncool to accuse someone attempting to discuss the claims of authenticity of a prop replica as baiting and trolling.
 
I've been working on the lens color for months and still can't say definitively what they are, but I'm following strict methodology, AND I have controls. I'm not "giving you a lesson" on comparative analysis, unless your definition of teaching is, "do anything remotely scientific at all" in which case, guilty as charged.

Irrespective of color, your "relative proportion" analysis is completely untrustworthy for all the reasons I stated, and then restated. You have no controls! And, as I said, you can't make even general declarations with this level of inaccuracy, let alone draw conclusions at the level of scrutiny you're after. This is just basic scientific method, my brother, only you ain't doin' it!


And last I checked, this is a forum to discuss replica props, freely and with due respect to people's opinions. Last I checked, it is uncool to accuse someone attempting to discuss the claims of authenticity of a prop replica as baiting and trolling.

Don't insult my intelligence, please? Just don't even bother with that.

...or, actually, do I guess... whatever you want. This thread was over before it began. :(


_Mike
 
Last edited:
As a newb I would like to see how this thread goes.
I found Mverta's thread on lens colour informative and thorough. Vader threads seem to get very heated and personal and it would be good if this doesn't turn into a mud slinging match by the various camps.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask if Gino's claims can be backed up. For me Gino's Vaders are the best I have seen ( all of them ) but that doesn't mean any claims of provenance shouldn't be challenged.
 
Of course not. The issue is how one challenges. The process described here is useless. Sadly, it's the same one that's perpetuated just ungodly numbers of false conclusions over the years...

But I can save you some energy with this little bit of Nostradamus: Gino's not going to prove provenance, and thus nobody's going to be able to disprove it. For Gino to prove provenance, he'd have to demonstrate the exact conditions I'm describing, replete with survey analysis and controls, and that's just NOT going to happen for a billion reasons. And until he did, no actual counter-claim can proceed. So the whole thing reduces to a big game of, "Looks good to me!" which is really just as valuable in the end, unless people actually believe in that "King of the ..." stuff which is just a) sad and b) hopelessly biased with personal issues. And subjective.



_Mike
 
Last edited:
Of course not. The issue is how one challenges. The process described here is useless. Sadly, it's the same one that's perpetuated just ungodly numbers of false conclusions over the years...

But I can save you some energy with this little bit of Nostradamus: Gino's not going to prove provenance, and thus nobody's going to be able to disprove it. For Gino to prove provenance, he'd have to demonstrate the exact conditions I'm describing, replete with survey analysis and controls, and that's just NOT going to happen for a billion reasons. And until he did, no actual counter-claim can proceed. So the whole thing reduces to a big game of, "Looks good to me!" which is really just as valuable in the end, unless people actually believe in that "King of the ..." stuff which is just a) sad and b) hopelessly biased with personal issues. And subjective.



_Mike
Mike, you could have saved your typing on all of this. Thomas' comps have been disproven numerous times. He keeps hoping that if he shows it enough, it will be like the Emperor's New Clothes and we all not see a naked man before us. This thread has just been one huge bit of baiting.

Thomas, GINO is happy with his pieces and the provenance. You never will be as happy with it. He is not offering up his pieces to anyone, save for the visual. So, knowing that GINO will not bother giving you any evidence, why even start this thread, if not to bait him into a discussion? Even Mac has given you the same lectures on your "photographic analysis". You don't have access to either an original OR a GINO, so why bother with this? Be happy with your SL and your short tusk tubed TD and be done with it.

Oh lord CMANavy, don't ask for lines...detail obscuring lines....lines that point to nothing...Thomas can oblige.
 
It is time that we stop picking on others work. Thomas , you have a very nice helmet. Gino has made a very nice helmet.

No one was there in 1975-76 on the production of the movie, so no one can be sure. We can have people who where there but they were probably to stoned to remember properly.

So with this in mind, I can see where you are coming from Thomas, and where is Gino to back himself up?
 
Well I can be sure that his helmet is missing many details in his pics. Tear at me now if you wish, but it won't change that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top