A Darth Vader Collection and Lineage Thread....

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Okay, so apparently, my disagreeing with you is insulting. I have called you stupid, ignorant and the like. Thomas, every single person who has disagreed with you in this thread, you have attacked. Again, nothing I have posted hasn't been anything but me disagreeing. I see no insults thrown around like you did.

I have explained a few times why I have nothing to show, Thomas. I will explain it again...every bit of counter evidence to your own claims has been shown by others...and yourself. What more does anyone need to do? The pictures are all over the Den for any to look for. I have stated ad nauseam and you throw insults at ME for not reading. All of my evidence against you has come from YOU.

I base my argument on unbiased evidence from both parties. You went off on a tangent yesterday looking for bias from me, ASSUMING I was a TM owner. You were wrong, yet again. You ASSUMED because I thought the TM CLEARLY had the details the TD or the SL lacked that I had to be a TM owner.

Seriously man, you need to step back and realize what YOU are doing to YOURSELF. I am not attacking you. I am merely showing you that you have been wrong before and it is very likely you are wrong now. PERIOD.

Get over yourself.

 

[SithLord]

Wow, you are grasping at straws here, Thomas. I want you to explain why you've decided to openly insult me like you have and you post about screens being filled in? All that post shows is that you CAN and HAVE been wrong before. It doesn't show why you felt the need to be insulting because I dared to disagree with you. It doesn't explain how you missed something that can be so clearly seen in the pics you have posted either.

You are ducking the issue at hand, and it seems Mac was right. When you get backed into a corner, you start with the personal insults.

This is the issue at hand with you Qui:

Post#445

I despise your internet persona. Your drive to always be right.

Take your personal problems elsewhere!

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Why should I? You have done nothing BUT attack me since I disagreed with you based on your evidence. Sorry, this is the RPF, not The Thomas Sithlord Board. How is me commenting on how I dislike your internet persona an attack when I turn around in the very next breath saying I doubt you are like that in reality?

 

[SithLord]

Okay, so apparently, my disagreeing with you is insulting. I have called you stupid, ignorant and the like. Thomas, every single person who has disagreed with you in this thread, you have attacked. Again, nothing I have posted hasn't been anything but me disagreeing. I see no insults thrown around like you did.

No, the personal comments against me are insulting! I don't care if you disagree with me!

I have explained a few times why I have nothing to show, Thomas. I will explain it again...every bit of counter evidence to your own claims has been shown by others...and yourself.

Give me a break! That is the most lame argument or answer I've ever heard! You have no stake in this apart from saying others have shown the evidence? Don't point it at others. You offer nothing but personal baiting against me.

What more does anyone need to do? The pictures are all over the Den for any to look for. I have stated ad nauseam and you throw insults at ME for not reading. All of my evidence against you has come from YOU.

Stop talking about the Den! YOU ARE HERE IN THIS THREAD NOW AND SO ANSWER TO YOUR BEHAVIOR HERE. I showed my post from the Den thread that Mac posted from...

That completely explains even BACK THEN what I thought about the grill impression yet you JUMPED ON IT TO DISCREDIT ME WITHOUT READING THE THREAD YOURSELF QUI.

I base my argument on unbiased evidence from both parties.

Nice generalization that MEANS NOTHING. Your argument is based on NOTHING OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE TREE OR SPECIFIC ABOUT THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE WITH THE TD OR SL. BUT YOU ARE NOT. YOU JUST SAY I AM WRONG.

You went off on a tangent yesterday looking for bias from me, ASSUMING I was a TM owner. You were wrong, yet again. You ASSUMED because I thought the TM CLEARLY had the details the TD or the SL lacked that I had to be a TM owner.

So what? I thought you had a TM. But the point of your biased attack against me clearly stands.

Seriously man, you need to step back and realize what YOU are doing to YOURSELF. I am not attacking you. I am merely showing you that you have been wrong before and it is very likely you are wrong now. PERIOD.

Get over yourself.

No, you are simply saying that I am wrong with no basis. You are the one that looks like a fool here. Because I show clearly there is a grill on the SL mask. I show clearly what I meant when I first had the SL FOR TWO FRICKEN DAYS.

BUT YOU DONT GET IT AND PERSIST IN INSULTING ME AN ACCUSING ME OF DECEPTION.

 

[SithLord]

Why should I? You have done nothing BUT attack me since I disagreed with you based on your evidence. Sorry, this is the RPF, not The Thomas Sithlord Board. How is me commenting on how I dislike your internet persona an attack when I turn around in the very next breath saying I doubt you are like that in reality?

No, I outline IN YOUR POSTS where YOU INSULTED ME FIRST. WHERE YOU SAY I AM WRONG WITH NO BASIS AND SAY CARSTEN IS RIGHT WITH NO BASIS. SHOWING BIAS AND SIMPLY ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP EXCEPT THAT I AM WRONG.

There you go again with another insult...."The Thomas Sithlord Board".

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

No, I outline IN YOUR POSTS where YOU INSULTED ME FIRST. WHERE YOU SAY I AM WRONG WITH NO BASIS AND SAY CARSTEN IS RIGHT WITH NO BASIS. SHOWING BIAS AND SIMPLY ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP EXCEPT THAT I AM WRONG.

There you go again with another insult...."The Thomas Sithlord Board".

*sighs* Thomas, I have already told you the basis for my disagreeing with you. How much clearer can I spell it out for you? You go back to saying that I insulted you because I disagreed. That is what this is all about.

 

[SithLord]

*sighs* Thomas, I have already told you the basis for my disagreeing with you. How much clearer can I spell it out for you? You go back to saying that I insulted you because I disagreed. That is what this is all about.

No, your basis for diagreeing is simply because IT IS MY OPINION WHICH IS WRONG BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST...because I am an AA supporter, because I lie about my doctored castings, because I lie about the grill not being there and then saying it is. OF COURSE CARSTEN HAS NEVER BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST SO HIS TREE IS PERFECTLY CORRECT AND ACCURATE.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

No, your basis for diagreeing is simply because IT IS MY OPINION WHICH IS WRONG BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST...because I am an AA supporter, because I lie about my doctored castings, because I lie about the grill not being there and then saying it is. OF COURSE CARSTEN HAS NEVER BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST SO HIS TREE IS PERFECTLY CORRECT AND ACCURATE.

Oh for the love of God man...it's your damned pictures. Okay? That is why. Your pictures do not show what you want us to see. They never have. If your images showed what you said they did, I would be all on your side. The second SL grill pics showed the grill CLEAR AS DAY. The first ones showed nothing.

Your pictures are the problem. These are what you cite as your empirical evidence. You have a few people treating you like the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes", but because I am the first to say "Sorry man, don't see it" it is an insult to you. How much more clear can I be, because right now, I am being clearer than most of the images you have posted.

You cannot judge anything by a blown up screen capture. Lens distortion screws that whole line of logic up. Again, am I being clear? Your evidence is why I disagree. Show me something clear like you did in the grill pics. THAT was a good pic. The rest of the stuff you have shown has been less than stellar, to put it mildly.

 

[SithLord]

Since this thread started out just simply as me trying to show a few mask/dome combinations from my collection (who would have thought how difficult that could be? :confused)....and since someone recently asked me about something, I dug up an example of a photo I took of a DS 20th Century mask with an SPFX dome...

 

[n0x23]

I've followed this thread with alot of interest, really informative stuff, although, the ad hominems and passive aggressive attacks are...well...:unsure

I have a question, nothing personal, just a question.

Why do all the pictures look like this....

....I've seen pictures of Bigfoot with better clarity.

And as far as proving a point, or supporting a theory with these, they're pretty much worthless.

Or am I just missing something?

 

[SithLord]

Well I understand your comments. Those comparisons are more for people that have studied castings to some degree and know those areas I am indicating already with some familiarity. I mean, I could show entire mask images and then closeups but I don't really want to. The point is to focus on a particular part of each mask I show and indicate where there is a similarity in detail. Admittedly if you haven't studied castings in that way it would be hard to make heads or tails out of it. There are those with certain castings (or photos) in hand that would appreciate the comparisons more than those who don't. So admittedly to many it will seem a bit cryptic. Maybe over time as more is discussed then more will be revealed. I've shown many ANH details people have probably never considered or noticed before. Appreciating them from photos is only half the story.

That particular comparison you show just shows that the way light reflects off that surface on the front cheek is the same if the surface has the same topography, and it does.

I don't expect everyone to get what I show, but I do know that some do. And if you don't, saying it doesn't make sense is ok. Asking for further clarification is ok.

 

[n0x23]

Well I understand your comments. Those comparisons are more for people that have studied castings to some degree and know those areas I am indicating already with some familiarity. I mean, I could show entire mask images and then closeups but I don't really want to. The point is to focus on a particular part of each mask I show and indicate where there is a similarity in detail. Admittedly if you haven't studied castings in that way it would be hard to make heads or tails out of it. There are those with certain castings (or photos) in hand that would appreciate the comparisons more than those who don't. So admittedly to many it will seem a bit cryptic. Maybe over time as more is discussed then more will be revealed. I've shown many ANH details people have probably never considered or noticed before. Appreciating them from photos is only half the story.

That particular comparison you show just shows that the way light reflects off that surface on the front cheek is the same if the surface has the same topography, and it does.

I don't expect everyone to get what I show, but I do know that some do. And if you don't, saying it doesn't make sense is ok. Asking for further clarification is ok.

Oh come'on, you don't need patronize and talk down to me, I'm not an idiot.

I fully grasp the remedial concept of artifacts and defects in the castings and how they can be used to validate, disqualify and compare against one another.
I also comprehend the reasoning behind not posting full-color high resolution pictures of the entire helmet.

What I'm asking is....why do the pictures you do post look like crap?

 

[SithLord]

Oh come'on, you don't need patronize and talk down to me, I'm not an idiot.

I fully grasp the remedial concept of artifacts and defects in the castings and how they can be used to validate, disqualify and compare against one another.
I also comprehend the reasoning behind not posting full-color high resolution pictures of the entire helmet.

What I'm asking is....why do the pictures you do post look like crap?

The way you asked the question:

....I've seen pictures of Bigfoot with better clarity.

And as far as proving a point, or supporting a theory with these, they're pretty much worthless.

Or am I just missing something?

required a complete response because you didn't seem to understand why it is necessary to show images like that. I'm not being patronizing, I am explaining to you why they look that way, and why some people might see it as nothing familiar. You yourself said you might be missing something and so I explained why that might be.

So instead of just saying why do they look like crap, why don't you be more specific? If you ask a question like that of course I'll give an answer that you'll consider patronizing because your question belies a lack of understanding to begin with.

And if you are so nuanced in the study of details on castings you wouldn't be asking that question in the first place.

Anyway, as an example of what I was talking about before, the closeup from that comparison labeled as the "ANH original" and "ANH original reflection line" came from this....as indicated by the red rectangular box on the cheek...

Which is the area I show in the comparison below....

And it has been enlarged for detail....so of course there will be limits in terms of what can be resolved for that given area I show....whether it is from a photo from my collection or a photo I've taken of one of my castings.

Does that answer your question?

 

[The Death Curse]

Hello, Sithlord! 'Nice to make your acquaintance.

I find your knowledge and photo comparisons intriguing, but I have to agree with something that people have been saying...The quality of some comparison photos you've shown so far (most especially anything from the Tantive ANH's face/cheek) is usually extremely blurry and serves only to make an inconclusive presentation. Your intentions are obviously good, but the photographic evidence you're using to show all of us publicly could be far better in quality to help prove your points.

Another problem is that you're trying to display artifacts, dents, and tiny pits present in a very shiny surface with just a handful of photographs...The type of small objects you're photographing will look completely different in almost every new shot you take. Even if you move the camera, lights, or mask by only an inch difference, the tiny pits and texture on any given area can look almost completely different from shot to shot.

It'd almost be worth it to take a steady, high-def video fixed on the area(s) in question while changing and repositioning the lighting source as you film. I don't think a lot of people here on the board really get the same "3-D feel" you have obtained recently by having some of the finest pieces in the hobby sitting right in front of you for in-depth comparison. I'm personally having quite a hard time matching up the individual marks in your shots. Though I can see that all the general, larger shapes are the same, the tiny pock-marks and pitting that you keep pointing out is very hard to see clearly and compare from image to image at times.

One more thing...What exactly are you afraid of in regards to showing the other "secret", more amazing photos you've made of these masks? Are they made by using pictures that you don't have permission to post publicly, or are you just afraid that someone will copy the sharp details of your masks onto a sculpted replica? If your answer is the latter, I really don't think that's a valid concern. You can't recast a high-def photograph of one inch of cheek detail into a brand new helmet design, and any "replicas" produced from your partial photos would be instantly recognizable as fakes and fan sculpts, anyway. Artifacts like that are far too tiny and plentiful to replicate fully to any degree of accuracy.

By the way, please don't take any offense by this post! I am just an interested reader with a decent eye for detail who wants to see more detailed shots and understand your stance a bit more clearly.

Thanks for your time and cheers,

Ryan

 

[oujala]

Requesting n0x23's clearer pics of bigfoot. Always nice to see bull in a china shop posts right out the gate...

 

[Clutch]

Thomas you really should animate those comparisons ala Bladerunner style. That would be so cool! Zoom in 50,47. Stop. Enhance. :lol

 

[SithLord]

Hello, Sithlord! 'Nice to make your acquaintance.

Likewise a pleasure!

I find your knowledge and photo comparisons intriguing, but I have to agree with something that people have been saying...The quality of some comparison photos you've shown so far (most especially anything from the Tantive ANH's face/cheek) is usually extremely blurry and serves only to make an inconclusive presentation. Your intentions are obviously good, but the photographic evidence you're using to show all of us publicly could be far better in quality to help prove your points.

Well it could always be better. But keep in mind what I show of my own masks is pretty high resolution AND magnification. What I show of photos I have or screencaps are basically the best I have.

Another problem is that you're trying to display artifacts, dents, and tiny pits present in a very shiny surface with just a handful of photographs...The type of small objects you're photographing will look completely different in almost every new shot you take. Even if you move the camera, lights, or mask by only an inch difference, the tiny pits and texture on any given area can look almost completely different from shot to shot.

Well not completely different. Lighting angle affects relief of an object in terms of where the shadows fall, therefore how tall it might be or how sharp an edge might look. Given the details are so small in relation to the light source, it isn't the case of shadows masking detail, for example. Those two little circular details on the side of the nose that I show on the SL ANH....they are two little circular details. Different lighting angles will simply cast shadows on different parts of the same detail. Bright reflections off surfaces can mask details, certainly, but I am showing what is there.

It'd almost be worth it to take a steady, high-def video fixed on the area(s) in question while changing and repositioning the lighting source as you film.

I can easily show that in photographs. Video cannot match the resolution of still digital images.

Why don't you tell me what detail you have a question about? Otherwise it is no different than the other guy who just said it is crap. You are just saying it more nicely and in greater depth. :lol And I find it interesting that I have people with low post counts trying to stir the pot about the same thing...image quality, without actually addressing something specific about the details I present and discuss.

[/QUOTE]
I don't think a lot of people here on the board really get the same "3-D feel" you have obtained recently by having some of the finest pieces in the hobby sitting right in front of you for in-depth comparison. [/QUOTE]

I know and I sympathize with those who don't. Hopefully showing details as I have shown will encourage them to study castings themselves in person in more detail. Any casting has things to discover on it, to various degrees. But if I show a detail, I show what it looks like on the original mask. So my own ability to discern accurate detail is limited by the reference I have of the original mask. So I only show what I feel confident about....ie: that it really is on the original mask.

I'm personally having quite a hard time matching up the individual marks in your shots. Though I can see that all the general, larger shapes are the same, the tiny pock-marks and pitting that you keep pointing out is very hard to see clearly and compare from image to image at times.

Why don't you then point out something specific and I'll endeavor to show it more clearly.

One more thing...What exactly are you afraid of in regards to showing the other "secret", more amazing photos you've made of these masks? Are they made by using pictures that you don't have permission to post publicly,

They are my own photos that I take of my castings. Only the TM mask I have agreed not to show in detail. Anything I do show will be to address what someone else has shown in regard to accuracy.

or are you just afraid that someone will copy the sharp details of your masks onto a sculpted replica?

Well that's already been done, mostly based on details shown of the VP ANH and TM ESB masks.

If your answer is the latter, I really don't think that's a valid concern. You can't recast a high-def photograph of one inch of cheek detail into a brand new helmet design, and any "replicas" produced from your partial photos would be instantly recognizable as fakes and fan sculpts, anyway. Artifacts like that are far too tiny and plentiful to replicate fully to any degree of accuracy.

True, but people try nonetheless, and not just in terms of physically replicating but also in terms of painting details on to make them look real.

It really is no different than the Blade Runner hero pistol issue that came up a while ago when someone showed photos of the original. What is the point of having something authentic and collectible if you show everything about it? :lol But I will show what I think is necessary to make a point.

By the way, please don't take any offense by this post! I am just an interested reader with a decent eye for detail who wants to see more detailed shots and understand your stance a bit more clearly.

Thanks for your time and cheers,

Ryan

Me? Offended? Never! :lol

Thanks too for posting....

 

[SithLord]

Thomas you really should animate those comparisons ala Bladerunner style. That would be so cool! Zoom in 50,47. Stop. Enhance. :lol

God I wish I had that machine....but I know even if I had that I would be getting the same comments. :lol

 

[skynet]

*sighs* Thomas, I have already told you the basis for my disagreeing with you. How much clearer can I spell it out for you? You go back to saying that I insulted you because I disagreed. That is what this is all about.

You don't insult him directly but you openly making fun of him and outline him in a way that he's a fool doing worthless comparisons with "blown up grainy" screencaps in a way that it's obvious (even for me as a german native speaker) what your intentions are (or might are). Perhaps this is reading between lines but the image you draw is clear Qui, at least for me.

An please keep in mind: This respond from my side doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the chart or the lineage tree - it's just about your style of argumentation (if you can even call it this way).

I know very little about the castings that are discussed here (TD, SL, etc.) but it's interesting to read, even if it contains faults - and even if I enjoy new discoveries, I don't need someone to feed me with information, I enjoy reading and making my own conculsions out of what I read.

If NO ONE is willing to do such comprehensive comparisons, no matter how, then please tell me what YOU think THIS PLACE is for Qui????

No offense to you as a Person Qui but the bottom line is, that Thomas is right when he feels insultet...and I am not a supporter of ANYONE here so please don't try to pigeon hole me.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

PM coming, Skynet, because it does not belong here.