ANH Stunt Lightsaber "Blades"--Triangular??? Gil Taylor sez so...
- Thread starter dcarty
- Start date
Sorry to dig this thread up again but I need a definitive answer on the blade. Two sides are covered in 3M Scotchlite as we all know, but are the other two painted black or just left bare? I know it appears black in some photos but I don't know if this is just a shadow.
And once this question is answered for me I promise I have something quite cool to show off
And once this question is answered for me I promise I have something quite cool to show off
Dunno, but his memory must be failing him if he thought they were triangular blades. He is still alive, 98 years old!
I did but it's temporary until I can get an accurate blade then it'll need a larger bearing.
PICS man...PICS
Did you ever incorporate the ball-bearings I sent you?
Markus
So you know the O.D. of the square blade?
I always thought it to be 1,5cm/ side
Markus
Sym-Cha
Master Member
What's a thread without pictures so here is Old Ben with his stunt :
Now you figure it out however those seem to appear round (?) to me eventhough I've also read the story about the initial making of the blade fx with 'square' scotch taped blades as you've described Marcus.
And another :
-Chaim
Now you figure it out however those seem to appear round (?) to me eventhough I've also read the story about the initial making of the blade fx with 'square' scotch taped blades as you've described Marcus.
And another :
-Chaim
To me this looks like a square blade going into a round tube just before it disappears into the emitter:
And this below is a Vader/Luke stunt blade. If you look closely you can see where the tube begins. From Guinness' height it scales to approx 46" (not including tube).
And this below is a Vader/Luke stunt blade. If you look closely you can see where the tube begins. From Guinness' height it scales to approx 46" (not including tube).
These pictures are wonderful! I still don't see the square factor. I know the triangular theory is considered bad now, but I never caught why. anyone have square vs triangular pics to compare to these old photos? I keep seeing one thick shade, a clear line, and then a really small section of another shade. If it were square, wouldn't the ratio be a bit less?
From the two visible sides in this image, the third side would have to be much wider than the other two.
Someone posted this a while back. To me it looks like the camera caught the front of the square rod in that infamous shot where the blade just looked like a wooden stick. The blade didn't appear lit because only the reflective material on the tip caught the light. Of course, they fixed it in the SE.
Someone posted this a while back. To me it looks like the camera caught the front of the square rod in that infamous shot where the blade just looked like a wooden stick. The blade didn't appear lit because only the reflective material on the tip caught the light. Of course, they fixed it in the SE.
From the two visible sides in this image, the third side would have to be much wider than the other two.
Someone posted this a while back. To me it looks like the camera caught the front of the square rod in that infamous shot where the blade just looked like a wooden stick. The blade didn't appear lit because only the reflective material on the tip caught the light. Of course, they fixed it in the SE.
color me convinced, by that second picture especially, I've never seen it in such high detail. The top picture I'm still having a hard time picturing, but I've never excelled in cognitive spacial things - I mean I'm good but I plateau somewhere, and i think this is ..for some reason..above that for me tonight lol Thank you Marcus
Edit - that brownish picture, with Alec holding the saber out infront of him still looks triangular to me, too much of the emitter plate is visible. however, thats the only picture I see a triangle in now, haha
