Re: BLADE RUNNER 2049: Portable Voight-Kampff Scanner - Lights, Sound, Practical Effe
Hello friends!
I've posted a
big dumb update in the primary WIP thread for these that shows some of the work being done on the displays. Figured I'd cross-post it here, as it is relevant to the final item.
I'm a little overwhelmed with how many of you seem interested. I hope that holds once the final price is set, but in any case, I appreciate the enthusiasm and support. I'm doing my very best to design these to the highest standards I can manage, so hopefully the true collectors will be satisfied with the end product.
.
Are you considering doing the kits in resin instead of printing?
Can you still get the body to be thin with resin cast (like printing can)? Just wondering.
Still interested in finding out more information as well.
Thanks.
I am almost certainly
not going to be selling 3D printed versions of this. Too much work, and too inefficient. Way smarter to print one, sand/polish/finish it to 100% of what it needs to be, then make a mold of it and copies in resin. Not to mention that printing is not a particularly fast process, and my poor machine would be tied up printing parts for this until the end of time if I tried that. Resin is more durable, less sensitive to heat than 3D-printed thermoplastic, and quicker.
I have a bunch of 5 and 10-gallon pressure pots that I use for doing resin casting which helps tremendously with casting thin parts. The pressure pots basically 'crush' the resin with high PSI, which means any voids/pits/bubbles in the material get filled in with the liquid resin, rather than voids. You can cast some reasonably thin parts like this, though there are obviously limits. I'm going to be designing the body of this to try and minimize or eliminate parts that might be "too thin" or would otherwise cause problems.
I wouldn't consider non-working screen half-finished. It would lower costs and it would be more accurate to what is seen on screen. Kit option might be the way for me to go if I want that, I guess.
Agreed. I'd probably happily settle for no working screen and just light/sound if it brings the cost down significantly. How about just a backlit image printed on transparent material beneath the screen to simulate the effect?
I will take these comments into due consideration. The cost difference in terms of simple hardware between working screen and non-working screen is not huge, but I can understand people maybe opting for the non-working screen to have a more accurate simulacrum of the actual movie prop.
