Darth Niob
Sr Member
And this makes you happy
OK, I have been reading this thread now off and on for a couple days now. When this whole C-scar issue came up I decided to pop in my copy of Star Wars and watch the close up of Vader 's facemask in the Tantive iV scene when he's talking to Leia. Before that I had read CS Maclaren's post where he had said the C-scar is dimensional because of how it caught the light as Vader turned his head. After watching that close-up shot of Vader's facemask frame by frame back and forth I was also convinced that the C-scar was dimensional.
Then Gino came along and showed the pics of the cheek area of the Baker Mold without the c-scar. I went back and watched that shot again FRAME BY FRAME BACK AND FORTH several times. I watched this on a new top of the line calibrated 60 " Panasonic HDTV, the source was DVD taken from a PAL disc and upscaled through my Blu-ray disc player. So not a native HD source but still very sharp and good enough to see what I had to see.
What I noticed was that the gunmetal paint splotches on the upper top corner and lower bottom corner of Vader's right cheek had reacted to light in a similar manner as the 'C-scar' area. That is, as Vader turns his head from left to right, away from the light source, the upper corner gunmetal paint splotch faded out and nearly disappears, while the lower paint blemish disappears completely as does the c-scar area.
What I am saying here is that the 'c-scar' is actually reacting to the light the same way as the gunmetal paint blemishes do in the same area(plane)/ angle to the light source. And not as others have said, that it was reacting differently to the painted areas and therefore had to be a topological mark, scratch or paint chip.
Take from this what you will, but after seeing the photos of the Baker Molds and then watching this area carefully from that shot in the film I am convinced that Gino is correct when he says the 'c-scar' is painted and not a chip, scratch, etc.
On how it got there - who can say? Gino says it was deliberate weathering. I believe as someone said earlier that it was probably handled improperly and someone's finger had wet paint on it or something and voila! C-scar! But I am definitely thinking it is just a paint element.
OK, I have been reading this thread now off and on for a couple days now. When this whole C-scar issue came up I decided to pop in my copy of Star Wars and watch the close up of Vader 's facemask in the Tantive iV scene when he's talking to Leia. Before that I had read CS Maclaren's post where he had said the C-scar is dimensional because of how it caught the light as Vader turned his head. After watching that close-up shot of Vader's facemask frame by frame back and forth I was also convinced that the C-scar was dimensional.
Then Gino came along and showed the pics of the cheek area of the Baker Mold without the c-scar. I went back and watched that shot again FRAME BY FRAME BACK AND FORTH several times. I watched this on a new top of the line calibrated 60 " Panasonic HDTV, the source was DVD taken from a PAL disc and upscaled through my Blu-ray disc player. So not a native HD source but still very sharp and good enough to see what I had to see.
What I noticed was that the gunmetal paint splotches on the upper top corner and lower bottom corner of Vader's right cheek had reacted to light in a similar manner as the 'C-scar' area. That is, as Vader turns his head from left to right, away from the light source, the upper corner gunmetal paint splotch faded out and nearly disappears, while the lower paint blemish disappears completely as does the c-scar area.
What I am saying here is that the 'c-scar' is actually reacting to the light the same way as the gunmetal paint blemishes do in the same area(plane)/ angle to the light source. And not as others have said, that it was reacting differently to the painted areas and therefore had to be a topological mark, scratch or paint chip.
Take from this what you will, but after seeing the photos of the Baker Molds and then watching this area carefully from that shot in the film I am convinced that Gino is correct when he says the 'c-scar' is painted and not a chip, scratch, etc.
On how it got there - who can say? Gino says it was deliberate weathering. I believe as someone said earlier that it was probably handled improperly and someone's finger had wet paint on it or something and voila! C-scar! But I am definitely thinking it is just a paint element.
There may be some artifacts UNDER it that help trick the eye into seeing a scratch but it seriously does appear to be... mostly paint.
After studying the photo of the Baker mold I think you guys are right- there is a c-scar in the mold and it must be on all the Vader casts.
Look closely, it's there.
![]()
Any chance of an HD screenshot?
I have screen caps of the HD here that I grabbed over time for people asking for them.
I will update with everything I can get on Vader later .. (just make sure you are in "Original" mode at the bottom of the screen).
Screen Cap Photo Gallery by Alain at pbase.com
Just to make things more clear, I believe there's next to no bashing of EFX going on here. Most of the attacks have been aimed at Gino from what I've read in these many pages.I cant speak for everyone, but i hope you dont take other peoples bashing seriously at the point where you decide to put future projects on a crystal bubble, away from the community opinions and interests.
Part of whats exciting about this EFX Vader project is that we have been very close and have learned really good stuff.
Please dont break the link with us just because some people have an agenda.
Again thanks.
Juan.
Nice Turc!
SN_ANH_Vader_ConferenceRoom_0.jpg photo - Alain photos at pbase.com
That one is odd. You can't see the C. And the blemish on the side of the right cheek catches the light in a really odd way making it look like it is going all the way to where the C would start.
Hmm...
Lambo, are you saying that VP picture you just posted came from the UK molds? Why doesn't it have the c scar?
Thanks to the clarification.
I really admire that you are open to communicate with us and that you reclute people from the forums that you know are capable to deliver.
I cant speak for everyone, but i hope you dont take other peoples bashing seriously at the point where you decide to put future projects on a crystal bubble, away from the community opinions and interests.
Part of whats exciting about this EFX Vader project is that we have been very close and have learned really good stuff.
Please dont break the link with us just because some people have an agenda.
I know a lot of people are seeing this thread as yet another huge bashing thread that colors the RPF in a negativelight, but the truth is, when you put this thread into proper perspective, you have a very vocal minority who consist of only about 5 people, all of who have an unbelievably nasty history with Gino and all of who have a position to protect within the Vader community. When you filter those very loud voices out, what you are left with are a much greater number of people who are praising eFX's approach to this project as well as their open and frank responses to very pointed questions even after they sold out of product! While the RPF is never going to simply eat up every collectible a licensee throws out and we are going to be more critical of the product (as opposed to over analyzing the box art and styrofoam packing, as some collectible sites do), the reception of this offering from eFX has been more positive than anything I have seen in years. Bryan is no fool and I am sure he sees the negativity for what it is and also sees past it to the overwhelmingly positive acceptance by the majority of the membership. If nothing else, I would refer you back to the fact that the Legend sold out in 4 minutes and the Limited in just a couple of days. This project was a big win for eFX all the way around and I can't imagine them abandoning that successful model.