ESB Vader Belt Box Analysis

[Cantina_Dude]

Hey gang,

I've been rolling some things around in my mind about the ESB Vader belt boxes and I wanted to see if we could either confirm or correct some of the commonly accepted details. Many replicators these days use Hammond brand project enclosure boxes when building up the belt boxes, but it seems that there are differing opinions about which specific model/size is most accurate. I have seen Hammond 1550C boxes (1550C) be used by some, but others feel those are too big and prefer the size of the Hammond 1590S boxes (1590S).

I reckon a lot of people attempt to scale things based on the size of the belt itself, which of course only really works if you assume that you have the belt width correct. For the "hero" belt in ESB, I've seen a lot of people use an approximately 2.25" wide belt, while others use an approximately 2.5" wide belt. Since there is some disagreement there, I will set that all aside for now and attempt to use other components to scale from.

I figured we'd look at the green and red lights on the belt boxes as a starting point to scale from. I think most people agree that the green lights on the screen-used belt boxes are Saia-Burgess brand indicator lamps like these:

... and the red lights are Camdenboss brand incandescent indicator lights like these:

Does anyone have any contradicting information about these parts? Please let me know if you do.

If I can move along assuming that these parts are correct, I can scale things based on those. I busted out the calipers to measure everything:

For the green lamps, the black bezels are about 23.94 mm tall by 17.93 mm wide by 5.90 mm deep and the green lenses are about 19.82 mm tall by 13.54 mm wide with 4.26 mm of depth exposed.

For the red lights, the chrome bezels are about 8.02 mm in diameter and 1.9 mm deep and the red lenses are about 6.61 mm in diameter with 4.00 mm of depth exposed.

With that info, I could then quickly model up some simple yet accurately sized 3D models to play with digitally:

I then took an image of one of the real belt boxes and using some software called fSpy I determined the approximate focal length and camera distance/position used to take the photo so that I could recreate the same perspective in 3D space in Blender, which is my prefered 3D software for stuff like this.

Then I could scale the image and camera in 3D space until the sizing of the green and red lights in the photo matched the outline of my green and red light 3D models.

With that I knew that everything else I modeled from this perspective would be fairly accurately scaled. I quickly modeled some place holder silver knobs (including the one loose/broken knob!) and little section of braided hose to match the photo and help get a sense of the whole thing. Hammond Manufacturing is kind enough to provide 3D models of all their enclosure boxes on their website for download, I assume to allow customers to more easily work out their designs and determine what boxes suit their projects. So I downloaded the 3D models of a few different enclosures they offer to see how they scale with this image.

Interestingly enough, the 1550C, which some think is too big, seems to actually be a little bit too small:

Obviously, the 1590S is even smaller:

The one I found to be the best fit was the 1590C, (1590C) which is larger than either of the other two models:

So that's where I'm at! I can't say for sure that the ESB production specifically used these Hammond 1590C boxes, but whatever they did use appears to be very similar in size. The slight taper these boxes have matches well too.

Does this make sense to people? Am I way off here? I would love to get some thoughts from other people and their experience putting together some ESB boxes.

Cheers,

Mike.

 

[jcgardea]

First off great job on the over laying. It is incredible what software can do these days. There’s one that if you have a number of photos from different angles it can determine the position of each camera and its lens size, and most importantly a point cloud that can define a 3d polygon of a target. Sadly I don’t recall the names, I know one is made by Autodesk.

Secondly let’s not forget we are aiming for screen accuracy and not actual prop accuracy. So that said I understand the OVD of finding out the real size of things, and on the other hand resizing and adjusting to one’s scale since we all not have that D.Prowse physique.

In my experience, I built my boxes from scratch, so I also went down measuring stuff up and looking for the right components or making my own when I couldn’t sort out the original ones, using Rifleman’s template as starting point, and I did find out that moving this or that thing one millimeter made a big impact on how things looked and feel to ME.

That said, considering your the camera position and angle are right, you might be on to something. They’re definitely not smaller than the 1550c, not by long shot. So those smaller 1590s we should stay away from.

In all, we have to take in consideration the belt size and the cod piece size, those 3 elements I think determine how good everything looks on us. So it would be very informative if you could determine the size of the belt in the picture, because in this conversation I think the width of the belt is important too. I feel like 2.5” may be too big. I think it is not a commercial size for a tool belt (which is my guess of what they used then), nowadays they are about 1.8” but I have a feeling they have been “optimized” over the years. Which is why it’s hard to find a good 2” or 2.25” today, and many of us get it from a “Vader belt & boxes” forum vendor.

So to me either one, the 1590c or 1550c should be good. Being the best combination being the 1590c for the 2.25” belt and the 1550c for the 2”. But either way should be good, in the end the public can’t really tell this level of fine detail and it is mostly for us, the OVD lords.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Love these kinds of threads. Amazing attention to detail.

 

[vader45]

No off the shelf box has the correct dimensions. I use the 1550c. They are only a few mm bigger.

LxWxH
1550c 115 mm x 90 mm x 51 mm
1590c 120 mm x 94 mm x 53 mm

Thats their website. My measurements of the 1550c are different

110 mm x 65 mm x 85 mm.

So im completely confused.

 

[Cantina_Dude]

First off great job on the over laying. It is incredible what software can do these days. There’s one that if you have a number of photos from different angles it can determine the position of each camera and its lens size, and most importantly a point cloud that can define a 3d polygon of a target. Sadly I don’t recall the names, I know one is made by Autodesk.

Yeah, it is pretty cool what can be done on a home computer with some free software. I believe you are talking about photogrammetry software, like Autodesk's ReCap or others like Meshroom, RealityCapture, or Agisoft Metashape. I've not played around with any of those, but it seems some pretty impressive stuff can be done with them.

Secondly let’s not forget we are aiming for screen accuracy and not actual prop accuracy. So that said I understand the OVD of finding out the real size of things, and on the other hand resizing and adjusting to one’s scale since we all not have that D.Prowse physique.

501st costumers and the like may be aiming for perceived screen accuracy and I can understand why, but others such as myself are aiming more for actual prop accuracy when replicating anything.

In my experience, I built my boxes from scratch, so I also went down measuring stuff up and looking for the right components or making my own when I couldn’t sort out the original ones, using Rifleman’s template as starting point, and I did find out that moving this or that thing one millimeter made a big impact on how things looked and feel to ME.

I'd be very interested to see what dimensions you came up with for your scratch built boxes!

That said, considering your the camera position and angle are right, you might be on to something. They’re definitely not smaller than the 1550c, not by long shot. So those smaller 1590s we should stay away from.

In all, we have to take in consideration the belt size and the cod piece size, those 3 elements I think determine how good everything looks on us. So it would be very informative if you could determine the size of the belt in the picture, because in this conversation I think the width of the belt is important too. I feel like 2.5” may be too big. I think it is not a commercial size for a tool belt (which is my guess of what they used then), nowadays they are about 1.8” but I have a feeling they have been “optimized” over the years. Which is why it’s hard to find a good 2” or 2.25” today, and many of us get it from a “Vader belt & boxes” forum vendor.

Based off of this photo scaling, the belt measures about 60 mm in width, which is about 2.36", so basically in between but slightly closer to 2.25" than 2.5". The ESB stunt seems to have a narrower belt, probably approximately 2", and the ROTJ "hero" belt seems to use the same narrower belt, but since I'm focused on the ESB "hero" belt here I haven't spent any time analyzing those.

So to me either one, the 1590c or 1550c should be good. Being the best combination being the 1590c for the 2.25” belt and the 1550c for the 2”. But either way should be good, in the end the public can’t really tell this level of fine detail and it is mostly for us, the OVD lords.

Well I think that if a person is using a 2" belt for an ESB hero build, they are going to need to scale down the boxes and the lights, knobs, etc. a fair bit to compensate to get the correct proportions visually, probably something more like the 1590S boxes, although the relative height/width/depth proportions still won't be quite right. Again, this isn't really the aim of my scaling project here; I'm looking to figure out the dimensions of the actual original props. And to your last point, if I only made detail decisions based on what the public would notice, I don't think I'd have to make belt boxes at all...

 

[Cantina_Dude]

No off the shelf box has the correct dimensions.

Well, I don't believe that's true. The original belt boxes were an "off the shelf" part so those would obviously have the correct dimensions. I'm trying to determine if they are still available, or if something dimensionally the same is out there.

I use the 1550c. They are only a few mm bigger.

LxWxH
1550c 115 mm x 90 mm x 51 mm
1590c 120 mm x 94 mm x 53 mm

There isn't a huge difference in the dimensions of those 2 models, but there is a difference nonetheless!

Thats their website. My measurements of the 1550c are different

110 mm x 65 mm x 85 mm.

So im completely confused.

Perhaps some of your confusion stems from where you are measuring your boxes. The length and width dimensions listed on Hammond's website seem to be measured at the "wide" end of the box, where the lid attaches. Maybe try that and you can see what you get.

 

[Darth Africanus]

OOO very interesting thread well my self made boxes
Is something from South Africa and they have different dimensions as those of the Hammond close but not the same

I will take measurements of mine perhaps good old third world still has the prop used ones on the shelf

 

[Darth Africanus]

alright so mine are as follows

They are Eddystone project boxes this is a UK brand of project box
and surprisingly should be close to the prop since the suite was made in the UK
and thus they probably used a UK brand it would not surprise me if by the luck of the gods this is the actual part I by severe luck stumbled upon
they are produced by Hammond I see but perhaps they are different for the UK market pure speculation

The model number for them are
26908P/SL
29830P/SL

it is the 26908P/SL model i have

measurements are LXHXW

120mmx95mmx53mm

or 120x95x55 with the backplate on so indeed the same as the 1590C

so if my two cents are worth anything I should say it seems the data would point that the UK version of the hammond 1590C is indeed the part
Since if this box is found in the USA,UK and South Africa it seems this is a readily avialible box and since I am well aware that we still have much of these old hardware available from the 1980 etc and people still sell them and South Africa being an old colony of the UK

who used their shopping system to this day etc I would say this might be a plausibility

 

[Cantina_Dude]

alright so mine are as follows

They are Eddystone project boxes this is a UK brand of project box
and surprisingly should be close to the prop since the suite was made in the UK
and thus they probably used a UK brand it would not surprise me if by the luck of the gods this is the actual part I by severe luck stumbled upon
they are produced by Hammond I see but perhaps they are different for the UK market pure speculation

The model number for them are
26908P/SL
29830P/SL

it is the 26908P/SL model i have

measurements are LXHXW

120mmx95mmx53mm

or 120x95x55 with the backplate on so indeed the same as the 1590C

so if my two cents are worth anything I should say it seems the data would point that the UK version of the hammond 1590C is indeed the part
Since if this box is found in the USA,UK and South Africa it seems this is a readily avialible box and since I am well aware that we still have much of these old hardware available from the 1980 etc and people still sell them and South Africa being an old colony of the UK

who used their shopping system to this day etc I would say this might be a plausibility

Cool info! It doesn't surprise me that there are several brands of these boxes that are simply re-branded by various companies, while all produced by the same manufacturer. Interesting to see that your own research led you to the same sized box as the 1590C.

 

[Darth Africanus]

Cool info! It doesn't surprise me that there are several brands of these boxes that are simply re-branded by various companies, while all produced by the same manufacturer. Interesting to see that your own research led you to the same sized box as the 1590C.

Thanks man yes it is very interesting that even though the boxes have another brand stamped on them they are Hammond boxes

Which in my mind leads considerable that the prop vader belt boxes where Hammond boxes since it most likely that Hammond has been the producer of these boxes since the times of the movies and that would have been what the props department got their hands on easily during production

It might have been a different model or something but I would put my money on it is the box you mentioned

 

[Cbstudios]

I don’t know if it helps, but the Michael Burnett Vader statue from the 90’s used Hammond boxes, and they’re 1591T

Their dimensions are
119.9mm length
79.92 high
58.73 deep

Green lights are 23.93mm high

 

[Cantina_Dude]

I don’t know if it helps, but the Michael Burnett Vader statue from the 90’s used Hammond boxes, and they’re 1591T

Their dimensions are
119.9mm length
79.92 high
58.73 deep

Green lights are 23.93mm high

Right on! While obviously none of it is screen accurate, it's interesting to see the green lights they used are definitely different yet are basically the same height. Looks like they just went their own way with the red lights and the length of the braided hose. Curious that the Hammond 1591T series of boxes is currently their transparent polycarbonate series (1591T), so I guess they may have reworked their numbering system at some point since those boxes used by Burnett were produced.

 

[Imperial Weapon]

I can find decent green lamps but none with the correct bevel holder I know you said what they were, I looked but still luck any suggestions? Also can you use the belt box measurements to calculate the belt buckle measurements?

EDIT: I found them on RS online.

 

[Cantina_Dude]

I can find decent green lamps but none with the correct bevel holder I know you said what they were, I looked but still luck any suggestions? Also can you use the belt box measurements to calculate the belt buckle measurements?

EDIT: I found them on RS online.

Glad you found the lights from RS Components! They do have both the red lights and the green lenses along with the black beveled bezels. RS is likely the source of these parts used by the production team putting together the belt boxes for ESB since so many other parts used on a multitude of Star Wars props came from them at that time.

One could conceivable scale out the measurements of the belt buckles from the belt boxes with a little creative accounting for perspective and lens distortion. In a sense I did do this when coming up with my designs for the buckles way back when, in conjunction with scaling from some other known items and dimensions. The more reference points you have to closer you are going to get to an accurate scaling of things.

 

[Imperial Weapon]

You have been most helpful can't wait to make these things, also do you happen to know where the switch was? I mean I know its only the switches but using the (most likely) original boxes i feel like i have to get it right.

 

[Cantina_Dude]

You have been most helpful can't wait to make these things, also do you happen to know where the switch was? I mean I know its only the switches but using the (most likely) original boxes i feel like i have to get it right.

There seems to be 2 different theories for where the switch(es) were for the belt box lights in the ESB belt setup... Either there was an on/off switch next to the battery pack that hooks on to the back of the belt (hidden by the cape) OR that one of the green lamps in the belt boxes acts as the on/off switch. Those Saia-Burgess lamps come in three different forms; a static light version, a momentary switch version, and a latching switch version, so they could have been rigged up in some way to turn the lights on and off.

 

[Imperial Weapon]

There seems to be 2 different theories for where the switch(es) were for the belt box lights in the ESB belt setup... Either there was an on/off switch next to the battery pack that hooks on to the back of the belt (hidden by the cape) OR that one of the green lamps in the belt boxes acts as the on/off switch. Those Saia-Burgess lamps come in three different forms; a static light version, a momentary switch version, and a latching switch version, so they could have been rigged up in some way to turn the lights on and off.

The panel one sounds the more plausible of the two I don't know bout a battery pack though maybe Hi-Def image of the scene where Vader cut Luke's hand off might be a good way to tell.

 

[Cantina_Dude]

The panel one sounds the more plausible of the two I don't know bout a battery pack though maybe Hi-Def image of the scene where Vader cut Luke's hand off might be a good way to tell.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my last post, but the presence of the rear battery pack isn't in question, as that is definitely how the belt box lights were powered. The theories I mentioned are just concerning how those lights were switched on and off; either a switch on the back of the belt or one of the latching green lamps on each of the belt boxes.

 

[Imperial Weapon]

Nah its OK I wasn't reading it well enough, also I checked your ROTJ belt thread I noticed that the green panels both had different shades on each belt which could mean they used that to indicate which one was the power button ,I know this is ESB but I'm guessing its the same seen as there both very similar.

 

[Cantina_Dude]

Nah its OK I wasn't reading it well enough, also I checked your ROTJ belt thread I noticed that the green panels both had different shades on each belt which could mean they used that to indicate which one was the power button ,I know this is ESB but I'm guessing its the same seen as there both very similar.

The different shades of green on the lamps on the ROTJ belt boxes are indeed a good clue about how things were wired and could indeed indicate how things were done in ESB. The lamps on the ESB setup seem to all have a consistent green colour, so it's possible that it is wired differently or perhaps it's just because the colour of the "switch" lamps haven't had a chance to discolour during the production of ESB and that discolouration only occured by the time of the production of ROTJ.