CSMacLaren
Sr Member
"Look the same? Not to me." That's the point more than one person is making when you do comps.
Keep it simple.
Keep it simple.
Fate of the Original ANH Vader Mask Confirmed: ESB
- Thread starter SithLord
- Start date
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I had a friend who's not really into all these things look at this thread and all he could do was shake his head.
And I've shown that the grill is pretty inconclusive to prove it's the same mask. You can only prove it's the same grill.
Definitely a false positive as they are on my TM. They are likely also on your SL. And therefore also on any other authentic casts. You need to focus on finding matches with the repaint look of the original and how that repaint look differs from the screen used look. There are a few areas that stand out - whole right side - front cheek, mouth wall, tusk tubes - and the repainted left rear cheek area above the tubes.Anyway, here's another false positive for ya....:lol
Now keep in mind the neck would have been repainted at this point however, these white marks looks like scratches so it is possible that even with a light repaint the way the light reflects off the surface may still be picking that up underneath...that is just a supposition. But this was something that sort of jumped out at me anyway. Again I'm just showing my own research and you can take it as you like. It isn't proof. But as far as I am concerned, the grill comparisons are.
And I've shown that the grill is pretty inconclusive to prove it's the same mask. You can only prove it's the same grill.
Vadermonkey
Well-Known Member
Since you dont have the pills to answer my PM, I thought no one was suppose to share the "top secret pic" Thomas?
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Well I understand what you are trying to say but even in the enhanced versions I still see the scratch in the lens, plus I can tell the swooshes are very different.
Let's take your example and look at it more closely...
Look the same? Not to me...
I would have loved to commend you for such diligence in chasing down a false positive, and would have asked you to apply the same diligence to your own analysis, but I fear you've missed the point of my posts altogether and have fallen to over-rely on fancy tools and graphs.
None of the "threshold" tools, "edge segmentation", etc. (very high sounding and authoritative looking) helped you detect that the starter image - unenhanced - simply looks like this:
In other words, you ran straight to the tools rather than study what graphical information the starting image did NOT have in the first place.
You're the career scientist. Help us all get better by blazing the trail to eliminate false positives in your observations - and let your analysis hold up without the fancy tools.
Since you dont have the pills to answer my PM, I thought no one was suppose to share the "top secret pic" Thomas?
Well I didn't get a PM from you. But answered your nice email via email.
Well you used the example of the ESB movie poster grill and I showed that it doesn't match, so where exactly is your evidence that my comparison of the grill is inconclusive?
None of the "threshold" tools, "edge segmentation", etc. (very high sounding and authoritative looking) helped you detect that the starter image - unenhanced - simply looks like this:
In other words, you ran straight to the tools rather than study what graphical information the starting image did NOT have in the first place.
You're the career scientist. Help us all get better by blazing the trail to eliminate false positives in your observations - and let your analysis hold up without the fancy tools.
Why would I need to establish what the "starter image" looks like when I have it? Don't you think I do the comparisons even before I make any adjustments to the image? The point of image analysis is to look at what is there based on the LUT. It makes no assumptions about prior manipulations.
If I have an image and make a manipulation to it, I look to see how that changes the nature of the detail I am studying. If it brings out what is already there, I use the enhanced version. If it changes the nature of the detail in shape or form, then I do not use that method.
I used the "fancy tools" to illustrate that your two image examples were different when you tried to show they were indicative of a false positive. I could easily see the difference without image enhancement, but I do it for the benefit of people here so they can see it.
By the way, I find it interesting that you refer to appropriate image analysis terms as "high sounding and authoritative looking", as if you react to anything you don't know about with affront, as if someone is trying to be superior to you. Maybe you should just take it for what it is instead of projecting your own sensibilities onto it.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
No, you showed that the picture you used didn't match. The picture I used matched just fine. So your proof is bonkers. Find something else and a lot more conclusive if you want to prove the Hoth helmet is the screen used ANH and don't point out things that are also on all the casts. Find what is exclusive to the screen used ANH after it was cast and so far... you have only hinted at scratches in the lenses... pretty much all else fails to stand the test of proof and the lens comparison is vague as well.
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
You have to ask such a question?
Does this image look familiar?
You used this image (which I used earlier in this thread) a while back to pass as truth your suppositions - simply because a white dot seemed to line up to your belief that it was confirmation of a physical feature.
But there are HUNDREDS of false positives among those stars. HUNDREDS of white dots.
If you're not willing to eliminate any possible false positives - which, in this case, this was an airbrushed star and not a physical trait on the prop - then this whole discussion is a farce, and once again - as you've been year after year - use threads like these to try to leverage yourself yet again as an authority with the uninitiated with fancy graphics and flawed comparisons and misleading analysis.
Same old M.O. You're not contributing anything but superior posturing to the hobby, and you're wasting our time.
I have nothing to say any more. I thought there was a chance things had changed.
Outta here.
You have to ask such a question?
Does this image look familiar?
You used this image (which I used earlier in this thread) a while back to pass as truth your suppositions - simply because a white dot seemed to line up to your belief that it was confirmation of a physical feature.
Ok Mac show me the comparison in which I used this image please.
There are no stars in the images I show in this thread.
I really wonder why you are so insecure as to see it as superior posturing. Why don't you just see it for what it is? An attempt to resolve what happened to the original ANH helmet. I see you contributing nothing original to Vader discussions apart from saying "stand six feet back". :rolleyes
I make it pretty clear what I think of each comparison, and I leave it to others to judge for themselves. But if you are going to go on about false positives then deal with the subject matter I show. I make it clear what is suggestive of relationship (the marks in the paint) and what is definitive (the grill lining up). If you can discount that then please do so using SPECIFIC REFERENCE not vague ramblings.
And if your time is so valuable then don't read my threads.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Already showed it cannot be used as proof. Guess we can keep circling the table, growl at each other until we are blue in the face or you can move onto actually proving your claim with other matching features. Going by grill alone is just not confirmation enough. The most compelling evidence you showed was the lens comparison.
You are making the claim, so go prove it. I don't need to prove you wrong. Hell... I'd love to believe it's THE ANH screen used. Just not seeing any confirmation, as solid as we've seen with the Elstree carpet picture and that RotJ helmet.
vader71
Sr Member
The full image is available from PIH. So lets all share it. There are plenty of blurry photos here, lets have a better one:
I hope there is more evidence Thomas, as you have not sold this theory yet.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
This is the link I posted in the PIH topic:
Original production made Darth Vader helmet from Star Wars: Episode IV
Similar threads
