HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey
- Thread starter simon_lewis
- Start date
Thanks guys. 
The reserach points toward the Nikkor lens and the 13.75" panel height. 15" is not a serious proposal, it's just "what the panel would have to be" if the view-screen were the same size in the Podbay as it is on the Bridge. (besides a 15" HAL panel would result in Keir Dullea being more than 6.5 feet tall),
Since the screens are just holes cut out in the control boards, with rear-projection material inserted and a film projector behind it to make the image, I'd think the screens can be any random size.
My assumptions do not completely rule OUT custom or one-off HAL sizes, but I think it "most reasonable" to assume that (1) all HAL panels are the same size (13.75" or thereabouts), and (2) Nikkor lenses were used.
Next, I'm in touch with a camera collector who is going to send me some measurements and photos off of his Nikkor fisheye lens. I'll size the blueprints to those dimensions, and see where that gets us (the existing blueprint is based off of what somebody said was the size of the hole in the "screenused" panel that Dennis Gilliam replicated).
- k
The reserach points toward the Nikkor lens and the 13.75" panel height. 15" is not a serious proposal, it's just "what the panel would have to be" if the view-screen were the same size in the Podbay as it is on the Bridge. (besides a 15" HAL panel would result in Keir Dullea being more than 6.5 feet tall),
Since the screens are just holes cut out in the control boards, with rear-projection material inserted and a film projector behind it to make the image, I'd think the screens can be any random size.
My assumptions do not completely rule OUT custom or one-off HAL sizes, but I think it "most reasonable" to assume that (1) all HAL panels are the same size (13.75" or thereabouts), and (2) Nikkor lenses were used.
Next, I'm in touch with a camera collector who is going to send me some measurements and photos off of his Nikkor fisheye lens. I'll size the blueprints to those dimensions, and see where that gets us (the existing blueprint is based off of what somebody said was the size of the hole in the "screenused" panel that Dennis Gilliam replicated).
- k
OK it's starting to come together here.
Here's another provisional drawing... NOT final... but I regularlized the measurements to closest Imperial numbers, and damned if it doesn't start to look "right".
Still awaiting accurate Nikkor measurements, but if the lens is close to the size I show here, it will work perfectly.
As to how to engineer a Nikkor replica, I imagine it must be done in several pieces... two machined metal parts and two clear lenses.
I can imagine several possible ways to do the lenses:
• ground glass or plastic (i.e. "real" lenses, but not ground to optical precision)
• machined and flame-polished acrylic
• cast clear resin
I am open to suggestions as to how best to do the lenses. If you have relevant experience, please advise.
- k
Here's another provisional drawing... NOT final... but I regularlized the measurements to closest Imperial numbers, and damned if it doesn't start to look "right".
Still awaiting accurate Nikkor measurements, but if the lens is close to the size I show here, it will work perfectly.
As to how to engineer a Nikkor replica, I imagine it must be done in several pieces... two machined metal parts and two clear lenses.
I can imagine several possible ways to do the lenses:
• ground glass or plastic (i.e. "real" lenses, but not ground to optical precision)
• machined and flame-polished acrylic
• cast clear resin
I am open to suggestions as to how best to do the lenses. If you have relevant experience, please advise.
- k
BTW I notice that our little "HAL" thread has broken "9000" views.
Meaningless but still interesting.
-k
Meaningless but still interesting.
-k
Beautifully done, Karl. :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
From what I know about resin (which is certainly less than some others on this board), I'd guess that it might not be the best choice for our replica lens. The ground glass or plastic, or the flame-polished acrylic, sound like better options to me.
So much for my uninformed two cents. I'll look forward to the opinions of those with relevant experience in the aforementioned media.
On another note, I've been watching the auctions here in Japan, hoping for a shot at a reasonably priced Nikkor fisheye, on the theory that a Japanese lens being sold in Japan will probably cost less than the same lens being sold outside of Japan. If I'm able to snag one, I'll make it available for this project. But no luck yet.
I'm delighted to see the direction in which your stewardship of this project is going. Keep up the great work, phase pistol.
From what I know about resin (which is certainly less than some others on this board), I'd guess that it might not be the best choice for our replica lens. The ground glass or plastic, or the flame-polished acrylic, sound like better options to me.
So much for my uninformed two cents. I'll look forward to the opinions of those with relevant experience in the aforementioned media.
On another note, I've been watching the auctions here in Japan, hoping for a shot at a reasonably priced Nikkor fisheye, on the theory that a Japanese lens being sold in Japan will probably cost less than the same lens being sold outside of Japan. If I'm able to snag one, I'll make it available for this project. But no luck yet.
I'm delighted to see the direction in which your stewardship of this project is going. Keep up the great work, phase pistol.
Thanks. :lol
Tempo is correct, I switched to the new avatar a few days ago... there was a thread on TOS uniform anomalies, and I ran across an old "Enemy Within" grab... just felt like a change.
And that's the "evil" Kirk, just after he beams up... he's shooting daggers at the Transporter technician ("Wilson", I think) who asks if he's feeling all right. :lol
- k
Tempo is correct, I switched to the new avatar a few days ago... there was a thread on TOS uniform anomalies, and I ran across an old "Enemy Within" grab... just felt like a change.
And that's the "evil" Kirk, just after he beams up... he's shooting daggers at the Transporter technician ("Wilson", I think) who asks if he's feeling all right. :lol
- k
Updated "Nikkor repilca" sketch to indicate how front ring could retain the large primary lens, and the parts could be fastened together with screws.
Right now I still have the secondary lens element being "glued in" , I don't think that's very elegant but off the top I can't think of a way to retain it without adding a third metal part...
- k
Right now I still have the secondary lens element being "glued in" , I don't think that's very elegant but off the top I can't think of a way to retain it without adding a third metal part...
- k
i would rule out the resin castings for the lenses
im pretty sure with age the resin can "yellow" depending on conditions.
i use water clear resin for my 3po eyes and on the whole they hold up nicely but there are one or 2 you think hmmmmm that looks a bit duller than it did.
plus any air bubbles would spoil the look.
:unsure
im pretty sure with age the resin can "yellow" depending on conditions.
i use water clear resin for my 3po eyes and on the whole they hold up nicely but there are one or 2 you think hmmmmm that looks a bit duller than it did.
plus any air bubbles would spoil the look.
:unsure
On the front lens element, is the diameter of the inner circle critical to the appearance of the lens? (I'm talking about the diameter of the concave area at its widest point.) If that diameter could be made incrementally smaller without sacrificing appearance, there could be a lip that extended to touch the circumference of the rear lens element, and the rear element would be held in place by pressure.
Could that work? :confused
{EDIT} If it would be too difficult or expensive to machine the front element with a lip, the lip could also be made as a third clear part (basically, simply an O-shaped ring of acrylic). But I guess that's not much of an improvement over adding a third metal part, which you wanted to avoid... :unsure
Hey.
I think this is what you are getting at:
(Phase Pistol, I hope you don't mind me messing with your images. Let me know.)
There is no reason it shouldn't work while still giving the desired effect on the red light. The third option would probably be easier to machine as there are less steps/lips involved, plus it maintains the inner curvature of Phase Pistol's original design. Just throwing ideas out.
Good work all.
Cheers,
MJC.
Looks like Cantina Dude beat me to it... I was just about to post a similar solution.
It occured to me that the secondary could be retained by making it LARGER and leaving the primary lens alone. Thus the primary lens holds the secondary in place, and the primary is supported by the front ring, which is screwed to the back part and everybody wins.
What bothers me is the lens-on-lens abutment there, which may look cloudy or defective if we're not careful. I IMAGINE it would yield a bright "ring" where the interface of the lenses is backlit by the LED, which would not be desirable.
A prototype for testing is needed.
- k
It occured to me that the secondary could be retained by making it LARGER and leaving the primary lens alone. Thus the primary lens holds the secondary in place, and the primary is supported by the front ring, which is screwed to the back part and everybody wins.
What bothers me is the lens-on-lens abutment there, which may look cloudy or defective if we're not careful. I IMAGINE it would yield a bright "ring" where the interface of the lenses is backlit by the LED, which would not be desirable.
A prototype for testing is needed.
- k
tgreco
Sr Member
I was just thinking, if the smaller inside lens, and the machined metal outside area are machined to close enough tolerances, is this even going to be an issue...
I mean if you have a 1.5" diameter tube and you put a lens that's the same diameter in it, and it's thick enough, it will stay in by itself...
the only thing that might be required is a round o-ring that will snug it up and roll when the glass is put in, then you don't have to worry about reinventing the wheel, and it will stay firmly in place
or you could even put a small groove in the inside lens that the oring would fit in
I mean if you have a 1.5" diameter tube and you put a lens that's the same diameter in it, and it's thick enough, it will stay in by itself...
the only thing that might be required is a round o-ring that will snug it up and roll when the glass is put in, then you don't have to worry about reinventing the wheel, and it will stay firmly in place
or you could even put a small groove in the inside lens that the oring would fit in
An O-ring or some kind of friction ring to keep the smaller secondary lens in place is a great idea. that way I could avoid the overlap...
- k
- k
Yup. Thanks for translating my spotty description into pictures, Cantina_Dude. Much clearer that way.
It's exciting to see each step an improvement on the previous idea. Great work, everybody. :thumbsup
Now, who do we have on board who would be capable of machining the prototype? :love
Darth Lars
Master Member
I am curious to if the outer lens really has to be ground on the inside. Getting custom glass lenses like this would cost a great deal but some off-the-shelf aspherical glass lenses with flat bottom would cost only around $20 each.
One also has to take into consideration that acrylic does not have the same refraction index as glass and the internals and internal lens would have to be modified to take this into account if you want it to look 100% like a Nikkor lens from the outside.
Edit: The lens I found at $20 was too small. I was using measurements from a Kenko. Sorry. :$
One also has to take into consideration that acrylic does not have the same refraction index as glass and the internals and internal lens would have to be modified to take this into account if you want it to look 100% like a Nikkor lens from the outside.
Edit: The lens I found at $20 was too small. I was using measurements from a Kenko. Sorry. :$
