HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey

[phase pistol]

Well here in New York its 4:30 am. :lol

Daisy... Daisy... giiiiivvve... meeeeeeeee... yrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Good morning gentlemen.

- k

 

[temponaut]

Originally posted by phase pistol@Apr 2 2006, 05:37 PM
Well here in New York its 4:30 am.  :lol

Daisy... Daisy... giiiiivvve... meeeeeeeee... yrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

Good morning gentlemen.

:lol

I know the feeling well. Lots of my posts seem to be between the hours of 2:00 am and 5:00 am, Japan time. At that hour, my POV starts to look like HAL's, too... lots of distortion around the edges.

By the way: Thanks for taking the initiative to kick-start this project despite it being the dead of night in NY. :thumbsup

 

[Montagar]

I'm still interested in the project as well, although my expertise is computer related (programming, audio, video, etc.)

 

[Mr_Sparkle]

Guys,
I'm happy to help as I can as well.. I've been following this thread from the shadows and would love to contribute. I am a product/toy designer but do a lot of 3D and CAD work to support my projects. I'm happy to model up any of this or the whole thing if needed.

This is certainly one of those projects I would love to see finished. After all, who wouldn't want HAL haning on the wall next to their desk or even in their bathroom to freak out house guests.

Let me know what I can do and I'll be all over it.

Chris

the "other" chris from parts of star wars

 

[rocketeer25]

Thanks guys for keeping this project alive. I had a resin HAL a few years ago, but sold it in the JY, and I've kicked myself ever since.

This would be the ultimate upgrade if we're able to see it come to fruition.

Lonnie

 

[temponaut]

Originally posted by phase pistol@Apr 2 2006, 04:53 PM
2 - diameter of widest point of the "body" of the lens (which would have to fit thru a hole in the HAL panel) - I'm assuming this is the knurled ring shown)

If we're looking for the widest point of the assembly that would have to fit through a hole in the HAL panel, I'd say that measurement #2 should be taken at the first knurled ring (immediately to the left of the word "FISH" in the photograph above) rather than where #2 is marked now.

In the 3/4-profile of the podbay HAL, below, almost the entire lens assembly is recessed into the panel. The part of the lens we can see begins with the ring on which the manufacturer's product information appears. This would suggest that the widest point of the "body" of the lens (measurement #2) is virtually identical to measurement #1.

Speaking of the manufacturer's product information: Some fine collaborative work was done earlier on clarifying the blurry text on the brain room panel. I wonder if we might be able to do the same thing with the blurry text on the HAL lens in the podbay screencap above. That might be a step toward finally confirming the Kenko as the correct lens.

For reference, the text along the rim of a Kenko fish-eye lens reads as follows:

leftmost text, small point size: LENS MADE IN JAPAN
middle text, large point size: KENKO FISH-EYE 180º
rightmost text, medium point size: No. XXXXX

Have at it.



Thanks, Wackychimp, for hosting.

 

[hyperdyne]

This would be a cool project. I can come up with a sound chip and motion sensor circuit if need be.

 

[temponaut]

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the podbay 3/4-profile and my Kenko lens.

You know, I hate to say it, but judging purely from the relative size and spacing of the letters in the respective manufacturer's texts, this does not look like a match to me.

Of course, there's the possibility that the text on the screen-used HAL was intentionally altered or obfuscated.

I'd really like the Kenko to be right lens... but I'm not so sure. :confused



P.S. A hyperdyne soundboard and motion sensor for HAL? COOL. :thumbsup



Thanks, Wackychimp, for hosting.

 

[phase pistol]

We think along similar lines, Temponaut.

I too have some questions about the Kenko, and whether the size is right. I can't believe that Kenko ALONE didn't manufacture multilple sizes of wide-angle lenses. And there are many lens manufacturers.


I think another key issue yet to be nailed down, is exactly how the lens is to be mounted in the center ring, and from which direction. Here I theorize the lens is inserted from the front, and that the center metal ring supports it from just behind the knurled ring on the lens.

Of course the lens would need some more support than that... but note how in the photo, the lens seems to be sunk into the panel, such that the ring with writing on the lens, is just about even with the front face of the silver ring on the HAL prop.

That has the implication that the lens is not flush with the front face of either the panel or the silver ring; note in the side view that the silver ring protrudes backwards behind the black faceplate a bit.

- k

 

[temponaut]

I too have some questions about the Kenko, and whether the size is right. I can't believe that Kenko ALONE didn't manufacture multilple sizes of wide-angle lenses. And there are many lens manufacturers.

Synasp has posted in a thread at propcircle to let us know that the text on his Kenko differs from that on mine. So it seems there are at least two variants of the Kenko fisheye out there, if only in terms of the writing. Let's hope his matches up to the podbay screencap.

If it doesn't, I think we need to reconsider the possibility that the HAL lens isn't a Kenko at all.

How and why did we originally believe the Kenko to be correct? As far as I can tell, the most conclusive evidence seems to come from the Underman site (Link: Underman's 2001). But, as discussed in Post #169 of this thread, that "evidence" isn't really conclusive at all. The site never states that the Kenko was used for the onscreen HAL; it says only that the Kenko was used for some of HAL's POV shots.

To save everybody the trouble of searching through the thread for Post #169, here's the text of that post again:

I very much want this to the be the right lens because, if it is, we're that much closer to having an accurate HAL replica. But allow me to play Devil's Advocate here and point out that neither of the references above say anything about the Kenko being the lens used in the HAL panel. Though the references on Underman's site do name the lens clearly ("Kenko 0.16x No48221"), they don't tell us how the lens was used. We are merely told that this is the "actual fish-eye lens used for some of the HAL shots." That's a fairly vague statement.

In fact, if we examine the wording of Underman's text closely, we find no indication at all that this is the lens used in the HAL panel (physical resemblances between the lenses notwithstanding), but instead a strong suggestion that the Kenko 0.16x No48221 was a lens (perhaps not the only one) used to shoot HAL's POV shots:

(1) According to Underman, information about the Kenko came via Gavin Alcott, son of the late John Alcott, who was responsible for "additional photography" (as opposed to set design or visual design). In other words, this lens was used by a cinematographer for shooting. It wasn't necessarily also used by a visual designer as part of HAL's physical construction.

(2) The particular wording of the reference to the Kenko ("actual fish-eye lens used for some of the HAL shots," italics mine) suggests that other lenses were also used. Again, this supports the interpretation that the Kenko was used as a practical shooting lens (and may or may not also have been the lens used in the HAL panel).

(3) The heading above the text ("How does the world look to HAL?") once again indicates that the author is writing about the way in which HAL's POV shots were accomplished, not about the lens used in the construction of the screen-used HAL panels.

Again, I'd very much like to believe that the Kenko is the lens we see when we're looking at HAL. And I'm not saying that it's not. It sure looks like the right one. But I think the reference in the site above does not specifically support that interpretation. It suggests only that the Kenko was used as a shooting lens, without addressing the question of whether the Kenko was part of the HAL panel.

2 cents

{EDIT} Why did my quoted text come out the way it did, rather than as formatted quotation? That's never happened to me before... :confused

{EDIT} Added link to Underman site.

 

[phase pistol]

OK based on Synasp's graciously-provided measurements, here's what it would look like... unfortunately this results in the entire HAL panel being only 10.79 inches tall.

[EDIT: see later posts; the lens isn't a Kenko after all]

 

[synasp]

Here are those measurments. I have a different variation of the lens from the 180, so maybe it's different.

[attachmentid=7447]

1: 48.95mm
2: 49.85mm
3: 48.90mm
4: 50.85mm
5: 52.40mm
6: 50.00mm
7: 48.80mm
8: 55.20mm
9: 59.35mm
10: 60.85mm
11: 59.95mm

 

[phase pistol]

OK consider this. I checked Dennis Gilliam's replica, as shown on this page

http://www.2001spacesuit.com/HAL.html

Unique identifying marks like model numbers are not discernable in his photos, but you can see it does clearly say "NIPPON KOGAKU, JAPAN" in this closeup. Nippon Kogaku became "Nikon". One of their brands is "NIKKOR". Here is one of their fisheyes...

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/compa...son/8mmfish.htm

Here's Gilliam's replica from the rear, showing the lens

Gilliam does not ID the lens exactly but has this to say about his work to identify the lens:

I came across an image on the 2001 Key Sheet transparencies which showed a side view of the HAL panel. I was able to determine that an actual photographic lens was used in the HAL panel. The printing on the edge of the lens was out of the plane of focus, hence it was blurry. However the overall shape of the printed characters, size, and spacing could be determined. Using this info, I researched lenses which were available at the time the sets were built. ... There have been several fisheye lenses, of the same focal length, made by the same manufacturer, over the years. The important part is finding the type that was actually used. Some individuals have purchased what they thought was the correct lens, only to have a lens that is substantially larger that the hole in the HAL panel. Common sense (lens won't fit in the hole) and simply looking at images of the HAL panel in the film clearly show that's the wrong lens. The unfortunate part about that,is they are paying $2000 or more for the wrong lens. Also, since they are using an oversize lens, they scale up the HAL panel to fit the lens, and end up with a panel that's nearly 2 feet long, which is larger than the original. ...  So with some simple research, the correct lens was determined. Getting one was a little harder, since they are considered "collector lenses" in the photographic/camera community. Thus the price can top $1500 or so.

Bad news then. I suppose we'll have to machine some sort of lens "dummy", based on what we can figure out about the panel's actual size. I'm going to look into some photogrammetry software I have access to (this is the process of reverse-engineering dimensions out of photographs). If there are any photogrammetry experts in the house, please PM or EM me.


Meanwhile, here are some additional HAL images scanned from "2001 Filming the Future".

HAL in the Brainroom appears to have diagonal joints at the corners.

 

[phase pistol]

BTW here's a treat for you 2001 fans... I scannned this out of the gigantic "Stanley Kubrick Archives" book from Taschen.

That would be the Pod Bay set during the part of the film where Bowman goes after Poole. Without his space helmet, he's going to find that rather difficult.

Here's the pic again in "desktop" size.

http://homepage.mac.com/ktate/extra/grabs/...podbay_1600.jpg

The detail of HAL from this shot, BTW, is kind of lost in the dot screen of the printing process. Oh well. Color information is probably pretty accurate however.

- k

 

[temponaut]

So. The Kenko is not the right lens.

Actually, the writing on the Fish-eye-NIKKOR 1:8 f=8mm that phase pistol posted looks like a good candidate for the Pod Bay lens, in terms of configuration and relative sizes of the characters in the writing. Very nice work there, Karl.

I wish we had one more shot of the side of the screen-used HAL lens from another angle, so that we could see another view of the writing.

For what it's worth, I picked up a set of calipers this evening and confirmed David's measurements of the Kenko:

synasp's measurements in the left column, mine in the right:

1: 48.95mm 49.00mm
2: 49.85mm 50.00mm
3: 48.90mm 49.00mm
4: 50.85mm 51.30mm
5: 52.40mm 52.20mm
6: 50.00mm 50.00mm
7: 48.80mm 49.20mm
8: 55.20mm 55.80mm
9: 59.35mm 59.30mm
10: 60.85mm 60.90mm
11: 59.95mm 59.95mm

If nothing else, I'm happy to have a new set of calipers.

 

[temponaut]

Thanks for posting all of those terrific shots, Karl. Lots of great caps (as always). Have you ever considered changing your handle to "Screen Cap'n"?

Very nice shot of the Pod Bay Test Bench HAL console, too:

At one time, I suggested this configuration as a possible alternative to the monolith-style display for the HAL replica. Karl, I think you thought this would make a nice display, too.

The ultimate display would probably be the HAL panel as it appears in the centrifuge, with multiple screens (unless you wanted to build a Brain Room ). But as a less expensive (and less expansive) alternative, I think the Pod Bay Test Bench console would make a terrific way to show off HAL.

Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but if others have good display ideas (and I'm sure you do.), please share. :thumbsup

 

[zorg]

so whats the difference between the NIKKOR lens and the kenko?

is it just the writing or the dimentions?

i've just scanned the last few posts(lazy)

:angel

 

[zorg]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Mar 22 2006, 11:51 PM
IMPORTANT NOTICE:

I'm considering a temporary leave of absence from the RPF for personal reasons. 

Sorry for the needless drama.

- Gabe

[snapback]1211330[/snapback]​

no shyt.

 

[temponaut]

Originally posted by zorg@Apr 3 2006, 10:24 PM
so whats the difference between the NIKKOR lens and the kenko?
is it just the writing or the dimentions?

When Karl scaled the HAL panel to the Kenko measurements, it resulted in a HAL panel only 10.79 inches tall.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that, in addition to sporting the correct writing and silhouette, the Nikkor is also larger than the Kenko.

Let the hunt for info on the Nikkor begin.

 

[phase pistol]

We'll nail it, I'm sure. We'll have the scale right, and ours will be the best HAL replica yet.

Once we have the overall size and details nailed, and I have the required machinst and label printer lined up, I'll post an official "interest thread" to reboot the project.

We're going to take a phased approach in the hopes of keeping the job manageable, so Phase I will be just the HAL replica panel. We'll worry about a display and sound chip and whatnot, later.

If possible I'd like to include a "lens dummy" in the replica, since it looks like the real lens is out of the budget for most people. I don't know what all that machined and polished acrylic and extra metal would do to the cost though. We'll figure it out.

- Karl