Han ANH hero - site and antenna

[lonepigeon]

Looking again at all pics I think I now have an explanation.
Gabe pointed out that one antenna is missing in the Chronicles pics.
I believe it is also missing in the photo Jason first posted to start this thread.
Looking at Chronicles it's evident that the T-track ridge is broken. The back half of the ridge is missing.

I believe the T-track used on the Merr Sonn's is resin. The short barrel Merr Sonn is missing one antenna exposing an area of white T-track (spraypaint missed that area which was covered by antenna head). I know they were running short on the stuff so maybe they cast some of the saber grips. The E-11s made use of brown T-track (painted black) when they ran out of black.

Now, if you think of the T-track as broken in Jason's 1st pic the rest makes sense.
The ridge looks complete because of the black scope behind it.
With the ridge broken the stem of the antenna on the scope side is visible.
This also explains why we don't see a clear antenna head on this side which if it was there seems like it should stick up higher.

In the next two pics Jason posted (post #5):
1. The T-track and 1 antenna are obscured by the scope.
2. The antenna hed is not visible since there is not one on that side.

Next Gabe posts another pic (post #11). The antenna head is clearly visible sticking out from behind the bull barrel. It should be since this is the side that still has the antenna.
In this post Gabe also points out there is only one antenna in the top view Chronicles pic (the scope side).

This now proves how the barrel details appear and disappear within the same photo shoot.
It was not photo manipulation.

To clarify some other points:
- The antenna pieces remain consistant in length on all blasters which is why the antenna overhangs the barrel on the ANH Hero blaster, yet fits fine on the Merr Sonns. The Merr Sonns have more bull barrel exposed than the Hero.
- The T-track varies in length between each blaster.

PS - In post #16 Gabe says that the hammer and safety on a real Mauser can't be positioned like in the photo. I'm not sure what supports this opinion, but my MGC can do that. The Mauser also does not look "too long" to me.

 

[lonepigeon]

I'd like to also point out that I think there were resin Han ANH stunt blasters though I have yet to find any photo evidence of one.
The ESB/ROTJ stunt blasters were cast from the ANH Hero. None of the glued on detail bits are the same, but like the Merr Sonn's I suspect the Hero was cast plain and details were added.
You can see a pic of the stunt here:
http://www.partsofsw.com/RangedWeapons/dl44stunt.htm

Note that the scope bracket mounting points match the ANH Hero.

Another odd note:
The original Han ANH Hero also appears to show up during ROTJ in the Endor bunker cut scenes with the Hensoldt scope still attached. I don't think it disappeared from Bapty until after ROTJ.

 

[Prop Runner]

Chris, your "hail Mary" pass for the antennae theory contains so many actionable statements, forgive me for quoting you from start to finish, but you leave me no choice...

Originally posted by lonepigeon@Jan 5 2006, 07:46 PM
Well, if you don't believe the photos posted so far I don't see what will convince you.

I'll tell you what will convince me: 3D CAD. Photos lie all the time: graininess, pixilation, dirt, and severe lighting make us see things we expect to see. So expect some shiny 3D CAD over the next couple of hours...

I disagree that there was any touch-up work done to those photos.

I only talked about Jason's "action pose" photo s being touched-up. If you honestly believe it wasn't touched up, I'm sorry, but I'd have to conclude you're in deep denial or realize I'm right but refuse to admit you were wrong. And I say this with no disrespect, only bluntness.

I looked at your observations of the photos, but just don't agree with your points. It looks like you've labeled points of JPG artifacting and used the poor clipping path outlines of the Chronicles pics as "evidence".

Evidence? Evidence of what? You're the one claiming there are "antennaes" and t-tracks on the bull barrel. Don't you feel that to introduce a new theory, the burden of proof rests on YOU????

There's really bad rippling edges in the first large pic you posted which is evidence that someone rotated it in such a way that the image was resampled (which explains some of the image defects you've pointed out).

Chris, *I* rotated the image. Guilty. But all you've just said can be debunked if I do the same analysis in the unrotated original hi-res file. Those "image defects" are native to the original file, and I noticed them before I rotated the cropped blaster. I challenge you to prove me wrong (burden on the prosecution - you made the accusation... )

I'll give you the point that the small scallop looks odd, but that could also be a machining defect. I'd have to look at other pics.

Thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious, but my gratitude was short lived given your untenable alternative. Trust me when I say this: the screen-used MG81 flash hider has NO machining defects. You've seen this part from every angle and from very close up. Must I repost them all to show everybody? This is the ONLY time two adjoining cuts look completely out of scale with respect to each other.

The only photos I've seen offered as "evidence" of the details missing on the Hero are underside shots where the parts wouldn't be visible much if at all. Besides if you look at the whole pics I think you'd discover that most were all taken at the same time and you'd be trying to convince people that the parts disappeared midway during the photo shoot.

Sorry, Chris - wrong again. Here's a sweet shot of the firing hero in the Cantina:

Do you see the border of a t-track, whole or fragment? A switch? A rod? I see nada. No resampling, no artifacting, no clipping path outlines, no rotation, no rippled edges can be used as excuses for not seeing anything, sorry...

More in the next post (Invizone imposes a limit on quotes per post. :unsure )

- Gabe

 

[Prop Runner]

(...continued)

Looking again at all pics I think I now have an explanation.
Gabe pointed out that one antenna is missing in the Chronicles pics.
I believe it is also missing in the photo Jason first posted to start this thread.
Looking at Chronicles it's evident that the T-track ridge is broken. The back half of the ridge is missing.

Either it's there in Jason's photo or it's not. Or if something's there, I contend that it can't be a switch because you'd see it protrude above the suppressor, regardless of the t-track's condition.

I believe the T-track used on the Merr Sonn's is resin. The short barrel Merr Sonn is missing one antenna exposing an area of white T-track (spraypaint missed that area which was covered by antenna head). I know they were running short on the stuff so maybe they cast some of the saber grips. The E-11s made use of brown T-track (painted black) when they ran out of black.

Belief is nice, Chris, but we're dealing in empirical facts. So tell me: what other prop in the entire Episode IV prop pantheon used resin t-tracks, unless they were featured on a cast stunt (and thus un-removable)? You just admitted that when they ran out of black strips for the E-11 they used brown ones. Seems like they drove to the nearby auto parts store when they ran out of black... This was hardly a scarse item, come on... Besides, looking at my Merr-Sonn comparisons in my first post in the thread, you can clearly see them hanging off the bull barrel and a little sliver is bent - a resin cast wouldn't be able to preserve that detail, and it looks different on each Merr-Sonn. But back to the Han blaster: doesn't it make much more sense that the most prominent weapon in the movie would use the most premium parts? I'm happy you have faith in your belief, but you've just introduced a new theory without a shred of evidence.

Now, if you think of the T-track as broken in Jason's 1st pic the rest makes sense.
The ridge looks complete because of the black scope behind it.

Actually, that makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're still in denial about the touch-ups... :rolleyes

With the ridge broken the stem of the antenna on the scope side is visible.

There's no stem there, Chris. I prove this beyond any doubts further down.

This also explains why we don't see a clear antenna head on this side which if it was there seems like it should stick up higher.

Huh? Are you now saying there's NO antennae head/switch? :confused You're really not making any sense...

In the next two pics Jason posted (post #5):
1. The T-track and 1 antenna are obscured by the scope.
2. The antenna hed is not visible since there is not one on that side.

Only if you assume there's something there to begin with. If something's obscured or blocked, you can claim it's anything...

Next Gabe posts another pic (post #11). The antenna head is clearly visible sticking out from behind the bull barrel. It should be since this is the side that still has the antenna.
In this post Gabe also points out there is only one antenna in the top view Chronicles pic (the scope side).

This now proves how the barrel details appear and disappear within the same photo shoot.
It was not photo manipulation.

Oh, don't you wish... Proof of Chris' fatal error is upcoming, folks - I'm not just stalling...

To clarify some other points:
- The antenna pieces remain consistant in length on all blasters which is why the antenna overhangs the barrel on the ANH Hero blaster, yet fits fine on the Merr Sonns. The Merr Sonns have more bull barrel exposed than the Hero.
- The T-track varies in length between each blaster.

That would mean that we actually expect to find extra rod length overhanging the bull barrel, correct? I love it. :lol Ok, proof is coming up, people - I ORDER you not to glaze over.

PS - In post #16 Gabe says that the hammer and safety on a real Mauser can't be positioned like in the photo. I'm not sure what supports this opinion, but my MGC can do that. The Mauser also does not look "too long" to me.

I'll actually concede that I was wrong here. Why? Because I did some Googling and discovered incontrovertible photographic evidence. (Sorry, Tom):

Here you see the safety lever "shark fin":

and here you see the fin exposed when the hammer is drawn back:

Chris, can you provide incontrovertible proof of your claims, or just incon'Trevas'able?

- Gabe

 

[Prop Runner]

(...continued)

And now, for the coup-de-grace...

If you don't mind, Chris, I'm also quoting what you posted at T4, since I'm rather pleased with my rebuttal there:

First, the Merr Sonn's are cast from the Han Hero while it was still in progress. The body of the Merr Sonns are the full Naked Runner gun. The Han ANH Hero used only the upper from the Naked Runner gun.

There was only one Han ANH Hero- no half resin/half real hybrid.
I went through all this prop timeline stuff a long time ago to figure out the order of things.

I'll go through all the callouts on Gabes large pic.
Merr Sonn-
1. hole in suppressor rotated - Merr Sonn was made first then cast before it became the Han blaster. Suppressor is actually further out exposing more of the bull barrel.
2. front grill was NOT removed before casting- it wasn't there, completely different lower half of gun.
3.Greeblies added - correct. Antenna and T-track on Han ANH Hero were added their orientation is actually slightly different on the Merr Sonn.
Merr Sonn (pic 2)
2. bad cut and paste job - actually that's a bad clipping path. A clipping path defines the outline to cut out a pic in a layout such as the Chronicles book. Someone thought that area was a hole. The original pic is just fine.
3. Greeblies removed - correct
4. Extra barrel exposed- Both Merr Sonn's are out of the same mold, but the t-track and antenna pieces are added not cast. I believe the same amount of barrel is showing on both. One is just missing the suppressor. It may have been chopped off to put on the Jawa version of the Greedo gun.

There are lots of claims being made here as statements of fact, which are by no means the case, as I plan on proving.

So let me get this straight... The work in progress (WIP) Han blaster first used the entire Naked Runner Mauser with the holes on the LHS and the cut-down mounting spacers. No front grill, no imperial disc, no scope, no bracket. The MG81 suppressor is nice and centered, but rotated 90 degrees and located further out on the bull barrel. All well & good. And just for the sake of argument, the antennae & t-track greeblies were there, but it would still be nice to see concrete, incontrovertible evidence to support your theory.

Let's examine the antenne greeblies on this handsome Merr-Sonn replica:

and how your greeblies would look in CAD on the Han blaster:

I deliberately kept the t-track and rods short, for reasons you'll soon see.

Anyway, that WIP blaster is dropped in rubber and several casts are made for the Merr Sonns. Chord, connector, imperial dic, boxes, and radial engine or (pipe fitting) parts are added, and they're spray-painted black. We know all these greeblies were added after the casting, not before, but only the t-track, switch levers, and rods were allegedly already on the WIP Han blaster before casting. But then you say about the Merr-Sonns:

Suppressor is actually further out exposing more of the bull barrel

That would mean that if the switches and t-track are glued up against the rear of the suppressor, they would have to be removed and reglued when the suppressor was pushed further down the bull barrel.

Hmmmm... Ok, unlikely... but not out of the question. That's supposing the "antennae" and t-track greeblies were in place before the molding. If I misunderstood and you're asserting that they were added afterwards, when the suppressor was pushed further down over the bull barrel, then please disregard this particular challenge.

Then the WIP Han blaster gets its lower receiver swapped out and another one put in with tapped holes for the ANH scope bracket. That lower receiver then receives the front grill and imperial disc - the latter, I suppose, for consistency with the Merr-Sonns, although the Merr-Sonns don't have a front grill. Ok, I'll accept that, even though there's no rhyme or reason for the decision, because on the new lower receiver, there's no cut-down spacer or hole to cover on the LHS.

The MG81 suppressor is reattached, this time with the vent hole facing up and a socket cap screw holding it onto the bull barrel. At this time, the scope & bracket assembly is also attached.

Later, during filming, Ford is called in to provide a few promotional shots against a neutral backdrop. The imperial disc, if that's what it was, has by now mysteriously fallen off and never replaced. If there was anything on top of the barrel, we'd be able to see it here:

Don't buy it?

The CAD doesn't lie:



:cool

In only one of those shots, just discovered recently at OfficialPix.com, do we see any evidence of something on top of the bull barrel. You must have thought: "HOT DAMN... Gabe just delivered the Smoking Gun on a silver platter: there it is, black against blue, THE SWITCH... :lol ":

But you got your hopes too high... Just comparing this photo to the Chronicles shot and the Merr-Sonn switches, there's no evidence of a rod or t-track, only a "hump." If it were a switch, we wouldn't be able to see the bottom of the switch where it connects to the rod because the t-track would obscure it. Besides, on the "hump", the rear looks rounded, not sharp-edged, although I concede that could be due to pixelation. But pixelation cannot account for the fact that the transition from the bull barrel to the upper receiver is unobscured by any top-mounted greeblies. If there were a rod and t-track, it would create an entirely different silhouette: a hung-over t-track and rod, a rod which you claim to see in Jason's "action pose" shot. That's why I kept both short in the CAD model. Besides, in the Chronicles top view, what you call the t-track appears significantly off-center, far more into the RHS than the LHS. It's downright asymmetrical. Should we duplicate that on our replicas? Finally, for the sake of argument, if we assume the rod was lost, wouldn't it take the switch with it, like you're claiming it did on the LHS?

Still don't buy it? Ok, fine...... But once again, the CAD doesn't lie:

Oops... WHERE'S MY ROD? I HAVE LOST MY ROD, THE POOR BABY. :confused

(in my best Elaine voice: "Maybe the dingo ate yo' baby.") :lol

:cool

Another thing. In the OfficialPix photo, the suppressor is clearly off-center, meaning that the inside wall of the suppressor is pressed against the top of the bull barrel, or, as I've been postulating, against something jamemd in between the suppressor and the bull barrel in order to compensate for the lopsidedness. You can even see that the suppressor tilts up. Why is this significant? Because you'd have to see MUCH more switch protruding over the suppressor than it protrudes over the centered suppressor in my CAD model...

Jason's heavily and poorly retouched "action pose" shot (there it is, Chris: unrotated and without redlines, and it's still a gorram mess.) doesn't count in my book: any greeblie detail beneath the scope is horribly mangled by cutting & pasting, airbrushing, and possible darkroom manipulation. That Chris is stubbornly clinging to his refusal to admit this image has experienced heavy, blatantly obvious photo manipulation is not my concern, but since Chris' research, opinions, and bold assertions have carried a lot of weight in this forum for the better part of a decade, it takes a rude, crude, socially unacceptable ******* like me with a pair of brass balls to challenge his claims.

The only other photo showing "something" on the RHS is in the top view from the Chronicles, which can be argued is a post-production shot:

The t-track like feature appears to be in pretty bad shape, and it's not actually on top but off to the RHS (now why would they deliberately glue something lopsided like that on a hero firing blaster? ) There's no visible rod, and there's obviously nothing on the LHS of the "T" (but that's ok, because Chris concedes that). And whatever's on the RHS is still open to interpretation, however it's understandable that wishful thinking might lead one to conclude it was the same as the Merr-Sonn switch greeblie. It's really a shame that not a single other photo of the Hero blaster (as it was configured during filming) bears this out.

And Chris is trying to sell you all on the idea that it's a conclusive feature that should be idealized as a full t-track with not one, not one incomplete, but TWO COMPLE "antennae".?.?.?. :eek

And a closing thought: even if everything Chris says is true, his antennae got broken off, as was his t-track, just as whatever was on the Mystery Disc, so early in filming, if not before, during rehersals or preproduction, that there's not a single screen grab from Episode IV that shows even a scintilla of evidence that this feature was there. Perhaps we should return the imperial disc to its proper place because it too appears on a Merr-Sonn?

Chew on that, fellow blaster fans. It's not that I don't respect Chris or his enourmous - scratch that - legendary - contributions to the collective Star Wars prop community. I just vehemently disagree with his interpretations and conclusions, based on hard empirical evidence and indisputable CG recreations, not faith in some iffy photos...

Finally, regarding this statement:

I believe the same amount of barrel is showing on both. One is just missing the suppressor. It may have been chopped off to put on the Jawa version of the Greedo gun.

Sorry, but the following comparison pretty much rebutts your belief that they're the same up to the suppressor and break-off:



[Jerry Springer moment]

In this hobby, belief and faith are only as good as your evidence. That's why we still have amazing discoveries after decades of conventional wisdom that ultimately proved wrong because it wasn't based on substance. :angel

[/Jerry Springer moment]

DISCUSS.

- Gabe

 

[gavidoc]

Hi Gabe,

I didn't get a chance to really read your posts in response to Chris but I did want to comment on one thing you said.

Don't buy it?

The CAD doesn't lie:

I 100% disagree with this statement and personally I'm kind of shocked that you said it.

To rely 100% on what Cad data tells you on the computer screen is a flawed way of thinking. To trully be able to judge if something is there or not is to make a 1:1 scale physical model.

I use 3d Cad all day at work like you do and if we did that (ie: Cad doesn't lie) we'd be royally screwed and would end up wasting thousands of dollars for tooling that just didn't give a full representation of what we thought it did.

Of course, you're an engineer and I'm a industrial designer so that might explain it.

 

[gavidoc]

Here's those pictures I was talking about with the ****** hammer so you can see a real Mauser.

Not the best quality and of course, when the hammer was ******, the safety was engaged so I included a 2nd photo which shows the tab that you guys were talking about.

Also see the steel on the front where the mystery disk was. I painted the gun black but had the "disk" there before I painted it. When I removed the disk, it took some of the bluing off the original gun.

[image]http://webpages.charter.net/jrmyers01/images/anh01.jpg[/image]
[image]http://webpages.charter.net/jrmyers01/images/anh02.jpg[/image]

 

[Prop Runner]

Gav: thanks for responding so early.

I agree that CAD isn't infallible, but in this case we're REVERSE-ENGINEERING found items, not designing unproven new ones. My CAD is pretty damn accurate to the found items. Maybe not 100% on the bull barrel, but at least 95%. Will you at least concede that ACCURATE CAD is more reliable than grainy, manipulated, poorly lit photographs?

And yes, I'm an engineer, and as you well know 3D parametric CAD has saved industry millions of dollars in retooling and poor product performance due to misinterpreted mockups, prototypes, and blueprints. With 3D CAD you can analyze interferences, clearences, and drafts, perform FEA, heat transfer, fluid flow, mechanics and dynamics simulations, and of course simplify toolpath plotting for CNC machining.

Regarding the mystery disc, I'm pretty sold on your interpretation - I was since you first posted it, in fact. Sorry I neglected to confirm it because the topic of the thread was the sight. :angel If you look at the Cantina shot I posted, you can see a clean, flat, reflective surface, and Ford's finger shadow is unbroken as it crosses over onto the disc area. So yeah, you're absolutely right. :thumbsup

And perhaps you were composing your post on the hammer & safety while I was composing mine, but I admitted Tom's theory was wrong before you posted your confirming photos.

I think the debate really boils down to this: is the detail atop the bull barrel (but leaning to the RHS) the cosmetic Merr-Sonnesque "antennae" & t-track, or a functional piece of "somthing" used to re-center the suppressor?

I also want to ask this: does anyone but Chris question the visual evidence of heavy manipulation of the bull barrel area of Jason's first photo, and more specifically, my analysis of the manipulation? If so, please provide conclusive evidence that I'm wrong, just as Gav did.

- Gabe

 

[spinner 44]

I guess you have realised this already, but if you see the Chronicles pic the t-track is off-centered to the symmetrical axis, and tilted to the right. (you pointed that already Gabe, sorry)

Plus I'm 120% the button-antenna detail only on the right hand side. There is simply no photo evidence of ANH Han blaster showing that on the left side.

Gabe, I suggest you check the stills I posted before (when Han gets out of the smugglers compartment). Keep a sharp eye on top of the bull barrel. There is something there that may be the button and t-track. But again the side of the gun that we see that we see is the right one.

Crappy blow ups due to poor image resolution but you get the idea

Original freeze

"retouched" to show a barrel with no greeblies -what it should look like

I also have question here regarding the silver disc. If the lower receiver is not the same one as the Naked Runner Mauser, the why is the disc in the almost same exact position were the piece for supporting the scope originally was? It would make perfect sense that when they made the customization on the Naked Runner gun this depressed disc and the hole in the center (to pass a screw) was made? Why repeat the same on a different gun?


My two cents

 

[gavidoc]

Do you not see the greeblie behind the suppressor and on the bull barrel in this photo?

Rod is even there and is on the right hand side (scope side) of this photo.

And if this t-track/switch is rotated to the right side, you wouldn't see the top of the switch sticking above the suppressor.

 

[amish]

Hi everyone. I took the same grabs as spinner44 did, and I will post some more of them later today when I return home.

For now, I took Gabes photo from above and enhanced it some.

 

[Prop Runner]

Sergio :what I think you retouched was the bull barrel itself - look again and see that you erased the 45 degree step-chamfer between it and the upper receiver.

I do concede that there's a "hump" over the suppressor, analyzed in my OfficialPix photo, but your red arrow is pointing to the bull barrel, not the "hump," which is directly above your arrow head, next to the leading edge of the scope, right behind the suppressor - take another look and tell me if you agree.

Regarding the mystery disc, I think Gav nailed it - look at the enhancements amish posted: there's no depression whatsoever. Also, on the Naked Runner lower receiver, the spacer has a smaller diameter than the mystery disc, and Chris & Jason have convinced me that on the Merr-Sonns they glued an imperial disc to cover it. They probably did the same with the Han Blaster because the new lower receiver was too "naked" down there behind the front grill. Look closely at the "hole" in Jason's first pic - it's very small and slightly off-center, so at first glance it doesn't strike me as a threaded hole, let alone a hole for a stud.

Gav: if you want to recreate a severely lopsided & shredded t-track with one antennae "switch" that shows what looks like a rod in the most heavily retouched blaster photo ever analyzed but not in the OfficialPix close-up, where the scope is neither obscuring it from the left nor swallowing it up from the right, then I can't stop you. But to go from there and idealize it into what's seen on the Merr-Sonn is a bit intellectually dishonest, if you ask me. Apples and oranges.

amish: I'm e-mailing you the original 1.4 MB .bmp file of the Cantina scene blaster. Please see if you can get better results than the compressed JPEG I posted, and if you think there's something there, by all means call me on it.

- Gabe

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

He said

"naked" down there


:lol

Sorry I don't have much to add at this stage. These images keep getting more and more confusing to me, so I have decided to just resorting to crude 15 year old jokes.
:$

If the t-track/antenna parts were an add on piece that was cast as one item and used on the Merr Sonn, then it is possible that a casting of the same piece was fitted onto the Han Hero after it had been shaved down. Also, on the Merr Sonn without the flash hider

The second antenna part is missing. This seems to match this photo

I think it is the same part, but has been hacked up and sanded down so that the flash hider fits over it.

Dan

 

[Anakin Starkiller]

Gabe, in this image I think that the reason why the picture isn't lining up might be because you have drawn your 3d image with both antennas there.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/d7adc35c81.jpg

However, if you had made the the second antenna part is missing, as is on the Merr Son sans flash suppressor, the scope would have covered the whole piece.

Dan

 

[lonepigeon]

Gabe,
You didn't read all of what I posted.
First I said the antennas and T-track were add on parts on all blasters.
I offered the possible explanation that the T-track might be resin to explain how it could break as it seems to have done (especially evident in the Chronicles pics which MR first interpreted as a gun sight fin). As I pointed out the T-track is WHITE on the Merr Sonn under the black paint- difficult to achieve if the material used was black or brown (white primer?).

I also stated in the last post that the left antenna detail had to have been MISSING to account for the differences in the photos which were all taken during the same session.
If you remove the left antenna piece from your CAD model then everything matches fine.
Thanks for the proof.

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 6 2006, 10:12 AM

Do you see the border of a t-track, whole or fragment?  A switch?  A rod?  I see nada.  No resampling, no artifacting, no clipping path outlines, no rotation, no rippled edges can be used as excuses for not seeing anything, sorry...

More in the next post (Invizone imposes a limit on quotes per post. :unsure  )

- Gabe

[snapback]1152018[/snapback]​

Well, we've got at least 4 pics that do show the detail on top of the bull barrel.
I fail to see what this fuzzy one proves.
You're right I don't see anything. Not sure if anything should be visible when its all small black parts on a black gun.
That may be a resin ANH stunt. As I said I believe one existed, but have not yet found pics. All I have as proof is that the ESB/ROTJ stunts were cast from the ANH Hero (no detail parts just gun and suppressor).

What are you trying to prove?
1. That the details are not what I say they are.
2. There were two guns, one with details and one without.
3. The barrel details are a photo retouching conspiracy.

I really can't tell from your posts and my responses would be different for choice 1 or 2.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 6 2006, 01:40 PM
Gav: if you want to recreate a severely lopsided & shredded t-track with one antennae "switch" that shows what looks like a rod in the most heavily retouched blaster photo ever analyzed but not in the OfficialPix close-up, where the scope is neither obscuring it from the left nor swallowing it up from the right, then I can't stop you.  But to go from there and idealize it into what's seen on the Merr-Sonn is a bit intellectually dishonest, if you ask me.  Apples and oranges.

[snapback]1152285[/snapback]​

Gabe,

You can't tell me that the area that I am referring to is "retouched" boss. Inconceivable. Look at the lighting on the gun fergoodnesssakes. Nothing has been darkened or obscured. Looks like studio lighting to me.

It's there in plain sight. Nothing has been smudged. Not a darn thing. Even in it's twisted form, it's still slightly sticking up above the flash suppressor.

What you are saying is that we have an OfficialPix photo taken from the same shoot not showing a greeblie assembly and another from the same photo shoot showing the greeblie assembly where neither the scope or anything else could be possibly "obscuring" or "hiding" the assembly yet in your mind, all this proof is that this greeblie assembly was added to the picture that shows it?

To me, it seems like it would be a lot easier to remove something from a photo (at that time period) then to add something to a photo.

I personally don't think it's apples and oranges.

More like tangelos and tangerines.

Also, I have recreated what you told me to do. I did it well before I sold the gun (which was in late 2002 IIRC). Only thing is that I didn't have T-track on there. Just the switch as that is all I thought there was. Even had it shifted off to the right like in the Chronicles photo. I personally didn't like it like that so reattached it in the center which is what my photos show.

Another thing to remember Gabe. This photo (the one I'm talking about) is an unpublished photo. There is a retouched manipulated version of this photo (which you say is "the most heavily retouched blaster photo ever analyzed") but not this one.

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by Anakin Starkiller@Jan 6 2006, 10:20 AM
Gabe, in this image I think that the reason why the picture isn't lining up might be because you have drawn your 3d image with both antennas there.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/d7adc35c81.jpg

However, if you had made the the second antenna part is missing, as is on the Merr Son sans flash suppressor, the scope would have covered the whole piece.

Dan

[snapback]1152326[/snapback]​

Dan, I of course knew that going in, and I even centered the t-track in the top view, which is how the idealized version of the greeblie would have been. But like I said before, the photo evidence of this feature is sketchy at best, and to be truly authentic to the original, we'd have to reproduce it as ugly as it is in Jason's photo or the top view in the Chronicles. By Chris' logic, we should also cover up the mystery disc with an imperial disc, since that too appears on the Merr-Sonn. And in your previous post, you said:

Also, on the Merr Sonn without the flash hider... The second antenna part is missing. This seems to match this photo

Actually, it doesn't. Look at the broken Merr-Sonn barrel and t-track: the t-track snapped off exactly where the switch would have been, taking a chunk of vertical wall with it, in the shape of the switch, no less. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that in Jason's photo you have a switch on the RHS and the remains of a t-track, then you're either seeing the RHS switch connected to a rod and no vertical t-track wall between it and the camera, or you're seeing (as Chris redlined incorrectly, IMO) a REALLY tall vertical t-track wall tower over the suppressor, obscuring the switch. We know from the Merr-Sonn pics that this is impossible, even more so since the t-track is lopsided toward the RHS.

But since Chris, Gav, and a few others are having trouble seeing the manipulation in Jason's pic, I'll help a little more:

As it stands now, the biggest giveaway that it's a fake is that the bottom edge of what's deemed the t-track cotinues smoothly and without interruption OVER the suppressor, cutting off the top edge of a scalloped cut, and what passes for either the switch or a tall section of vertical t-track wall is merely the background blue. The scope and bull barrel edges are messed up from the airbrushing, pasting, or whatever was used to manipulate this image. Not to mention that the pasted portion of the suppressor places the suppressor at a different angle than the lower portion, when we know the lower portion is tilted upward. But now suddenly it's parallel to the scope on the top... :confused

Any questions?

- Gabe

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 6 2006, 11:30 AM
So let me get this straight... The work in progress (WIP) Han blaster first used the entire Naked Runner Mauser with the holes on the LHS and the cut-down mounting spacers.  No front grill, no imperial disc, no scope, no  bracket.  The MG81 suppressor is nice and centered, but rotated 90 degrees and located further out on the bull barrel.  All well & good.  And just for the sake of argument, the antennae & t-track greeblies were there, but it would still be nice to see concrete, incontrovertible evidence to support your theory.

>>Correct, I never said the antennas and T-track were on the thing when it was molded in fact I'm sure they weren't. This should clear up much of what you posted after this so I will not bother quoting it here.<<

Later, during filming, Ford is called in to provide a few promotional shots against a neutral backdrop.  The imperial disc, if that's what it was, has by now mysteriously fallen off and never replaced.  If there was anything on top of the barrel, we'd be able to see it here:

Don't buy it?

The CAD doesn't lie:



>>You're right it doesn't. Your CAD just proved that the left side antenna could not possibly be there which I stated in my post.
I believe the rotation on your CAD is slightly off and that the scope would easily hide the ridge of the T-track in that photo. Your CAD is probably more perfect than the prop was so aligning it might be difficult.<<

>>I'll skip ahead to make this short<<

Still don't buy it?  Ok, fine......  But once again, the CAD doesn't lie:

>>Again I agree the CAD actually looks very good. Your rotation is off again though - look at the large gap between the scope and gun barrel in the CAD vs. the photo.
Maybe you're assuming that the cap screw is perfectly centered to the bottom of the Mauser to guide your rotation. It is definitely NOT centered which you prove later in this post.
If you rotate it correctly and then puch the suppressor down as you said it needs to be I think you'll find the CAD will even better match this photo.<<

Jason's heavily and poorly retouched "action pose" shot (there it is, Chris: unrotated and without redlines, and it's still a gorram mess.) doesn't count in my book: any greeblie detail beneath the scope is horribly mangled by cutting & pasting, airbrushing, and possible darkroom manipulation. 

>>I'm cutting out various insults from your posts which I find juvenial.
I still can't believe that you think this pic was heavily retouched. The "evidence" was weak at best, but really doesn't disprove anything about the detail parts anyway. We have SEVERAL pics of this blaster showing these details on the barrel. Are you saying they added the details in this pic? You seem to be saying there is nothing there which there obviously is. I'll debate what it is, but debating whether there's something there or not is foolish.<<

The only other photo showing "something" on the RHS is in the top view from the Chronicles, which can be argued is a post-production shot:

The t-track like feature appears to be in pretty bad shape, and it's not actually on top but off to the RHS (now why would they deliberately glue something lopsided like that on a hero firing blaster? )

>>Are you seriously using the fact that it's lopside as proof of anything? We could go over every single ANH Hero prop and point out misalignments and sloppy craftmanship. I disagree with your part outlines but I will redo them as I see them and repost.<<

There's no visible rod, and there's obviously nothing on the LHS of the "T" (but that's ok, because Chris concedes that).  And whatever's on the RHS is still open to interpretation, however it's understandable that wishful thinking might lead one to conclude it was the same as the Merr-Sonn switch greeblie.  It's really a shame that not a single other photo of the Hero blaster (as it was configured during filming) bears this out.

>>Here you remember that I said the left side antenna was missing, but you didn't bother to remember that in the rest of your post or CAD renderings. I count at least 3 pics that show some proof that the details are the same bits as used on the Merr Sonns. No, we don't have solid proof, but we have enough to believe that the parts are what was most likely used and that they were consistantly present on the blaster.<<

And Chris is trying to sell you all on the idea that it's a conclusive feature that should be idealized as a full t-track with not one, not one incomplete, but TWO COMPLE "antennae".?.?.?.  :eek

>>Would you rather have a broken T-track and one antenna? Granted we have no photos of the assembly complete so it would involve some conjecture. It's different than trying to make a case for the Imperial disc on the side though. In that case I believe that's what was there at some point pre-filming buts thats only my best guess based on other props.<<

Chew on that, fellow blaster fans.  It's not that I don't respect Chris or his enourmous - scratch that - legendary - contributions to the collective Star Wars prop community.  I just vehemently disagree with his interpretations and conclusions, based on hard empirical evidence and indisputable CG recreations, not faith in some iffy photos...

>>Thank you for the compliments after all the earlier swipes in the post. I'm sorry but I think your photo manipulation evidence was hardly empirical. The CAD stuff was great work though.<<

Finally, regarding this statement:

I believe the same amount of barrel is showing on both. One is just missing the suppressor. It may have been chopped off to put on the Jawa version of the Greedo gun.

Sorry, but the following comparison pretty much rebutts your belief that they're the same up to the suppressor and break-off:



>>That statement was based on an eyeball guess. Note how the white highlight on the lower one's barrel seems to extend back further than it should. I never measured/compared the things real close. You can match up the lumps though so I believe they are from the same mold, but maybe the muzzle was a seperate mold. That might explain how the muzzle has interior detail not on the actual suppressor, how it was turned 90 degrees, and how a seperate muzzle shows up on the Jawa/Greedo gun. I'll have to go back and look at some of my other pics and see if the ESB/ROTJ stunt came from the same mold as these 2.<<

[snapback]1152034[/snapback]​

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Jan 6 2006, 03:56 PM
As it stands now, the biggest giveaway that it's a fake is that the bottom edge of what's deemed the t-track cotinues smoothly and without interruption OVER the suppressor, cutting off the top edge of a scalloped cut, and what passes for either the switch or a tall section of vertical t-track wall is merely the background blue.  The scope and bull barrel edges are messed up from the airbrushing, pasting, or whatever was used to manipulate this image.  Not to mention that the pasted portion of the suppressor places the suppressor at a different angle than the lower portion, when we know the lower portion is tilted upward.  But now suddenly it's parallel to the scope on the top...  :confused

Any questions?

- Gabe

[snapback]1152416[/snapback]​

:confused


Amazing how people can interpret a photo completely differently. Man, you're talking about airbrushing and pasting? Please don't take offense when I say this: "What have you been smoking."

I don't see how you are getting the T-track running into the suppressor Gabe. What you are viewing as the T-track on the suppressor is the scallop in the suppressor.

Also, this is an UNPUBLISHED PHOTO. Again, UNPUBLISHED PHOTO. There is no need to "airbrush" an UNPUBLISHED PHOTO.

Take for example the Obi ANH.

the Chronicles photos are released, retouched photos of the original "unpublished" (and still technically unpublished) photos which are not retouched.

Are you not realizing that you are saying that an Unpublished photo has been retouched. If anything, The O(whateverit'scalled) Picture is the retouched published photo.