Han ANH hero - site and antenna

FOKK ME AND SLAP ME SILLY. :eek

Give me a day to wrap my eyes and brain around this one. Man, just when I thought I might finally have an RPF-free weekend. :lol

Let's recruit the best image analyzers on the board: Phase Pistol, Serafino, who else? Philippes, maybe?

In the meantime, you have to work a bit harder than I to convince Sergio (spinner 44) that the mystery disc isn't recessed. :p

- Gabe
 
I really don't buy the retouching theory. If it was done in the 70's I think that photo would look like crap being maybe 3rd generation away or so from the original negative. The photos that they did simple paintwork on show obvious deterioration from being copied but this one looks fine. If they just wanted to straighten the muzzle (which they didn't accomplish) they could have just cut it out and rotated it.
I see now the "cut line" you think is there. I think it's just an unfortunate juxtaposition of the edge of the T-track and the scallop edge (especially since it's lost at the transistion from barrel to muzzle and disppears completely after the round end of the scallop).

The detail on the muzzle appears in all the photos from this shoot. If you correct your CAD model you'll prove it. I took issue with your positioning of the muzzle on the CAD because it seems you based the rotation of the CAD model on the set screw (how much of it was visible etc.) The actual barrel of the Mauser doesn't match the orientation of the photo you're trying to copy. If you think photos lie you really can't trust the CAD any more since you can't duplicate the perspective of the photo.

I brought up the Jawa blaster because it has a separate muzzle attached. The cone was replaced, but the base of the muzzle is a casting of the same one on the Merr Sonn.

I will explain more what I see with diagrams etc. I just don't have time to do them right now.
I could do with a weekend away from this too even though I jumped in to this thread a little late.
 
Originally posted by lonepigeon@Jan 6 2006, 11:06 PM
I see now the "cut line" you think is there. I think it's just an unfortunate juxtaposition of the edge of the T-track and the scallop edge (especially since it's lost at the transistion from barrel to muzzle and disppears completely after the round end of the scallop).
Atually, that was the first thing I checked, Chris - I didn't want to look foolish for making an unfounded claim. In fact, just looking at the photo tylerdurden_soap_maker posted above, it's crystal clear how the line crosses OVER the chamfered rear edge of the suppressor, which is in shadow, and right onto the scalloped cut segment.

Come on, Chris - maybe it'll help if you squint. :)

The detail on the muzzle appears in all the photos from this shoot. If you correct your CAD model you'll prove it. I took issue with your positioning of the muzzle on the CAD because it seems you based the rotation of the CAD model on the set screw (how much of it was visible etc.) The actual barrel of the Mauser doesn't match the orientation of the photo you're trying to copy. If you think photos lie you really can't trust the CAD any more since you can't duplicate the perspective of the photo.
You're right, Chris, however it's even harder to position the CAD suppressor to match the off-center and upwardly-tilted real one. But we both proved our points with the CAD: that an idealized pair of antennae doesn't exist on anything but one of the Merr-Sonns, and in the photos we've confirmed together that there's only one switch, for lack of a better description of the poor detail, however you still refuse to acknowledge that in the OfficialPix shot, you should be able to see the end of the rod that you claim is in Jason's photo. If you accept my interpretation, then the OfficialPix photo makes sense. And the third thing the CAD proved is that the t-track, if that's what that measly fragment once was, is inexplicably lopsided on the bull barrel.

I brought up the Jawa blaster because it has a separate muzzle attached. The cone was replaced, but the base of the muzzle is a casting of the same one on the Merr Sonn.
Chris, could you post a pic of the Jawa blaster? I can't seem to find any good images, including on your site, and it's been a while since I've seen it.

I will explain more what I see with diagrams etc. I just don't have time to do them right now.
I could do with a weekend away from this too even though I jumped in to this thread a little late.
No sweat, man - thanks for hanging in there. :)

- Gabe
 
OK, I've had some time to mark up some images for this.
I had to spend the weekend recovering from a hard drive failure - big mess. Thankfully that's just about over.

Picture 1 -
I know Gabe thinks this was retouched, but I do not. It just doesn't gel with what I know of retouching during the 70's. I worked with some retouchers and this just seems beyond the capabilities of that time (the guys I know retouched cars- obviously Detroit's biggest thing). Logically, it doesn't make sense either because to straighten the muzzle you would just cut the whole thing out and rotate it. To fix the scope or barrel would just take a little paint. I've also seen some of the original retouched pics by Ralph McQuarrie on display at Magic of Myth they weren't very big. He hand painted on prints around 11x14 or smaller IIRC. The area we're discussing in this pic would be way too tiny to work on at that size in a cut and paste manner.
The supposed cut line on this photo is also not straight.
Regardless I'm really not interested in discussing that issue unless stronger evidence is produced.

Here's what I see in the first pic:
antennaproof1.jpg

What I originally thought was the head of the "antenna" is actually the broken ridge of the T-track. I owe that realization to Gabe after he painstakingly brought out other pics from the same photo shoot and proved the left side antenna was missing.
This broken T-track ridge also explains the side view in Chronicles and why MR idealized this piece into a gun sight like part.

Picture 2 -
Thanks to Gabe we see that the left side antenna is missing.
Rotation of the CAD model is slightly off. Note how Gabe matched the positioning of the cap screw even though the CAD muzzle is centered. Cap screw is actually to the right of center so if you correct that the scope hides the T-track completely.
Note in this CAD the T-track ridge is whole so even without rotating the CAD model only a bit of the front of the grip ridge would be visible.
antennaproof2.jpg


Picture 3 -
This is the one where Gabe's idealized CAD is deceiving.
Again note he matched the set screw orientation. The set screw should be rotated more to the right so the entire model would have to rotate to the left to correctly match the view in the photo.
Gabe also pointed out that the muzzle is centered on his model and should be lowered. That is why when you rotate the model into the correct position the antenna tip will still stick up as much as it does in the photo.
I have also outlined the parts in the photo. Antenna in GREEN, T-track in RED.
Note the antenna stem does not disappear as Gabe thought it did. It still extends past the T-track it's just partly obscured by the T-track's edge.
antennaproof3.jpg


And at last...

Picture 4 -
This is how I see the dark Chronicles top view.
antennaproof4.jpg

You can see a hightlight from the stem and the edge of the T-track ridge is highlighted. It's not very crooked as Gabe proposed. Certainly this pic is open to interpretation beciase it's so dark, but that's how I see it.

Personally, If I were building this blaster I would include both antenna pieces just because it would look lopsided and bad with just one. The T-track ridge might still look cool being broken though. Everyone has their own preferences when building their props and I just offer the above reference to illustrate how the original prop was.

The ANH Prop builders only used a handful of add on bits for the blasters and they repeated them often. You can see many of the same parts used on the Han Hero, Merr Sonns, Greedo blaster and Leia blaster. In researching this stuff sometimes you have to look at the big picture to figure out the details.
 
you know from time to time it dawns on me...

there is a level of sickness here that is unsurpassed and seriously not even realized by even some of the most devoted SW fans.

i have plenty of friends and meet new people everyday (even fellow HUGE fans) that think that i have issues, just because i can run the table on them not allowing a turn on triva pursuit.

but they couldnt even comprehend the level of knowledge that is contained within this forum, i try to explain things ive learned from people like Gabe etc. so much so that i in fact i think im now capeable of probably fixing rolls royce plane engines and a WW2 afficianado...

not to derail, i just have to pause in awe and say my thoughts from time to time, hats off to your intelligence dedication talent and... hell good vision... :p

seriously sick man, oh and i think that place where the circle (disc) is/is supposed to be (in pic 1 above) is recessed, maybe it was cast like that, and the disc DID fall off in filming. in other pics it looks like a more silver disc that protrudes... :unsure

i dont know jack about the topic... well more than you guys have already disclosed anyway, but that is what it appears to be at first glance.

i shall continue to lurk in the shadows and watch this thread with GREAT interest...
 
One thing is disturbing me about the most recent "broken" T-track and that is...how could it be 'broken' if the original T-track material was discovered to be a soft metal?

Wouldn't this broken T-track lead to the possibility of one of these guns being a resin stunt?
 
:eek

Originally posted by DL 44 Blaster@Jan 10 2006, 08:24 PM
One thing is disturbing me about the most recent "broken" T-track and that is...how could it be 'broken' if the original T-track material was discovered to be a soft metal?

Wouldn't this broken T-track lead to the possibility of one of these guns being a resin stunt?
[snapback]1155707[/snapback]​


:eek :eek :eek
 
Originally posted by DL 44 Blaster@Jan 11 2006, 12:24 AM
One thing is disturbing me about the most recent "broken" T-track and that is...how could it be 'broken' if the original T-track material was discovered to be a soft metal?

Wouldn't this broken T-track lead to the possibility of one of these guns being a resin stunt?
[snapback]1155707[/snapback]​

I addressed this a little earlier, but this thread is a big one to sift through.

First, The original material was NOT metal. It was a soft plastic maybe vinyl T-track that came in black and brown. When making the E-11's for ANH they actually ran out of black and had to use brown which didn't take paint very well. That little tidbit is fairly new information I found out from one of the guys that originally built them (he came forward when several original ANH Sterlings went up for sale). They used a heat gun to bend the ends into the Sterling vent holes.
The first T-track found by RPF member MK was metal, but Laszlo then found the black plastic type (although the exact profile has not been found).

The sections of T-track were attached as separate pieces on all the blasters (Merr Sonn's, Han Hero, Greedo). Maybe they had to cast a bit of track since they were running low. I'm only speculating since the vinyl/plastic stuff shouldn't break (could be cut or melted, but the Han piece looks broken).

If I may use Moff Eaton's pic to illustrate:
1502a.jpg

Note the very top Merr Sonn inset photo.
The left antenna piece is missing and behind the head of it is white. Seems to me the blaster was spraypainted black while the piece was still attached. The T-track was not cast as part of the gun (note the overhanging edge in the middle Merr Sonn pic). Several chips in the T-track ridge are visible on both Merr Sonn blasters. Since the muzzle was cast separately it's not much of a stretch to think the T-track was as well.
 
I think the highlight that makes the mystery disc area look recessed is probably just glue residue.

Awesome thread. :D

-Chris
 
I've been following this thread with interest and loving it.

These details have always been fascinating to me. I always believed that there was a really good chance the ANH Hero had the same front sight/t-track as the Merr Sonns and that's exactly how I planned on doing my Han blaster, which is why I bought a few extra sets of the antennas :)
 
Originally posted by Treadwell@Jan 11 2006, 03:16 PM
Awesome thread.

Who makes antennas? Or can they be made out of hardware?
[snapback]1156168[/snapback]​

Chen did a short run from my blueprints.

PS - I still call them antennas out of habit, but my latest theory is that they were toggle switches.
I found this close example:
toggleswitch.jpg

I found others with much longer stems. Marcus did some looking too and came up with some similar matches in music equipment parts which makes sense since there's a Fender dial on Chewie's bowcaster. AA also mentioned at one time that music equipment parts were used for prop details.
 
So, which one of you was "interviewed" by MR about this stuff? According to one of their reps over at the Rebelscum boards, they've done some "interviews" and will include this site/antenna detail on the new EE Solo blaster.

MRSWBryan wrote:

As some of you may know, our original LE was made froma Denix, which is a replica of a Mauser. Now, the new EE, based on the new information that we have is based on the Broomhandle Mauser. So, this one is accurate to the actual filming prop. Also, the scope will be 'see through" and the handle will be made from wood instead of plastic.

Also, there has been a lot of discussion of the "Antennae" detail behind the suppressors. After a lot of investigative interviews, we have determined that they were there in pre-production but were no longer there in the actual filming. The Merr Sonn casting was done on the pre-production prop. However, the first time the gun was fired, it most likely fell off from the recoil. That is why it is not seen in the screen grabs that all of you have. This we think that this also explains the infamous "mystery Disk"

Therefore, we will be supplyng this piece with the prop. You have the choice to display it as either the pre-production version or the one seen on screen, with it missing.
 
Originally posted by Chingon@Feb 21 2006, 11:17 PM
So, which one of you was "interviewed" by MR about this stuff? According to one of their reps over at the Rebelscum boards, they've done some "interviews" and will include this site/antenna detail on the new EE Solo blaster.
*Ahem*

:love :angel :D

- Gabe
 
So they DO look at this boards ;). Very wise of them really, and I mean it.

Call me stubborn, but I'm not 100% that this detail was completely removed. OR, could it be that the Han photo session and some scenes (smuggler compartment and others) were you can see the greeblie were shot before the gun was fired. That would be the only theory I would buy, while I don't see strong evidence proving other one.

Gabe do you know if detail be placed slighty to the right?. Do you "think" ;) they are going to correct the scope cradle too?

Congrats BTW
 
Originally posted by spinner 44@Feb 22 2006, 12:54 AM
Gabe do you know if detail be placed slighty to the right?. Do you "think" ;) they are going to correct the scope cradle too?

Congrats BTW
[snapback]1190353[/snapback]​
Thanks, Sergio. :)

I believe that the antenna greeblies will be idealized and centered, as no doubt they were originally intended. I firmly belonged to the camp that believed a SCREEN-used prop replica should reflect what was SEEN on SCREEN, not pre-production or post-production. But removable greeblies are a nice compromise that should please the purists on both sides of the debate, and no tools will be required... :angel

Regarding the scope & scope mount, let's just say that I believe I provided MR with the most accurate interpretation of the ANH/Sitting Target cradle & bracket ever designed. What they ultimately do with it is up to them, but given the sincere desire I witnessed on everybody's part to get this right once and for all (within manufacturing and cost constraints, of course), I'm VERY optimistic. :thumbsup :) I was going to post this later on the scope bracket research thread anyway (with MR's blessing), but here's a teaser (scope is just a simplified dummy - I'm working on a dead-on replica of it as well... :love ):

Scope_mount_teaser.JPG


:D

- Gabe
 
Looks sweet, Gabe.

Looks like my graphics will be inside your scope, heeee.

(sounds like the old Reeses Peanut Butter Cup ads)
 
Looks good Gabe.

I'm glad you are in agreement over how the cradle blends into the vertical bracket.

That looks well done, though I still believe that the location of where the 2 parts meet is closer to the edge of the cradle.
 
This thread is more than 18 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top