Magic of Myth ( MoM ) Luke RotJ Hero ( cave build ) lightsaber research, images, reference, & collaborative model builder's discussion.

[thd9791]

Nah, I was talking about the LED plate. I got the feeling they would have chamfered the entire length of the box and the LED plate interrupts the pattern.

I still am interpreting the prop as having a box with a curved bottom. the radius of the box doesn't look exactly the same as the radius of the saber. A hair wider, maybe.

hey, if they didn't chamfer the bottom edges, the box would extend further around the saber (hug it more) and maybe they wanted the box to not go down that far.

 

[E Williams]

Dann & BRR, I'm with you both all the way on what you've posted, The ONLY thing that has me leaning ever so slightly to flat bottom on a flat spot is the simplicity of machining & I am nowadays well aware that logic plays little part in prop making.

Honestly when I made one on a manual mill, the curved control box was much simpler. It's one single operation that can be done after centering by eye (IIRC I did a plunge cut with an end mill), versus the precision required for the other method. One set-up, one pass. This is of course assuming the saber diameter matches an available cutting tool diameter.

For a flat box, even if the depth of cut were eyeballed to get a flat width in the right ball park, instead of being done with chord/sagitta calculations, it still requires careful passes and measurements to make sure the flat length closely matches the control box length. Or the other approach which would be to eyeball the length of the flat operation such that it's just too short, and follow up with careful passes on the end of the control box to adjust its length for a close tolerance fit. Either multiple passes and measurement, or multiple operations and at least two set-ups with this one.

 

[Halliwax]

I don’t see how a milled flat is possible in this shot. The box is right on the edge of the this lip and the full radius is visible.

View attachment 1050647
View attachment 1050648

Then there is this one that appears to show the box has shifted position off that edge at some point.

View attachment 1050646

Agreed

 

[Mouse Vader]

Missed these photo's some how.
Bottom one looks like that's due to perspective & top one looks like there's some burring due to a thin edge of an arch but too indistinct to call either way for me. I really don't think we're going to get any answers from photo's like this unless it's one with the box removed.

if the depth of cut were eyeballed to get a flat width in the right ball park,

it still requires careful passes and measurements to make sure the flat length closely matches the control box length. Or the other approach which would be to eyeball the length of the flat operation such that it's just too short, and follow up with careful passes on the end of the control box to adjust its length for a close tolerance fit. Either multiple passes and measurement, or multiple operations and at least two set-ups with this one.

Sorry buy I disagree entirely. A couple of scribe/pencil marks with the box on top to show extreme limits of length is all that's needed, cut across just inside one - run the cut to near the other & nibble a few thou per pass across with frequent test tries with the actual box will get there quick enough. Width/depth easily judged by eye. Only constraint here is the wall thickness of the hilt as mentioned earlier - which could account for the chamfer. Couldn't take the flat deep enough so there would be noticeable overhang from the box- sorted with the chamfer. Conversely a radius like that on the bottom of the box would leave a thin edge/burr on the box edge. Easily damaged or distorted from machining - again sorted with a chamfer. I take your word that the radiused base is easier than I thought,

We can go round & round like this as infinitum. I think it boils down to what the machinist was most familiar with & whether he/she could be bothered to find a 1 1/2" cutter or not as there is so little visible dif in the results.

 

[Dann]

I have to agree, it's likely down to what the machinist is most comfortable with. Whatever gets the job done faster.

Personally, I'd go with the flat. I'd do it basically how Mouse described it. It's simple and straightforward. And you don't need anything but a regular old straight flat endmill to cut it.

It's true, we'll all go around in circles until we've puked our guts out, until we see a shot with the box off.

Like I said, makes no difference to me which way it was done, it's not like I've got a bet going or anything. Was just theorizing, seeing if we could collectively figure it out. I reckon that ain't gonna happen without some specific reference.

 

[Trooper_trent]

I don’t see how a milled flat is possible in this shot. The box is right on the edge of the this lip and the full radius is visible.

exactly. If there were a section of the body that was milled flat to accept the control box you'd see evidence of it here

Not to mention the fact that this edge circled in green is right next to a milled groove. If the control box were flat, that area where it meets that groove wouldn't look like that, it would show part of the flat spot.

 

[Halliwax]

exactly. If there were a section of the body that was milled flat to accept the control box you'd see evidence of it here
View attachment 1050832

View attachment 1050841

Love the 3d model comparison

[emoji106]

 

[BRRogers]

exactly. If there were a section of the body that was milled flat to accept the control box you'd see evidence of it here
View attachment 1050832

View attachment 1050841

Not to mention the fact that this edge circled in green is right next to a milled groove. If the control box were flat, that area where it meets that groove wouldn't look like that, it would show part of the flat spot.
View attachment 1050843
View attachment 1050845

Beautiful: thanks for that

 

[DaveP]

Machining isn't my area of expertise, so I wouldn't like to say one way or the other which method is easiest, or best. All I'm interested in is which way was actually used. My eyes are telling me that without a shadow of a doubt, it was a radiused box. As for the Triangles, if you ask me, they weren't present on the ISYHCANL. You would almost certainly see the edge of the plate. Also, why not show them? I believe they were added specifically for the cave scene, which was shot after the ISYHCANL scene. One last thought to add to the speculation I believe they were missing, but *planned* which is why that side of the box is intentionally hidden from the camera. One thing I really love about the whole discussion surrounding these pick up shots is how they were intended to give Luke's Lightsaber a more prominent role in the story

 

[BRRogers]

Pardon the image quality ... however it does appear to me that the control box does indeed shift up and down from image to image

 

[Trooper_trent]

View attachment 1051002

Pardon the image quality ... however it does appear to me that the control box does indeed shift up and down from image to image

That’s too close to say. That is most likely parallax and being shot at slightly different angles

 

[BRRogers]

View attachment 1051002

Pardon the image quality ... however it does appear to me that the control box does indeed shift up and down from image to image

Here’s a broader sample size to make sure my scaling was on point.


For your consideration: Parallax is an observable issue at extreme various angles/ perspective shots. I don’t think that applies here. From this angle (flat view at the control box front) with every major marker aligned (at the seam of the image). It’s a good comparison. Considering the control box is in a different position I’d say it supports the idea that the box is radiused and capable of sliding 1mm or so: well within reason if the attachment screws had some slop, if they were pan head etc....

 

[BRRogers]

Just look at the middle of it helps.
The other thing helping here is both images show the base of the box along the same plane (the tube) so you know the edge we’re looking at and comparing is the same edge

 

[Trooper_trent]

Maybe I used the term parallax incorrectly. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I also fully believe it's a curved bottom. But the fact that the control box is closer to the camera than the other markers you're going off of, even the slightest tilt, would "move" the control box up or down (foreground vs background) without really affecting the markers. Similarly, taking the same exact photo at a closer or farther distance, or with a different lens can cause similar issues. The fact that all of your ribs line up but are clearly "fatter" in the left photo is a good example. Angle change, zoom level, etc and then re-scaling to match can cause things to distort. So being that it's that small of a distance that it has appeared to move, I don't know that we could rule "sliding" as a viable option. That's all I'm saying. You very well could be right, though.
I'm totally with you that it's curved, I just don't know that this lends proper evidence to support that. Let me see if I can explain with photos on mine.

FYI for what it's worth, I have an older Rylo with a flat bottom and milled body so I'm looking at mine in person along with the photos posted. I see them very differently.

 

[E Williams]

exactly. If there were a section of the body that was milled flat to accept the control box you'd see evidence of it here
View attachment 1050832

View attachment 1050841

Not to mention the fact that this edge circled in green is right next to a milled groove. If the control box were flat, that area where it meets that groove wouldn't look like that, it would show part of the flat spot.
View attachment 1050843
View attachment 1050845

The front bottom edge of the arrow plate would be beyond the start of the flat area - the flat would only come up to the inner edge of the chamfer/bevel on the base of the box. Also, the flat would need to start a few hundredths past the edge of that lathed groove as a hint of the larger diameter outside the groove is visible in reference. I think if your 3D model moved the start of the flat a few hairs to the right of that groove, and included the chamfer on the underside of the control box, the areas you indicated would not be visible.

I suppose my thinking is that it would technically be possible to create the control box with the specific quirks and details as seen in our reference photos with either method - but creating the effect with the flat option would require such a degree of precision and congruence of weird fiddly details that it seems unlikely (particularly when the machinist that built this didn't even cut consistent grip grooves). There would at least be hints of a flat - the choices necessary to create the look of the reference images with an obscured flat are certainly possible for a replica maker to do, but it seems unlikely in the original context this was made. So I agree, just for different reasons

 

[Trooper_trent]

The bottom edge of the arrow plate would be beyond the start of the flat area - the flat would only come up to the inner edge of the chamfer/bevel on the base of the box. Also, the flat would need to start a few hundredths past the edge of that lathed groove as a hint of the larger diameter outside the groove is visible in reference. I think if your 3D model moved the start of the flat a few hairs to the right of that groove, and included the chamfer on the underside of the control box, that areas you indicated would not be visible.

I suppose my thinking is that it would technically be possible to create the control box with the specific quirks and details as seen in our reference photos with either method - but creating the effect with the flat option would require such a degree of precision and congruence of weird fiddly details that it seems unlikely (particularly when the machinist that built this didn't even cut consistent grip grooves). There would at least be hints of a flat - the choices necessary to create the look of the reference images with an obscured flat are certainly possible for a replica maker to do, but it seems unlikely in the original context this was made. So I agree, just for different reasons

Yeah that was a 30 second job to show what I meant about that very thin area at the front edge of the box before the lathed groove, I wasn't even trying to get into the long edge or chamfers. I'm totally with you there. but as I look at my Rylo which was way more expertly machined than the real deal, even as perfect as the CNC got this, there is still very visible markers to indicate it's a flat bottom on mine, that I just do not see on the screen shots of the real deal.

 

[Trooper_trent]

I suppose my thinking is that it would technically be possible to create the control box with the specific quirks and details as seen in our reference photos with either method - but creating the effect with the flat option would require such a degree of precision and congruence of weird fiddly details that it seems unlikely (particularly when the machinist that built this didn't even cut consistent grip grooves). There would at least be hints of a flat - the choices necessary to create the look of the reference images with an obscured flat are certainly possible for a replica maker to do, but it seems unlikely in the original context this was made. So I agree, just for different reasons

YES! I think you just said it best.

A. Is it easier to mill a flat spot in the hilt and marry a flat box to it than it is to inside mill the box with the perfect radius to fit the hilt? YES
B. Is it easier to do it in such a perfect way that you can't tell at all that it's a flat box? NO

 

[Trooper_trent]

Here’s my Rylo with a flat bottom. Even as expertly machined as it was (much more precise than the real prop) this still reads all over as a flat bottom recessed into a milled flat spot of the hilt. Looks totally different to me than the reference photos of the real one.

 

[BRRogers]

The fact that all of your ribs line up but are clearly "fatter" in the left photo is a good example.

just wanted to clarify that the wider ribs on the left is definitely lens flare and image sharpening making it look like wider hard edges. I was also comparing the straight line at the base of the box, not the perspective of the box top. So there’s negligible perspective distortion due to foreshortening. Dunno if that makes sense.

Combating this affect is the reason I did the wide image collage on the top and managed to determine with fairly high fidelity the overall lengths of the saber model. If nothing else: to be able to compare and see minute differences.

All that to say, I still believe the image shows a shifted box. I’ve got a couple more gathered from seemingly different timelines and the box does appear to have been shifted at some point.... I don’t have time to the side by sides at the moment though.

I don’t want to sound like a fool haha. No-one here does. Just defending my submission of evidence to support and confirm the use of the radiused box.
I.E. if the box can move up and down, it wasn’t flat, thus it was the radius.

Regarding the rylo. Yeah the edge by the milled groove appears continuous on every (admittedly) blurry picture. I do believe that if
The box was flat bottom as you mentioned: the camera would at least show some kind of artifact

 

[Trooper_trent]

Ah! I Totally get what you're saying! the fatter ones on the left have almost a halo effect. I'd like to see further comparisons if/when you do have time. I haven't noticed a significant enough difference to suggest that but I'm excited to see what you mean! It would definitely lend a LOT of further credit to it being round.