Probe Droid
Master Member
This D-ring is 1" at it's widest.
Re-inventing Lukes ANH Lightsaber- And Vaders too??!?!
- Thread starter DARTH SABER
- Start date
Probe Droid
Master Member
Nah, that's my ANH.
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Um, yeah but thats why you do NOT begin to rotate a graphic until its at a higher resolution...
That is why its important to use a vector based program like Adobe Streamline when doing such things.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
To get it to a higher resolution, you need to resample it which degrades image quality. "Vector based" programs? Why, this is rastor art, not vector art.
ALL THIS IS MOOT!!! I'm sorry I brought it up.
We can argue the correct methods to scale this photo as well as the drawbacks that already exist all day (focus, scan quality, etc), so I'll simply say, I don't think anything should be done to the original scan that degrades image quality- including any form of resampling. Having said that, rotating or resizing the image will NOT result in 6% differences!!!!!!
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
BTW - your graflex body measuremnt keeps coming up small...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
None of my measurments are small! Please reread my posts. The numbers posted that you think are small are the actual numbers off the supplied pic and my mm measurments are the 'scaled' measurments based on the O/D of the graflex. You'll note: my ridge numbers are damn near EXACT.
Why don't you measure the pic AS IS and compare it to my numbers?
Or, do this, take YOUR image without any 'paint' on it, take your measurments, and either post or email both.
Or, download the image as is and compare your measurments to mine.
Or, download the image, change the dpi to 66.8 without resampling and post the measurments.
I don't know how to determine why everyone has such varied numbers- is it the measurment points, the math, etc. We need a common image (sized, rotated, I don't care) and common ruler (mm, fractional inches, decimal inches, percent, I don't care). I'm using the image posted and explaining how I'm measuring and my numbers and all I get is 'you're wrong' and that's only half the time!!!!
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
The explanation of the rings being of British measurement doesnt hold too much water either...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
Uh, I have d-rings that are 1" (EDC, Blastech) and others that are 1 1/16" (Walmart). Regardless of who made them, they exist. In addition, I've found metric d-rings and they are NOT in imperial increments (no Star Wars pun intended).
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Um, yeah but thats why you do NOT begin to rotate a graphic until its at a higher resolution...
That is why its important to use a vector based program like Adobe Streamline when doing such things.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
To get it to a higher resolution, you need to resample it which degrades image quality. "Vector based" programs? Why, this is rastor art, not vector art.
ALL THIS IS MOOT!!! I'm sorry I brought it up.
We can argue the correct methods to scale this photo as well as the drawbacks that already exist all day (focus, scan quality, etc), so I'll simply say, I don't think anything should be done to the original scan that degrades image quality- including any form of resampling. Having said that, rotating or resizing the image will NOT result in 6% differences!!!!!!
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
BTW - your graflex body measuremnt keeps coming up small...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
None of my measurments are small! Please reread my posts. The numbers posted that you think are small are the actual numbers off the supplied pic and my mm measurments are the 'scaled' measurments based on the O/D of the graflex. You'll note: my ridge numbers are damn near EXACT.
Why don't you measure the pic AS IS and compare it to my numbers?
Or, do this, take YOUR image without any 'paint' on it, take your measurments, and either post or email both.
Or, download the image as is and compare your measurments to mine.
Or, download the image, change the dpi to 66.8 without resampling and post the measurments.
I don't know how to determine why everyone has such varied numbers- is it the measurment points, the math, etc. We need a common image (sized, rotated, I don't care) and common ruler (mm, fractional inches, decimal inches, percent, I don't care). I'm using the image posted and explaining how I'm measuring and my numbers and all I get is 'you're wrong' and that's only half the time!!!!
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
The explanation of the rings being of British measurement doesnt hold too much water either...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
Uh, I have d-rings that are 1" (EDC, Blastech) and others that are 1 1/16" (Walmart). Regardless of who made them, they exist. In addition, I've found metric d-rings and they are NOT in imperial increments (no Star Wars pun intended).
Hey guys....what do you think of this D-ring assembly I found on a 70's piece of cleaning equipment? And yes...the D-ring itself is 1" wide
-SS
-SS
E.D.C. Studios
Well-Known Member
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
tlrgsxr wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
To get it to a higher resolution, you need to resample it which degrades image quality. "Vector based" programs? Why, this is rastor art, not vector art.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
You lose NO image quality when resampling or resizing with a program like Streamiline, that is SPECIFICALLY what its made for. Ack! when are people goin to realize that I DO know what I am talking about?
Its not image quality we are after here anyway, is size, scaling, proportion etc...
Heres an example:
Now if you measure the elements in this render, you'll find just as you stated with the real pic, the D-ring and bracket come up larger than I claim. Or if you scale the bracket to .750" as I claim it is, the bottom of the graflex comes up short. Well as I have REPEATEDLY stated you were not taking the roundover on the bottom of the graflex into consideration, you cannot just measure from the highlighted circumference of the bottom of the tube, because the roundover is shadowed out, I did the same in the render. BTW for the record, in the 3D model this is rendered from, the bracket is .750", the D-ring is 1", and of course the Graflex is 1.500"
tlrgsxr wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
To get it to a higher resolution, you need to resample it which degrades image quality. "Vector based" programs? Why, this is rastor art, not vector art.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
You lose NO image quality when resampling or resizing with a program like Streamiline, that is SPECIFICALLY what its made for. Ack! when are people goin to realize that I DO know what I am talking about?
Its not image quality we are after here anyway, is size, scaling, proportion etc...
Heres an example:
Now if you measure the elements in this render, you'll find just as you stated with the real pic, the D-ring and bracket come up larger than I claim. Or if you scale the bracket to .750" as I claim it is, the bottom of the graflex comes up short. Well as I have REPEATEDLY stated you were not taking the roundover on the bottom of the graflex into consideration, you cannot just measure from the highlighted circumference of the bottom of the tube, because the roundover is shadowed out, I did the same in the render. BTW for the record, in the 3D model this is rendered from, the bracket is .750", the D-ring is 1", and of course the Graflex is 1.500"
Getting back to this grip thing...on my copy of ANH on DVD from Movieshop, in the scene in Ben's house and Luke jumping into the landspeeder to go and see his crispy family, the grip placement looks a lot more like the visual dictionary photo (more Icons) that new picture we have been looking at. Can someone screen capture what I'm talking about?
My vector program has always served me well.
Nuff said there.
I may have a measurement that is a hair large for the D-ring but you have to take that with a grain of salt and use real life experience to come up with a workable solution. Like Chip said, knowing the standard sizes for objects definitely comes into the equation....without it, everything would seem to be a custom make.
If the D's are made in 1" then there is more than a good chance that that is what it is. Maybe the original was deformed when it was ripped off of some other equipment and now the D is 1 1/16. But due to the starting materials I would say the D-ring is a 1" ring.
Do you realize that this is an argument over 1/16 of an inch?
1" will suffice for me.
I may have a measurement that is a hair large for the D-ring but you have to take that with a grain of salt and use real life experience to come up with a workable solution. Like Chip said, knowing the standard sizes for objects definitely comes into the equation....without it, everything would seem to be a custom make.
If the D's are made in 1" then there is more than a good chance that that is what it is. Maybe the original was deformed when it was ripped off of some other equipment and now the D is 1 1/16. But due to the starting materials I would say the D-ring is a 1" ring.
Do you realize that this is an argument over 1/16 of an inch?
1" will suffice for me.
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
You lose NO image quality when resampling...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I give up.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
when are people goin to realize that I DO know what I am talking about?
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
You haven't read any of my posts, have you?
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
You lose NO image quality when resampling...
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I give up.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
E.D.C. Studios wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
when are people goin to realize that I DO know what I am talking about?
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
You haven't read any of my posts, have you?
DARTH SABER
Master Member
I cant believe that 1/16" has kept this thread alive since page 6!...
Any way, for a change of pace, are there any theories as to what kind of fastener is used on the D-ring attachment??? Rivet, Screw, etc....
From Jfowlers hi-res pic which Lonepigeon posted I dont see any indication of a rivet head hole or rivet head for that matter...I checked it out already and from that angle there would be some signe of a rivet head...
Another thing, someone on the ASAP brought up an important point...What if the D-ring hinge was originally positioned on the edge of the saber but later was somehow spun around during handeling. Since there is probably only one rivet/screw holding it in place it would be understandanble for the D-ring attachment to spin around...
Any way, for a change of pace, are there any theories as to what kind of fastener is used on the D-ring attachment??? Rivet, Screw, etc....
From Jfowlers hi-res pic which Lonepigeon posted I dont see any indication of a rivet head hole or rivet head for that matter...I checked it out already and from that angle there would be some signe of a rivet head...
Another thing, someone on the ASAP brought up an important point...What if the D-ring hinge was originally positioned on the edge of the saber but later was somehow spun around during handeling. Since there is probably only one rivet/screw holding it in place it would be understandanble for the D-ring attachment to spin around...
itbedave
New Member
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
ssdesigner wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Hey guys....what do you think of this D-ring assembly I found on a 70's piece of cleaning equipment? And yes...the D-ring itself is 1" wide
-SS
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
WOW! What is it from? (so I can go buy them up on eBay and sell them for a hefty profit!)
Looks like a good find to me!
ssdesigner wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Hey guys....what do you think of this D-ring assembly I found on a 70's piece of cleaning equipment? And yes...the D-ring itself is 1" wide
-SS
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
WOW! What is it from? (so I can go buy them up on eBay and sell them for a hefty profit!)
Looks like a good find to me!
E.D.C. Studios
Well-Known Member
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
SFPROPS wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Again..we we are talking about D sizes, is it sized based on it's OD or ID?
Would a D with an OD of 1" and an ID of .750" be a 1" D or a 3/4" D?
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
Kurt, D-rings are measured by the ID, a D-ring made to accomodate a .750" strap is a .750" D-ring, but will likely have a 1"-1.0625" outside measuremnt depending on wire gauge used
SFPROPS wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
Again..we we are talking about D sizes, is it sized based on it's OD or ID?
Would a D with an OD of 1" and an ID of .750" be a 1" D or a 3/4" D?
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
Kurt, D-rings are measured by the ID, a D-ring made to accomodate a .750" strap is a .750" D-ring, but will likely have a 1"-1.0625" outside measuremnt depending on wire gauge used
kimncris
Sr Member
those pics look more like the 6 grips with diametrically opposed pairs thoery.
In regards to Icons, I tend to agree that if they had made such a gross error that LFL might have said- "um, you are 1 grip short!" However that publicity pic sure looks like it has room for 7 grips...
I tried getting some LD caps too, but they are worthless
Too pixely.
-cris
In regards to Icons, I tend to agree that if they had made such a gross error that LFL might have said- "um, you are 1 grip short!" However that publicity pic sure looks like it has room for 7 grips...
I tried getting some LD caps too, but they are worthless
-cris
DARTH SABER
Master Member
The two bottom screen caps are the ones I was talking about on the "Reinventing Luke saber" thread...Thats LUke spins around and says "Why would imperial troops want to slaughter Jawas"...Its very hard to see from the pic, because its blurry...But If you acutally watch the movie you will see that the sace between the grips is where a grip fell off...There is ALOT of space there!
Also the scene where Luke is sitting on the edge of the Falcons cargo hold clearly shows 6 grips.
The two screen caps with the saber ignited are of the stunt saber...This saber had no ears (and maybe no guts) and the control box at the 12:00 position...Its not the same saber as the Hero.
Also the scene where Luke is sitting on the edge of the Falcons cargo hold clearly shows 6 grips.
The two screen caps with the saber ignited are of the stunt saber...This saber had no ears (and maybe no guts) and the control box at the 12:00 position...Its not the same saber as the Hero.
E.D.C. Studios
Well-Known Member
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
kimncris wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
In regards to Icons, I tend to agree that if they had made such a gross error that LFL might have said- "um, you are 1 grip short!" However that publicity pic sure looks like it has room for 7 grips...
-cris
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
I have to disagree, I feel that LFL doesnt know ***** about their own props. Why would the Icons Vader be so horribly wrong, The Han Blaster or the Kenobi saber?...lots of glaring errors there. No doubt just like we have for the past 25 years, they took the details of the Luke ANH saber for granted.
They aren't prop nuts like us, and most certainly we know that info from 25 years ago is not documented well at all.
SO far I see the pics prove SEVEN grips, especially the way they are spaced out
Take another close look at the pic of Luke holding the Gaffi stick, you can see the lever sticks out, and the grip edge lines up with the clamp holes, just like the post production pics. If their were six grip the fin of the grip would end up centered on the clamp holes, not the edge.
I mean for all we know grips fell off and maybe it started out at seven, and end up at six. I however am starting to really enjoy the idea of & grips, as it makes this version all that more different than the ESB version.
kimncris wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>
In regards to Icons, I tend to agree that if they had made such a gross error that LFL might have said- "um, you are 1 grip short!" However that publicity pic sure looks like it has room for 7 grips...
-cris
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
I have to disagree, I feel that LFL doesnt know ***** about their own props. Why would the Icons Vader be so horribly wrong, The Han Blaster or the Kenobi saber?...lots of glaring errors there. No doubt just like we have for the past 25 years, they took the details of the Luke ANH saber for granted.
They aren't prop nuts like us, and most certainly we know that info from 25 years ago is not documented well at all.
SO far I see the pics prove SEVEN grips, especially the way they are spaced out
Take another close look at the pic of Luke holding the Gaffi stick, you can see the lever sticks out, and the grip edge lines up with the clamp holes, just like the post production pics. If their were six grip the fin of the grip would end up centered on the clamp holes, not the edge.
I mean for all we know grips fell off and maybe it started out at seven, and end up at six. I however am starting to really enjoy the idea of & grips, as it makes this version all that more different than the ESB version.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Chip, pleeeeeaaaase do me a favor..Ive already asked about 3 times on this thread for everyone to take a loo at one scene. Please take a look at the scene where Luke, Han, ben and Chewy come out of the Cargo hold on the Falcon...When Luke sits on the edge of the cargo hold you can see his saber has ALOT of space between the grips...Im pretty sure in that scene he's got 6 grips.
Similar threads
