Kuhn Global
Sr Member
SPHERE???... or... OBLATE??? Is that the right word? LOLOLOL
Please post solid proof only.
Please post solid proof only.
Last edited:
SS Death Star - PROOF INQUIREY
- Thread starter Kuhn Global
- Start date
Walk into the Seattle Sci-fi museum and see for yourself.
There's been plenty of photo's showing the "squish".
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
LOLOL..Thanks Coby.
I was speaking to Bob today of flying up there to view the beastie. I would like to eliminate the travel for this if I can. It should be quite simple to answer, eh? It is... or it isn't.
I was speaking to Bob today of flying up there to view the beastie. I would like to eliminate the travel for this if I can. It should be quite simple to answer, eh? It is... or it isn't.
What we need to find out is how oblate it is. I believe PHArchivist is on that same quest.
We need to know how much is actual and how much is due to photographic distortion.
We need data. These pix we've already seen and they help. But some kind of hard figures are what's requested and required.
We need to know how much is actual and how much is due to photographic distortion.
We need data. These pix we've already seen and they help. But some kind of hard figures are what's requested and required.
PHArchivist
Master Member
Though I cannot offer it as definitive proof (since I have not measured it personally), the figures I derived previously I would stand by as "next best" to actual measuring.
The numbers I came up with were derived via the work of myself and a fellow member and friend who's skill exceed mine. We spent a number of hours analyzing photos, doing numeric extrapolations based on measurements of the photos we have available (which is at least an above average amount), and culminated in a 1:1 (albeit one-dimensional) template to compare our numeric results to the actual eye.
Now...
I realize this is an inexact method, and my verbiage above is somewhat generalized, but rest assured our process was far more detailed than my description makes it appear. I've just now forgotten all the little "micro steps" we took. In the end, we were convinced it was oblate, and confident in the numbers. The only remaining question was if it appeared oblate in images due to photographic "squishing".
Our answer to that was the words of more than one person who have seen it in person attesting to the oblate shape.
Also, bear in mind that if we accept that the only true and solid proof would be to measure the exterior of the model itself, from pole to equator, and then do the appropriate geometry to convert that number to height of the hemisphere, OR to DISMANTLE the original model to take a direct measurement of the height of the hemispheres, then also realize just how difficult (if not impossible) that would be. It would likely require waiting for it to return to Gus, then sweet-talking Mr. Lopez into granting you a HUGE favor.
The numbers I came up with were derived via the work of myself and a fellow member and friend who's skill exceed mine. We spent a number of hours analyzing photos, doing numeric extrapolations based on measurements of the photos we have available (which is at least an above average amount), and culminated in a 1:1 (albeit one-dimensional) template to compare our numeric results to the actual eye.
Now...
I realize this is an inexact method, and my verbiage above is somewhat generalized, but rest assured our process was far more detailed than my description makes it appear. I've just now forgotten all the little "micro steps" we took. In the end, we were convinced it was oblate, and confident in the numbers. The only remaining question was if it appeared oblate in images due to photographic "squishing".
Our answer to that was the words of more than one person who have seen it in person attesting to the oblate shape.
Also, bear in mind that if we accept that the only true and solid proof would be to measure the exterior of the model itself, from pole to equator, and then do the appropriate geometry to convert that number to height of the hemisphere, OR to DISMANTLE the original model to take a direct measurement of the height of the hemispheres, then also realize just how difficult (if not impossible) that would be. It would likely require waiting for it to return to Gus, then sweet-talking Mr. Lopez into granting you a HUGE favor.
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
By the way... With the two halves of our foam-core mock up, we kept squishing them closer and closer together until we knew it was just TOO oblate. It was surprising just how far we could go until it WAS too far.
I just realized my other thread doesn't state the dimensions we came up with, but the overall height of the hemis was about 16.5" to 16.75", IIRC, understanding that 18" would create a perfect sphere. I'll have to dig up my exact numbers...
EDIT: Got it - we came up with 16 7/8"
I just realized my other thread doesn't state the dimensions we came up with, but the overall height of the hemis was about 16.5" to 16.75", IIRC, understanding that 18" would create a perfect sphere. I'll have to dig up my exact numbers...
EDIT: Got it - we came up with 16 7/8"
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
Sorry - prattling on...
But here's a really fun exercise...
This photo has been cropped and rotated ONLY. NO other manipulation. Do you see what I see?
And my template for comparison
But here's a really fun exercise...
This photo has been cropped and rotated ONLY. NO other manipulation. Do you see what I see?
And my template for comparison
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
Thanks Bob!
Yeah, the greatest challenge is that direct, physical access to the model would be necessary to gain rock solid, irrefutable proof, leaving the question of how to accomplish this...
Though based on my knowledge of KK's personaltiy and networking abilities, it would not surprise me if a connection can be made with the owner of the model.
PHArchivist
Master Member
You know... Using basic Power Point and dropping an identical elipse over both Death Stars, mine is still not quite oblate enough. Though doing this exercise based only photos (and a single photo only) is not exact...
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
Wow Rob! You have a great start there! Very Kewl!
Thanks to all who are particiating in this quest of knowledge.
I see in "365" that the studio model they show in section 43, on the second page, it is not round. I would still like to see more, however.
If they did cut the hemispheres, (which they certainly don't state), how much did they shave from each? Or did they blow their own shaped Plexiglass hemispheres?
I know this seems trivial, but I want to make certain BEFORE the project begins.
Very Kewl!Thanks to all who are particiating in this quest of knowledge.
I see in "365" that the studio model they show in section 43, on the second page, it is not round. I would still like to see more, however.
If they did cut the hemispheres, (which they certainly don't state), how much did they shave from each? Or did they blow their own shaped Plexiglass hemispheres?
I know this seems trivial, but I want to make certain BEFORE the project begins.
PHArchivist
Master Member
Wow Rob! You have a great start there!
Thanks to all who are particiating in this quest of knowledge.
I see in "365" that the studio model they show in section 43, on the second page, it is not round. I would still like to see more, however.
If they did cut the hemispheres, (which they certainly don't state), how much did they shave from each? Or did they blow their own shaped Plexiglass hemispheres?
I know this seems trivial, but I want to make certain BEFORE the project begins.
I'd be VERY intrigued to know more about the actual construction of the original. It would be fascinating to have a copy of the original requisition order from whatever plastics supplier they used.
I'm curious how many suppliers were within "striking distance" of the ILM facility in Van Nuys in 1976.
Would the Van Nuys Chamber of Commerce maintain records of businesses in operation 30 years ago?
I'm no expert at strategic research - just thinking out loud here.... But it sort of seems like it may not be TOO hard to find a couple more answers.
If the original supplier could be isolated, then the questions are: 1.) Are they still in business? 2.) Does anyone there have records or memory of orders from 1976/1977?
Another alternative is to talk to ILM (in a manner of speaking). Lorne Peterson would be difficult to reach I'd imagine, but doesn't Grant McCune still operate a shop in the San Fernando Valley? Wonder if he is accessible, and what he might be able to share.
Of course, direct physical access to the model itself would supercede any research efforts or requirements.
PM sent
Just a few notes:-
Ofcourse, bare in mind that photo is at an angle.
Note, the original Death Star matte that was dropped was pretty round if I recall, and the oval could be a modeling consideration perhaps?
Why not compare the overall shape with the Death Star II, as there is more references at different and head on angles, I reckon it may give a good overall pattern for the shape.
Just a few notes:-
Ofcourse, bare in mind that photo is at an angle.
Note, the original Death Star matte that was dropped was pretty round if I recall, and the oval could be a modeling consideration perhaps?
Why not compare the overall shape with the Death Star II, as there is more references at different and head on angles, I reckon it may give a good overall pattern for the shape.
Sorry, not a lens expert in any way, but I just wanna butt in with two more observations that may help.
It is possible that the shape in the photo is the actual shape, and they made it as so to allow the model to appear more round on screen. As is said, Muren looks normal (to us :lol)
The second observation is the fans, and I imagine its to help cool the model from the outside, and I wonder how much distortion the heat from the inner ligthing might have affected the shape by end of filming, (as I don't know why else it was dumped).
That's all I got.
It is possible that the shape in the photo is the actual shape, and they made it as so to allow the model to appear more round on screen. As is said, Muren looks normal (to us :lol)
The second observation is the fans, and I imagine its to help cool the model from the outside, and I wonder how much distortion the heat from the inner ligthing might have affected the shape by end of filming, (as I don't know why else it was dumped).
That's all I got.
PHArchivist
Master Member
I personally ruled that out due to multiple accounts of in-person visual experience with teh model corroborating the oblate appearance in photos.
I called the Van Nuys Chamber of Commerce but my hopes are not high. I also have an email sent to a strategic souce. I'll be pleaseantly surprised if I get a response.
Ach!!! Back again….:$
Okay folks, Never tried this before, but what the hell, if you think its sucks, so be it…:redface
I used these two pics you see of ye olde hemeroid, and I saw if I could line up a mesh. These are my findings.
Muren pic:- I adjusted as best I could to get two hemispheres in line with the equator ‘smile’ angle that’s in the pic. This is how I got my basic sphere.
Little DS pic: I lined up my sphere with the Death Star pic. My findings were as so:-
The height was surprisingly a great match, but, equatorially my sphere was just too wide (which may suggest the Muren pic angle does add a bit of girth on the old girl).
So I adjusted the width to be in line with the second pic, and that’s how I got this final shape.
By no means can I say it's accurate, but am curious to know how close it could be as things progress.
Thanks
Okay folks, Never tried this before, but what the hell, if you think its sucks, so be it…:redface
I used these two pics you see of ye olde hemeroid, and I saw if I could line up a mesh. These are my findings.
Muren pic:- I adjusted as best I could to get two hemispheres in line with the equator ‘smile’ angle that’s in the pic. This is how I got my basic sphere.
Little DS pic: I lined up my sphere with the Death Star pic. My findings were as so:-
The height was surprisingly a great match, but, equatorially my sphere was just too wide (which may suggest the Muren pic angle does add a bit of girth on the old girl).
So I adjusted the width to be in line with the second pic, and that’s how I got this final shape.
By no means can I say it's accurate, but am curious to know how close it could be as things progress.
Thanks
That's cool, Rider!
That shows some real effort. The photo-detective work by you, Rob and everyone is appreciated!
I'm just having a hard time accepting 'my' Death Star as a partially deflated beach-ball!
I tend to agree with you. It's definitely out of round but I don't think it's as out of round as some pix suggest. But I think our efforts combined will nail this thing. :thumbsup
That shows some real effort. The photo-detective work by you, Rob and everyone is appreciated!
I'm just having a hard time accepting 'my' Death Star as a partially deflated beach-ball!
I tend to agree with you. It's definitely out of round but I don't think it's as out of round as some pix suggest. But I think our efforts combined will nail this thing. :thumbsup
