T1 and T2 Endoskeleton Research Thread

[Too Much Garlic]

Working on the chip. I'm going to incorporate details from the normal sized chip as well as the oversized one, as well as doing a version including the unused thin rectangular chip detail to go between the nodes on the normal chip

Terminator 2: Judgement Day T2 Hero Cyborg CPU Brain Chip Miniature Screen Used

Terminator 2: Judgement Day T2 Hero Cyborg CPU Brain Chip Miniature Screen Used - Hollywood Parts

www.icollector.com

Terminator 2: Judgement Day T2 Hero Cyborg CPU Brain Chip Oversized Screen Used in Close-Ups

Terminator 2: Judgement Day T2 Hero Cyborg CPU Brain Chip Oversized Screen Used in Close-Ups - Hollywood Parts

www.icollector.com

Terminator 2 Brain Chip Prototype Prop

Terminator 2 Brain Chip Prototype Prop - Premiere Props

www.icollector.com

And this is where I'm at so far.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Or rather... I should just do 3 versions. Normal size look. Oversized look. My combined version of all 3 original pieces.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I own it.
I did photogrammetry but the result was not so good.
So I would like to try photogrammetry again someday.View attachment 1789902

If you could concentrate on just the spine area and perhaps get the rectangular piece on the front of the chest as well, that could be awesome.

That would make it easier to replicate those parts.

 

[ghostman]

If you could concentrate on just the spine area and perhaps get the rectangular piece on the front of the chest as well, that could be awesome.

That would make it easier to replicate those parts.

I am busy right now and will try again in April or May.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

I own it.
I did photogrammetry but the result was not so good.
So I would like to try photogrammetry again someday.View attachment 1789902

As far as I remember, you covered your models with water-soluble paint. Did you also cover this model? Yesterday, I conducted a series of experiments, modifying my painting method with multicolored gouache. This time, I used an airbrush instead of a toothbrush. I chose a 0.8mm nozzle for the airbrush, increased the air pressure, and reduced the paint flow. The idea was to have the airflow quickly dry the paint on the surface, preventing it from dissolving the previous layers. I diluted the gouache with water so that it wasn't too liquid (otherwise, it starts dissolving previous layers) and not too thick (otherwise, it clogs the nozzle and creates a strong texture on the surface). I start with a solid first layer to completely cover the model's color. Then, I gently apply different colored paints with light touches, creating a texture with very fine speckles on the surface.

In the attached examples, you can evaluate the results obtained with different photos. From left to right: the first photo shows a skull covered with dots using a marker, with talcum powder (or baking soda, I can't remember exactly) sprinkled on the surface. In the other photos, the model is painted using the method described above; the only difference is what and how I photographed. The third photo is simply an enlarged version of the second photo in Photoshop. You can assess the surface quality of the scanned model. It seems that the level of detail is even higher on the third model compared to the fourth model, but this is not the case. In reality, the third model has a lot of random noise, which creates the impression of higher detail. This impression is erroneous, and I would choose either the second or the fourth scan! Additionally, I tried to upscale using a neural network, but the photogrammetry software reacted poorly to such a dataset—some photos did not calibrate properly, and there were holes in the scan.

Naturally, the roughness of the painted model's surface is transferred to the scan, as well as the thickness of the paint layer. However, the thickness of the paint layer is negligible, and it also has, hypothetically, the same thickness throughout the model, allowing us to simply push the surface inward by a very small amount for correction.

So, if you have an airbrush, and it's acceptable for you to slightly dirty the endoskeleton with water-soluble paints, I would suggest trying this method because, based on my tests, it yields impressive results.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

As far as I remember, you covered your models with water-soluble paint. Did you also cover this model? Yesterday, I conducted a series of experiments, modifying my painting method with multicolored gouache. This time, I used an airbrush instead of a toothbrush. I chose a 0.8mm nozzle for the airbrush, increased the air pressure, and reduced the paint flow. The idea was to have the airflow quickly dry the paint on the surface, preventing it from dissolving the previous layers. I diluted the gouache with water so that it wasn't too liquid (otherwise, it starts dissolving previous layers) and not too thick (otherwise, it clogs the nozzle and creates a strong texture on the surface). I start with a solid first layer to completely cover the model's color. Then, I gently apply different colored paints with light touches, creating a texture with very fine speckles on the surface.

In the attached examples, you can evaluate the results obtained with different photos. From left to right: the first photo shows a skull covered with dots using a marker, with talcum powder (or baking soda, I can't remember exactly) sprinkled on the surface. In the other photos, the model is painted using the method described above; the only difference is what and how I photographed. The third photo is simply an enlarged version of the second photo in Photoshop. You can assess the surface quality of the scanned model. It seems that the level of detail is even higher on the third model compared to the fourth model, but this is not the case. In reality, the third model has a lot of random noise, which creates the impression of higher detail. This impression is erroneous, and I would choose either the second or the fourth scan! Additionally, I tried to upscale using a neural network, but the photogrammetry software reacted poorly to such a dataset—some photos did not calibrate properly, and there were holes in the scan.

Naturally, the roughness of the painted model's surface is transferred to the scan, as well as the thickness of the paint layer. However, the thickness of the paint layer is negligible, and it also has, hypothetically, the same thickness throughout the model, allowing us to simply push the surface inward by a very small amount for correction.

So, if you have an airbrush, and it's acceptable for you to slightly dirty the endoskeleton with water-soluble paints, I would suggest trying this method because, based on my tests, it yields impressive results.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

I created a parametric model of the eye in CAD.

 

[ghostman]

Previously, I sputtered in 4 poster colors based on this page.
Last time it was the whole body, but now I plan to remove the arms and cylinders and take some partial shots.
I want to shoot on a bright cloudy day to gain depth of field.

3D Scanning Reflective Objects With Photogrammetry

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Does it come apart? I thought it was a solid statue.

 

[ghostman]

Does it come apart? I thought it was a solid statue.

I will take both full and partial shots.
However, the cylinder has been removed before.
And the camera used to be a 4K digital camera.
It is a 6K mirrorless camera.
I would like to get an 8K camera.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

Do those of you who have the original M1 kit have these parts looking exactly like in these photos? Photo 1 - Phantom hobby kit, Photo 2 - possibly M1.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

Thanks to knowing the exact size of the gear box used in the temples, I was able to roughly calculate the size of the eyes. The diameter of the eye is approximately 26-27mm, and the lens diameter is 12.2-12.8mm. These data are provisional because I'm using the results of old photogrammetry; I will make a more precise one within 2-3 months.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

The question is however whether they used the actual box in the skull or they copied it several times. So that is not really a good basis to calculate scale of parts of the skull when we are uncertain on that fact.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

The question is however whether they used the actual box in the skull or they copied it several times. So that is not really a good basis to calculate scale of parts of the skull when we are uncertain on that fact.

I think the gearbox was copied at least 3 times. The first time was to insert a copy of the gearbox into a clay sculpture. The second time was when they made a resin master model casting. The third time was when they copied the master model and replicated the skull for scenes in the movie. I don't know what polymers they used or what shrinkage they had, so it can be assumed that each copy reduced the size by 1%. Therefore, you can subtract 2-3% from my calculations to get a size that's approximately correct. Until we have a scan of the original T1 skull, we don't have anything better.

Why do I think they used a copy for the clay sculpture? Because I included the gearbox model in photogrammetry, and it clearly extends beyond the skull in the occipital region. I doubt they cut off extra parts from the original gearbox.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

One more important observation - in the final scenes of the movie, I identified at least 3 different skulls! Two were used for wide shots, and one for close-ups, where there were slits in the eye sockets allowing the background behind the skull to be seen (I assume this skull has no occiput). The third skull suspiciously resembles the one displayed at the EMP museum; it also has slits in the eye sockets revealing the background, and all the small details match those of the skull from the movie. Even some surface defects look identical (though some are different, possibly indicating they're different skulls made from the same mold, hence some defects being the same). Another skull (the facial part) was made in a significantly enlarged size for the close-up of the eye (a similar skull or a similar one was used in the T2 teaser when the eye is shown in close-up). So, all the skulls have differences in the positions of movable parts, and the eyes are slightly different. But the most noticeable difference is in the size of the eye in the enlarged version, where the eye relative to the socket is smaller, and the seams on the eye are narrow, with the 4 balls supporting the eye arranged differently.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Hopefully you'll post pictures of the different skulls. And I'm definitely interested in seeing the skull used in the movie that you feel looks like the EMP Museum one. You are not the only one I know who has ponderings on whether the EMP Museum skull is actually T1 and not T2 like it was sold through Profiles in History. Though... maybe it was used in both productions!?

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

Hopefully you'll post pictures of the different skulls. And I'm definitely interested in seeing the skull used in the movie that you feel looks like the EMP Museum one. You are not the only one I know who has ponderings on whether the EMP Museum skull is actually T1 and not T2 like it was sold through Profiles in History. Though... maybe it was used in both productions!?

Here you go. Also, pay attention to the seams of the eyeballs; they are absolutely at the same angle!

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Definitely some compelling similarities. The last two pictures show details I haven't noticed on other skulls, so could be the most direct evidence of it being the same. Hope we can find more similarities.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

Definitely some compelling similarities. The last two pictures show details I haven't noticed on other skulls, so could be the most direct evidence of it being the same. Hope we can find more similarities.

Here the similarities are relatively questionable, but nevertheless, they exist both here and there.

 

[DeltaDesignRus]

The skull from the EMP museum has many similarities to all the skulls from T1.