The Ultimate Guide to Lightsabers eBook

Basically a proven fact for those in the know.
The major evidences are the mirror chrome emitter screw, uniquely shaped glass eye, shiny plating, and dark glass lens.

Just to be pedantic. Being "in the know" isn't the same as solid evidence. I mean comparison pictures from a vintage of that ilk that highlights these things, rather than having to simply take someone's word for it.

Note: Not saying the info provided is wrong or that people don't know their stuff. Simply that knowing it and being able to comprehensively show evidence of it are very different things.
 
For comparison, here's a 1928 "shiny" Folmer:


Looks like the finish we see in TLJ to me.
 
there ya go.
And I did provide solid evidence (4 to be exact).

Pictures of 1928 Shiny Graflex are readily available. You can easily search and check these evidences yourself.
 
Not to diagree, but those are practically chrome-- the TLJ is certainly shinier than other versions, but it looks more satin to my eye. Again, as I say in the guide, there is an insane amount of retouching going on in TLJ. Just look at the way the buttons chance on the Luke hero shot to shot in the one scene it's in.
 
Not to diagree, but those are practically chrome-- the TLJ is certainly shinier than other versions, but it looks more satin to my eye. Again, as I say in the guide, there is an insane amount of retouching going on in TLJ. Just look at the way the buttons chance on the Luke hero shot to shot in the one scene it's in.

Nitpicky point: Any change in appearance is more likely to be a result of the grade than any VFX tampering. We can assume they had to rebuild the Creepy Uncle in post to replace Hamill's hand. I don't see a reason for VFX to alter the Graflex in every scene, so it's not really evidence of much either way.

Anyway, thanks to Graflex Bank, here's a BTS of the saber compared with the final shot:

porg1.jpg


hero_11.jpg


The grade crushed the blacks for sure, and increased overall contrast. But the original still looks pretty darn shiny to me.

(Yes, I am aware that VFX would have had to alter this shot to remove the puppet rods and that this potentially undermines the point I made above. Shut up.)

Also, neither VFX nor TLJ's final grade would affect this BTS footage:

swshow6.jpg


swshow2.jpg


Check out how sharp the reflections of her fingers are, especially in the close up. You can see a reflection of the seam in her glove! I'd call that practically chrome, myself.

Granted there are other shots where does look a lot more satin:

tdatj10.jpg


Either way, though, none of my three vintage tops are anywhere close to how glossy this one is. I really think this idea should be taken seriously.
 
I wasnt thinking full VFX, just paint and retouching. Most movies do tons of it. I'm dating a girl who works at Rhythm and Hues and she broke my spirit tonight telling me they did a ton of breast enhancements on Euphoria.

But I don't disagree about the TLJ shiny.
 
there ya go.
And I did provide solid evidence (4 to be exact).

Pictures of 1928 Shiny Graflex are readily available. You can easily search and check these evidences yourself.

I'm not going to argue with you, save to simply say that saying/typing four things, is not the same as showing supporting images/research that proves those four things definitively. Also since it was suggested to be added to the book, then images would be a great addition as well.
 
I'm not going to argue with you, save to simply say that saying/typing four things, is not the same as showing supporting images/research that proves those four things definitively. Also since it was suggested to be added to the book, then images would be a great addition as well.
He's done plenty of providing if you take a look at the graflex addicts page, full detail in pictures and explanation, once you see it you can't unsee it.
 
There's at least two "hero" props.
There's this one. I believe this to be the real shiny. It has a tell, on the "beer tab" rivet.
bonus1.jpg

Which is most likely the same prop as this.
swshow1.jpg

The one from TFA was also used. It's in much rougher shape. You can tell that one because it's missing some plating off of the "beer tab" itself.
12.jpg

This is the one that has been put on display.
It also has some corrosion on the bulb clamp.
Which we can see in this BTS shot.
tdatj14.jpg
 
The unique glass eye and mirror finish on the bulb assembly screw make a good case for the TFA being a 1928 shiny.
Really hard to photograph (under artificial light) but the finish is very different from a normal folmer and matches the screen used hero.
IMG_20200313_185007.jpg
 
The unique glass eye and mirror finish on the bulb assembly screw make a good case for the TFA being a 1928 shiny.
Really hard to photograph (under artificial light) but the finish is very different from a normal folmer and matches the screen used hero. View attachment 1275629

Can you get a pic of the eye from the side? There's always been something odd about how the TLJ eye threads in and I'm wondering if that matches.
 
The unique glass eye and mirror finish on the bulb assembly screw make a good case for the TFA being a 1928 shiny.
Really hard to photograph (under artificial light) but the finish is very different from a normal folmer and matches the screen used hero. View attachment 1275629
TFA? Or TLJ? To my eye that looks like a closer match to the TLJ version.
 
I also think the bottom half deserves some scrutiny. There's no way the gap between grips and clamp is 3.5 mm:

View attachment 1275485

View attachment 1275483

View attachment 1275484


Compare with the CG model, or any shots from TFA:

View attachment 1275482

Or my build with 3.5 mm gaps (excuse the lack of rivets):

View attachment 1275486

View attachment 1275487

View attachment 1275488

PrinceZip has been saying for a while now that the TLJ hero grips are 90mm long, though I don't know his source on that.
Out of curiosity what the length from the clamp to the end of the can? Mine is about 94mm. The blueprint that Roy worked up say it should be 92mm.
 
Back
Top