Vaccuforming - Does inside vs outside molding of originals matter?

[Art Andrews]

This thread is a split of another thread about the creation of Trooper armor. You can see the original thread here:

http://www.therpf.com/f24/rotj-stormtrooper-armour-106628/

However, the subject of whether it is preferable to recreate vacuformed pieces from molds taken from the inside or outside of an original piece or if there is even any difference at all created a discussion which ultimately was derailing the purpose and intent of the original thread. While we didn't want the original thread derailed, this is still a good and valid discussion/debate for vaccuformers and potential vaccuformers to participate in. While this debate was started over the CFO, in this split thread, the subject should be approached from a non-specific standpoint as its implications have merit for any vaccuforming project.

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

That is right Art, Cameron Oakley acquired the original suit (incomplete) from Steve J originally.

We have the master molds that were taken from the outside. The original armour was then sold to Matt who took molds from the inside.

What JoeR said is correct.

The original rotj helmet/armor was acquired by cameron oakley.

Cameron oakley molded the helmet and armor from the outside so that he could produce fiberglass copies.

Cameron oakley never molded the inside of the helmet or armor.

The only person to have molded the inside of the screen used pieces was Mike S./TE, it was only done once, and those molds were sold and now reside in my possession.

The molds that JoeR acquired from cameron oakley are the molds taken from the outside of the helmet/armor for producing fiberglass pieces, (not for vac forming).

The only issue I see with making armor in this manner (if you are striving for screen accuracy) is this.
If you make solid forms from those fiberglass molds (the oakley molds) to vac over, you will essentially be creating solid pieces that are representative of the outside of the armor. Then if you vac form over that, it would be like vac forming over top of the outside of the armor. In doing that, the armor will not be correct and it's proportions will be off.



.

 

[sskunky]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

We are talking about a millimeter or so that's the only proportional difference. But that is correct. The bonus with the outside cast to me is that it is what you see on screen as we only see the outside of the armour. I have a TE and have compared it and the size is negligible. If you have a pair of calipers you may notice.

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

It doesn't get more accurate than this.

(clears throat).... ummm, I might have to respectfully disagree with that statement :

Same here. Let's not forget, I have the positive master molds taken from the inside of the suit (which is optimal for vac forming), while this endeavor uses negative molds taken from the outside of the armor (which were made for creating fiberglass pieces).

It is impossible for molds taken from the outside of a suit and then vac formed over to be more accurate than molds taken directly from the inside under any circumstances.

Just don't want to see things get twisted.


.

 

[SeanB13]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Great work guys! I'll just keep day-dreaming until I win the Lotto and then I'll be like Oprah and buy two of everything just because I can. Lol.​

I've been thinking about Gino's claim of the armour being cast from the inside being more accurate than being cast from the outside.​

I think he may have a point, technically, in theory. But just in theory, because then I'm thinking maybe this is incorrect and that they are both equally accurate.​

One being an exact replica of the inside and the other being an exact copy of the outside and since you can't have an inside without an outside and vise-versa.​

So it would be impossible for one to be more accurate than the other, since they are both halves of the same coin and equally dependent on one another.​

But then all that is just technicalities, theories, semantics and minutia.​

The real test would be to show a side by side of two different pieces from both sets of armour to see if there is a noticeable difference between the two to the naked eye.​

I suspect that there wouldn't be, but I'm just guessing.​

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Great work guys! I'll just keep day-dreaming until I win the Lotto and then I'll be like Oprah and buy two of everything just because I can. Lol.​

I've been thinking about Gino's claim of the armour being cast from the inside being more accurate than being cast from the outside.​

I think he may have a point, technically, in theory. But just in theory, because then I'm thinking maybe this is incorrect and that they are both equally accurate.​

One being an exact replica of the inside and the other being an exact copy of the outside and since you can't have an inside without an outside and vise-versa.​

So it would be impossible for one to be more accurate than the other, since they are both halves of the same coin and equally dependent on one another.​

But then all that is just technicalities, theories, semantics and minutia.​

The real test would be to show a side by side of two different pieces from both sets of armour to see if there is a noticeable difference between the two to the naked eye.​

I suspect that there wouldn't be, but I'm just guessing.​

That would be true if they were making fiberglass copies and not vac form.
But then again, there were no fiberglass troopers in the film.
What cfo is essentially doing is vac forming over top the accurate outside of the armor, therefore creating a new layer overtop the accurate details. The proportions of everything will be off due to the thickness of the plastic.
This phenomenon is something not unique to this situation, but anytime you vac form overtop of anything where the outside detail of the mold matches the part you want to make before it is formed.
Hope that explains it a little better.


.

 

[SeanB13]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

The proportions of everything will be off due to the thickness of the plastic. This phenomenon is something not unique to this situation, but anytime you vac form overtop of anything where the outside detail of the mold matches the part you want to make before it is formed.

Yes I understand that, but how far off would the proportions actually be?​

Would it be visible to the naked eye, or would you need a micrometer to tell the difference?​

Does your explanation quoted above and your criteria throughout this thread also apply to the flawed proportions on your bulbous TIE helmet tube?​

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Yes I understand that, but how far off would the proportions actually be?
Would it be visible to the naked eye, or would you need a micrometer to tell the difference?

Not so much on the larger rounded surfaces, but on any areas where there is actual detail, you could definitely see with the naked eye.
Depending on the sheet material thickness, it could be up to a full 1/8" off (3mm).

The smaller the detail, the more drastic the difference would be to the naked eye.

Here's a quick illustration I threw together to show what I mean.

.

 

[SeanB13]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

I had full comprehension of the concept, even before your explanation and ''proof by computer graphics''.​

What I'm saying is that you may have the most accurate casting/mould of the inside of the armour, while they may have the most accurate casting/mould of the outside of the armour and both are equally accurate and neither are superior to the other. You can't have an inside without an outside, it's as simple as that.​

So even if there is a difference between the measurements of the two sets of armour, did all of the sets of the SU armour measure identically, or were there multiple variances in size, width, depth, thickness etc. ?​

Realistically it will take a visual comparison between the two sets of amour to move your theory of ''most accurate'' from conjecture and theory to actual proof.​

But even then, being the inexact science that vacuforming is and the time constraints the prop department was under, it would be ignorant to assume that they were all exact, identical copies of each other without a trace of variance.​

So which set of SU armour should be used as a base to set the replica standard against?​

Does your explanation quoted above and your criteria throughout this thread also apply to the flawed proportions on your bulbous TIE helmet tube?

I can understand why you avoided responding to my question, but in all fairness, it is a valid and relevant question.​

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

did all of the sets of the SU armour measure identically, or were there multiple variances in size, width, depth, thickness etc. ?

I would say yes, all the same because they were all formed off of the same molds. The only variances that would have occurred would be in degree of sharpness of the pull, trimming, or assembly.


.

 

[Art Andrews]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

What I'm saying is that you may have the most accurate casting/mould of the inside of the armour, while they may have the most accurate casting/mould of the outside of the armour and both are equally accurate and neither are superior to the other.

Wait... what?

Let me preface this by saying that my take on this isn't about this current issue, but about vaccuforming in general and the process of replicating a vaccuformed item.

Scenario 1: A mold is taken from the outside of a set of original vaccuformed armor. A positive is made from that mold. New armor is vaccuformed over that mold.

Scenario 2: A mold is taken from the inside of a set of original vaccuformed armor. New armor is vaccuformed over that mold.

Result: "both are equally accurate and neither are superior to the other"

Is that what you are saying? If so, how can you justify such a statement as it would seem to defy logic and reason.

Help me understand what it is you are saying.

You can't have an inside without an outside, it's as simple as that.

Of course you can. This isn't a two part mold. In both scenarios, you can have one without the other and recreate a part depending on what materials you are using; vaccuformed for the inside, and some type of casting, like fiberglassing, for the outside. What is it you are trying to say here?

So even if there is a difference between the measurements of the two sets of armour, did all of the sets of the SU armour measure identically, or were there multiple variances in size, width, depth, thickness etc.?

Again, that is not a logical argument for what is being discussed here and is somewhat of an easy out that has been used by many people over the years. I think everyone fully accepts that not every set of armor or every helmet is the same level of sharpness due to multiple variables, but it is a cop-out for you to use that fact to try to say that using outside molds vs inside molds for a vaccuformed piece will render parts that fall within the same levels of accuracy.

Realistically it will take a visual comparison between the two sets of amour to move your theory of ''most accurate'' from conjecture and theory to actual proof. But even then, being the inexact science that vacuforming is and the time constraints the prop department was under, it would be ignorant to assume that they were all exact, identical copies of each other without a trace of variance.

In my opinion, it is ignorant to try to push the idea that molds from the outside vs molds from the inside render the same level of accuracy when dealing with vaccuformed parts. This really transcends this current squabble, and falls more into an area of general misinformation. I would hate to see a newbie read this and think that if they want to replicate a vaccuformed part it is just as good to mold the outside of the part as the inside. That simply isn't the case and I think even the creators of the CFO armor would tell you that. You should always try, if possible to mold the inside, unless, as in the case of Cameron Oakley, you are replicating a vaccuformed piece in another material such as fiberglass. It is no slight to these guys that they were able to obtain the original outside molds. It is AWESOME that they have them! But lets not change facts about vaccuforming just to fit this particular situation. You seem to be purposely muddying the waters in an effort to lend more credence to a set of armor that doesn't need more credence. The CFO armor is what it is, and the guys who have made it have been very open and forthcoming about its origins, which I applaud. Why you feel the need to start creating confusion by making statements as you have is very confusing.

 

[SingleSeat]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

I once did quite a bit of vacuum forming. As an aside, it might be worth noting that even replicating the inside of vac'd plastic is an imperfect art and without the original forming masters in hand, the closest replica will be just barely out of reach. I'm certainly not putting anyone's efforts down by saying this because the differences are almost undetectable to the eye.

When taking a form from the inside, what results is still a compromise in the purest perspective of a replica. However, we are only talking about differences of millimeters, or fractions of millimeters, but differences nonetheless. I've tried to illustrate the gaps that develop in the successive iterations of forms below.

Granted, obtaining the original forms is unlikely so I hope everyone can agree that taking forms from the inside of a vac'd example is optimal for what is available. It is more accurate to say that what we end up with is a shape that is as good as it's probably going to get without a proper master. The point being that taking a form from a piece of vacuum formed plastic is a still a compromise – it's just a compromise with the least amount of error.

This discussion points to how I approach replicas, so I thought I'd post it for discussion's sake. It's pretty simple and I'm sure most people think the same way without thinking too hard about it.

Anyway, a replica will never be an original. An original will never be what it was. Here is a graph showing the pursuit of an idolized prop, created with human hands. On the green line, the original prop is created on the left. Over time, it degrades from what it once was (or was seen on screen). The red line is the pursuit of creating a replica. At first, it is relatively easy to make huge strides in creating something that gets the point across of what it is at point A. By point B, the replica is beginning to mature and meet a striking resemblance. At point C, there might be some bumps in the road or little bits of progress, but the effort expended for the gains in accuracy it nets, are getting petty high. Toward point D, the lines will reach to infinity, but never touch because there will always be some difference.

In this thread, the debate is simply about how to exist on a point on this line, but that's all it is – a point. Remember, the graph goes to infinity, so ultimately you have only yourself to please unless you suck it up and obtain the original prop.

On topic, looks good to me. Knock it out!

 

[Art Andrews]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Chris, I think that last chart is one of the best things I have seen in a long time and something many don't consider. We will never reach perfect replication and even if we could, it would be a perfect replication at what point in time compared to the original as every original changes over time. Well said.

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Singleseat, I agree with every point made, and nice clear visual aids.

I have a couple of comments that relate to your points.

1. If you are going to create new molds for vac forming by pouring a mold material into a screen used part, the resemblance of your new mold to the original forming mold will never be exactly the same due to the points you illustrated above (which is the overall point of your analysis to which I completely agree).

2. Factors that affect how close your results are would be the thickness of the original sheet material used and the sharpness of that particular vac pull.

3. So regardless, if you make molds from the inside of a screen used part, you still have to adjust the mold slightly in order to produce a near duplicate part (ie the original you started with).

4. It takes an incredible amount of skill, knowledge, and artistic anal retentiveness to be able to accurately make those adjustments.

5. Which usually results in lesser skilled individuals over-sharpening details which in the end do not accurately reflect the sharpness/softness of the original part in the first place. I've seen this happen so many times in the hobby. They overcompensate because there is no finer sense of what that sharpness/softness level should actually be.

6. And this is probably the most important, all of what I (and singleseat) said above about taking molds from the inside and the limitations.
It is still miles ahead of taking molds from the OUTSIDE of a formed part and then vac forming over that.


.

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

3. So regardless, if you make molds from the inside of a screen used part, you still have to adjust the mold slightly in order to produce a near duplicate part (ie the original you started with).

4. It takes an incredible amount of skill, knowledge, and artistic anal retentiveness to be able to accurately make those adjustments.

5. Which usually results in lesser skilled individuals over-sharpening details which in the end do not accurately reflect the sharpness/softness of the original part in the first place. I've seen this happen so many times in the hobby. They overcompensate because there is no finer sense of what that sharpness/softness level should actually be.

Haven't you made it a point over the years to hammer home that your moulds are untouched ?

 

[GINO]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

It is easier to say untouched/unaltered than to try to explain the finer points of those minute adjustments and this greater concept of minimizing generational loss to the masses.
For all intents and purposes, it is.

 

[SeanB13]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

@Art.​

I'm not trying to create confusion, or muddy the waters, I apologize if that's how I'm coming across. Also I'm not trying to add credence to something that doesn't need it, I agree, it speaks for itself and stands on its own, with, or without my input.​

I don't have any association with the guys offering the armour, I'm just trying to understand this whole inside vs. outside accuracy debate.​

Wouldn't the casting from the outside of the SU armour be more accurate since it was the outside of the armour the audience saw on the screen and not the inside?​

 

[SeanB13]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Gino​

It is still miles ahead of taking molds from the OUTSIDE of a formed part and then vac forming over that.

Miles??? Really???​

Damn, how thick is that stuff???​

Boy oh boy, the camera really fails to convey how thick that armour really is. It must be so cumbersome to wear that stuff and actually be able to move around in it.​

Wow I can't even imagine how much that plastic must have weighed. It must have been tons!​

Miles, huh?​

So now I'm dying to know, in general, how thick was the armour at its thickest point and how thin at its thinnest?​

 

[Art Andrews]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Wouldn't the casting from the outside of the SU armour be more accurate since it was the outside of the armour the audience saw on the screen and not the inside?

That would totally depnd on how you are replicating the piece in question. For example, lets consider the Darth Vader helmet. Obvious, on a fiberglass piece like that, you would want to mold the OUTSIDE of the piece as when you recreate it, you are essentially creating it from the outside, in.

However, when you are dealing with vaccuformed parts, it is MUCH more preferable to mold the inside which is essentially recreating the original buck over which the piece was formed. When creating vaccuformed items, you essentially form them on the INSIDE and the outside just takes on the form, but you never actually do anything to the outside of the item being formed.

This is not to say molds of the outside of a vaccuformed piece are worthless. The photos in the first post of this thread show that not to be the case. However, you are inherently going to have a softer part from molds taken from the outside of a piece as opposed to molds taken from the inside of a piece (see Gino's graphic again for an example). The way to try to circumvent that would be to perform a negative vaccuform in which you are pulling the plastic down into a negative mold instead of stretching it over the top of a positive mold. Depending on the absility to REALLY suck the plastic down into the mold and depending on just down sharp various edges are, you might get a sharper pull that way. My concern there would be getting little nipples (as opposed to dimples) from the draw holes that would need to be drilled in the negative mold.

 

[wolf]

Re: ROTJ Stormtrooper Armour

Getting nipples in a negative mould will only happen if the holes are too big. I know a little about vacforming and some draw holes are no bigger than a hair so you can use a lot of holes to get the pull. The problem with the Stormtrooper armour is that it was vacformed over a mould so this method would change the appearance more.We all know that the original armour was very thin plastic , hence a minimum difference, so either way outside cast or inside cast is never as good as casting the original bucks. Both methods will be inaccurate to a degree, this is why Gino had to manipulate the casts to get a sharp end result , if ever so slightly and more or less depending on the particular armour and just how good a pull it originally was. We have all seen pictures of the originals, not ROTJ, most look kinked and wrinkled , this is what the mould makers had to work with when they recasted the armour to make the moulds for ROTJ , so it was worked again and appeared a softer pull from the originals, also proving to me that there were no good original moulds to work from.
Everything , with no exception, to date is imperfect, but Joe's/Sskunky and Gino are very close.Fighting over who is closer to the original is just daft.