Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[Zombie Killer]

Still waiting for pics of the mask that Jesper cleaned up. Don't tell me you guys have all these pics but "lost" the ones that show anything. Oh and something a little closer than 6ft please.

 

[defstartrooper]

I love how people turn agruments around. This has nothing to do with EFX and yet some still insist that Gino and or Bryan show proof. EFX does not have to prove anything and yet they have shown the kind of proof that the others just will not do for some reason.

People keep screaming that they have proven it to themselves that the C-Scar if for real. That's great, how about proving it to the rest of us with the same kind of proof you keep asking Gino for. Screencaps mean nothing, watching the film means nothing. Pictures of the UK mold and/or pictures of the first pulls from it are the only thing that is going to convince me this isn't just a witch hunt that doesn't know when to stop.

Nobdy has mentioned eFX or asked them to prove anything at all, this is a discussion about the c-scar why are you trying to make it into a they're bashing the eFX thread again ?

And GINO does have to prove something he has to prove his factual statement that there is no scar on the original screen used helmet or the UK mould.
Well he doesn't have to but his factual statement is worthless if he can't and incorrect.

 

[Trap Joe]

Nobdy has mentioned eFX or asked them to prove anything at all, this is a discussion about the c-scar why are you trying to make it into a they're bashing the eFX thread again ?

And GINO does have to prove something he has to prove his factual statement that there is no scar on the original screen used helmet or the UK mould.
Well he doesn't have to but his factual statement is worthless if he can't and incorrect.

well said Defstartrooper.

 

[Zombie Killer]

EFX already posted proof. Pictures of the scar area on the original RB molds in a clear and close picture. We are still waiting for you guys to post something of equal value. Not screencaps. Not pics of other unstripped helmets. Not photoshopped pics. Not pics of casts of a cleaned up helmet. There is only one picture we are looking for and you guys are doing everything in your power to show every other pic that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Does the helmet Jester cleaned up have a real scar or one made by him? Until we see the pic of the helmet after Jester got his hands on it this is all Banther fodder.

 

[Ghost Host]

Can't go along with that.
BTW, JRX added it to the TM, Ghost Host would have been the one to add it to the TD or SL castings as if I'm not mistaken, he was the one who molded them.


.

Ah, and there's the bait! Not gonna bite, I know the truth, and I believe you do too. May God forgive you and bless you! Happy mother's day!

 

[AJK001]

EFX already posted proof. Pictures of the scar area on the original RB molds in a clear and close picture. We are still waiting for you guys to post something of equal value. Not screencaps. Not pics of other unstripped helmets. Not photoshopped pics. Not pics of casts of a cleaned up helmet. There is only one picture we are looking for and you guys are doing everything in your power to show every other pic that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Does the helmet Jester cleaned up have a real scar or one made by him? Until we see the pic of the helmet after Jester got his hands on it this is all Banther fodder.

Well said Zombie.

They keep glossing over that they have not done what they kept on and KEEP on asking EFX and Gino to do.

Post proof, don't keep saying you know what the truth is or posting pics the size of a postage stamp, prove it with pics of the original UK Mold or the first pulls from it. Otherwise the argument is moot. One side posted proof, which the other side doesn't accept while the other side keeps posting the same old pictures and won't post the proof people keep asking for.

 

[Juansith]

... And also i should remind all of you that adding C scars to your molds makes your mommy cry .
Shame on you.

 

[defstartrooper]

EFX already posted proof. Pictures of the scar area on the original RB molds in a clear and close picture. We are still waiting for you guys to post something of equal value. Not screencaps. Not pics of other unstripped helmets. Not photoshopped pics. Not pics of casts of a cleaned up helmet. There is only one picture we are looking for and you guys are doing everything in your power to show every other pic that has nothing to do with the question at hand. Does the helmet Jester cleaned up have a real scar or one made by him? Until we see the pic of the helmet after Jester got his hands on it this is all Banther fodder.

The only question that counts is the one of there being a scar on the original screen used helmet, that's all that matters.
If there's a scar or not on this that or the other cast is of no consequence because if the answer is yes or no neither one proves what was on the original mask.
What's present on the RB mould doesn't prove what's present on the screen used helmet, what's present on the UK mould doesn't prove what was present on the screen used helmet, both moulds could have been made after a repair if a scar existed you see ?
And by default all casts which came from either of those moulds doesn't prove what was present on the original screen used mask obviously.

If there is proof that there's no scar on the original screen used helmet then that automatically makes the rest a moot discussion.

The one real objective fact is that whichever detail is present on any cast or the RB mould or the UK mould is not objective proof either way of what was on the screen used original.

So far GINO is the one person who has stated for a fact that the original screen used mask had no scar, from that i would assume he has proof.
Nobody else has made a definate factual statement saying there is a scar on the original screen used helmet, if they did i'd ask them to provide proof but as it stands the only person making a definate factual statement about the screen used original mask is the only person i assume is capable of providing proof.

Doesn't that make sense ?
Anything else just still leaves room for conjecture and personal opinion and gets nobody any further toward the truth.

 

[vaderdarth]

Still waiting on your unaltered casting photos of the eFX gino. I'm sure you can make us all look silly by putting up or shutting up.

Nobody wants to be proven wrong, but when you hold all the cards in your hands, why wouldn't you want to just end it? Or is this all just a game and a ploy to make your doubters look bad?

I wanna see your pics gino. Unaltered eFX casting right out of the Baker Mould. You and I both know what it will show and you can't stomach it.

Defstartrooper is correct, only gino has stated as fact that the screen helmet has no scar. Everyone else has better sense than to state something they cannot prove. I think your house of cards is falling down!!!

 

[Zombie Killer]

Yes ultimatly it would be great to determine if it was on the screen used helmet. Unfortunatly unless someone pops in with pics of the screen used piece THAT debate can never be solved. I highly doubt we will ever see a pic of the UK mold either so that is pretty much out too.

But this is not what we where arguing about. You guys were saying the helmet Jesper worked on had resin covering the c mark. We want to see that c mark that Jesper "uncovered".

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

So...more pages added and still no pictures backing up the assertion that the UK mold has the C-scar, right? We've seen proof that the Baker mold does not. Now, I am going back to waiting to see what pops up.

Anyone else wonder who called it a C? It always looked more like an L to me. Albeit, a soft looking L.

 

[vaderdarth]

I'd like to see it too Zombie, I have not been privy to jesper's private stash of photos. Then again, I'm not a TM owner, so I wouldn't be would I?

However, gino is the guy who has stated without a shadow of a doubt that the screen helmet does not have the scar, and because all these pedigree helmets come from that screen helmet, he has to back up his fact statements with proof or else we all consider his opinion the same as everyone else's opinion. No more, No less.

He could lend credibility to his assertions that all the other owners "added" the scar (silly I know, but let's entertain him for now).........by showing a couple photos of the unaltered RB casting that eFX pulled. It would at least tell us if he noticed it and accidentally covered it up, or if it's no longer on the Baker mould.

eFX officially stated they "believed this helmet to be from the original Baker mould but have no undeniable proof" that it's the original mould. Maybe it is, Maybe it isn't. We are absolutely certain that it's an official LFL mould, but goodness knows how many moulds may be floating around that place. I mean, seriously, if it's just sitting in a dirty lab for all to play with..........I highly doubt it's the only one in existence.

A good size comparison later on when these production helmets come out.......that will say more about "remoulds" than anything else. we have all the time in the world to figure that one out.

This whole C scar issue, gino can lay it to rest where his eFX helmet is concerned with a couple little photos of the unaltered RB casting. The one eFX pulled directly from the mould. This is just baby stuff. Easy peasy.

 

[vaderdarth]

Come on Qui, you've seen a pic of a mould. You guys argued that a pic of a mould all one color wouldn't clearly show any pertinent details, now you want to use that tiny mould snippet as proof it doesn't exist.

It'll show up nicely on the raw casting however.

 

[Juansith]

Ok, being serious here, some people have posted that you should be a cinematographer to judge the screen caps and tell if the C scar is dimensional or not.

I dont think thats true, you are all smart people and all of you are totally qualified to analyze the screen caps, it doesnt matter if you are an expert in cinematography or not.
Why i tell you this?, because im a Director of Photography.

Do i know or have the tools to tell you what the scar is?, from the screen caps, absolutely not, i have the same tools available and many of you have an awesome talent to SEE.

On the cinematography point of view, i can tell you that Star Wars original negative is at this point, completely useless and almost color washed, what you are looking in your dvd is a remastered edition from a negative that had very poor quality,and this was 17 years ago, they spent almost ten to twenty million dollars trying to restore the negative of ANH. And it went pretty well...
Until the DVD edition came out, which it is a technical mess. The scan of the digitized negative is a very poor 1080p 10 bit RGB scan, why they didint scan on a 2k or 4k res is beyond me( the Godfather and Bladerunner were scanned on 4k, lately Wizard of Oz was scanned at 8k!!!).
This means that you ar watching less than half the original film resolution.

the image res you are watching is extremely poor in relation to the original image, also, GL took care and personally guided the color correction for the 2004 DVD editions and its also considered a very bad color correction work: blacks are crushed,Inconsistant color, over saturated skin tones.

Why this sloppy color correction, because GL wanted the original trilogy to look as closer as the prequels.

So in conclusion, we try to analyze a half resolution image, with a bad color correction, extremely tweaked, sharpened, grained, de grained, and manipulated.
Its worthless.

Lets wait for the Bluray edition ane see what happens. Thats all i can say from a DP point of view.
I think a sculptor has more to say about this.

So in terms of the film itself, we are almost at the same position as the Heltmet: the original is non existant and we only have little clues of the past, what we have is onlu a shadow of its former self, covered up by the change of technology and a huge ego.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Come on Qui, you've seen a pic of a mould. You guys argued that a pic of a mould all one color wouldn't clearly show any pertinent details, now you want to use that tiny mould snippet as proof it doesn't exist.

It'll show up nicely on the raw casting however.

So, what you are saying is that Bryan, who has allowed that pic to be posted, is lying. That pic is NOT of the inside cheek of the mold, despite the details lining up, right?

 

[defstartrooper]

Yes ultimatly it would be great to determine if it was on the screen used helmet. Unfortunatly unless someone pops in with pics of the screen used piece THAT debate can never be solved. I highly doubt we will ever see a pic of the UK mold either so that is pretty much out too.

But this is not what we where arguing about. You guys were saying the helmet Jesper worked on had resin covering the c mark. We want to see that c mark that Jesper "uncovered".

Well yes it would be nice and that was the statement made that started the discussion, GINO stated there was no scar on the original screen used helmet, if he can't prove that then i assume you agree he shouldn't state it as fact ?

And who is arguing ? this is supposed to be a discussion and it's about the c-scar and it's presence or not on the original screen used helmet the thread title and opening post should be a big hint that is the subject at hand.
The eFX,TM,SL,VP,RB mould,UK mould is all irrelevant and proves nothing about the real helmet and is obviously more about trying to bash those involved with whatever casting than anything else.

 

[Ghost Host]

... And also i should remind all of you that adding C scars to your molds makes your mommy cry .
Shame on you.

:lol

...as does fighting amongst the children...

 

[defstartrooper]

Ok, being serious here, some people have posted that you should be a cinematographer to judge the screen caps and tell if the C scar is dimensional or not.

I dont think thats true, you are all smart people and all of you are totally qualified to analyze the screen caps, it doesnt matter if you are an expert in cinematography or not.
Why i tell you this?, because im a Director of Photography.

Do i know or have the tools to tell you what the scar is?, from the screen caps, absolutely not, i have the same tools available and many of you have have an awesome talent to SEE.

On the cinematography point of view, i can tell you that Star Wars original negative is at this point, completely useless and almost color washed, what you are looking at inyour dvd is a remastered edition from a negative that had very poor quality,and this was 17 years ago, they spent almost ten to twenty million dollars trying to restore the image of ANH. nd it went pretty well...
Until the DVD edition came out, which it is a technical mess. The scan of the digitized negative is a very poor 1080 p scan, why they didint scan on a 2k or 4k res is beyond me( the Godfather and Bladerunner were scanned on 4k, lately Wizard of Oz was scanned at 8k!!!).
This means that you ar watching less than half the original film resolution.

the image res you are watching is extremely poor in relation to the original image, also, GL took care of the color correction for the 2004 DVD editions and its also considered a very bad color correction work: blacks are crushed,Inconsistant color, over saturated skin tones.

Why this sloppy color correction, because GL wanted the original trilogy to look as closer as the prequels.

So in conclusion, we try to analyze a half resolution image, with a bad color correction.
Its worthless.

Lets wait for the Bluray edition ane see what happens. Thats all i can say from a DP point of view.
I think a sculptor has more to say about this.

I agree the movie screenshots prove nothing, they don't prove there is a scar and equally they don't prove there isn't, if it's not proof of one it can't by definition be proof of the other.

Given that a very definate statement has been made several times that the original screen used helmet had no scar i hoped perhaps GINO was in possesion of a hi res still from the LFL archives or something taken during production.
If he isn't i'm stumped as to how he can make a factual statement one way or the other.

 

[Juansith]

:lol

...as does fighting amongst the children...

Lol :thumbsup

 

[vaderdarth]

Did I type anywhere that Bryan was lying? NO That's the sort of horse crap you guys keep dishing out.....put your own words in someone else's mouth. That's not nice!!! I resent it! You're trolling and it's silly.

What I said was that you won't let the other side use the pic of the mould for their argument because it's not gonna show the details to make the point being monochromatic....your words not mine, yet you want to use it for your points. Ludicrous logic.

Stop trying to make Bryan the problem. Bryan has been crystal clear from the beginning. You guys keep dragging him and his company into the fray. Those guys have said nothing wrong or even remotely misleading. He was quite clear on his views. I should think everyone would appreciate his candor.