Re: Various OT lightsaber parts
You claim to have the only perfectly accurate T-track, which is a very bold statement. I have a few remarks about your claim:
I don't think of it as bold. It's just factual.
First of all, I wonder why you claim to have (had) access to actual screen used T-profile but don't explain which prop it was, where is was and how you did it. Why would anybody take your word for it? If you make claims like that why don't you back it up with some evidence?
Because I'm not always at liberty to disclose such things.
No one HAS to take my word for it. In fact I would encourage anyone who doubts my credibility to NOT buy from me.
The stuff I have is meant for people who have to have the most accurate and know and trust me and my body of work.
I can't claim to have had access to the real props, because I haven't, but as you can see in my post I did use images from the archive and shown in this blog:
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/20...tos-from-the-lucasfim-archives-from-19961997/
As you notice there are three images of the Luke ESB saber and somebody is measuring a track with a caliper. With some Photoshop enhancing and smart deducing the values can be read. And thus the width is a given.
Yes, but I have and on many occasions. And while mine is based on using actual measurements and scans, yours is based on extrapolating/deducing data from photographs.
And we all know when you go try to reverse engineer from photos there is quite a bit of interpretation and human error that enters the equation.
All you have to do is look at the comparison you posted of my t-track next to yours and you can see the errors in yours quite easily.
Second is related to the interpretation of the shape of the section of the profile. In order to replicate the T shape, at some point in time, some form of interpretation MUST take place. ONLY measuring width and height doesn't give you the proper shape of the profile.
Who said only the width and height was measured?? Measurements were taken as well as actual scan data and my profile was created from that.
There is no such thing as a 'perfect replica', because we are not perfect human beings.
I see people in the prop world using this excuse to create a false sense of equality. "Nothing is perfect so both of our imperfect replicas are equal on some level."
This is simply untrue. Accuracy can me measured and quantified and mine is indistinguishable from the real stuff whether you judge by eye or caliper.
That is about as 'perfect' as one can hope for.
Fourth and last is most important of all, and is the whole ESSENCE of the RPF. It is about the passion and pleasure of building replicas. It is about fantasy and fun. It is an emotional process, with people enjoying their hobbies.
Agreed. So you can understand why I take issue when someone comes along and makes untrue claims about something I've made or try to create a false equivalency in order to compete for sales.
It is not a cold, clinical thing. Not a science, not a single truth. That is why every person has a different point of view on what is right and what is perfect. And they are ALL right and ALL perfect.
I fundamentally disagree with all of this. Accuracy can be measured and quantified. And there is truth in accuracy.
People's personal preference for accurate vs idealized is an entirely different thing and that is not what is being discussed here.
I hope I didn't offend you, so let's just move on and do what we all like doing; build beautiful things.
Yeah, pretty offended. Calling my credibility into question as well as fostering the misconception that your product is as screen accurate as mine when factually it is not pretty much does the trick.
I've had harmony with the other t-track makers because none of them ever tried to say that their stuff was more accurate than mine when it wasn't. They catered to a different group of prop collectors who were fine to sacrifice a certain amount of accuracy for a cheaper cost. Nothing wrong with that and because of that I very often refer people to them who come to me who want t-track but don't have to have the best of the best or want a cheaper alternative.
But it seems you (or a couple of your customers) have chosen to attempt to muddy the waters when it comes to the differences between what you have to offer vs. me.
That's what I take issue with.
.