The Last Jedi new prop picture SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

I think around 1 hour 19 min there is a shot of the saber coming from Lukes belt after he had looked into Ben Solo's future but my phone isn't clear enough to make it out properly

This picture was posted some pages back

Screen05.png

And brightened

Screen05.png
 
Well look at that!!!!! 13 even traces ..........

Star Wars_Episode VIII - The Last Jed.2017.BDRemux.NNMClub.mkv_snapshot_01.19.10.jpg

- - - Updated - - -
Kylo1 I think we should start with the original prop, when trying to decide the color, after all the ILM guys would have started with it as well

origi.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kylo, I think you're absolutely right. I believe that last "trace" is part of the control box/PCB-holder - a sort of folded-under-the-rails stop.

Someone pointed out earlier that it seemed to be angled differently to the other traces as it caught the light at an angle while the PCB stayed dark which does support the theory.

I'm working on a TLJ myself and this is a print screen of the design before the higher res was leaked, it shows my design with the idea of a "stop" at the back (red lines indicate an angle). Next to is a blow-up of the latest screen captures which to my eyes show a triangular shadow. I know this is pretty eye-of-the-beholder, but it's what I see.

(..and regarding "what I see", Anakin totally convinced me, the pommel cubes are symmetrical) :)


pcb_holder.jpg


(EDIT: Ok, apparently I was one page late.. I don't know what to believe anymore)

cheers,
elsporto
 
Last edited:
Kylo, I think you're absolutely right. I believe that last "trace" is part of the control box/PCB-holder - a sort of folded-under-the-rails stop.

Someone pointed out earlier that it seemed to be angled differently to the other traces as it caught the light at an angle while the PCB stayed dark which does support the theory.

I'm working on a TLJ myself and this is a print screen of the design before the higher res was leaked, it shows my design with the idea of a "stop" at the back (red lines indicate an angle). Next to is a blow-up of the latest screen captures which to my eyes show a triangular shadow. I know this is pretty eye-of-the-beholder, but it's what I see.

(..and regarding "what I see", Anakin totally convinced me, the pommel cubes are symmetrical) :)


View attachment 803996

cheers,
elsporto

I don't know how much you've read, but some of us have come to the conclusion that saber has been rotoscoped, as earlier in that scene the saber has 13 traces all of the same color:unsure

Star Wars_Episode VIII - The Last Jed.2017.BDRemux.NNMClub.mkv_snapshot_01.19.10.jpg
 
I don't know how much you've read, but some of us have come to the conclusion that saber has been rotoscoped, as earlier in that scene the saber has 13 traces all of the same color:unsure

I've read it all.. all of it..

but it's hard to let go of convictions. We'd all like to be the one deciphering the it all - every detail into one perfect prop replica/screen accurate saber. I've discovered I'm no different. :rolleyes


I'm happy though, if consensus is "the trace" is a CGI flaw, makes it a whole lot easier.


cheers,
elsporto
 
I've read it all.. all of it..

but it's hard to let go of convictions. We'd all like to be the one deciphering the it all - every detail into one perfect prop replica/screen accurate saber. I've discovered I'm no different. :rolleyes


I'm happy though, if consensus is "the trace" is a CGI flaw, makes it a whole lot easier.


cheers,
elsporto

Easier??:D

I think the only reason everyone is attributing it to a CG flaw is that it changes every time it shows up in the movie. And if it is indeed the White Glove saber, then a CG card is the only way to explain it, considering that one only has 10 traces. And interestingly the two end traces are narrower than the rest.
 
SethS: That's pretty much correct. Technically any image generated by or on a computer is CGI, but in practice the term is used almost exclusively to refer to 3D renders. (And nobody in the industry uses "CGI" as a term of art. We're always more specific than that.)

Re the shots in question, I finished watching the director's commentary last night and a surprising number of things in the movie you would assume they did with computers were practical.

A partial list:

•The bombs falling out of the racks in the bomber when Paige Tico triggers them.
•The Jedi hut exploding outward when Luke sees Rey and Kylo together. (Rian said they had wires attached to the set that pulled it apart on cue.)
•BB-8 shooting coins at the guard in Canto Bight, as well as him blowing smoke from the coin slot. The coins were "enhanced" by ILM according to Johnson, but they built a rig that really could do it.
•Snoke's arm and hand when he touches Rey's face.
•The shuttle crash at the Crait base was real. They hired the guy who did the train gag for Inception to make a full-sized shuttle that they pulled through the set.

So, with all that in mind, I have to question if there's as much CG in the close-ups of the saber as people are assuming. I rewtched the scene and there's really only one close-up that requires an actor to be holding it. All the other inserts are of the hand and saber only. No left hand, no body or anything is visible. The only motion aside from the hand moving up or down in frame is the thumb curling.

Personally, if I were designing this shot, I'd have an animatronic hand for the close-ups and avoid as much digitical work as possible. Even if I had to go with a CG hand, I'd find some other way to support the saber so as to reduce the VFX workload. Maybe some kind of rig holding it from underneath, or even hanging it from wires.

Keep in mind that the Gralfex handoff was done with a paintout and digital hand because of the complexity of the handoff motion as well as Mark Hamill being visible in almost every shot. But with the Creepy Uncle, if you hire a guy to hold the saber and then erase the hand, you've removed the only part of the actor that's even in the shot. So why bother with a real hand at any stage at all, then?

That's not to dismiss the issues with the button and the shape of the control box that people have found, but I want to be sure were not seeing what we want to see because of our assumptions as opposed to what's actually there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@SethS: That's pretty much correct. Technically any image generated by or on a computer is CGI, but in practice the term is used almost exclusively to refer to 3D renders. (And nobody in the industry uses "CGI" as a term of art. We're always more specific than that.)

Re the shots in question, I finished watching the director's commentary last night and a surprising number of things in the movie you would assume they did with computers were practical.

A partial list:

•The bombs falling out of the racks in the bomber when Paige Tico triggers them.
•The Jedi hut exploding outward when Luke sees Rey and Kylo together. (Rian said they had wires attached to the set that pulled it apart on cue.)
•BB-8 shooting coins at the guard in Canto Bight, as well as him blowing smoke from the coin slot. The coins were "enhanced" by ILM according to Johnson, but they built a rig that really could do it.
•Snoke's arm and hand when he touches Rey's face.
•The shuttle crash at the Crait base was real. They hired the guy who did the train gag for Inception to make a full-sized shuttle that they pulled through the set.

So, with all that in mind, I have to question if there's as much CG in the close-ups of the saber as people are assuming. I rewtched the scene and there's really only one close-up that requires an actor to be holding it. All the other inserts are of the hand and saber only. No left hand, no body or anything is visible. The only motion aside from the hand moving up or down in frame is the thumb curling.

Personally, if I were designing this shot, I'd have an animatronic hand for the close-ups and avoid as much digitical work as possible. Even if I had to go with a CG hand, I'd find some other way to support the saber so as to reduce the VFX workload. Maybe some kind of rig holding it from underneath, or even hanging it from wires.

Keep in mind that the Gralfex handoff was done with a paintout and digital hand because of the complexity of the handoff motion as well as Mark Hamill being visible in almost every shot. But with the Creepy Uncle, if you hire a guy to hold the saber and then erase the hand, you've removed the only part of the actor that's even in the shot. So why bother with a real hand at any stage at all, then?

That's not to dismiss the issues with the button and the shape of the control box that people have found, but I want to be sure were not seeing what we want to see because of our assumptions as opposed to what's actually there.

A practical hand would make more sense... but the retouching crazy is the only way to really explain all the tiny details that change within frames of each other...
 
I agree completely. Every frame with a robot hand has been retouched.

I mean, I don't know if it's just me, but the distinction between the two halves of the saber (the one that has been retouched, and the one that didn't, like in the theory I've read a few pages back) is pretty obvious in this pic. Everything from the grips to the emitter is blurrier than the rest of the saber.

attachment.php
 
So I'm finding something interesting with all of these pictures. When the saber is on his belt, there are 13 traces all the same size, shape and color. But the instant he begins to pull it off of his belt, the last trace turns a different color and get narrower. It almost like that last trace is left over from the real prop and wasn't roto'd.
 
On the "coming off the belt" it almost looks like the card is overhanging on the emitter side. On that side the trace is full sized, and on the other it's half-sized...
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top