HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey
- Thread starter simon_lewis
- Start date
Thanks CantinaDude. Great work there.
Why do propmen always use CLASSIC expensive camera equipment for making props out of. :lol
And I agree, no jumping the gun this time. First comes the size estimate, then we see what available lenses would fit. Go where the evidence leads us.
- k
Why do propmen always use CLASSIC expensive camera equipment for making props out of. :lol
And I agree, no jumping the gun this time. First comes the size estimate, then we see what available lenses would fit. Go where the evidence leads us.
- k
Beagle Bill
Sr Member
There's a similar fisheye NIKKOR lens on ebay right now. Starting bid? Only $2100. :cry
Beagle Bill
Sr Member
There's a similar fisheye NIKKOR lens on ebay right now. Starting bid? Only $2100. :cry
I believe the number for the actual lens we are looking for is 88243. Production of this lens ran from July 1962 until April 1966.
Bill
I believe the number for the actual lens we are looking for is 88243. Production of this lens ran from July 1962 until April 1966.
Bill
Sharp lens. 
I think the way the serial numbers work is that each lens has its unique number engraved on the ring there. There's a range, but each lens has a different number.
At least that's how I think it works.
- k
I think the way the serial numbers work is that each lens has its unique number engraved on the ring there. There's a range, but each lens has a different number.
At least that's how I think it works.
- k
Beagle Bill
Sr Member
Could be. At any rate, I'm afraid I'll have to look for a cheaper alternative, unless I sell off half my prop collection for a single camera lens. :lol I hope someone with the means can produce a quality replica for us po' folk. I'm glad the whole fiasco in the past few days hasn't killed the enthusiasm for this project. As many talented people as there are on this board, I am sure this is a project we can see through to completion. :thumbsup
Bill
Bill
Correct that the production run of this lens ran from 1962 until 1966. Also correct, I think, that each lens bears its own unique serial number. Production serial numbers for this lens are supposed to have started from 88010, according to the Nikon Hand Book. (I read this in a secondary source; I don't have a copy of the Hand Book myself. :$ )
I am a little confused. Has the direction of this project changed from replicating both the lens and the panel to just replicating the panel? Given the rarity and cost of any fish-eye lens I would think very few people would have any use for a panel with no lens...then again I might just be missing something here.
Here are my priorities for bringing this project to completion:
1) Research: make sure we have the most accurate dimensions possible. This effort would be assisted if we can pin down the correct lens that was used, but that is not critical. I just want to feel confident that we're not going way too small or way too big with our replica.
2) Blueprint: obviously we've made considerable progress in both of these phases, I think we're almost done. I will feel confident of the blueprint once we've gathered a little more information about lenses and estimated sizes for the panel.
3) Interest Thread: I intend to post a fresh "line up here" thread on both RPF and Propcircle, to take names and count heads so we can gauge how many panels we're talking about.
4) Manufacture: At this time I'm talking about the panel replica itself, and probably a replica dummy lens. This requires metal machining, label printing, and potentially acrylic machining and polishing for the lens elements.
5) Additional options: after the replica has been made and everyone is satisfied, then we can think about display options and sound systems or any other add-ons that people would like to see. Of course everyone will want to at least put a red light behind the panel, so the replica must be capable of that at a minimum.
I would like to bring this project in for minimum cost to you, and as quickly as we can get it done (without making mistakes or creating problems by rushing, of course).
I hope this is acceptable. Please let me know what you think. I too am eagerly awaiting this HAL replica, so I want to make sure it gets done in the best way possible.
Thanks,
- karl
1) Research: make sure we have the most accurate dimensions possible. This effort would be assisted if we can pin down the correct lens that was used, but that is not critical. I just want to feel confident that we're not going way too small or way too big with our replica.
2) Blueprint: obviously we've made considerable progress in both of these phases, I think we're almost done. I will feel confident of the blueprint once we've gathered a little more information about lenses and estimated sizes for the panel.
3) Interest Thread: I intend to post a fresh "line up here" thread on both RPF and Propcircle, to take names and count heads so we can gauge how many panels we're talking about.
4) Manufacture: At this time I'm talking about the panel replica itself, and probably a replica dummy lens. This requires metal machining, label printing, and potentially acrylic machining and polishing for the lens elements.
5) Additional options: after the replica has been made and everyone is satisfied, then we can think about display options and sound systems or any other add-ons that people would like to see. Of course everyone will want to at least put a red light behind the panel, so the replica must be capable of that at a minimum.
I would like to bring this project in for minimum cost to you, and as quickly as we can get it done (without making mistakes or creating problems by rushing, of course).
I hope this is acceptable. Please let me know what you think. I too am eagerly awaiting this HAL replica, so I want to make sure it gets done in the best way possible.
Thanks,
- karl
As far as I know, the intention is to replicate both the panel and the lens. The current pursuit of data about the actual lens owes mostly to the desire to replicate HAL's appearance as accurately as possible while keeping the costs reasonable. If we replicate the panel only, with the expectation that buyers will add their own real lens, the cost will become prohibitive for most of us. (The Nikkor, if that is the right lens, starts at about $850.00. That's if you're lucky. :confused )
Wouldn't you know it? I actually own a set of jeweler's screwdrivers. I'm sure most of you have had the experience of buying a tool that you figured would come in handy someday... and then promptly forgetting all about it. :$
As promised earlier in this thread, I removed the front ring from my Kenko. I even managed not to lose the tiny screws (yet). Here's what it looks like, with the pod bay cap for comparison:
The white spots around the HAL lens in the pod bay screencap still look like words to me rather than reflections of the bright set lights above.
Thanks, Wackychimp, for hosting. :thumbsup
As promised earlier in this thread, I removed the front ring from my Kenko. I even managed not to lose the tiny screws (yet). Here's what it looks like, with the pod bay cap for comparison:
The white spots around the HAL lens in the pod bay screencap still look like words to me rather than reflections of the bright set lights above.
Thanks, Wackychimp, for hosting. :thumbsup
I cannot imagine that the white spots on the rim of HAL's lens are light reflections.
Two independent lens experts (Dennis Gilliam and the camera collector I've been talking to) both have said that at least some of the marks on the HAL photos correspond to words on real lenses. I think the chances against that happening are astronomical, if the marks on HAL were just reflections.
Also it has been my experience that pieces of professional camera equpment have matte black casings, which would not reflect light anyway.
- Karl
Two independent lens experts (Dennis Gilliam and the camera collector I've been talking to) both have said that at least some of the marks on the HAL photos correspond to words on real lenses. I think the chances against that happening are astronomical, if the marks on HAL were just reflections.
Also it has been my experience that pieces of professional camera equpment have matte black casings, which would not reflect light anyway.
- Karl
rocketeer25
Sr Member
This sounds right to me, Karl. The amount of research you and others have put into this project is amazing. :thumbsup This is going to turn out to be the ultimate HAL replica.
My confusion came into play with the comments like "and probably a replica dummy lens". Is there a chance that the lens will not be replicated? Cause if it's not replicated I think most people would probably not be interested in just the panel with a hole in it.
I hear you, and I agree on the need for some sort of lens or reasonable facsimilie.
I think the only way I would NOT include a replica dummy lens, is if it turns out to be hideously expensive... like more expensive to make a replica than a real lens would cost.
With this in mind, anyone who wants to recommend someone who can do machined, flame-polished acrylic cut to specific tolerances (the lens is not a hemispherical dome, it's parabolic; plus there are internal spaces to be cut out)... please suggest someone.
- k
I think the only way I would NOT include a replica dummy lens, is if it turns out to be hideously expensive... like more expensive to make a replica than a real lens would cost.
With this in mind, anyone who wants to recommend someone who can do machined, flame-polished acrylic cut to specific tolerances (the lens is not a hemispherical dome, it's parabolic; plus there are internal spaces to be cut out)... please suggest someone.
- k
I stand on the shoulders of many others. :$
But yes, I am committed to making this the best replica ever.
- k
But yes, I am committed to making this the best replica ever.
- k
Originally posted by phase pistol@Apr 4 2006, 11:07 AM
I hear you, and I agree on the need for some sort of lens or reasonable facsimilie.
I think the only way I would NOT include a replica dummy lens, is if it turns out to be hideously expensive... like more expensive to make a replica than a real lens would cost.
With this in mind, anyone who wants to recommend someone who can do machined, flame-polished acrylic cut to specific tolerances (the lens is not a hemispherical dome, it's parabolic; plus there are internal spaces to be cut out)... please suggest someone.
- k
[snapback]1219673[/snapback]
Would casting the lens be worth concidering? A master could be machined in aluminum or something and polished to a nice mirror surface to be used for casting. Of course machined and polished acrylic would be better...
ok heres my 7 euros,
i agree with you karl on taking your time and not rushing.
on the other hand....(ducks behind bush) why cant we just use the kenko lense? i know it makes for a smaller unit but there were different sizes in the movie (if i remember)
1, its a real fish eye lense
2, its pretty inexpensive (i've seen them go for under 35 dollars on ebay)
3, its not a million miles away.
4, i would much rather a real lense than a piece of plastic
5, getting the plastic to look like the lense when lit up will be a hit or miss or a lot of work and head scratching.
6, only complete sad prop whores would know the difference
7, its a real fish eye lense.
:love
i agree with you karl on taking your time and not rushing.
on the other hand....(ducks behind bush) why cant we just use the kenko lense? i know it makes for a smaller unit but there were different sizes in the movie (if i remember)
1, its a real fish eye lense
2, its pretty inexpensive (i've seen them go for under 35 dollars on ebay)
3, its not a million miles away.
4, i would much rather a real lense than a piece of plastic
5, getting the plastic to look like the lense when lit up will be a hit or miss or a lot of work and head scratching.
6, only complete sad prop whores would know the difference
7, its a real fish eye lense.
:love
