HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey

The bonus I see for a replica lens is that it could be done to not require a hole in your wall. A real Kinko or other lens would mean you'd have to put a hole in your wall or build a box for it.

I don't think replicating the light effect would be that difficult. Might mean just messing with some diffusers or something. Also if the only option is to use a real Kinko we all know that the prices will be driven well above $35 because there would be a lot of people wanting to finish their panel and they'd all be gunning for the same limited supply of them on ebay.
 
I'll consider whatever techniques people want to suggest. I would imagine though that bubbles or other defects in a lens replica (especially when backlit with the red light) would not be tolerarated by most people, so if it's to be a casting, it needs to look perfect.

- k

Originally posted by dr_slurpee@Apr 4 2006, 11:15 AM
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...
[snapback]1219677[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
 
I certainly can't say I know much about casting, but wouldn't pressure casting or whatever it is eliminate the bubbles? What about the idea of having the lens injection molded? I suppose it all depends on the numbers involved...a large number of items could justify different techniques.
 
IMHO the Kenko is still on the table, I just want to do a little more research before I'm willing to consider it an acceptable option.

You have good points about it being a "real" lens, which would lend the prop some authenticity.

But it's also true that a replica lens need not be as deep as the Kenko (tho it does need some depth I should think).

Best of all worlds would be to have the panel include a replica dummy lens, which could be swapped out for a real lens if you have one.

- k


Originally posted by zorg@Apr 4 2006, 12:09 PM
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
[snapback]1219720[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
 
ok what about vac formming the lense?

casting or maching out of plastic seems too hit or miss or costly?

z
 
I have a replica HAL I picked up a few years ago, in resin with a lens made from a pair of vacformed shells with a funky background piece to suggest the lens mechanisms.

I don't find the vacform approach to be very convincing or satisfying. If somebody wants to suggest a more convincing way of doing this with vacforming, please jump in.

kt-HAL-lensprofile.jpg


kt-HAL-bricks.jpg


- k
 
it occurs to me, that you know if we knew exactly what the dimensions on the Nikkor were we could just buy a lens, and not worry about casting, machining etc

heres a 55mm hand held lens for reading that's $25

http://www.accessingenuity.com/Product%20P...dMagnifiers.htm

you could even take the glass out of an inexpensive magnifying glass...
we just need to know what the size is

if we knew the exact size, the rest is just metal work...
 
Originally posted by tgreco@Apr 4 2006, 04:58 PM
it occurs to me, that you know if we knew exactly what the dimensions on the Nikkor were we could just buy a  lens, and not worry about casting, machining etc
[snapback]1219875[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
The lens size is important, but also the curve depth/shape. I'm not sure if we'd get that lucky pinpointing something exactly like it...

But at this point in the project, we still have to get a positive ID on the lens used. How about we get that aside first, then figure out exactly how we're going to make it? :confused
 
HAL's lens is deep and apparently parabolic in section, not a simple hemisphere or "lens" shape as from a magnifier. My drawing (posted previously) approximates it.

Just a note that I'm out of pocket today and may not be able to get on the net or respond to email. I will be back when I can.

- Karl
 
Well I'm back online, but the past couple days I've been sick as a dog with sinus problems. :(

I hope to post some findings soon tho. :)

- Karl
 
Actually I'm feeling worse today, but trying to get lots of rest and hoping to not have to go to the doc. :(

Anyway... while trying to recover, I have been analyzing some HAL photos. :)

Here are my findings:

• On the Bridge, the square viewscreen is 0.66 as tall as HAL.

hal_bridge01.jpg



• HAL in the Centrifuge has these same proportions compared to the screen.

hal_cent_07_screens.jpg


• HAL in the Podbay has a DIFFERENT relationship to the screen; either the screen is smaller here, or HAL is larger.

hal_podbay12.jpg


• Assuming that HAL is actually the same size everywhere, and also assuming that the NIKKOR lens is the correct one, the HAL panel is 13.75" tall. The viewscreen is 9 inches square on the Bridge and Centrifuge, and 8.25 inches square in the Podbay.

• Also assuming the NIKKOR was used, the transfer tunnel to the Centrfuge set is about 6.0 feet in diameter. Keir Dullea works out to being 6.0 feet tall when standing next to the Podbay console.

• If however the Kenko lens was used and the Podbay HAL panel is actually 10.75" tall, then Dullea works out to being a ridiculous 4.75 feet tall.

CONCLUSIONS:

• The NIKKOR lens size is correct

• The HAL panel is 13.75" inches tall on the Bridge, Centrifuge and Podbay sets

Here are my findings in graphic format:

kt_halsizecomparisons.jpg
 
I read somewhere that Keir Dullea is 4'5" and Gary Lockwood about the same. Kubrick used a lot of forced perspective in the film. Using smaller actors saved the production money on the sets, costumes, even food service.

:p

But seriously, great work, Karl. You've made a very convincing argument for the Nikkor... or at least a convincing argument against the Kenko.

The possibility still exists that it might have been yet another, still-unidentified lens. But since your calculations are based on the relative sizes of Dullea, the HAL panel, and the centrifugal entry tube, it would seem that, whether or not the Nikkor is the correct lens, it's roughly the correct size. Which is a big step toward locking down the dimensions of the HAL panel.

Well done. :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup



On another note, I'm sorry to read that you've been ill. I did notice that your illness seems to have been accompanied by an avatar switch. ("The Enemy Within"? Seems quite appropriate. :p)

Hope you feel better soon. And keep up the great work.
 
Shoot. So instead of the $35 lens it's the $2000 lens. :cry Oh well. As long as someone can make the lens I guess it's not that big a deal. So which panel are we going for, the 13 3/4" or 15"?

Bill
 
This thread is more than 11 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.

Similar threads

RWoerz
My HAL 9000 Panel Build
Replies
14
Views
1,137
RWoerz
RWoerz
F
Hal 9000 and Odyssey control panel
Replies
2
Views
1,150
eiri1234
eiri1234
BonesAreDollars
2001: A Space Odyssey HAL 9000 deactivation key
Replies
3
Views
1,553
joberg
joberg
rogerrabt
My new HAL 9000
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5,624
RWoerz
RWoerz
alan molstad
2001 Monolith build
6 7 8
Replies
154
Views
3,867
greenmachines
greenmachines
Back
Top