Build: Luke Macrobinoculars (ANH Hero)

I am just saying this part resembles very closely whats on the prop - but I don't believe its the actual physical object that was used - and I think @troopers picture really brought it home to me. It *might* be a different version of the same connector, or it might be something altogether different that looks a lot like the connector. I don't know. I'll also add I don't think my thoughts carry much weight at all - but sometimes someone not emotionally involved can offer some perspective! :)

Your opinions are worth exactly what everyones else is :) No emotional involvement here just technical curiosity and a desire for accuracy. I believe this is the correct connector but we may not have found the exact version.

- - - Updated - - -

look at post 296. I'm not real sure this is the right part. unless there is some odd lens distortion

I saw those pics and distortion in moving images is always a possibility but I concur that the versions(s) we have collectively in our possession may not be the bingo match it is most certainly an 8 Pin connector of this type.
 
Your opinions are worth exactly what everyone elses is

Thats kind but I'm still a newb and I'm not making this prop. Post 296 as @trooper says shows it very clearly. I'd comment in addition that the central bar on Luke's prop appears to have three sections, and I also feel that the whole front of it appears to be a seamless single piece, not one of these connectors plugged into a female part that's been doctored in some complicated way.
 
Thats kind but I'm still a newb and I'm not making this prop. Post 296 as @trooper says shows it very clearly. I'd comment in addition that the central bar on Luke's prop appears to have three sections, and I also feel that the whole front of it appears to be a seamless single piece, not one of these connectors plugged into a female part that's been doctored in some complicated way.

I disagree. We are looking at a small blown up frame of a stretched 70 MM analog film print. Regarding the front being seamless those details blur out as do many of the top details due to the poor resolution. Additional if they put the female piece on and then painted it to dull down the part to limit reflection then that would further obscure the "seam". In other words, the lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. Im not understanding the 3 bar part of your observation.
 
Additional if they put the female piece on and then painted it to dull down the part to limit reflection then that would further obscure the "seam". In other words, the lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack.

Sure. Just Occam's razor suggests to me more likely they found something that was a whole piece. Surely we agree that the current proposal (extracting the female part of the plug, painting it, adding something to the other end of it) is rather complicated. Not saying they didn't do it... just that a single object feels more likely - especially when it looks like a single object (Occam's razor again).

Im not understanding the 3 bar part of your observation.

There seem to be 3 components to the vertical bar in the middle, with a central black circle in each - I've highlighted the area in pink.

IMG_4581[1]_mod.jpg
 
Sure. Just Occam's razor suggests to me more likely they found something that was a whole piece. Surely we agree that the current proposal (extracting the female part of the plug, painting it, adding something to the other end of it) is rather complicated. Not saying they didn't do it... just that a single object feels more likely.



Have a look at this - there seem to be 3 components to this, with a central black circle in each.

View attachment 778239

It is possible that we are seeing is a common artifact that occurs in expanding photos of this type. Its the way analog transitions to digital representation. Digital pictures "fill in the blanks" when resolution is low. This can cause repeating shape patterns that are not present in the actual. Or possibly there is something else put in the catch release. Since that is what that tab does I would lean towards lost detail in the picture. Occam razor would have to apply evenly to all props now wouldn't it and we know just about every other part of this thing had the parts altered in seemly unnessesary complex ways but thats what Star Wars prop makers did. They attempted to mask the obvious shapes of found items to make them unidentifiable hence the reason we have been looking at this part for 25 years to no avail. Additionally I think your missing the forrest for the shrubbery. The general shape is apparently exact. The tab ports, screws, rivets, pins cable lock port are all in the correct general place so I think Occam would say this is the most likely the connector type if not the exact year/model.
 
Probably!

Or not :) Thats why this hobby eats up your time if you let it. This $#@$ part has been the thorn of my Macro builds for 7 years. Every other part is identified. Its like making a puzzle and realizing that a piece in the middle is missing.
 
Thats kind but I'm still a newb and I'm not making this prop. Post 296 as @trooper says shows it very clearly. I'd comment in addition that the central bar on Luke's prop appears to have three sections, and I also feel that the whole front of it appears to be a seamless single piece, not one of these connectors plugged into a female part that's been doctored in some complicated way.
I don't think those 3 little holes in the tab are part of the prop. It's just some kind of pixel distortion. The little round circles are predominant across the whole photo. Look at this highlighted area and you can see them all over, even on marks face. I think its just one of those thing where they happen to line up well. If you look all over the photo you can see other areas where these pixels line up in straight lines also.
snip macro.PNG
 
Or not :) Thats why this hobby eats up your time if you let it. This $#@$ part has been the thorn of my Macro builds for 7 years. Every other part is identified. Its like making a puzzle and realizing that a piece in the middle is missing.
Not quite unless I've missed something but wasn't the side piece on the viewer hood only recently noticed, does anyone know what that is?
 
Not quite unless I've missed something but wasn't the side piece on the viewer hood only recently noticed, does anyone know what that is?

Why ya gotta do that to me man :)

i think its it’s safe to say the button is identified. The rest appears to just be a triangle. I’m satisfied with that for the piece in advance of further findings.
 
I actually wonder if that is misleading and that perhaps what we see is all one thing - gutting as there simply is nothing clear anywhere to even hint at a clue?
 
Check out this "oddball" connector I found. Notice that the "push clip" is green instead of chrome... compare that to the original prop. Also, the green push clip is in between the two chrome push clip sizes we've found. I thought it was interesting. I clipped in the correct female that I have for size.

IMG_2511.JPG

Macros Connector 5.jpg
 
sorry man, i meant the clip / connector :) my bad for not clarifying.
so if this connector is from 80 or newer, then it's not it.

It's from the late 1960's early 1970's.

I'm not suggesting that this particular clip is the 100% correct version. I do, however, like the look and length of the green push-clips. They are the exact same shade of green as the 8-pin plug-in part and look to be made from the same material. My picture is a little blurry, but there are some tiny ribs in the green push clips, as well.

I also see a hint of green in the original prop photo as well as what looks to be some ribbing.

- Jim
 
I have been playing with this image to bring out the details. I can see the nut on the screw on the bottom of the connector.

any one else see this ?
I can email any one a larger image of this .....
also you guys who believe in the rubber band version of the seagull knob, take a gander :)





lukeheromacros[1] v2.jpg
 
I too would love a larger version, Jerry. Somebody posted this image on this thread right before all the mystery box hype, but right after I decided to use the black band version of the seagull knob on my build (I hadn't seen this image before then). It's pretty undeniable that that is the knurled metal vetsion of the Seagull knob, but I always aim to make my props as close to possible as to what can be seen on screen, and in all the visible screengrabs from ANH, it seems to be the other version (at least from what I can see). I'm sure there were either two versions of the hero macros, or that the knobs were switched out at some point. Thanks for posting this one, Jerry! I know I'm in the minority here with the black band knob ...
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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