WIP: ESB build after a decade 'on hold' + ROTJ rebuild

Ord Mantell

Hunter
I was lucky enough to snag a Michell stylus brush for a cheap price lately. It was missing the label, had some corrosion on the brush insert, and had some oxidation on the top side, which might be why the audiofiles didn't snatch it first. None of those problems are of any concern for its use a BF prop, though.


s-l500.jpg


So I had to revisit my shin tools to incorporate this. The anti-security vibro blade or some such nonsense name? I forget exactly. [/google]. Yes. Anti-security blade.

So for this shin tool I have the Mojofett stylus brush replicas attached to the Paterson squeegee leftover part with gaffer tape...

ASB1.jpg


The Mojofett replicas both have the second topside hole, but occurred to me while doing this and discussing it with intwenothor, only the outside brush would actually have the extra hole, because the prop guys had to drill that hole to make them join in their offset manner. They wouldn't need to drill the hole into the one on the inside. So if I ever get a second one of these, it means drilling a hole through it.

IMG_8787.JPG


IMG_8797.JPG




the screw or nail that goes through them is a bit of a mystery to me. I've only seen exhibit photos of it. Looks like a tiny copper colored thing. I tried different screws. The ones that fit the threads of the holes have heads that are obviously too big. A nail might be the right thing to use. For now, I put in an undersized countersunk brass screw.

IMG_8836.JPG


I switched to electrical tape to try it out instead of the gaffer tape. After trying both, I think the electrical tape is correct. Throw a little rust on and done.

IMG_8981.JPG
 

tennantlim

Active Hunter
Preferred Vendor
What were your settings and type of studio lights used for photographing the jetpack with the beacon light on? Typically, the significantly higher power of a studio strobe would 'override' any bulb even at low power. Hence it would be ideal to do the shot in complete darkness and drag the shutter to expose for the bulb's illumination.

Referring to my shot of the MCR beacon, my camera setting was ISO 35, f/16 and 8 seconds of exposure shot in absolute darkness. The strobes were set to light the beacon optimally, while the long shutter captures the bulb's illumination. Because my set up was in darkness, I didn't have to worry about overexposing the ambience. For a white background, I would close down the aperture, drag the shutter longer, and light the background separately. Hence 2 flashes will expose on the same frame.

To negate the above, you would have to use a constant lighting source, such as LED panels, with which you can balance its power against the beacon bulb's.

Hope this helps.
20190124_MachineCraft Replicas14732_INSTAGRAM 2048PX.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ord Mantell

Hunter
What were your settings and type of studio lights used for photographing the jetpack with the beacon light on? Typically, the significantly higher power of a studio strobe would 'override' any bulb even at low power. Hence it would be ideal to do the shot in complete darkness and drag the shutter to expose for the bulb's illumination.
Great photo!

However, the point of my exercise was to get to a power value for the bulb that would be closer to the real bulb used in the film. Peter Suschitzky did not light the sets according to the brightness of the beacon light. I was just trying to see at what point does the brightness start to stand up to studio lights and what I know from my experiment is that a 10w (or higher) 12v bulb is very probably correct, and certainly a better choice than a very low power LED on a 9v battery.
 
Last edited:

Ord Mantell

Hunter
IMG_9348.JPG


vintage sx-70 installed
IMG_9387.JPG


vintage microswitch installed
IMG_9389-1 (dragged).jpg


primer on the helmet, the paint-grade MCR-ESB retrograded to circa 1979 with Elstree Precision Co. Ltd ears (thank you MachineCraft for the paint-grade option!)

IMG_4831.jpg
IMG_4850.jpg
IMG_4837.jpg
IMG_4841.jpg


IMG_4845.jpg


IMG_4833.jpg

IMG_4851.jpg


I had some concerns about the big depression behind the back of the left ear and was considering doing some surgery to the helmet to correct it. To illustrate the problem behind the left ear, I took photos trying to replicate lighting best I could. To be sure, its not an exact match, but I can see enough here to rethink my initial worries.

thedipbehindleftearcompare.jpg


The depression behind the left ear is not as bad as I thought and certainly was present to a degree in 1979. I do think it had gotten slightly worse from 1979 to 2012, but probably not enough for me to do surgery in this area. I will leave well enough alone.
thedipbehindleftearcompare2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4841.jpg
    IMG_4841.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Top