Jump to content

ANH mold/molds...


Rolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi gang.

I have been thinking about this for some time, maybe you can help me out...

We all know we see both the HDPE stunt helmet in ANH, and the ABS hero helmet in ANH.

I think there was made about 56 of them, and about 12 of them was in the ABS hero (i´m not 100% sure how many was hero).

All right here you go... the question.

1. Do you think there was more then one stunt mold too.

2. Or was modify/made up again, because of the damage of the pull of the helmets, so there a small difference in the helmets.

3. Or do you think they look different, because the way they was pulled/heating plastic up etc..

Here you can easy see, how different they was side by side:

Posted Image

As some know DL, have made a 3D scan of the ANH hdpe stunt Dave M helmet:

http://imperialarmor.net/tk.html

I have assemble a few of them.

Here is a few pictures:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I´m special focus on one place on the helmet.

And thats the mic tips ares.

To me the DL helmet, look more pointy, then the Brian R helmet.

The TE/TE2 helmet we all know, are a cast of the ANH Brian R.

Looking at the these two helmets.

1. the TE/TE2- Brian R helmet vs. the DL Dave M helmet.

Its looks to me there are way more "room" in the mic tips area, then on the DL/Dave M helmet.

Question.

So What do you see/know about the stunt molds...

Cheers :)

Brian R:

Posted Image

Dave M:

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a few more.

More room in the mic tips area:

Posted Image

But here is, look way smaller :blink: and its the same helmet:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Smaller room:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Another thing:

The ones whit smaller mic tips area, also seems to have more slim tubes (the blue stripe area on the helmet, left and right)

The DL/Dave M side tubes, are more "slim" then the TE/TE2 Brian R helmet.

Heres the Dave M helmet:

Posted Image

Cheers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rolf,

I would say that each and every HDPE helmet was pulled from the same mould. The sharpness of the pull depends on the heating time of the plastic and the temperature of the moulds. HDPE has a very limited heating cycle and if it isn't pulled at the exact point, then you end up with either an ultra sharp pull or a soft pull depending on when you drop the plastic on the mould. It's not like ABS which is more forgiving.

Looking at helmets side by side, they do appear slightly different in certain areas. This is down to assembly. Remember these helmets are not rigid plastic, they are soft and flexible, so if you rivet the sides of the helmet together and the tubes are not lining up properly, you can bend them into where you want them and rivet. This will make the face or tubes look deformed compared to other helmets which are assembled correctly. Also, some helmets are cracked under the chins making the respirator look more bulbous or the neck trim could make the tubes flare out more if the plastic was excessively thin.

I think the position of the mic tips is making the holes look different size but in reality they are all the same. Some mic tips are slanted off to one side, others are positioned to one side while some are bang in the middle. All this wiil add the illusion of larger or smaller holes in the mic tip areas.

One thing you should not do is compare replica helmets to originals. All replicas have either modified/touched up moulds (Yes, even Gino's) and/or are not made from the smae materials, so trying to compare them is not an option. While most of them look really nice, when you actually put them side by side, they are not the same. We get used to seeing say TE2 helmets and think that they 100% accurate and judge all other helmets from it when in reality they are not. What you should be judging your helmets or armour on is screen used stuff which is what we all ultimately want to replicate, not other replicas.

Thinking about it, there is a possibility that a two faced mould did exsist. I have photos of a two faced hero mould that I think AA made and you can tell it is cast from the original except for the undercuts have been filled in like what he offers, so maybe there could have been a double face mould for the stunts. But, I would say they would have been virtually identicle and not vary so much as to make the faces look different shapes.

Like I say, it is all down to assembly of the flimsy HDPE that is making some helmets look diferent than the 'norm'. For instance, Brian R. face is positioned more to the right in the dome making the right side tube look shorter than the Dave M. Because of this, the tube looks more bulbous comapred to the Dave M. which has it's face more central and lower, so there is no stress/tension on the tubes when they are mated up to the back tube and they look slimmer.

I hope some of that made sense :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make sense to me :) And most of sandtroopers had their helmet soft pulled,is this because they're in a rush to get them on to the plane to tunisia?

But what makes the Dave M helmet so different? (maybe its because i only had 1 pic of it or maybe because of the camera lens :unsure: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Dave M. looks any different from most other helmets. It has the face plate tilted outwards, making the tubes look longer and the whole helmet bigger, but it's the same shape as all the rest.

Like I said, assembly plays a big part in how these flimsy HDPE helmets look.

Only some of the sandtroopers helmets were soft pulls, not all of them. It was pot luck getting the temperature right on the HDPE for Ainsworth, I think :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rolf,

I would say that each and every HDPE helmet was pulled from the same mould. The sharpness of the pull depends on the heating time of the plastic and the temperature of the moulds. HDPE has a very limited heating cycle and if it isn't pulled at the exact point, then you end up with either an ultra sharp pull or a soft pull depending on when you drop the plastic on the mould. It's not like ABS which is more forgiving.

Looking at helmets side by side, they do appear slightly different in certain areas. This is down to assembly. Remember these helmets are not rigid plastic, they are soft and flexible, so if you rivet the sides of the helmet together and the tubes are not lining up properly, you can bend them into where you want them and rivet. This will make the face or tubes look deformed compared to other helmets which are assembled correctly. Also, some helmets are cracked under the chins making the respirator look more bulbous or the neck trim could make the tubes flare out more if the plastic was excessively thin.

I think the position of the mic tips is making the holes look different size but in reality they are all the same. Some mic tips are slanted off to one side, others are positioned to one side while some are bang in the middle. All this wiil add the illusion of larger or smaller holes in the mic tip areas.

One thing you should not do is compare replica helmets to originals. All replicas have either modified/touched up moulds (Yes, even Gino's) and/or are not made from the smae materials, so trying to compare them is not an option. While most of them look really nice, when you actually put them side by side, they are not the same. We get used to seeing say TE2 helmets and think that they 100% accurate and judge all other helmets from it when in reality they are not. What you should be judging your helmets or armour on is screen used stuff which is what we all ultimately want to replicate, not other replicas.

Thinking about it, there is a possibility that a two faced mould did exsist. I have photos of a two faced hero mould that I think AA made and you can tell it is cast from the original except for the undercuts have been filled in like what he offers, so maybe there could have been a double face mould for the stunts. But, I would say they would have been virtually identicle and not vary so much as to make the faces look different shapes.

Like I say, it is all down to assembly of the flimsy HDPE that is making some helmets look diferent than the 'norm'. For instance, Brian R. face is positioned more to the right in the dome making the right side tube look shorter than the Dave M. Because of this, the tube looks more bulbous comapred to the Dave M. which has it's face more central and lower, so there is no stress/tension on the tubes when they are mated up to the back tube and they look slimmer.

I hope some of that made sense :)

Hi Paul, aka master.

Thanks for your knowledge, and quick reply as all ways.

I think you right all the way.

I guess it comes down to assemble skills, flex hdpe plastic/bend etc, makes them look different + how they was pulled back then.

I guess too, like you say:

We need to look at the replicas we got, and compare them to the real deal.

The TE/TE2 looks a bit bigger in the mic tips areas, inside out.

The DL looks smaller in the mic tips area, and more pointy in the size and shape.

Brian R-TE/TE2:

Posted Image

Dave M/DL:

Posted Image

Brian R-TE/TE2:

Posted Image

Dave M/DL:

Posted Image

Here a side shot.

Brian R-TE/TE2:

Posted Image

Dave M/DL:

Posted Image

Cheers mate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I've never really looked at the mic tip area and scrutinized it until you pointed them out Rolf. It is very obvious that some sharpening of the edges occurred on the DL helmet. Although the original was 3D scanned, there is no way to capture all of the detail in that area - there are just too many curves and undercuts. I would expect them to use the 3D scan as a starting point, then go in and "clean it up" in preparation for 3D printing. The mic tip area is one place where we can definitely see a lot of "optimization" occurred :)

TrooperMaster knows his stuff when he says that HDPE and ABS are very different materials! From what I have read, HDPE wants to return to its original shape more than ABS. So even though Ainsworth may have used the same molds with HDPE and ABS, the finished parts are going to come out just a little different due to the nature of the material. Making a casting of the originals will also be difficult, because when you take apart the helmet, it's going to change the shape. When you pour in your casting resin, or silicone, or plaster - it's going to change the shape, usually resulting in a wider appearance as the sides flatten out. That is why it is important to only use the originals as the basis for comparison. Anything else is going to be just a slightly different.

I have seen a picture of a two faced mold, and remember some controversy about whether or not it was for screen used helmets, or something else (can't seem to find that picture). If I had to punch out 56 helmets, I would definitely make a mold just like that! It's a waste of plastic and time to only pull one helmet mask per piece of plastic, so increase efficiency by butting two heads together.

So, no concrete evidence, just conjecture on my part, but hopefully it's logical :D

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I've never really looked at the mic tip area and scrutinized it until you pointed them out Rolf. It is very obvious that some sharpening of the edges occurred on the DL helmet. Although the original was 3D scanned, there is no way to capture all of the detail in that area - there are just too many curves and undercuts. I would expect them to use the 3D scan as a starting point, then go in and "clean it up" in preparation for 3D printing. The mic tip area is one place where we can definitely see a lot of "optimization" occurred :)

TrooperMaster knows his stuff when he says that HDPE and ABS are very different materials! From what I have read, HDPE wants to return to its original shape more than ABS. So even though Ainsworth may have used the same molds with HDPE and ABS, the finished parts are going to come out just a little different due to the nature of the material. Making a casting of the originals will also be difficult, because when you take apart the helmet, it's going to change the shape. When you pour in your casting resin, or silicone, or plaster - it's going to change the shape, usually resulting in a wider appearance as the sides flatten out. That is why it is important to only use the originals as the basis for comparison. Anything else is going to be just a slightly different.

I have seen a picture of a two faced mold, and remember some controversy about whether or not it was for screen used helmets, or something else (can't seem to find that picture). If I had to punch out 56 helmets, I would definitely make a mold just like that! It's a waste of plastic and time to only pull one helmet mask per piece of plastic, so increase efficiency by butting two heads together.

So, no concrete evidence, just conjecture on my part, but hopefully it's logical :D

Charlie

Thanks for your good detail reply Charlie.

Copy that on the different style of act plastic/HDPE vs. ABS.

And also if a helmet is 3D scan/clean up, or take a part and cast to a mold.

And in the end, how we then assemble it again.

One new question, as i´m a rookie when it comes to make molds/pull plastic etc.

1. What mold will turn out most accurate.

A 3D scan of a screen used.

Or take a screen used helmet a part, and then cast it in to a mold.

(DL is a 3D scan, TE/TE2 is a cast mold)

Cheers bro :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, there is a possibility that a two faced mould did exsist. I have photos of a two faced hero mould that I think AA made and you can tell it is cast from the original except for the undercuts have been filled in like what he offers, so maybe there could have been a double face mould for the stunts. But, I would say they would have been virtually identicle and not vary so much as to make the faces look different shapes.

I know which picture you are referring too but my money is on Liz and not on AA for now Paul.. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One new question, as i´m a rookie when it comes to make molds/pull plastic etc.

1. What mold will turn out most accurate.

A 3D scan of a screen used.

Or take a screen used helmet a part, and then cast it in to a mold.

(DL is a 3D scan, TE/TE2 is a cast mold)

Cheers bro :)

Hmm, that's a good question Rolf. Ultimately, the goal is to have the replica helmet look like the screen used prop, so I would think 3D scanning the helmet before taking it apart would be the best method to capture the ideal shape. Then print your mold based on that scan. The challenge is being able to scan it, then turn it into reality - there will always be areas that don't read well during the scanning process, especially the mic tip area. If you have scanned a paper document into the computer, you know some things just get goofed up - it's never a perfect copy. So you go in and clean it up to get it close to perfect. Only we would be able to see and debate the tiny details where the clean up occurred.

I think the other method of taking apart the helmet, then casting into a mold would not be as accurate as a 3D scan. When originally vacuum formed, the plastic is a very close match to the original mold, but depending on the material, it will change shape slightly. The good thing is that once the helmet is assembled, that will encourage the plastic to stay in the ideal shape. However, when you take it apart to make the casting, the plastic will flare out again, and you will lose the original shape.

I know many artists do not have access to a 3D scanning machine (including myself :) ), so they would go with the "take it apart and cast" method.

Ultimately, the helmet that looks the best is one assembled by someone who has studied screen captures, compared the real helmets, has chosen the "one" helmet they are trying to replicate, then meticulously puts it together while comparing it to the reference material to make tiny adjustments. This is true regardless of which method was used to create the helmet molds.

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's a good question Rolf. Ultimately, the goal is to have the replica helmet look like the screen used prop, so I would think 3D scanning the helmet before taking it apart would be the best method to capture the ideal shape. Then print your mold based on that scan. The challenge is being able to scan it, then turn it into reality - there will always be areas that don't read well during the scanning process, especially the mic tip area. If you have scanned a paper document into the computer, you know some things just get goofed up - it's never a perfect copy. So you go in and clean it up to get it close to perfect. Only we would be able to see and debate the tiny details where the clean up occurred.

I think the other method of taking apart the helmet, then casting into a mold would not be as accurate as a 3D scan. When originally vacuum formed, the plastic is a very close match to the original mold, but depending on the material, it will change shape slightly. The good thing is that once the helmet is assembled, that will encourage the plastic to stay in the ideal shape. However, when you take it apart to make the casting, the plastic will flare out again, and you will lose the original shape.

I know many artists do not have access to a 3D scanning machine (including myself :) ), so they would go with the "take it apart and cast" method.

Ultimately, the helmet that looks the best is one assembled by someone who has studied screen captures, compared the real helmets, has chosen the "one" helmet they are trying to replicate, then meticulously puts it together while comparing it to the reference material to make tiny adjustments. This is true regardless of which method was used to create the helmet molds.

Charlie

Thanks for your knowledge Charlie.

I guess i will never be a maker my self, so it love to hear it from the makers.

Or people there know more about it then me, how to make these beauty´s for us:

Knowing more about how to make molds/vac pull them... i guess give you a better view, of how to assemble/catch the screen used look too.

Peace out bro :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking 3D scans is indeed very exspensive. i can´t tell the actual price but i think i remember Mike Verta payed five-figured for the scan of TE´s helmet.

(long story, no need to reheat that once again, please!)

in my opinion the 3d scans can not be used to make a good mould off, because the helmet was scanned from the outside of a assembled helmet.

like Paul said, it´s all about assembly and positioning, so i assume a mould made from that particular 3D scan would be warped and misshaped compared to the original moulds.

of course a skilled artist or a computer could maybe make a very close new mould but it would still vary in minor details to a original, i assume.

actually i think if we could take apart 50 different helmets and were able to take moulds of each part, all would be slightly different.

just because of different heat, mould release and so on while pulling each part and of course all what happened after that untill now, assembly, usage, even storage maybe...

without using the actual first master mould (god knows if they even still exist) no helmet will ever be like the originals. sad but true...

closest thing we can get are the first generation helmets like Gino, TE/TE2...

don´t get me wrong, nothing wrong with a TM helmet, just talking about pedigree to the original moulds! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go with RoCKo on this one and agree with everything he has said.

The only way to get an accurate replica is to have a mould taken from inside an original helmet. I also agree with what Charlie said about losing the original shape when a helmet is disassembled, but there are ways of controlling that. Taking a 3D scan only captures the extrenal likeness and is good for making fibreglass copies, but vacuum forming a stormtrooper helmet requires a positive mould that is very close to what the finished helmet looks like, though not exactly the same.

Taking a mould from inside does have some draw backs though. It picks up details not necesarily on the original mould. For instance, the trap details that are present on TE/TE2 helmets are the result of the way the plastic has formed and is not on the actual mould. Just look closely at any original ANH or ESB helmet and you will see that there are no 'frames' (or hardly any) around the traps. The formed plastic leaves a slight frame in crevices and it exaggerated when formed over on the mould taken from inside.

One thing I have found from testing HDPE is that it does 'not' produce these frames/borders on hard edges, which leads me to beleive that they did not use HDPE for the original helmets. The plastic that did leave these frames was PP (PolyPropylene). Both plastics are a nightmare to form and require exact heating otherwise you end up with a melted mess. I can see why the original helmets look so different as each one would have been made with plastic heated at different temperatures making soft or sharp pulls. Both HDPE and PP benefit from cooling fans after forming to reduce the shrinkage and warpage. Not nice stuff to form overall.

Here's a photo of the two faced mould.

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: WOOAAAAH Fascinating photo,and interesting thoughts about PolyPropylene :blink:

Does a faceplate mold is common like that? I never seen one

One more noob question though :P does the Dave M helmet had been identified on screen? I never seen it on screen caps,thats why i think its not made by Ainsworth and not used for the shoot.

Sorry if this brings down the scale of this thread :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two face mold looks real.

But...

What about the boble stripe in the tear drops, they are not on the mold.

And we only see 6 mouth holes, not 10.

Plus the chin/vocoder looks very soft.

But i can´t say for sure if its the right one, aka "the" one and only Mr. right ANH stunt face plate.

I have heard that a new member of the DIY forum, should have the molds...

Maybe members over there, could check it out for us.

Cheers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: WOOAAAAH Fascinating photo,and interesting thoughts about PolyPropylene :blink:

Does a faceplate mold is common like that? I never seen one

One more noob question though :P does the Dave M helmet had been identified on screen? I never seen it on screen caps,thats why i think its not made by Ainsworth and not used for the shoot.

Sorry if this brings down the scale of this thread :D

Hi bro.

The Dave M helmet, is the:

Set for stunt ANH stromtrooper (stunt princess Leia scene).

Here a picture of the helmet, and the ANH scene:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Here Dave M, the owner of the helmet:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two faced mould is what I think was used to make the ribbed back prototype helmet by AA. Looking at it, it's definately cast from a hero helmet, but the undercut has been filled in before the finished mould was cast. The lack of undercut is AA's trademark ;) I've never seen the original moulds and don't even know if they still exist. I know the owner of this two faced mould told me he had moulds of the body armour too, but they were thrown away when his parents moved house :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two faced mould is what I think was used to make the ribbed back prototype helmet by AA. Looking at it, it's definately cast from a hero helmet, but the undercut has been filled in before the finished mould was cast. The lack of undercut is AA's trademark ;) I've never seen the original moulds and don't even know if they still exist. I know the owner of this two faced mould told me he had moulds of the body armour too, but they were thrown away when his parents moved house :o

Sounds correct about being a prototype, it match whit the 6 mouth holes hero style helmet etc...

But:

I know the owner of this two faced mould told me he had moulds of the body armour too, but they were thrown away when his parents moved house.

NNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooOOOOOOOOO :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I keep everything) Here's more pictures of the two-face mold. I highly doubt it's original, the details are just not there and it's too wonky, as in the bottom tube half looks torqued... as if a plastic face plate was filled with something heavy, like plaster/hydro-stone, etc.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...