|
|
Post by Clavius on Apr 22, 2008 21:50:04 GMT -6
(original post: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:11 am)Just so we know what we are talking about... 
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 22, 2008 22:20:27 GMT -6
(original post)
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Pietrobon on Apr 23, 2008 14:06:20 GMT -6
(original post: 22 Nov 2007 05:33 am)Sent to me from someone selling reproductions of these photos on eBay. Click on the photos to get full resolution photos. These are much higher resolution than the photos above, but are taken at an angle. Perhaps someone can orthographically correct them. The US Bomb was originally in scene B1b (the second to be shown). It ended up as the first to be shown. The dimensions of the model from the drawing are 2'10" (864 mm) long 1'5.25" (438 mm) high 11" (279 mm) wide.    Scene from DVD. 
|
|
|
|
Post by sal9000 on Apr 24, 2008 13:01:53 GMT -6
(original post: 26 Nov 2007 06:09 pm)There was some discussion on the AC board about the apparent thinness of the US bomb as seen in the film frames. At that time I was of the opinion that the bomb was indeed thinner than the Con Pederson's drawing in Bizony's book. Now that there is a still of the model taken at an oblique angle, I retract my earlier suggestion that the final filming model was thinned down. I suspect that there is some kind of camera lens distortion (long lens effects?) that are making it look thin when it isn't. I am modifying my plans and will post new drawing on my site along with the thin version for comparison (which by the way is pod.sparknet.ca/ ). Anyone else have an opinion on this? --Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Pietrobon on Apr 24, 2008 13:04:20 GMT -6
(original post: 27 Nov 2007 12:40 am)
There might be some vertical distortion which causes the bomb to look thinner, perspective as well as tricks played by the lighting conditions. I believe the drawing is what the modelers would have used and that the US Bomb is octagonal in shape. The photos above (suffering from a double perspective though) seem to indicate this.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 24, 2008 19:28:10 GMT -6
(original post: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:48 am)suffering from a double perspective though I think you may be correct here. I sure wish someone had access to cleaner versions of these (though I don't think they are worth $30 a peace). I believe that they were taken at a Kubrick exhibit. One looks like the actual cutout used for the FX shot. That sure would shed light on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Model Man on Apr 24, 2008 19:42:38 GMT -6
(original post: 27 Nov 2007 04:52 am)Perhaps someone can orthographically correct them. If I have the opportunity, I can do some basic photogrammetry and see what happens to the shapes and details. This is looking like a GIGO situation. But once I have the basic geometry down, perhaps some new info will emerge.
|
|
McTodd
Cadet Trainee
Posts: 16
|
Post by McTodd on Apr 24, 2008 19:53:03 GMT -6
(original post: 27 Nov 2007 03:21 pm)
I'm very much inclined to agree with SAL9000 and Steve P, that in the film, the US weapon looks quite slim, at odds with the drawing. But that first photo of the model shows it to be much fatter, much more like the drawing (and, thus, like the pattern Alfred Wong built). Not only the angle and camera lens, but perhaps also the very flat lighting make it look so thin?
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 24, 2008 19:54:40 GMT -6
(original post: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:14 pm)The image appearing in the film looks thin.  The low angle of the model, seems to be a popper octagon.  This makes me think the image from the film was shot, or printed for animation, with some sort of parallax squash. Kubrick tweaking the model using optical effects? Perhaps to make it less like the German satellite?
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 24, 2008 19:55:15 GMT -6
(original post: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:32 pm )Looking at the nose, in this sketch, I'd say the large forward ports are like "torpedo tubes". I'd buy missiles launching from there. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Pietrobon on Apr 24, 2008 20:03:43 GMT -6
(original post: 27 Nov 2007 05:59 pm)
Great work lunadude. How did you correct the photos?
Those torpedo tubes may also be translation thrusters.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 24, 2008 20:06:43 GMT -6
(original post: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:39 pm)Great work lunadude. How did you correct the photos? Photoshop has a "Perspective" function to image cropping. Since the images were printed on 8.5x11 paper, all I had to do was dewarp and match the page proportions. Still not perfect, but quite serviceable. Those torpedo tubes may also be translation thrusters. Yes, they may be, no telling. Large thrusters on the aft end, so I rationalized that the 8 smaller insets on the nose, were maneuvering thrusters, and the two larger insets might be launch tubes. We really need to agree to some naming scheme, so we can clearly communicate our observations and opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeeStringer on Apr 24, 2008 20:17:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Model Man on Apr 24, 2008 20:36:39 GMT -6
(original post: 28 Nov 2007 06:27 pm)
Ka-Boom!
Holy crud! These are the bomb!
WOW!!!!! Thanks for these!!!
|
|
McTodd
Cadet Trainee
Posts: 16
|
Post by McTodd on Apr 25, 2008 16:14:50 GMT -6
(original post: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:36 pm)Extraordinary images Lee, many many thanks for sharing them! You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Pietrobon on Apr 25, 2008 16:15:42 GMT -6
(original post: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:58 pm)
Thanks very much Lee. Those photos are beautiful! I presume these are the reproduction photos that were sold on eBay? I see you have cropped around the image, making them look much cleaner. Looking forward to seeing your other photos.
We can finally read the number on the side: S9. A small US flag seems to be on the back of the bomb, on the left side panel. The "missile tubes" at the front don't appear to be that.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeeStringer on Apr 25, 2008 16:17:15 GMT -6
(original post: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:28 pm)
Yes these were purchased from the seller on ebay, they aren't the originals but are more than good enough, especially compared to the past 40 years of reference! I'm amazed that after all this time something new just pops up out of nowhere.
I picked up the HD DVD too (mostly for the Station shots) but have yet find a way to capture the images.
L
|
|
|
|
Post by Model Man on Apr 25, 2008 16:18:12 GMT -6
(original post: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:55 pm)
I just penciled up my model and there is extensive work to be done!
I thought the biggest issue would be deciding the paint! Nope. It looks like I have to break the whole thing apart, flip a piece, shave others down and so on.
I'll do some new pix this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunadude on Apr 25, 2008 16:21:37 GMT -6
(original post: 29 Nov 2007 12:12 am)Hey Guys! I just signed up for this group and it just so happen to be the day a package arrived in the mail.  Well HELLO to you too!! I've got a few more I'll post tonight or tomorrow. Uh, wow. Speechless.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeeStringer on Apr 25, 2008 16:23:17 GMT -6
(original post: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 am)Here's the scan of the concept art photo:  www.flickr.com/photos/lee_stringer/2072659517/sizes/l/It's interesting to note how close the model followed the sketch and handy that this shows the rear that's not visiable in the known photos/film. So it would be a fair conclusion that you could flesh out the missing areas from the concept art. It also shows that the 'Upper Pod' in basically identical front and back. L
|
|
Well HELLO to you too!!