A question about lineage

[Too Much Garlic]

The DICE photogrammetry scans have lineage. The game models are too reworked to still retain that title. The company stated they had to do extensive clean-up of many of the scans. That also removes those from the lineage classification, sure, they are scanned off originals, but they were heavily modified.

The Don Post helmet does not link back to anything screen used. It at best links back to tour helmets. But, they were then heavily modified, removing them from the lineage classification we normally use in this hobby.

At best, they can be called "has lineage back to something original" but we usually use the term to mean direct cast with as little work done.

At least that's how I understood it. Could be wrong.

Scans can have lineage, but unless it is extremely HD, I would feel it more appropriate to just call it scanned from screen used / production made / original. A scan is two-fold: first it requires HD scanning and second it requires HD printing and both of these processes add their own inaccuracies to the piece, regardless of how little you can spot it. I feel calling those lineage could be difficult to justify... sometimes they can... I guess. Using the term: scan of original (and listing any clean-up and rework needed to make them look good) is better than using the lineage term.

 

[TheDragon]

The DICE photogrammetry scans have lineage. The game models are too reworked to still retain that title. The company stated they had to do extensive clean-up of many of the scans. That also removes those from the lineage classification, sure, they are scanned off originals, but they were heavily modified.

I agree that is the case for many of the more iconic characters. Vader would have been next to impossible to scan using photogrammetry due to being not only shiny but black as well. However the more I've looked into this, I'm not sure that photogrammetry was used for some of the models created for the second game as they are too good to have used that technique. Without getting into specific items, the same small markings appear on models introduced in the second game to their screen used counterparts.

Although the main few models people traditionally think of when it comes to battlefront, troopers, vader, etc may have been reworked due to technical challenges or deliberate decisions to bring the characters closer to an idealised version, those few models are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what was included in the game. I'll touch more on this in the future, as lineage or not, I'll be using some of the models for my own projects.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

The Don Post helmet does not link back to anything screen used. It at best links back to tour helmets. But, they were then heavily modified, removing them from the lineage classification we normally use in this hobby.

Absolutely. I'm not claiming it's lineage, it's just restoring as best I can of what was there and removed for Rubies' production needs.

I LOVE that you are "restoring" a Rubies Deluxe, as you said made from Don Post assets used for their Darth Vader deluxe helmet back in the late 1990s (whic appeared to be from TESB, correct?). From the Rubies Deluxe Vaders I have seen, there is noticeable facial "droop" and loss of detail which I assumed was from aging DP molds and/or Rubies just half-@ssing it for poduction. And the pain application looks bad as well. What have you found so far?

As Too Much Garlic mentioned above, I don't believe the DP/Rubies copy traces to anything screen-used but possibly from a helmet made from molds from one of the movies. Based on the size, I think it may have been ESB era but so much has been done to the Rubies copy, it's really hard to judge.

I don't want to take over the thread with my thing, I'll make a separate thread on it in future, but to put it simply: 90-95% of the base mask need to be resculpted and have additions put into it. The proportions look correct enough and remnants of original details are there. It's documented on the RPF what the differences are between the Rubies and DP masks are, but to briefly sum up my own work: the cheeks are flat and ground down and needed to be resculpted, the details on the dome is too soft and the flange on the dome have been thinned, the thickness of the brow ridge need to be added along with the curves on the rim of the lower eye, the tearducts needed reshaping, the shape of the side tubes where they connect at the bottom of the mouth needed detailing, the curve in the mouth needed to be added back and respective thicknesses of the lips, angling the tubes for the tusks, the thickness of the nose flare (and the removal of the cup), the cuts and size and shape of the nose bridge, squaring the mouth grate, reducing the wide flares on the neck, adding a lip to the bottom of the neck, reducing the goiter of the neck and reshaping the chin vent, and (most needing of surgery) reducing the size of the cranium on the right side of the mask.

There's one addition I had to make and it was slightly extending the upper tubes of the mask to better fill out the front silhouette of the facemask. The lower tubes on the Rubies run the length of the lower mask and to cut that down to the original length and putty-ing the mask would not hold with everything else on top of it. The vinyl would compress and it join would crack and that's more work than I was wanting to do. Most of the work I'm doing now is adding back the lumpiness of the original sculpt.

 

[Davy Jones]

I think the word lineage just needs to be clearly defined.
For example, there are replicas we have all seen which we think of as questionable or unclear lineage back to the original prop, yet we can see it has some connection. That certain uncertainty predates anything to do.with 3D technology.

The main thing that matters in my opinion is to what degree or how much tracable detail can be established?

Example:
Vader helmet replica.
A bit smaller than the original
Retains some warts but not all of them.
Has a warped area or two.

This is common of nearly all available replicas including ones active this very day.

We can establish that it is connected to the original helmet by establishing a lineage line based on our observations of details, and the info which may come with the makers of the replica or anyone who has an inside angle about it.

So there is good, established, obvious lineage for a Vader helmet such as I've described.

But for something lesser than than, say a helmet replica further down from the one ive described which has been cleaned up to remove all warts, reshaped, scanned and printed and suffers more shrink and distortion in the subsequent replicas, all would agree that it still has lineage (a connection to the real prop) but that it's just less good. It's further down the line which is nearly always less desirable than something more closely connected to the real prop.

Now about scans.
No matter how dumbed down a model may eventually become, if you are working with a 3D object based on a scan it has lineage.
How good it is will vary the same as with traditional molded and cast replicas.
I think its important to be clear what the connection to the original prop is (in this case we know the Battlefront people scanned original props) and how closely the 3D model retains those details (photos have been shown here)

As long as it's all credible and provable, the word "lineage" could and Should be used for anything connected to the real prop. The opposite of the term is "Fan sculpt"