STAR WARS: EP V "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - 12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW — Page 1263

ImperialFighter said:

Ronster said:

1. Would we be able to see the upper gun of the x-wing on the side view cockpit as It enters the atmosphere through the blue haze?

2. Would the crashed x-wing miniature have smoke rising from the engines?

Ronster, I thought you might be onto something there, so thought I'd check it out...but on having a quick look at a couple of differing side-on blueprints, it looks from them that the uppermost part of the top closed guns would either be in line with the back corner of Luke's downwards-angled, side cockpit window (which is hidden by his head), or just ever so slightly below it. 

So assuming the camera POV is pointed somewhat directly side-on to the window and Luke's head (which is how I see it personally), then no, I reckon it *wouldn't* be visible.

And I guess the smoke seen rising from the new X-Wing miniature is needed no matter what, so that it matches up with the smoke seen in the full-size version shot immediately afterwards.

___________________________

 I think you might be right about the upper gun, to be honest I am not sure but I have learned to look out for stuff on all the cockpit views because they have problems of this sort.

Something I can confirm though is that the wing and engine was removed on the side closest to us to film the side shots of R2-D2.

It's around there somewhere in the nearfield of the bottom right of the image if it would not have been removed for filming

I happen to have a model-kit X-Wing at hand to pose this view ...

and the fact is, that the turbines would be both wrong in this shot!

they should be "mirrored", meaning, the front one needs to be more visible and the back one is nearly in the picture.

somehow the cockpit-window is slightly warped, we think to see the side-view, but in reality, the X-Wing is turned to the right (or the body is bent to the other side ...)

ray_afraid said:

If any change was to be made, my vote would be to have the spider standing still for the first few moments, looking like a rooted plant, then become more animated as the shot progresses. (from McQuarries paintings, that's how I always imagined they'd have been introduced in the film)

I like this idea.  They do this effectively a few times in The Dark Crystal.

Ronster said:

Something I can confirm though is that the wing and engine was removed on the side closest to us to film the side shots of R2-D2.

It's around there somewhere in the nearfield of the bottom right of the image if it would not have been removed for filming

This is an interesting issue, but again I see this in a slightly different way to Ronster.

If you study the original shot at the top (without getting distracted by Ronster's mock-up below it), or watch the movie...it always looks to me that because this is quite a 'close-up' camera POV of Artoo, then the viewpoint could be imagined as being either filmed from a point-of-view that's in-between the gap between Artoo and the (unseen) X-Wing engine nearest us...*or* from a point-of-view that's actually filmed from where part of the engine would have been situated, if it wasn't for the camera being positioned there instead.  Either way, we *wouldn't* see the X-Wing engine where Ronster has placed it, the way I normally look at it.

This shot below kinda gives an idea of the gap between Artoo and the engine on the real-life prop, and may or may not help to judge the camera point-of-view of the Artoo 'close-up' I usually choose to see -   

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't be against seeing a portion of the engine added, if adywan thinks it would make for a visually-appealing 'cheat'/additon.  In fact, I quite like the look of Ronster's mock-up, despite not 'seeing' the shot that way normally. 

I'm not sure if the *angle* of Ronster's added engine is correct...but I'm fine with the approx. height he's shown in his mock-up.  Unlike Monroville's 'open-winged' pics where the engines end up higher than Artoo's dome, the wings are actually *closed* when the X-Wing is heading towards Dagobah at this point...and the top of the engines seem to be just slightly higher than the top X-Wing section that Artoo fits into.

As far as the official CGI goes, this shot gives a good idea of how things look (just hold something straight across the top of both circular engines to confirm their height in relation to the X-Wing's top section, when the wings are closed) -

And assuming these blueprints are reasonably accurate, you can 'magnify' the diagrams here to see their side-views in relation to Artoo's position -  http://zabel.kiev.ua/swmodels/starwars/x-wing2sidebw.jpg

So yeah, the approx. height positioning of Ronster's engine looks pretty good to me, if it was ever to be added.

(By the way, it's interesting to note that that the R2 units protrude out of their X-Wing positions at different heights in some shots - see the 'A New Hope' CGI shot above compared to the top 'close-up' of Artoo, for example.  The full-size Artoo/X-Wing 'close-ups' in 'A New Hope' also had the top of his legs showing just as that CGI shot shows, yet we only see his 'dome' in the top shot that Ronster mocked up.  No biggie in the scheme of things however, as not much can be done about that)  

ImperialFighter said:

If you study the original shot at the top (without getting distracted by Ronster's mock-up belowit), or watch the movie...it always looks to me that because this is quite a 'close-up' camera POV of Artoo, then the viewpoint could be imagined as being either filmed from a point-of-view that's in-between the gap between Artoo and the (unseen) X-Wing engine nearest us...*or* from a point-of-view that's actually filmed from where part of the engine would have been situated, if it wasn't for the camera being positioned there instead.  Either way, we *wouldn't* see the X-Wing engine where Ronster has placed it, the way I normally look at it.

sorry, wrong!

as I wrote above and none cared, I took it upon me to repose the shot with an live-model of the X-Wing, and the result differs very strong, the front engine should be visible, more or less like in Ronsters picture ...

I will post some pics later, but the result would mean, that in studio for better visual the front engine was removed, so to have a better closeup of R2 ;-)

brimforge said:

sorry, wrong!

as I wrote above and none cared, I took it upon me to repose the shot with an live-model of the X-Wing, and the result differs very strong, the front engine should be visible, more or less like in Ronsters picture ...

I will post some pics later, but the result would mean, that in studio for better visual the front engine was removed, so to have a better closeup of R2 ;-)

None of the miniature/kit images I looked at really helped me in this instance brimforge, as I couldn't find one taken of that portion of the X-Wing from that exact *angle*...and they didn't really convey the actual size of the large gap between where the Artoo and engine would be on the full-sized studio version.  Also, I'm not sure how accurately-proportioned some of the models I looked at are.  In addition, there may be a bit of difference between how things look when filmed by a movie camera compared to how things look when someone takes a snap of a small model, but I'll be interested to see your pics. 

As your last sentence above suggests, if the camera POV isn't positioned in a vantage point somewhere in the gap between Artoo and engine, then I can alternatively look on it's vantage point as being positioned somewhere where the engine would *physically be* instead.  Either way, I agree the engine would have been 'removed' from view because we wouldn't actually see it from either of these POV's I've described. 

But equally, I like the look of Ronster's mock-up too...although I'm not sure how many similar instances adywan would end up having to do this throughout the original trilogy, or if he'd want to do all that additional work, if so.

I think you're over-thinking it. I looks to me like the POV is if the camera is sitting right on top of the engine to give us a clear view of R2. Zooming out or backing further away would cause the engine to come into frame and obscure our view. While Ronster's mock-up looks nice, the engine part he has added would need to shift to the left. Given the angle of the back window of the cockpit, the front of the left engine would need to be further left in the frame than the right one, which is already hidden behind R2. Doing so would thereby cover up the lower half of R2's dome. Just MHO.

Monroville said:

If you want the focus to be the x-wing, here is an idea:

Being that most critters would flee away from something crashing into their quiet, tranquil swamp life, you should see creature flying away from the x-wing initially... The direction of the spider's movement would move towards the X-wing in the distance, as well as inflect a creature that had already hid itself from the X-wing crashing and now cautiously coming out to investigate.

This is the best way to revise Ady's current footage. Motion centers around the X-wing at the beginning of the shot and then spreads out, then the spider either starts moving or enters from the right of the frame. It is a natural reaction from the indigenous life and reduces the "distraction", though I am comfortable with it in its current form. Nice job, Ady; good suggestion, Monroville.

ImperialFighter said:

None of the miniature/kit images I looked at really helped me in this instance brimforge, as I couldn't find one taken of that portion of the X-Wing from that exact *angle*...and they didn't really convey the actual size of the large gap between where the Artoo and engine would be on the full-sized studio version.  Also, I'm not sure how accurately-proportioned some of the models I looked at are.  In addition, there may be a bit of difference between how things look when filmed by a movie camera compared to how things look when someone takes a snap of a small model, but I'll be interested to see your pics. 

As your last sentence above suggests, if the camera POV isn't positioned in a vantage point somewhere in the gap between Artoo and engine, then I can alternatively look on it's vantage point as being positioned somewhere where the engine would *physically be* instead.  Either way, I agree the engine would have been 'removed' from view because we wouldn't actually see it from either of these POV's I've described. 

But equally, I like the look of Ronster's mock-up too...although I'm not sure how many similar instances adywan would end up having to do this throughout the original trilogy, or if he'd want to do all that additional work, if so.

 Ok, the camera-angle from where we are viewing, is not from front or level side, it's more up and to the front position, that's why some confusion happened, as to how and what with the turbines ;-)

you are correct, not all models are screensize-acurate and many got some details which are different to the real ones in the movie, but overall the ratio is somewhat useful, if one wants to check position or viewpoints like this.

I made some pics with varying angles, the bottom is a small model-kit, R2 is not plane with his socket, so he sticks out and is more visible than he should be, but this shows what problem the cameraman maybe had, if the front turbine was in place ...

the middle two are from the Hasbro "BIG" Dagobah X-Wing, should be as screen acurate as any toy-model be possible, just for comparison, to show how the turbine would be set if it was in the picture.

All pics are as is, no corrections, only different POV, so the verdict: for better view on R2, the front turbine was removed or as I guess, the set where Luke later enters his X-Wing to fly to Bespin, is on the "other side", so "half" was built and used twice.

Edit: not sure if they had only one X-Wing on set, but it could be. That would mean it was modular to replace or remove parts ...

interesting how Kersher brougth McQarries concept art to life :-)

http://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/star-wars-episode-v-the-empire-strikes-back-i80684/3119745e

http://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/star-wars-episode-v-the-empire-strikes-back-i80684/1ef5638a

brimforge said:

as I wrote above and none cared

Actually, I didn't really read what you wrote, but I am contractually obligated to post that picture in these situations.

^ That Mac is possibly an alternative as it let's this new alien world come fully into to view. It obscures the world more outside the focus point and then let's our eyes wander beyond that outward and perhaps makes for a more cinematic experience than sticking with a still 2D painting old school thinking of the original late 70's film making. But I do believe the shot is a massive improvement on the original old 2D pretty lifeless painting without any shadow of doubt in my mind.

When zoom in was mentioned I remembered from the 2004 DVD Menu set on Dagobah the tracking zoom on the crashed x-wing in the swamp. I then realized that could be used as a potential enhancement to luke running around the swamp looking for R2-D2 who is currently underwater at this point at 02:42 in the clip. as a combination of the two. But I do not think it is needed. But if a zoom out were to be added, then the zoom in here would be an interesting counterpoint to there being quite a bit of danger that is also unseen on the planet.

Anyway Zooming is a great way to achieve a gradual focus on different aspects within the same shot.

If the Revisited team can manage to line up Snowspeeder flaps and Dagobah swamp life perfectly in perspective they will have made up there mind on the x-wing engine probably withing a few short moments...

TV's Frink said:

Actually, I didn't really read what you wrote, but I am contractually obligated to post that picture in these situations.

 Thanks ;-)

thing was that everyone whacked the bush without any solid pictures, only speculation on blueprints and onset photos, which are complete other angles ...

brimforge said:

I happen to have a model-kit X-Wing at hand to pose this view ...

and the fact is, that the turbines would be both wrong in this shot!

they should be "mirrored", meaning, the front one needs to be more visible and the back one is nearly in the picture.

somehow the cockpit-window is slightly warped, we think to see the side-view, but in reality, the X-Wing is turned to the right (or the body is bent to the other side ...)

Leaving aside whether or not we should actually see a foreground 'engine turbine' or not for now...your pics have actually helped me to pin down something else that seemed a bit confusing about the full-size X-Wing section in that shot, brimforge. :)

On re-reading your comments above which you wrote in response to Ronster's mock-up, it seems that you were trying to get across how 'wrong' it looked in general.  You were correct, from a certain point-of-view (!)...and I'll need to show all these pics again to try and describe what I reckon now -

As you said, *both* of the engine turbines would be wrongly positioned in the way that Ronster's mock-up currently shows, judging by your model pics.  

And as you say, we are not seeing a directly 'side-on' view of the X-Wing in that original shot at the top, due to the fact that we can actually see a rear view of the cockpit.  And because of this, you were again correct that we'd be more likely to see the nearest engine turbine *far more prominently* in the foreground of the shot (than the one added by Ronster), and would perhaps see *less* of the existing one seen behind Artoo...due to this particular angle where the camera is positioned somewhere *behind* the cockpit a little.

In fact, going by your pics brimforge, I would have personally been satisfied to see any foreground engine turbine added at *either* of the angles/positions shown in your top 2 model examples...as due to the way your models are photographed, it seems as if Ronster's positioning was incorrect.

Except...your pics have helped to reveal that issue which was confusing me about the X-wing in the original shot...and I've now decided that the angle/positioning of Ronster's added engine turbine looks much more natural to me than the angle/position of the foreground ones in your pics, after all. 

That's because it's quite obvious to me now that the movie camera's point-of-view seems to have given a strange kind of perspective to the X-Wing section in that shot, almost like a subtle 'fisheye' lens kind of distortion would...as not only are we seeing the rear of the cockpit on the left of the shot, but we are also seeing a very different perspective of the X-Wing section on the right of the shot compared to your snaps - while the cockpit lines are angled in one direction on the left side of the shot...the lines of the top section details where Artoo is situated are very differently angled in the opposite direction on the right of the shot!  

And due to the direction of the curved lines seen on the existing engine turbine behind Artoo...we would need to see something that's similar to the angle of the added engine turbine shown by Ronster, so that it matches the 'distorted' perspective we see...rather than what's seen in your pics, as the angles wouldn't match with the existing one.  I hope that all makes sense to you and everyone else.

Of course, even if you agree with me that any 'foreground' engine turbine would indeed be of a similar look/angle to the one Ronster showed...I *still* say that it wouldn't necessarily need to be seen in that shot, and could just be imagined to be 'offscreen' and just slightly out of view, due to the camera's point-of-view and it's distortingly, angled perspective of this X-Wing section... ;) 

TV's Frink said:

brimforge said:

as I wrote above and none cared

 

Actually, I didn't really read what you wrote, but I am contractually obligated to post that picture in these situations.

I haven't read all these posts either, but I too am contractually obliged to respond to the first picture with this one.  I assure you, I care very much for every concern you have. ;)

yoda1138 said:

yoda1138 said:

regarding the engine talk, i noticed this.. see image mock up..

 As its still being discussed, i wonder if my post may have been missed regarding the perspective/ vanishing points. I personally believe the shot filmed was correct in the beginning with no engine removed to film R2. Maybe a wide angle lens was used? if you follow the green line on the right, look at the panel line behind R2 on the deck of the ship. it follows the green line, as do the windows follow the lines on the right. the red hoops are where i'd assume the engine fronts would have been on the ship. actually, i should have but the right hoop a tad lower, as the shot of the xwing is not dead on side view or we wouldn't see the top of the deck at all.  Though, i do think Adys addition of the engine looks aesthetically pleasing.  Thats my 2 cents.

I hadn't missed it yoda1138, so much as I wasn't 100% certain what all the marks on your image were meant to be indicating.  It was a little confusing without any description, but you've cleared things up a bit better now...and I see your analysis is similar to what I was trying to get across in my previous post. :)

So for final clarification...I agree that the engine turbine nearest to us could be argued to be unseen and just offscreen, due to this shot being filmed with an unusual 'distorted' perspective...and the largest red 'oval' on your diagram correctly shows roughly where it might be using this way of looking at it, unlike brimforge's pics.  And on the other hand, if adywan decides to take some 'artistic licence' for visual purposes...then I reckon that Ronster's version shows roughly the best angle/positioning to fit it into the existing shot.

ray_afraid said:

If any change was to be made, my vote would be to have the spider standing still for the first few moments, looking like a rooted plant, then become more animated as the shot progresses. (from McQuarries paintings, that's how I always imagined they'd have been introduced in the film)

 
^ Definitely the way to go. I also got a botanical vibe from the McQuarrie work, and dig the idea of the spider being more plant-like.