There were two rebreathers and the one that was too big to fit in the cigar tube was damaged, that one was the location breather, the one in the cigar tube was the set at pinewood one, if I remember correctly if you look at the breather when Bond is getting out of the shark pool that's when you see the paint has flaked off to the original colour of the sparkles
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
edited March 2021
They probably put wear on the edges as it looks better and contrasts more in the low light. Just that bit of work I did on mine makes it look better on camera. That was the problem with the metal one MG made. It had no distinction and was too reflective. The actual prop looks shoddy on the right hand side too, like it was a botched together piece and is bent there.
Most props are utterly crap in real life. Look at the GE device. That was a doorknob mould, two music discs sprayed gold and a bodged together frame. The SF gun and radio box was made of two lids that were ground down and then filled with auto body filler with a sports locker lock cut in half. It didn’t even work . And after every take, they had to sharpie the edges to make it look black again due to the paint scraping off every time it was opened or closed. All of the PPKs except Brosnans, are beat up worn old things.
Which is cool, but watching it it just reacts to light like a metallic object, and I just don't buy that the edges would have been worn: they didn't do that, any more than they wore the knees of his suits. I can see the contrast with the 007 is an issue, but even on that front face it reflects such a varied amount of light that I wouldn't say it's anything but metallic, but it would need to be dark for that contrast. That someone else couldn't replicate it with a different object in a different place isn't really solid proof to me. As you say, gunmetal seems a good candidate.
Plus, and I know it's not conclusive as he may well have been holding a different prop (although they had the cigarette case ready for the chateau) and the photo isn't great quality, but it doesn't look like he's holding something black to me. It's also at the wrong angle to be reflecting the light directly back at the camera (I realise the prop lamp isn't the only light source: I'm judging by the shadows, or reflections, of his fingers)
It’s black. The contrast of the 007 engraving, the worn marks on the corners, the dark appearance even when tweeking the contrast etc of the image. As already pointed out, it was tried and tested to see if it was a brushed bare metal finish. It’s not, it just didn’t ever look the same, so a satin black was chosen.
I also think it’s too thin and small to be a magazine, unless it was cut down.
I think the thing is, if you look at how the shot is lit, it’s being lit fairly extremely from the side from one strong source (look at the fingers), which I’d suggest is so that it catches the engraving in the front, which it does. It also catches the edges because they’re at a similar angle to the engraving. The engraving is curved in profile so it doesn’t reflect much of what’s in front of it (and the inner shadows of the engraving are nearly as dark as the case around them, but we know they’re not black), whereas the flat front of the case will do. And what’s in front of it is a whacking great movie camera lens with a hood or matte box around it, which is to all purposes, black; and if you face something slightly reflective directly to a black object, and light it in shadow, it will look very dark. It’s not being lit directly from the front because that would kill the contrast, plus probably make the little shutter effect harder to see.
As the camera turns you can see the shines move: I would say they’re not just wear.
That’s not quite how it works, no. Also look at the left side of it between his left fingers and thumb, the side which is in shade and not facing the lamp: it’s still bright. The picture quality isn’t good enough to be sure, but I don’t think that’s a black object. In fact from the difference between the shadow his left finger is casting and the blacker shadows his right fingers are casting, I’d say it’s likely those are actually reflections of his right fingers rather than shadows.
Again, possible they replaced the prop when they filmed the close-up insert, but they did have the (very much not worn and dented!) cigarette case prop ready for the scene so I think it would be likely they had the camera prop too.
The color of the 007 engraving simply doesn‘t add up if the cam is in silver. We have tried!
You ignore everything that speaks for a black/gunmetal piece and insist on being right.
In some cases ( the reflexion of the finger) your line of thought is just plainly and obviously wrong.
As for the set pic: I‘d say that the extremely dark shadow confirms that the cam is black.
There have been several light in several places and to get such a dark finger shadow, the object must be really dark. The brighter shadows from his left hand are a result of multiple lighting angles and the light partly brightens up the finger shadow.
At the end of the day, we had to make a decision. To me, the camera always was black and we could not come up with anything substancial that lead to the conclusion that it was silver/bare metal surface.
And this is not the first case where you going after someone who made a phantastic piece and try to water down their enjoyment.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yep, I see your decision process, I'm just saying I think otherwise and I've explained my thinking, which you've ignored and insist on being right, and have had to try and attack me rather than talk about it civilly like everyone else in the chat. It was a nice and interesting conversation before that.
And no, to create dark finger shadow in a low light environment from one light source the object does not have to be dark. You can create dark shadows on a white piece of paper. What a black (or non-reflective) object wouldn't do would be to look light on the side facing away from the light (and actually have lighter shadows!). Personally I think there's a reason it was lit in the very distinct way it was in the close-up.
The truth is we can't be 100% sure either way: if all we had was one photo of the Lotus Esprit underwater we'd probably be justified in thinking it was blue! 😊 What's important is that the prop replica looks right to you guys who have made it, and it does. I'm not interested in wearing down anyone's enjoyment (I've repeatedly said the replicas look great), I'm just having a chat about what we see because I think it's interesting; and much like ASP it hadn't even occurred to me that it might be black before reading the thread, so I am finding the possibility of it not being what I thought it was to be interesting. ASP has even worn the edges of his as a result and is happier with its look. You may want to start a bitter argument but I'm not interested in that.
For all of you 'Lucky 9" that have this replica but are not satisfied with the color of it, please send me a PM so I can give you my address so I can properly dispose of it for you. --Ed
Something like that! 😁 I think those might be pocket cameras rather than full-on subminature ones? He had a bigger silver-ish one in OHMSS, didn't he? I'm fairly sure we had one of those black ones in the house: I have a memory of the red button sort of catching when you push that section in. I feel like it had a thumb slider catch to reveal the lens- funny how you have these memories attached to things 😄 I might be thinking of another bigger one though!
I've seen some folks say it's a lighter with a hidden camera, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it is in the film- I guess they're just filling in the gaps. It would have been nice though as it would have made a matching set with his safe cracker cigarette case!
I wonder where it is now. In the Eon vault I guess, they seem to do a good job of keeping everything; although you could imagine someone pocketing that!
Comments
There were two rebreathers and the one that was too big to fit in the cigar tube was damaged, that one was the location breather, the one in the cigar tube was the set at pinewood one, if I remember correctly if you look at the breather when Bond is getting out of the shark pool that's when you see the paint has flaked off to the original colour of the sparkles
They probably put wear on the edges as it looks better and contrasts more in the low light. Just that bit of work I did on mine makes it look better on camera. That was the problem with the metal one MG made. It had no distinction and was too reflective. The actual prop looks shoddy on the right hand side too, like it was a botched together piece and is bent there.
Most props are utterly crap in real life. Look at the GE device. That was a doorknob mould, two music discs sprayed gold and a bodged together frame. The SF gun and radio box was made of two lids that were ground down and then filled with auto body filler with a sports locker lock cut in half. It didn’t even work . And after every take, they had to sharpie the edges to make it look black again due to the paint scraping off every time it was opened or closed. All of the PPKs except Brosnans, are beat up worn old things.
It’s black.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
🤣
Which is cool, but watching it it just reacts to light like a metallic object, and I just don't buy that the edges would have been worn: they didn't do that, any more than they wore the knees of his suits. I can see the contrast with the 007 is an issue, but even on that front face it reflects such a varied amount of light that I wouldn't say it's anything but metallic, but it would need to be dark for that contrast. That someone else couldn't replicate it with a different object in a different place isn't really solid proof to me. As you say, gunmetal seems a good candidate.
Plus, and I know it's not conclusive as he may well have been holding a different prop (although they had the cigarette case ready for the chateau) and the photo isn't great quality, but it doesn't look like he's holding something black to me. It's also at the wrong angle to be reflecting the light directly back at the camera (I realise the prop lamp isn't the only light source: I'm judging by the shadows, or reflections, of his fingers)
I certainly don't want the name of yours! 🤣
Looks like he has a piece of Swiss Cheese in his hands....
Seriously from the reflexion in the lamp, it‘s not surprising that the light is banged in all kinds of angles.
The camera was black
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As much as a I hate to admit it. Yeah, it was black.
It’s black. The contrast of the 007 engraving, the worn marks on the corners, the dark appearance even when tweeking the contrast etc of the image. As already pointed out, it was tried and tested to see if it was a brushed bare metal finish. It’s not, it just didn’t ever look the same, so a satin black was chosen.
I also think it’s too thin and small to be a magazine, unless it was cut down.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Guys, just let‘s all say that the camera is silver - and he‘ll insist that the prop was black... 🤭🥱
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Brilliant, cos then I can also say I told you so.
Idiot! 😡🗣
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
BLACK CAMERAS MATTER 😂
I think the thing is, if you look at how the shot is lit, it’s being lit fairly extremely from the side from one strong source (look at the fingers), which I’d suggest is so that it catches the engraving in the front, which it does. It also catches the edges because they’re at a similar angle to the engraving. The engraving is curved in profile so it doesn’t reflect much of what’s in front of it (and the inner shadows of the engraving are nearly as dark as the case around them, but we know they’re not black), whereas the flat front of the case will do. And what’s in front of it is a whacking great movie camera lens with a hood or matte box around it, which is to all purposes, black; and if you face something slightly reflective directly to a black object, and light it in shadow, it will look very dark. It’s not being lit directly from the front because that would kill the contrast, plus probably make the little shutter effect harder to see.
As the camera turns you can see the shines move: I would say they’re not just wear.
That’s not quite how it works, no. Also look at the left side of it between his left fingers and thumb, the side which is in shade and not facing the lamp: it’s still bright. The picture quality isn’t good enough to be sure, but I don’t think that’s a black object. In fact from the difference between the shadow his left finger is casting and the blacker shadows his right fingers are casting, I’d say it’s likely those are actually reflections of his right fingers rather than shadows.
Again, possible they replaced the prop when they filmed the close-up insert, but they did have the (very much not worn and dented!) cigarette case prop ready for the scene so I think it would be likely they had the camera prop too.
Look, we have explained our decision process.
The color of the 007 engraving simply doesn‘t add up if the cam is in silver. We have tried!
You ignore everything that speaks for a black/gunmetal piece and insist on being right.
In some cases ( the reflexion of the finger) your line of thought is just plainly and obviously wrong.
As for the set pic: I‘d say that the extremely dark shadow confirms that the cam is black.
There have been several light in several places and to get such a dark finger shadow, the object must be really dark. The brighter shadows from his left hand are a result of multiple lighting angles and the light partly brightens up the finger shadow.
At the end of the day, we had to make a decision. To me, the camera always was black and we could not come up with anything substancial that lead to the conclusion that it was silver/bare metal surface.
And this is not the first case where you going after someone who made a phantastic piece and try to water down their enjoyment.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yep, I see your decision process, I'm just saying I think otherwise and I've explained my thinking, which you've ignored and insist on being right, and have had to try and attack me rather than talk about it civilly like everyone else in the chat. It was a nice and interesting conversation before that.
And no, to create dark finger shadow in a low light environment from one light source the object does not have to be dark. You can create dark shadows on a white piece of paper. What a black (or non-reflective) object wouldn't do would be to look light on the side facing away from the light (and actually have lighter shadows!). Personally I think there's a reason it was lit in the very distinct way it was in the close-up.
The truth is we can't be 100% sure either way: if all we had was one photo of the Lotus Esprit underwater we'd probably be justified in thinking it was blue! 😊 What's important is that the prop replica looks right to you guys who have made it, and it does. I'm not interested in wearing down anyone's enjoyment (I've repeatedly said the replicas look great), I'm just having a chat about what we see because I think it's interesting; and much like ASP it hadn't even occurred to me that it might be black before reading the thread, so I am finding the possibility of it not being what I thought it was to be interesting. ASP has even worn the edges of his as a result and is happier with its look. You may want to start a bitter argument but I'm not interested in that.
For all of you 'Lucky 9" that have this replica but are not satisfied with the color of it, please send me a PM so I can give you my address so I can properly dispose of it for you. --Ed
the spyboys Facebook page
Surely this was the inspiration for it.....
Something like that! 😁 I think those might be pocket cameras rather than full-on subminature ones? He had a bigger silver-ish one in OHMSS, didn't he? I'm fairly sure we had one of those black ones in the house: I have a memory of the red button sort of catching when you push that section in. I feel like it had a thumb slider catch to reveal the lens- funny how you have these memories attached to things 😄 I might be thinking of another bigger one though!
I've seen some folks say it's a lighter with a hidden camera, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it is in the film- I guess they're just filling in the gaps. It would have been nice though as it would have made a matching set with his safe cracker cigarette case!
I wonder where it is now. In the Eon vault I guess, they seem to do a good job of keeping everything; although you could imagine someone pocketing that!
I agree, a lighter and cigarette case would have been a nice set up.
EON didn't start an archive until 1994/95 so it could be anywhere
I agree, a lighter and cigarette case would have been a nice set up.
EON didn't start their archive until 94/95 and the camera is not in there, so its out there or gone forever
If anyone wants to make their own in the way they think it should be, I’m in no authority to stop them.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Where has the Pidgin meme gone 😂
Thought it was a tad harsh. 🤭
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Here’s lookin at coo.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
The OHMSS Minox was a Minox B and as far as I know, it had no red button!
The Minox EC
started production in 1981, so it was not available when MR was shot
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Oh that's a crying shame.