How can I make my own Maltese Falcon?

[commasense]

You've seen the movie, right? Haven't you said to yourself, "I'd like to have my own Maltese Falcon"? Of course you have.

So you went to eBay, and found these (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=790&item=7513442697&rd=1) cheap (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1337&item=7153509596&rd=1) knock-offs (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=790&item=7513931452&rd=1) that have apparently been copied not from the 1941 film's prop, but from a completely different one made for the 1977 parody film, The Black Bird. IMO they look like crap, and completely lack the character of the real thing. (http://www.thegoldenera.net/Falcon.html) Oddly, these copies are more detailed than the original film's prop, which seems worn down by comparison.

So, since only the best will do, it would seem that we'll have to make our own. (The owner of the site in the last link has already done this, but only made a dozen, all of which are gone. Yes, I'm planning on asking him how he did it. But in the meantime, I hoping you all have some good ideas.)

Note from that last link that the film includes a sequence that gives a near-360-degree view of the dingus, and several more shots that give good closeup views.

So does anyone know if it would be possible to take frames from the film, scan them into a computer, create a virtual 3D model, and then use that to create a real 3D item from which a casting mold could be made?

(For those who are concerned about the legality of this, let's deal with that in a separate thread.)

Is it possible? Would it be incredibly expensive? Can I do parts of it myself? All of it?

Thanks.

Mods: although this post deals with a film, I've placed it in GQ instead of CS because I need the knowledge and experience of the scientists, technicians, geeks, and nerds who hang out here. Those artsy-fartsy types over in CS probably wouldn't have a clue. :D

[commasense]

Here's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6130167#post6130167) the thread on the legal questions.

[Johnny L.A.]

First, go to Malta. Then find a falcon and get her drunk...

Okay, now to read the OP...

[GuanoLad]

Actually, the best way is to get a lump of clay and sculpt one yourself.

[Paul in Qatar]

Summer break is coming in the US. Contact a local art teacher at the high school level and pay him (or some student he recommends) to make the thing for you.

[Shalmanese]

Note from that last link that the film includes a sequence that gives a near-360-degree view of the dingus, and several more shots that give good closeup views.

So does anyone know if it would be possible to take frames from the film, scan them into a computer, create a virtual 3D model, and then use that to create a real 3D item from which a casting mold could be made? [/size]

Co-incidentally, my research at the moment is doing just this. I haven't seen the frames in question but I know it can be done although, by the time you've finished, you would have wished you hadn't. It's a very hard problem in computer vision and theres not magic computer program you can just stuff it in for it to be done in.

[DougC]

- - - Find a local art-supply store, and tell them you want to sculpt a Maltese Facon out of clay. Ask for something that stays workable until it's oven-cured, and don't forget to ask about what kinds if finishes you can use on it to get the metallic look. Unless you really don't want to do it yourself. In that case....
- Forget all that scanning of movie frames/3-D computer modeling. In particular: molding anything wouldn't be worth the cost and bother unless you could get a cast off the original, and that isn't possible. Find a college art instructor or a local artist who works in clay to make you one. Sometimes big art stores run classes, and that instructor is an option as well--ask at the art store if they know anyone who could do it. ...If someone is well-practiced at sculpting, it will take them maybe all of a day or two of work to do it darn near perfect, from just the photos you have now.
~

[Paul in Qatar]

Remember to make it heavy. It is remarkable how much heft adds to the realism of something like this.

[plnnr]

As the one in the movie turned out to be "lead, lead, its made of lead," you'll need to get a lead ingot and a REALLY hot fire....and Sydney Greenstreet to have a fit when you're finished with it.

[commasense]

So you guys who are suggesting the old-fashioned way, is that because you are in a position to say, like Shalmanese, that it would be hard/impossible to do with computers? Or are you just WAGing?

Shalmanese: can you point to any sites or published material that deals with this problem and its complexities? I was hoping that since the technology to make 3D objects from computer models (the second half of this problem) is getting more advanced all the time, that similar advances were being made on the first half. I can see that scanning from a series of 2D images is completely different from, say, laser scanning a real 3D object, but I was hoping some progress was being made.

Ultimately, of course, this is really a hypothetical exercise, since unless someone had said, "Sure, buy DingusScan 4.0 and an Epson 3D printer at Best Buy for $200, and you're all set," I probably wasn't going to follow through. Just curious as to how difficult and expensive it really would be.

[Shalmanese]

Sure, the general problem is called 3D reconstruction and you can google for that and get lots of papers.

Hartley's Multiple View Geometry (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521540518/qid=1115393602/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5629217-2624652) is the standard reference in the field and the math is not unbearably bad in that one.

Nister2004 (http://www.vis.uky.edu/~dnister/Publications/2004/3dpvt/nister_pvt04.pdf) contains a compact overview of the field although I think that he has a few glaring omissions and is rather selective in the techniques he chooses to cover.

Andrew Davison (http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~ajd/) has lots of pretty videos on his site but he doesn't focus much on the reconstruction side.

Be warned though, the results you see in academic papers typically are not representative. Theres a tendancy to cherry pick your most impressive test runs to show the world and ignore the rather glaring errors that might happen when something goes wrong. Nister is especially bad in this respect IMHO.

[Shalmanese]

BTW: If you manage to find somewhere to download the digital version of the frames, then I could give you a much more certain answer as to how possible it is. I can tell you now that if anybody is moving in the background, it's almost certainly a no as no algorithm I've seen even attempts to deal with that case.

[commasense]

Thanks! I'll look them over.

I forgot to mention that this link (http://www.thegoldenera.net/Falcon.html) shows a series of the frames in question.

[DougC]

....So you guys who are suggesting the old-fashioned way, is that because you are in a position to say, like Shalmanese, that it would be hard/impossible to do with computers? Or are you just WAGing? ....
- - - The art-sculptor way would be lots easier and cost far less, and would end up doing about as well as the computerized route. "Artists" tend to charge a lot more for their time than "art teachers", however. And just where do you plan to go to get molds made from 3-D computer files? I've no doubt that there is somewhere that could do it, but it's pretty likely to be extremely expensive.
- As for the movie one being made of lead, also I'd say forget that right now. Assuming you are willing to pay the several thousand dollars to have one cast from any kind of metal, they're going to use bronze, and if you ask about lead they'll say they can't for health reasons and that their experience is in bronze and you need to go somewhere else if you want lead. The only large-scale casting done is in bronze, because it works best. And if you say that you have some 3-D computer files, they're going to chuckle and ask if you have any pictures of it, and they will just work off them anyway.
~

[rjk]

There is software out there to build a 3D model from pictures by taking points you pair up and doing the trigonometry to relate their 3D positions. (I saw a working demo of one such program years ago. Cool!) This one (http://www.photomodeler.com/index.html) costs $895; I suppose others have similar prices. This site (http://www.simple3d.com/) lists a bunch, many in the 'Close Range Photogrammetry' section. Maybe you can find a demo version of something.

Making it physical is left as an exercise for the reader.

[commasense]

You see, this is exactly what I wanted, and after someone else said authoritatively that it wasn't possible/practical.

And not two minutes after I bought one of the cheap knockoffs! Literally.

Well, I wasn't going to spend $900 for just the first step, anyway. Of course, if I could find someone who already had the software, or who provided this as a service....

Thanks rjk.

[Shalmanese]

If you take a look at those links, they promise to do different things and neither is what you want. The first link, you have to manually specify the correlations between the different pictures and then it will make lines joining those points together to form planes. Thats fine if your modelling something boxy like a car with relatively few, flat surfaces. But if you want to do something like that for a maltese falcon, every corner on the falcon has to be matched. And curved surfaces are impossible. This would not only be a) mind numbingly tedious but also b) likely to be reasonably inaccurate since a slip of just a few pixels would give you bad matchings. The holy grail of 3D reconstruction is to have all this happen as close to automatically as possible.

The second link applies only to specialised non-visual hardware such as laser scanners. This is fine if you already HAVE a maltese falcon that you can measure, but if all you have is video frames, then none of those resources is going to help you a bit.

[commasense]

Ah, I see. I thought that if you joined a few key points, the program would figure out the rest. The site's FAQ mentions that "organic" forms are harder to do, but stops short of saying they're impossible.

Thanks for clearing that up Shalmanese.

[Shalmanese]

After looking at the frames in question more closely, I would say the shininess of it is going to be a major headache for any automated system. AFAIK, nobodys even started on reconstruction for anything but lambertian surfaces (ie: surfaces that look the exact same colour no matter what angle you look at it from). It would be interesting to figure out if you could do it or not given a known light source but your looking at a 3 year PhD project, not off the shelf software.

[GuanoLad]

There is no automatic way to achieve what you want.

Get an artist to either make one out of clay that you can mould from, or if you really want a 3D one first (for whatever reason) then find a 3D artist who'll help.

Really, though, you're asking the impossible.

[SpaceDog]

Ultimately, of course, this is really a hypothetical exercise, since unless someone had said, "Sure, buy DingusScan 4.0 and an Epson 3D printer at Best Buy for $200, and you're all set," I probably wasn't going to follow through. Just curious as to how difficult and expensive it really would be.

It looks like the first part of your question has already been answered, but I'll just chime in to say the 3D printing is perfectly possible.

I didn't know quite how possible it was until I went looking for a cite, but apparently it'll cost around $25,900 from these guys (http://www.zcorp.com/). Check out the Technology Video demo, about four minutes in after the marketing junk, it shows the printer running.

Probably still out of your price range, but in the realm of possibility.

If you're really lucky you might find that someone out there already has a three representation of the falcon in an appropriate format.

SD

[Shalmanese]

3D printing will give you something the same shape as the falcon but I understand that commasense wants a real, honest-to-god metal cast falcon which, AFAIK, no 3D printer can do.

[SpaceDog]

3D printing will give you something the same shape as the falcon but I understand that commasense wants a real, honest-to-god metal cast falcon which, AFAIK, no 3D printer can do.

True, but the site I linked says they can print moulds from the CAD files which you can then use to cast the metal.

Of course then you're dealing with molten metal and pouring and a new set of problems. But if you can afford a 26 grand 3D printer ...


OTOH I agree with everyone else that commasense would be far better off just finding a student / teacher / bored sculpter and paying them to make a replica the old fashioned way.

[rjk]

If you take a look at those links, they promise to do different things and neither is what you want. The first link, you have to manually specify the correlations between the different pictures and then it will make lines joining those points together to form planes. Thats fine if your modelling something boxy like a car with relatively few, flat surfaces. But if you want to do something like that for a maltese falcon, every corner on the falcon has to be matched. And curved surfaces are impossible. This would not only be a) mind numbingly tedious but also b) likely to be reasonably inaccurate since a slip of just a few pixels would give you bad matchings. The holy grail of 3D reconstruction is to have all this happen as close to automatically as possible.

The second link applies only to specialised non-visual hardware such as laser scanners. This is fine if you already HAVE a maltese falcon that you can measure, but if all you have is video frames, then none of those resources is going to help you a bit.
Admittedly, I didn't read that first site in detail, but I did say (not at all clearly, now that I look back) that you do have to manually match the corresponding points between frames, i.e. "Here's the point of the beak in frame 1, here it is in frame 2, ...). As noted in the quote, that's a lot of points to get a good model. But once that's done, the trig comes in to locate the relative positions of the points.

Where I certainly disagree is the statement that "curved surfaces are impossible." Curved surfaces are a standard part of computer modelling these days, sometimes a real part of the model and sometimes just faked when it's time to render. You won't get curves absolutely accurate with respect to the object, but they will look as smooth as you like.

[rjk]

BTW, I agree that the cheapest and easiest way would be to find a sculptor.

[Tuckerfan]

Speaking as someone who's got a bit of experience in these matters, the best way to go is to have it done as a "lost wax" casting. The artist sculpts the falcon out of wax, it's dipped in plaster, the wax is melted out, and then metal is poured in. It's the fastest and cheapest way to do it.

The high tech method is simply way too expensive. You're talking thousands of dollars to just have the thing designed and then possibly several hundred to have it cast in metal.

[Shalmanese]

Admittedly, I didn't read that first site in detail, but I did say (not at all clearly, now that I look back) that you do have to manually match the corresponding points between frames, i.e. "Here's the point of the beak in frame 1, here it is in frame 2, ...). As noted in the quote, that's a lot of points to get a good model. But once that's done, the trig comes in to locate the relative positions of the points.

Where I certainly disagree is the statement that "curved surfaces are impossible." Curved surfaces are a standard part of computer modelling these days, sometimes a real part of the model and sometimes just faked when it's time to render. You won't get curves absolutely accurate with respect to the object, but they will look as smooth as you like.

Curved surfaces are impossible with that program. In order to build a curved surface, you would have to manually specify the parameters of the curve which is amazingly tedious work.

BTW: It appears that my original assertion that all work has only been done on lambertian surfaces was incorrect. These guys (http://www.cs.ucla.edu/%7Ehljin/research/nonlambertian.html) have done some work on non-lambertian surfaces and this appears to be the only work done so far in that direction. However, reading through the paper briefly indicates that they are using a calibrated stereo rig and that their test data appears to be synthetic. It's certainly possible to extend this work to an uncalibrated, single camera like what you need but it's not a task for the faint-hearted.

It also appears that some of their previous work has been integrated into this company (http://www.2d3.com/jsp/index.jsp) but it also looks like overkill for what your doing.

[commasense]

I hope no one objects to my reviving my own zombie thread, but I just had to post a link to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SopXQfc_s) in which my friend (http://www.lfexaminer.com/img_0323.jpg), Adam Savage of Mythbusters, describes how he did exactly what I wanted to do. (He starts out talking about making a dodo skeleton and gets to the Maltese Falcon about 6 minutes in. But the dodo part is interesting, too.)

And how did Adam, who clearly has access to pretty much any high-tech tools you can imagine, do it? He got a bunch of pictures from every angle, blew them up to full size, then got a lump of clay, and sculpted it by hand.

Just like GuanoLad and DougC and SpaceDog recommended.

Interestingly, he did talk about the laser scanner and 3D printer technology at the end, but you have to have access to the original object to make that work. They don't let you create a 3D model from 2D images, the way I had imagined might be possible.

So I guess I'll just have to call Adam, remind him what good friends we are, and beg, plead, bribe, or blackmail him into making me a copy. (Like about a million other people will now.)

Enjoy the video.

(I love how he actually bought a 1941 Chinese newspaper so he could have the right wadding to wrap the Falcon in. I never even noticed that the paper was Chinese!)

[commasense]

FYI, I just found that The Haunted Studios (http://www.hauntedstudios.com/) has created a really good Falcon replica (much better than the one they were selling four years ago when I started this thread), and you can even get it with replica wrapping, as in the movie. (Complete with Chinese newspaper!)

Since Adam wasn't returning my calls, and my sculpting skills aren't that hot, I've decided to buy one from them. My new dingus will be delivered in a few days, and I can get rid of my old crappy one.

[DrDeth]

Oddly, if you look at the statue used in the film, it can't possibly be " encrusted from beak to claw with rarest jewels". Perhaps the eys, but the rest could not be, just gold (or lead) painted black.

[aruvqan]

Oddly, if you look at the statue used in the film, it can't possibly be " encrusted from beak to claw with rarest jewels". Perhaps the eys, but the rest could not be, just gold (or lead) painted black.

In the book I know it is bejeweled. I would surmise that when Hollywood made it, they just had one of the staffers make up a falcon statue. He may or may not have ever known that it needed to be encrusted with jewels.

I always wanted to get one, and then make a duplicate where the feathers were enamelwork, and gem mosaicwork, gems for eyes, and various other parts, so that if it had been dipped in lead it would look like the lead version.

[commasense]

Oddly, if you look at the statue used in the film, it can't possibly be " encrusted from beak to claw with rarest jewels". Perhaps the eys, but the rest could not be, just gold (or lead) painted black.I've never understood why director John Huston would have used the dingus we see in the film and leave in the line about it being "jewel encrusted," when there's obviously not a jewel on the thing. If it were said to be solid gold, that would make it valuable enough, without any jewels. Perhaps we're supposed to assume that over the centuries the jewels have been removed, but that would presumably leave all the settings that held them in place, not the sculpture we see.

I first saw the film some 35 years ago, but it wasn't until I watched Adam's video that I learned that Hammett based the Falcon on the Kniphausen Hawk (http://www.artnet.sk/magazine/reviews/karlins2/karlins5-24-8.asp) (Adam mispronounces the name), a jewel-encrusted drinking vessel:

Although purchased [by the 6th Duke of Devonshire] in 1819, the German-made Kniphausen Hawk dates from 1697. Its strong, rich colors, thickly encrusted surface and more-is-more esthetic made it a natural for connoisseurs of the period, at least very wealthy connoisseurs like the 6th Duke. Constructed of silver and silver gilt with enamel, most of the bird's body is covered in chunky garnets and a few amethysts, the feet in citrine quartz, and its perch in turquoises, other stones and three onyx cameos. At a little more than a foot tall, this is one extraordinary bird! And tacky! Aesthetically, I much prefer the deco-styled Falcon. (And ironically, the famous original lead Falcon might be worth more today than the more obscure sliver and jewel-encrusted Hawk.)

[Freddy the Pig]

The jewels are supposed to be covered over with enamel to deter thieves. That's why Gutman hacks at it with a knife toward the end, hoping to find the jewels underneath, but when he doesn't find anything he realizes it's a fake.

[commasense]

The jewels are supposed to be covered over with enamel to deter thieves. That's why Gutman hacks at it with a knife toward the end, hoping to find the jewels underneath, but when he doesn't find anything he realizes it's a fake.Perhaps, but look at the picture of the Kniphausen Hawk and ask yourself how much enamel you'd have to slather on it to hide all the jewels. It wouldn't even look like a bird anymore.

I've always assumed that the enamel was to cover the gold, and that when he says, "Fake. It’s a phony! It’s lead! It’s lead! It’s a fake," he was expecting to see gold, not jewels.

[aruvqan]

I've never understood why director John Huston would have used the dingus we see in the film and leave in the line about it being "jewel encrusted," when there's obviously not a jewel on the thing. If it were said to be solid gold, that would make it valuable enough, without any jewels. Perhaps we're supposed to assume that over the centuries the jewels have been removed, but that would presumably leave all the settings that held them in place, not the sculpture we see.

I first saw the film some 35 years ago, but it wasn't until I watched Adam's video that I learned that Hammett based the Falcon on the Kniphausen Hawk (http://www.artnet.sk/magazine/reviews/karlins2/karlins5-24-8.asp) (Adam mispronounces the name), a jewel-encrusted drinking vessel:

And tacky! Aesthetically, I much prefer the deco-styled Falcon. (And ironically, the famous original lead Falcon might be worth more today than the more obscure sliver and jewel-encrusted Hawk.)

WOW, now that to me screams maltese falcon way more than the deco one!!!!!

I would love a duplicate of that!

[commasense]

WOW, now that to me screams maltese falcon way more than the deco one!!!!!

I would love a duplicate of that!No accounting for tastes!

Maybe you can persuade Adam to make one for you. It toured around the U.S (http://www.casinoman.net/gambling-news/article/rare-peek-of-chatsworth-private-collection-at-bellagio-gallery-.1976.asp). (along with a bunch of other junk from Chatsworth) from 2003 to 2005, but it's back in Devonshire now. So it'll be a little more expensive to go get good images or scans of it.

[aruvqan]

No accounting for tastes!

Maybe you can persuade Adam to make one for you. It toured around the U.S (http://www.casinoman.net/gambling-news/article/rare-peek-of-chatsworth-private-collection-at-bellagio-gallery-.1976.asp). (along with a bunch of other junk from Chatsworth) from 2003 to 2005, but it's back in Devonshire now. So it'll be a little more expensive to go get good images or scans of it.

medievalist - i like really spiffy old crap =)

How can you not appreciate the sheer amount of work that went into making that ... and it beats the hell out of all the little porcelain Lladro garbage. if I see another cutsey kiddy pappoose/afro kiddy and puppy/American Indian 'madonna' I think I will vomit. Pretty much the same with cutsey babies in leiderhosen/eskimo and baby seal/tom sawyer and fishing rod .... I dont understand collecting dust collectors that don't actually have real historical significance. [I have a hand carven and stained chinese KuanYin from about 1600, a cast bronze temple brazier dating about the same, they have research value. I cant imagine being able to do any sort of cultural research using an american indian and papoose as madonna and child - or at least get a correct set of data points...]

[commasense]

... it beats the hell out of all the little porcelain Lladro garbage...Of course it does. It's covered in semi-precious stones!

It's still a bit over the top, for me.

But who was defending all that porcelain crap, anyway? Not me.

[KneadToKnow]

Am I the only one who was well into the OP before realizing he hadn't said "Millennium Falcon"?

[commasense]

Am I the only one who was well into the OP before realizing he hadn't said "Millennium Falcon"?Yes!

Now get off my lawn!

[handsomeharry]

You've seen the movie, right? Haven't you said to yourself, "I'd like to have my own Maltese Falcon"? Of course you have.

How...do...you...know...MY EXACT THOUGHTS!!!!:eek:

[commasense]

Ha! Your puny tinfoil hat can't deflect my powerful Z-ray cerebro-scanner! Bwa-haa-haa-haa!

[DesertDog]

Somewhere the original prop -- complete with scratches -- has to be floating around. I wonder who has it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Somewhere the original prop -- complete with scratches -- has to be floating around. I wonder who has it.

You can find out. It'll just be an additional time investment of five and fifteen-seventeeth's percent.

[HeHadaHat]

Hey Commasense,

Did you recieve your "Haunted Studio" replica?
How is it?
Is it 11.5" tall?

[commasense]

Yes, and it's great. It is exactly 11.5 inches, and it's as close a reproduction of the movie original as you could hope for, except that it's not as heavy, only 4.25 pounds. It's obviously based on the earlier one I got from Haunted Studios: many details, like the talons and legs, are virtually identical, but the breast more closely resembles dingus seen in the movie. And it's been given a more realistic, worn finish. The earlier one was too shiny.

One thing I'll suggest: don't pay the extra $30 for the "replica wrapping." It amounts to a small burlap bag that says "La Paloma," a sheet of modern (not 1940s) Chinese newspaper, some twine, and shredded paper.

But I highly recommend the statue itself to any fan of the movie.

[Jamicat]

Adam Savage made one...I saw the lil 20 min vid on wimp.com

Here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SopXQfc_s

[Jamicat]

i need to search key words on pages...I didn't see anyone name Adam Savage as I skimmed down...lol