Hartnell plans available and ready for revision

[tony farrell]

No Ian - there's no need to do that; I can close this debate here and now.

On Twitter, I asked if anyone had access to the stage directions/camera script for Episode One of "The Reign of Terror" and Richard Bignell kindly came to my rescue!

The proof that the materialisation shot uses the full-sized Tardis prop comes in two parts:

Firstly, according to Richard, the camera instruction states to use what is called a "photo-caption" for the Tardis' materialisation.

"Photo-captioning" is the process I described above where a photo of the Tardis-less set is taken and then is combined with video of the Tardis present on the set (i.e. one camera pointing at a photo of the empty wood and the other camera pointing at the Tardis with its lamp flashing). The instruction to use a photo-caption for the materialisation sequences is a standard instruction and is used again - for example - for the closing scene in "Power of the Daleks".

In my last post, I suggested a break in recording so that the camera could be moved to record the scene where Bill Hartnell locks the Tardis Porch (duplicate doors). The second part of the proof is again provided by Richard and is this extract from the camera script/recording schedule:



As can be seen, it clearly states that the full-sized Tardis should be removed from the set prior to recording Bill Hartnell locking the duplicate doors!  

So sorry chaps - as i stated all along, the full Tardis prop was used for the materialisation (the light can indeed be seen flashing through the front sign-box) and William Hartnell locks the doors of the 'Tardis Porch'/duplicate doors!

T

[ionsith]

It's truly astounding that this information is still out there. Thanks for clearing that up, Tony.

[fivefingeredstyre]

Nice one...

Although if I was feeling pedantic, It say's "Take out Tardis", it doesn't say "Take out Full Sized Tardis prop" so we can't really say for sure...

Just kidding - That's pretty conclusive

I'd love to know why they felt the need to use the porch doors in the close up though. If you have gone to all the trouble of filming the full prop for the materialisation sequence and you have a recording break after the subsequent TARDIS interior scenes (as indicated by the fade out when the travellers leave the TARDIS) why not just use the "already set up" prop during the next scene?

Not a question one expects answered here, by intriguing none-the-less...

EDIT - Perhaps it could have been down to available studio space - The shot of the TARDIS landing is much deeper than the closeup of Hartnell locking the porch and the camera stays close with Hartnell as he joins the rest of the crew...

[tony farrell]

Well - as long as we don't spend the next four pages discussing this as well, I'd suggest they removed the full-sized Tardis in order that they could record the woodland set from different angles to make it look bigger. Easier to record without the Tardis in the middle of it and suddenly getting into the shot whereas the Tardis porch has no real depth which would get in the way!   

T

[kert gantry]

Sorry folks, I'm the culprit for dragging this thread off-topic and not for the first time.

The Brachacki renders here are a work of art and should be invaluable as a point of reference.  Thanks for putting in the work.

[Volpone]

"Supposing you had two swallows..." 

[fivefingeredstyre]

Ok so what was the consensus on the roof dimensions in the end?

Also, do we have any conclusive dims for the post caps other than height?

[tony farrell]

"Supposing you had two swallows..."

I'm afraid that one's gone over my head! I did wonder if it was a quote from someone but, on checking, I couldn't find it anywhere. The nearest thing I could find is something from Monty Python (which I can't stand) about two migrating swallows carrying a coconut! Still, perhaps Steve (Volpone) will explain. ;-)

Anyway, that's by-the-by......

Ok so what was the consensus on the roof dimensions in the end?

Also, do we have any conclusive dims for the post caps other than height?

Well, if you look back over the preceding posts, you'll find there was a divergence of views as to the relationship of the Tardis' wall panels (and doors) to the panels above the sign-boxes; currently, Gene/Lespaceplie's plans show that the panels above the sign-boxes are set back further than the Tardis' doors and sides (the red line has been added by me to illustrate this point):



And a larger version:



As this screen-grab from The Dalek Invasion of Earth episode one (World's End) shows, the roof's top tier is set back from the panel above the sign-boxes:



Clearly, the maximum size of the roof's top tier is determined by its relationship to the panel above the sign-box. If, as Gene suggests, the panel above the sign-box is set further back than the doors (and side panels), then it follows that the roof's top tier will be correspondingly smaller than if the panels above the sign-boxes lie in the same plane as the doors.

As this photo from Marco Polo shows however, the panels above the sign-boxes and the Tardis' doors and side panels all lie in the same plane (red lines) i.e., the panels above the sign-boxes are not recessed behind the post caps:



Thus, the roof's top tier is actually wider than shown in Gene/Lespaceplie's plans. But, actually, how wide was the roof's top tier?

When i wrote my history of the altered Brachacki prop in 2012, I used Gene's drawing of the prop and established the top tier's width as 44.25". This was done by counting the pixels as Gene had drawn his plans (see http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=4489.0 page five):



Now, I appreciate that this is an old drawing but in 2012, it was the only set of plans which was available at the time. The figure of 44.25" was calculated by counting the pixels - as drawn - of the corner-post quadrants and recesses i.e., 12 pixels per inch:



As I say, this was an old drawing but, what I didn't realise (and I don't mean this in anyway disrespectfully to Gene) was that the diagram wasn't drawn to scale. As can be seen from the red text which I've now added, the stated dimensions do not match what had actually been drawn.

Thus, the dimension of the roof which I calculated from Gene's drawing is incorrect. So, there are two problems: The proportions of the original drawing are incorrect and the dimensions calculated from those proportions are also incorrect.

In view of the fact that I now disagree with the positioning of the panels above the sign-boxes relative to the doors and that I've also now realised that Gene's old plans weren't drawn to scale, I think it appropriate that we now quite literally go back to the drawing board!

Since I wrote my history of the alterations to the Brachacki box in 2012/13, I'm in the fortunate position to have come into possession of a large number of high-definition photographs which weren't previously available to me (or, I presume, to Gene either). I've already shared one from "The Gunfighters" and also one from "Marco Polo" (see above and previous posts) which I've used to show the true relationship between the Tardis' doors (& side panels) and the panels above the sign-boxes i.e., that they are in the same plane.

The next high-definition photo I'd like to share is from "The Chase":



This has been reduced in size and is especially useful because the left-hand door is precisely square-on to the camera and because the Tardis has been photographed from a distance sufficiently far back and from a point which is level with its centre-point height-wise. Thus, there is no distortion of the ship's proportions i.e., we're not looking down or up at it i.e., there is no perceived tapering of its dimensions as there would be if - say - we were to look up at a skyscraper from the ground.

The full-sized picture from "The Chase" is much too big to be uploaded to the forum so, what I've done is split it into sections (reproduced at actual size). Because the left-hand door is precisely square-on to the camera, I've posted a 'clean' copy of each section of this door next to an identical section with the pixel counts added. This way I hope you can see that my pixel counts have been accurately carried out:



As can be seen, I've started at the top and worked my way down. As can also be seen, I've included an additional picture which shows the phone panel which I've placed next to the equivalent panel on the left-hand door (the one with the St John badge).

At the scale posted, each panel measures 314 pixels wide. 12" = 304.8 mm. To convert pixels into millimeters, the following formula needs to be applied: 304.8/314 x number of pixels = dimension in millimeters. To convert millimeters to inches, the result needs to be divided by 25.4.

As can be seen, the vertical heights of each of the panels vary very slightly; this is due to slight rounding of their edges and/or the application of artex to age the prop. The mean height of the four panels is 405.75 pixels. Applying our conversion formula gives the following result:

304.8/314 x 405.75 = 393.861783 mm. 393.861783/25.4 = 15.5063" i.e., 15.5".

In practical terms, each panel therefore measures 12" by 15.5"! In addition, the doors' stiles are 72 pixels wide. 72 pixels equals 2.75". So, Gene's principal dimensions for the doors are correct! As can also be seen, his dimensions for the widths of the corner posts are also correct at 6.5" including the recesses for the quadrants!

However, applying the same techniques to the post caps reveals that Gene has slightly under-estimated their heights; they are not 3" tall but rather are 3.25" tall.

As can be seen from Gene's original drawing, he estimates that the Tardis base's sloping edges start level with the outer edges of the corner posts - i.e., that there is effectively no flat section either side of the corner-posts. However, this isn't borne out by the photographic evidence: There is a clear flat section which protrudes either side of the corner-posts before the start of the 45 degree slope. Therefore, the Tardis' base has to be wider than previously stated!

Gene has also drawn the base as being three inches tall. However, again, this isn't borne out by the evidence. The upright portion of the base has the same height as the sloping section. So, the base is much nearer 2" in height - we then need to add another two inches for the height of the castors.

In summary - phew   - there are four principal dimensions where I disagree with Lespacplie's plans:

1. The width of the roof's top tier - it has to be slightly wider because of the fact that the Tardis' doors/sides and the panels above the sign-boxes all lie in the same plane.
2. The post caps are taller than previously thought.
3. The Tardis' base is both wider and shallower than previously drawn.
4. The sign-box 'windows' are slightly wider than previously suggested (this can be confirmed by 'mapping' the visible signage onto the plans as per the following diagrams):





N.B., signage and phone panel have been 'mapped' onto the diagrams directly from "The Chase" photo; there has been no adjustment to their aspect ratios. Diagrams drawn at 24 pixels per inch. (The castors have been omitted for clarity).

Two final points - the stepped section above the doors and the corresponding sections above the side panels are not identical. As can be see from the photos from both Marco Polo and The Gunfighters,  the bottom step above the doors is bigger than the two above it whereas on the Tardis' sides, all three steps appear to be the same height.

The St John Ambulance badge's diameter appears to be fractionally less than the 4.5 inches previously thought. It is much closer to 4.33" in diameter (as far as I can determine, its outer edge does not form a perfect circle).

T

[lespaceplie]

To avoid future confusion, I just updated the PDF. I didn't label additional dims, though. I need to finish those at some point. Regarding the PDF, I actually did have the dims on the sign box windows the same as what you have extrapolated. The inner trim needed to be a smidge thicker, though. Also, these are always drawn to scale. I'm only using CorelDraw, but it's pretty much CAD for 2D things. I verified everything today - not that I'm not subject to errors. If any pixel counting threw things off, it's due to how the PDF is being displayed. Apart from the dims of the posts, lamp and (incorrect) estimates for the roof, the rest was supplied by Purple.

[galacticprobe]

The St John Ambulance badge's diameter appears to be fractionally less than the 4.5 inches previously thought. It is much closer to 4.33" in diameter (as far as I can determine, its outer edge does not form a perfect circle).

Great work on that pixel counting as usual, Tony. (I don't know how your eyes can manage that!) As for your guesstimate on the diameter of the St. John logo, the discrepancy between the perceived 4.5-inch diameter and the 4.33-inch diameter could well be due to the fact that, as your amazing images show, the logo's edges are curling away from the box, and as the edges are not "laid flat" they're bound not to measure out 2-dimensionally at the full diameter. (Of course the difference between 4.5 and 4.33 is 0.17, or about 11/64ths of an inch, which isn't much when you consider that half of that is on each "edge" from center all the way round. So that curling of the edges could account for the difference.)

Just one thing I noticed on your overall drawing above - the overhead view with the measurements on it: you've got the center divide measurement at 0.75 inches, which is the width of the window frame muntins. Below that drawing on the larger version you show the center divide as 1.5 inches, so you may have inadvertently put the muntin measurement on the overhead center divide, unless that is how far the center divide protrudes from the box. It's difficult for me to tell (trifocals and all). Could you please clarify that one for this "dim one" on this end of the keyboard?

And the only reference to the two swallows I could find was also Monty Python - an African or European Swallow; one can possibly carry a coconut, but the other can't. Don't ask me say which or I might end up flung into that pit!

Dino.

[fivefingeredstyre]

It was a Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference about pedantic Frenchmen arguing over hypothetical minute details

I guess the cap fits, sometimes... :D:D:D

Great work as ever Tony!

[tony farrell]

The centre divides are 1.5 inches wide and 0.75 inches deep - the same depth as the panel recesses! (As with all large diagrams, you need to open them in a separate tab in order to see them at full-size.)

A 'guesstimate', Dino, is defined as an estimate made using inadequate or incomplete information, or as an estimate arrived at by guesswork. I had hoped that I'd clearly explained my methodology and also that the high-definition photos I've shared could be considered as the best source material now available.

As for two Frenchmen arguing over minute details or 'pedantry', well, all I'll say to that is if people want accurate reference material, "the devil is in the detail"!

[fivefingeredstyre]

Tony,

We started discussing this earlier outside the thread, but are the central dividers on the front/rear faces a different depth from those on the sides?

In the photo's posted previously the side facing central dividers seem to terminate flush with the top step under the sign box (making them 0.75" )

however as the front/rear divides terminate flush with the bottom step. Does this this that the depth of the front/rear divides are actually 0.25​ inches (the depth of the bottom step) rather than the 0.75​ inches shown on your drawing..?

[tony farrell]

Hahaha! Tell the truth Steve - you just want to see some more high-definition pictures!  

Okay, a couple more for you... Oh, and if Marc wants to add them to his 'sub-boards' (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?board=201.0 , http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?board=202.0 and http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?board=203.0 ) then please feel free to do so!  

First, a previously unpublished photo from the Pilot Episode - a little bit blurry but, it does nevertheless show the depth of the side-panel's divider:


The transmitted version of An Unearthly Child - we can begin to see the depths of the dividing strips on the side and doors:



A screen-grab from The Keys to Marinus - we can now see that the doors' dividing strip is the same depth as the panel recesses (we can also see just how thin the phone panel's frame is):



Planet of Giants - a bit dark but, a nice shot showing just how wide and shallow the base is:



Dalek Invasion of Earth showing the rear doors - this is a combination shot created by Clayton Hickman; it combines a high-definition portion with the Tardis and a lower resolution portion showing the 'forbidden to throw bodies into the river' sign. The full picture no longer exists in high-definition:



And the high-definition 'portion' of the picture cropped by me:



The Chase - a reasonably well-known picture but this version of it was only discovered last week by my mate Si Hodges & is presented here for the first time in its un-cropped form:



We can see that the bottom step above the doors is much taller than the corresponding step above the side-panel.

The Time Meddler (a high-definition version of a well-known picture & one which again shows the different heights of the stepped sections as well as the depths of the dividers on the side panel as well as on the doors):



Another shot of the Tardis from The Time Meddler - this time showing the Tardis without its lamp (picture courtesy of Matthew Purchase and Si Hodges):



A wide shot from The Gunfighters (again, the lamp is missing):



And a couple more from The Gunfighters - the first showing the reduced size picture and then a close-up of the sign-box shown at full-size:




Lastly, a picture of the altered Tardis from "The Abominable Snowmen":



And a close-up - high-definition - portion of the same picture which was posted by Jonathan/Markofrani & which shows just how shallow (in comparison to the originals) the panel recesses and dividing strips were on the replacement (Toy Maker) doors which were fitted in 1966:



Does that answer your question Steve?  

T

[fivefingeredstyre]

It does indeed! Thanks for posting the pictures You can see it's the same depth on the front face as it is on the sides, which means the central devider on the front and rear doors must sit proud of the bottom step under the sign box by 0.5"

You might want to take a look at your side elevation drawing though. You currently show the central divider terminating with the bottom steps, whereas in the pictures it extends up to terminate level with the top step?