Okay, this is where it gets interesting

I overlaid a wireframe of my model over the 'straight on' shot from The Chase and I noticed that the real prop is slightly wider. The top sign is also lower than it should be.




The model itself was made using plans from the Reference section



Maybe it's just me who screwed up with the camera angle, or the photo is slightly stretched...
Anyway, I'll try to overlay my model over some other photos tomorrow and see if it happens to all of them

Well, this is very interesting...
Is it possible the viewpoint is slightly too low? The right side seems to be more different at the top than the bottom.
Even so, it looks like there may be some minor adjustments necessary to the plans to get it to fit.

Thanks! This is very helpful.

Quote from: dw_1200 on Apr 01, 2018, 09:52 pm
Okay, this is where it gets interesting

I overlaid a wireframe of my model over the 'straight on' shot from The Chase and I noticed that the real prop is slightly wider. The top sign is also lower than it should be.



The model itself was made using plans from the Reference section

Well, firstly DW-1200, what beautiful renders!

Secondly, thank you for taking the trouble to create a wire frame diagram from my plans and overlaying it on the photo from "The Chase"... As Crispin states, this is indeed fascinating.

I wonder could I make a suggestion?

I suspect that there should be a quarter of an inch strip either side of the doors which lies just behind the flat edge of the recess into which the quadrants are fitted:



This would add a half inch to the width of the box. (If the equivalent dimension on the sides is also increased by 0.25 inches, then the box would still be square.) 

As regards the plans showing the sign-boxes lower than they should be, I wonder if the error here is in the depth of these boxes? Currently, the plans show this depth as one inch. If this depth were to be increased to 1.25 inches, might this 'soak up' the majority of the perceived difference between the plans and the 'wire frame' overlay?

T

Quote from: Scarfwearer on Apr 01, 2018, 11:04 pm
Is it possible the viewpoint is slightly too low? The right side seems to be more different at the top than the bottom.

Hmm... Well, I spent more than an hour tweaking the camera position. The problem is, when I change the height - everything else changes too. The roof and the base don't line up with the photo anymore. So I guess this is the best I can do

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 02, 2018, 12:21 am
I suspect that there should be a quarter of an inch strip either side of the doors which lies just behind the flat edge of the recess into which the quadrants are fitted:



This would add a half inch to the width of the box. (If the equivalent dimension on the sides is also increased by 0.25 inches, then the box would still be square.)  

As regards the plans showing the sign-boxes lower than they should be, I wonder if the error here is in the depth of these boxes? Currently, the plans show this depth as one inch. If this depth were to be increased to 1.25 inches, might this 'soak up' the majority of the perceived difference between the plans and the 'wire frame' overlay?

Okay, increasing dimensions of walls actually helped - corner posts now line up (almost), and so does the central divider.



But that means that the roof width has also changed (and the top signs too) :0

And as for the top signs - as you can see on the left side both depth and height line up. But on the front and side they're still lower

Quote from: dw_1200 on Apr 02, 2018, 02:24 pm
Okay, increasing dimensions of walls actually helped - corner posts now line up (almost), and so does the central divider.

Well, that seems to have solved the issue of the width of the box! Any slight misalignment can - in truth - most probably be explained by the fact that:

a) The box isn't precisely square-on to the camera (I've mentioned before that only the door with the St John Badge is precisely square-on to the viewer).
b) The box itself isn't precisely true - either it never was (i.e., it was built in the days before computer-controlled cutters were invented) or due to mis-handling it has become slightly distorted (don't forget too, in "World's End" it received a severe wallop when the bridge collapsed on it).
c) By this stage the box has had several coats of Artex and at least one of its castors has been replaced with one that is a different size (bottom right of the image).

Quote from: dw_1200 on Apr 02, 2018, 02:24 pm
But that means that the roof width has also changed (and the top signs too) :0

Whilst I agree that a half inch has to be added to the width of the top sign-boxes, it doesn't follow that the width of the roof's top tier has to be increased.

Quote from: dw_1200 on Apr 02, 2018, 02:24 pm
And as for the top signs - as you can see on the left side both depth and height line up. But on the front and side they're still lower.

If you open your images in a separate tab and use the 'magnifying glass' to see them at full size, even after increasing the width of the box (and sign-boxes) by half an inch, the green wire frame actually lies inside the 'depth' of the left-hand sign box. As I wrote in my last post, a one inch depth for the sign-boxes doesn't appear to be accurate and a depth of 1.125" to 1.25" appears to be more accurate.

I wonder - if it isn't too much trouble - to ask if you could increase the depth of the sign-boxes and also to move them up by a quarter of an inch as well?

Thanks.

T

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 02, 2018, 03:58 pm
c) By this stage the box has had several coats of Artex and at least one of its castors has been replaced with one that is a different size (bottom right of the image).

Artex? Well I never knew that. I would have thought that would be pointless given all the moving around it had to do, all the bumping about wouldn't it just crack and fall off in chunks?

Well, Cardinal Hordriss, Artex is actually incredibly durable and very, very hard to remove. (Interestingly - perhaps alarmingly would be more accurate - up to the mid-1980s it was formulated with Asbestos to give it further strength!)

The maker of the recreated 1966 Tardis exterior in "Twice Upon A Time" used a modern textured exterior paint (made by Crown Paints - other brands are, as they say, available  ) to great effect when creating the weathered look.

Back on topic, the point I was trying to make regarding the texturing on the original Brachacki Tardis is that its heavy application can serve to obscure the true dimensions of the woodwork underneath and that the multiple layers of texturing could very easily add-up to an eighth of an inch (if not more). 

T

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 02, 2018, 03:58 pm
If you open your images in a separate tab and use the 'magnifying glass' to see them at full size, even after increasing the width of the box (and sign-boxes) by half an inch, the green wire frame actually lies inside the 'depth' of the left-hand sign box. As I wrote in my last post, a one inch depth for the sign-boxes doesn't appear to be accurate and a depth of 1.125" to 1.25" appears to be more accurate.

I wonder - if it isn't too much trouble - to ask if you could increase the depth of the sign-boxes and also to move them up by a quarter of an inch as well?

Oh, but depth is already 1.25"



Here it is - sign boxes are 1/4 inch higher and depth is 1.25". Upper step under the sign box also became 1.5"

Here's another overlay, and things are actually getting better (to my eye)
No more obvious misalignments (except the roof, but I assume it was just unevenly placed during assembling)

This is excellent DW, thank you very much. I'll amend my plans with your revised heights for the stepped sections above the doors and side panels.

Looking at the latest overlay from Marco Polo, I wonder if the doors, stepped sections and side panels should be set slightly further back (by say 0.25 inches)?

If you'd care to message me, I'd welcome the opportunity to work with you on this (and a couple of other things which might interest you).

Best

T

I've been looking forward to someone doing this for years, so I'm thrilled that it's actually happening.

As a practical point: it might be a good idea to scale the picture/model up and zoom in closer as the green wireframe lines are about 1/4 inch wide at this scale - when you're measuring between two of them that's 1/2 inch - which is obscuring some of the finer details. Some of the estimates we have for the dimensions go down to 1/8 inch...

This is excellent work from you guys

I'm really looking forward to seeing the final result

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 03, 2018, 07:19 pm
This is excellent DW, thank you very much. I'll amend my plans with your revised heights for the stepped sections above the doors and side panels.

Looking at the latest overlay from Marco Polo, I wonder if the doors, stepped sections and side panels should be set slightly further back (by say 0.25 inches)?

If you'd care to message me, I'd welcome the opportunity to work with you on this (and a couple of other things which might interest you).

Best

T

This picture was so big, so I had to upload it somewhere else to avoid resizing

I pushed the doors and walls futher back by 0.25" and made wireframe lines thinner to see more details



~and it's still resized

I hope it's okay to leave a link to the original picture here
https://i.imgur.com/ks68AN0.jpg

Again, thank you for your hard work with this! I think we are getting closer....

As Crispin suggested, narrowing the 'wire frame' lines has definitely helped reveal more details/more discrepancies.

I now think that we've got the depth of the doors (and steps above the doors) correct but even though you've moved them back, the side panels (and steps above them) are still too far forward.

If it's not too much trouble, could you move the sides (and steps above them) in by another 0.25 inches?

The second detail which has been revealed by narrowing your lines is that the height of the sign-boxes is incorrect. I think that the previously accepted figure for this dimension of 5.25" is incorrect and that this should actually be much closer to 5" (it's probably 5.125" on the picture from "The Chase" but - as we know - the front sign-box was badly damaged by that stage and the seams in the sign-box's wood work are visibly open).

I've attached the picture from Marco Polo with the revised dimensions:



That then just leaves us with the apparent discrepancy in the widths of the windows and recessed panels. At the moment, the wire frame overlay seems to indicate that the windows and recesses were actually fractionally wider than the 12" previously thought.

To be scientific in our approach (i.e. so as to avoid making too many changes in one go and thereby to introduce compensatory errors) could I ask that you just make the suggested changes outlined above and as indicated in the picture from Marco Polo?

I hope, DW, that you're not getting bored with the revisions and thank you once again for all your help.

T

(Edited - it seems I can't spell seam. DOH!!)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 05, 2018, 11:12 am
I hope, DW, that you're not getting bored with the revisions and thank you once again for all your help.

Bored? Nah, I'm actually enjoying it x)

Alrighty then, I pushed the doors and walls even further back and corrected the sign box height ...but it broke the steps dimensions completely
And there's something really weird going on where the sign box meets the steps



Original picture

I suppose we should add another 0.25" here too?