from my calcualtions
height 125.98 inch's = to 10ft 5.980 so basically 10ft 6
width 59.055 inch's = to 4ft 11.055 basically 5ft
am i correct there? would you say?
cause that sounds abit disproportionate to me

using those measurement this is what ive ended up with

Quote from: T@RDISman550 on Jan 26, 2018, 08:19 am
then what would it be in feet and inch's

Quote from: T@RDISman550 on Jan 26, 2018, 11:20 am
i find things like this difficult and dino confused me more by saying 4.9 is 4ft 11 i thought it was 4ft 9

Sorry, 550. I didn't mean to confuse you. I was only trying to show that with imperial measurements written as above, the decimal isn't the inch.

My guess at what 4.9 feet is was a bit off. (See the correction below.)

Quote from: Scarfwearer on Jan 26, 2018, 12:39 pm

Quote from: galacticprobe on Jan 26, 2018, 06:02 am
Unless my maths are off (Tony, please correct me if I'm way out in the Delta Quadrant), but "4.9 feet" translates to 4ft 11.27in (or close to 4ft 11-and-a-quarter inches).

Errr.... last time I looked, 4.9' was 4' 10.8"

Well... I wasn't sure of my calculations which is why I asked to be corrected if I was wrong. The last time I had to figure something like this out was so many moons ago I can't even remember. It's always the decimal that gets me because neither the foot nor the inch is nicely broken into segments of 10. I mean, I know the main decimals: .125 is 1/8th, .25 is 1/4th, etc. - and you can get 7/8th by multiplying .125 by 7 to get .875 (which is 7/8ths).

But then you get into "odd" decimals like 4.9 feet, or 10.8 inches... Sure, they're nice round numbers, but sometimes those round numbers can throw things off when you're building something. (Like, what does .8 inches translate to in fraction form since that's how things are marked off on a rule(r)?) I know it's 8/10ths, which reduces to 4/5ths, but then what's 4/5th of an inch? Inches aren't marked in 5ths on a ruler either.)

It's less than 7/8ths (.875), but more than 3/4ths (.75), but still not marked off as 4/5ths on a ruler. Having to resort to an internet "Inch Fraction Calculator" (yes; they have one: Inch-Fraction Calculator) plugging in .8, I get 51/64ths of an inch. So "4.9 feet", which is 4ft 10.8in, should be written out as 4ft 10⁵¹/₆₄in. (Sorry for the large size of the whole numbers; it was the only way I could get this to look like a fraction that made sense.)

This is one reason why I like the drawings that Crispin (Scarfwearer) and Tony post; if they don't use metric and are using imperial, they use the fractions of the inch, not the decimals of the inch - unless it falls on one of those nice decimals like .125, .25, .5, etc.: ones easily translated to fractions of an inch.

What I was trying to explain in my post here (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=7543.msg106150#msg106150) - which no one else noticed - was the measurement of "4.9 feet" being given as "4ft 9in" was way off from what it should be. (Granted mine was off as well, but I was thankfully corrected; and both mine and Crispin's measure were both closer to the dead-even 11-inch mark than the 9-inch one - almost a 2-inch difference, and that can really throw things off.)

Hopefully this helps explain things a little better, and hopefully that link to the Inch-Fraction Calculator will be helpful the next time someone sees a measurement written as, say, 3.2 inches (which the Calculator says is 3¹³/₆₄th inches).

Also, as a side note, not all rulers have their graticule going down as far as 64ths of an inch unless you're working with some fine tolerances. Most imperial rulers that you buy in stores are only graticuled to 32nds of an inch, so if you've got a measure in the 64ths of an inch, you've got to try and "eyeball" a mark between two of the 32nds lines.

One last thing on rounding off measurements:

Quote from: T@RDISman550 on Jan 26, 2018, 11:51 am
from my calcualtions
height 125.98 inch's = to 10ft 5.980 so basically 10ft 6

This is an excellent example of rounding off to make things a little easier to work with. That .02 of an inch probably isn't going to be noticed, so calling it an even 10ft 6in is perfectly okay.

Quote from: T@RDISman550 on Jan 26, 2018, 11:51 am
width 59.055 inch's = to 4ft 11.055 basically 5ft

This one is a little different. When you're looking at .055 inches (rounded off to .06 inches), it's so small that you'd want to round 11.055 inches off to an even 11 inches. So this measurement would be 4ft 11 inches. Taking 11.055 inches and calling it a full foot (12 inches), to make it an even 5 feet, would make this one almost a full inch off.

Quote from: T@RDISman550 on Jan 26, 2018, 11:51 am
am i correct there? would you say?
cause that sounds abit disproportionate to me

I hope the above helps correct your disproportionate feeling. You were pretty close, though, so nicely done.

Dino.

Whoa, this thread exploded...I could've just used that picture from 2010 which is a dead on shot of it. But I wanted the Series 10 version. Okay, this might a be a lengthy thread focusing on the dimensions instead of finding a dead on shot of the Capaldi TARDIS. The 2nd reply was pretty much it. Sorry, if I seem pushy

TigerMan

Better late than never, but here's a scan from Doctor Who Magazine special #39 - The 2015 Yearbook

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0bkjwg4nxzbipdp/Front.png

But isn't that image just a CG render?