Sorry Gene - I can see where you're coming from. However, the angle at which you are viewing the Console from can alter its perceived dimensions.

This quick diagram illustrates my point. The green cross represents the distance and height from which the Console is viewed (in this case exactly half way up the Console ). The drawing on the extreme right is an exact scale drawing of the full-sized Console on the left.

The drawing in the middle is what would be seen from "Point X":



The only way round this is to look at discrete (small 'slices') in turn (as I did with the TY-J Tardis) & then compare these 'slices' with each other- either that or stand so far back from the Console that you risk losing definition.

Sorry. I should also add that my version of the Sharp (Pertwee) Console isn't finalised (with the exception of the central column and collar).

T

(Edited - I typed the word 'version' in twice. DOH!)

Yes, but I have been making observations about points lying in the same plane. The camera position in the last photo is just above the top of the belt. That would favor distortion in the opposite direction of your example, which strengthens the case for the rise being less than 10". Since we know where the four corners of this plane are, we can also draw lines to mark the center regardless of the camera. The intersection is pretty close to the top of the black panel meaning around the same measure above and below. The black panel even intrudes above the halfway point a bit. If the same result can be reproduced in other photos of sufficient resolution, I think we have it.

Nevermind 9" - it could still very well be merely 8".

Quote from: lespaceplie on Dec 09, 2016, 02:05 am
Yes, but I have been making observations about points lying in the same plane. The camera position in the last photo is just above the top of the belt. That would favor distortion in the opposite direction of your example, which strengthens the case for the rise being less than 10". Since we know where the four corners of this plane are, we can also draw lines to mark the center regardless of the camera. The intersection is pretty close to the top of the black panel meaning around the same measure above and below. The black panel even intrudes above the halfway point a bit. If the same result can be reproduced in other photos of sufficient resolution, I think we have it.

But the collar straddles the black panels - its top is an inch behind them and its base is an inch in front of them (Peter Logan's 1982 drawing of the Console proves this). So, they're not in the same plane at all.

In addition, the console's table hasn't been squarely mounted on the plinth - the left-hand side is nearly an inch higher than the right-hand side. So depending on which side of the Console you take your 'measurement' from, you'll get a different result.



T

Even though the collar straddles that plane, you can still estimate where the two top vertices of the X are, which is what I did. The resolution is not helping so the results are only approximate but wouldn't be more than a pixel or two off. 2" is pretty coarse and would definitely shift where the X center. I think these results point to shorter.

[Edit for clarification]

We can still make some observations simply by drawing a plane and determining the center in relation to the top of the black panel. In this example the cyan lines are what I had proposed earlier. Where the horizontal plane the collar lies in intersects the vertical plane is approximate (not helped by the twisting of the entire top). That places the X a bit below the top of the black panel. The red lines indicate how high things would have to go to shift that center approximately an inch above the black panel. That would elevate the collar out of bounds.

No, sorry Gene, I can't follow your reasoning here at all:

In this photo you appear to be trying to measure a prop which is not only crooked but by definition is therefore a-symmetrical. Because the Console is crooked, in all likelihood, the black panel is no longer likely to be vertical either.

You're also using a picture which - with the best will in the world - isn't the clearest and the bottom edge of the collar is obscured by the silver box which replaced the ventilation grille in this version of the Console. So, as you admit, your lines may well therefore be a couple of pixels out.

Now, I agree that doesn't sound a lot but, if - for example - one inch measures 10 pixels, then your starting point could be a fifth of an inch out. Surely the cumulative effect of a couple of pixels here and a couple of pixels there, coupled with the fact you can't see the bottom of the collar and the poor state of the Console could mean that you're soon 'out by' considerably more than an inch?

Lastly, over the course of your last few posts, you've given us two different figures for the height of the slope i.e., eight inches and nine inches.

As I say, I'm really struggling to follow what you are saying here.

T

I don't know if these will help or not, but they're cropped scans from the console in the Doctor Who Technical Manual:


"Corner to corner" view...


"side to side" view.

The missing "underside fins" aside, Tony, unless I'm wrong, you felt the dimensions on this drawing of the console were reasonably close to the actual prop's dimensions. (Not counting the mislabelling of the measurement units in the Manual for the sonic screwdriver - cm vs. mm - I believe you felt the bulk of the dimensions for things in the Manual were very close to what they should be.)

So maybe this will help determine the rise of the panels?

Dino.
P. S. Gene, it's nice to see that I'm not the only one to get one of Tony's "Master-esque" responses! Though, if I am wrong about Tony's belief in the dimensions from this Manual drawing, I have a feeling I'll get another of those responses.

Aaahhh...... Any mention of The Dr Who Technical Manual gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling of nostalgia, all my small scale builds were created using this as reference, but then I discovered the Internet & found much more accurate plans online.
I still flick through it every now & again, but I suspect your reservations about its accuracy are well founded, after all, as you say, it is infamous for suggesting that the sonic screwdriver is the size of a lamp post!!!


Russell

Quote from: galacticprobe on Dec 10, 2016, 07:17 am
I don't know if these will help or not, but they're cropped scans from the console in the Doctor Who Technical Manual:


"Corner to corner" view...


"side to side" view.

The missing "underside fins" aside, Tony, unless I'm wrong, you felt the dimensions on this drawing of the console were reasonably close to the actual prop's dimensions. (Not counting the mislabelling of the measurement units in the Manual for the sonic screwdriver - cm vs. mm - I believe you felt the bulk of the dimensions for things in the Manual were very close to what they should be.)

So maybe this will help determine the rise of the panels?

Dino.
P. S. Gene, it's nice to see that I'm not the only one to get one of Tony's "Master-esque" responses! Though, if I am wrong about Tony's belief in the dimensions from this Manual drawing, I have a feeling I'll get another of those responses.

I rarely comment on other people's threads on this forum other than to say how how much I enjoy seeing the various builds that people do - whether these be real, virtual or scale-models. I recognise that this site is primarily a hobby group. That said, I do feel that if we are going to have a reference section, we should try to make it as accurate as possible. And, I've said elsewhere, that knowledge changes and grows - an example of changing knowledge would be the fact that for a long time many people drew the Brachacki Tardis prop with 4 inch corner posts. I believe it was Gene himself who pointed out that the corner-posts were actually 4.5" wide!

So, it's in that spirit, that I queried what Gene was saying about the slope of the Console's panels. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's correct to 'rely' on poor definition photos of a prop which by that stage in its history was in a poor state of repair and was visibly crooked/distorted.

I hope that I haven't offended Gene and that my 'Master-esque' comments were taken in the spirit they were intended; I'm just injecting a couple of caveats and asking for clarification of his thinking. (For a long time, I thought the central column's lamps flashed in a pattern but then Steve White pointed out that they would have used 'blinkies' and he and Dino drew a working wiring diagram which matched the visual evidence.)

So, my knowledge changed and my understanding grew as a result of those contributions!  

As regards the Manual, in actual fact, I do believe (apart from the missing under-fins) that it is accurate:

If you apply an imperial scale to the drawings in the manual, you get 46" wide control panels and a 30 inch wide collar-top. You also get a central column which is a little over 22" in diameter and which rises to just short of 29". In the Manual, the fascia (what Gene calls the 'belt') is drawn at 3" and the plinth is drawn at just under 48" wide which - given the hexagon has its corners flattened-off - is also correct. The manual also shows the different depths of the plinth's black panels which again - for this stage in the Console's history - is also correct (i.e., to accommodate the hydraulics for the chameleon circuit programmer).

So with all these factors correctly drawn in the Manual, if we then apply the same imperial scale to the sloping panels, we get a rise of 9.5"! The Manual's drawings of the Console don't look out of proportion - the Console doesn't look 'top-heavy' and slope of the panels (to my eye at least) looks to be correct.

This is the full-sized drawing from the Manual with the imperial scale added (two inch squares):



Add to this Peter Logan's 1982 drawings (as Jonathan/Markofrani pointed out, Peter worked for the VFX department who built the Kenneth Sharp Console) and I'm prepared to 'stick my head on the block' and state that we have accurate dimensions for the Sharp Console! All I need to do is reduce the slope from my estimate of ten inches to 9.5 inches!  


 

As I say, I'm not being Master-esque; I'm simply trying my best to contribute to an accurate-as-we-can-make-it reference section.  

T

Not offended at all. If the prop wasn't so twisted by this point, my technique would absolutely work, though. The verticals would have to truly be vertical, and the collar position would have to be perfect to interpolate where the two top vertices are located.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Dec 10, 2016, 12:12 pm
I hope that I haven't offended Gene and that my 'Master-esque' comments were taken in the spirit they were intended;...

As I say, I'm not being Master-esque;...

Just to clarify my reference to "Master-esque" to avoid unnecessary tension and misunderstanding: As with the brief discussion of the correct spelling of Roger Delgado's name, it was the "No, sorry Gene, I can't follow your reasoning here at all...", and the burning gaze of your avatar, Tony, that I considered "Master-esque". I wasn't inferring anything else about your comments when you responded to Gene a few posts back. Just that, other than myself, Gene is the only other member I know of that's received one of your responses that started with one such statement. (There may be others, but I can't think of them at the moment.)

All of the rest of your comments have extremely valid points, and you put them across very well: polite, well written, and with thorough research to back them up. Whenever you do disagree with something, you always do so in the same professional manner as you have with Gene. (And me, personally, when you disagree with me on something, I would miss it if you didn't start your response with "I'm sorry, Dino, but I must disagree with you...", or even "No, sorry Dino, I can't follow your reasoning here at all...". It just goes so well with your avatar, puts Roger Delgado's voice in my head, and that makes him live again. For me, he was "the Master".

So that is the "Master-esque" bit I referred to: not the tone of voice or anything else; just that opening phrase.

Dino.