Mar 07, 2021, 11:40 am

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


Yardley Jones plans revisited

Started by lespaceplie, Oct 28, 2010, 03:52 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

sanguinewolf

of cause not lol yeah i know inches are important in height.. many arguments ive had over height and had to prove mine lol to people when i was a kid, cause i was 6ft when i entered highschool :)

Theta Sigma

Oct 30, 2010, 02:14 am #16 Last Edit: Oct 30, 2010, 01:02 pm by Theta Sigma
Quote from: hb88banzai on Oct 29, 2010, 08:53 am
If one can find really clear closeups of the locks, that is a feature whose measurements do not change. If clear enough, these can be used to calibrate photographic measurements of adjacent features (rail diameters, for instance) which can then be used to measure other features.
lock-hires.png
"I just put 1.795372 & 2.204628 together." - 4th Doctor

DoctorWho8

Well we all know Tom Baker was 6' 4". :)
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

hb88banzai

Oct 30, 2010, 04:38 am #18 Last Edit: Oct 30, 2010, 05:38 am by hb88banzai
Theta Sigma -

That picture has a few problems. First is that there is a really noticeable barrel distortion going on - either a video artifact or it was a wide angle lens. At least I assume this is video. That brings about another issue (stills are always to be preferred over video for this kind of thing) in that the lock isn't round here, so most likely the pixels weren't square and this wasn't compensated for when the jpg was made. Also, the overall sharpness (whether due to source material or jpg compression and resolution settings) is distinctly on the marginal side for this kind of work.

That said, if you stay in the same plane for comparisons (vertical to vertical and horizontal to horizontal) and as close as possible to the lock then some preliminary measurements can be made to see where they fall.

For the rail (horizontal board) above the phone door I'm getting 3.25" at the front/outer surface (ie, excluding the bevels) and at the same level and the same surface (front surface excluding bevels) I'm seeing 14.25" for the height of the phone panel cutout. Interesting.

EDIT - Using the outer edge of the lock rose as 1.75" I'm getting just under 3.5" and just under 15" for the above two measurements, so obviously the low sharpness of this picture is playing havoc with the margin of error in measuring features of the lock. Either set of measurements would have to be confirmed with a sharper (and preferably much higher resolution) picture.

I could try manipulating the image quality in Photoshop, but there are a lot of compression artifacts that would cause reliability issues - garbage in, garbage out. At this resolution, a single pixel error in measuring the cylinder diameter results in a 1/2" difference in the panel height.

Theta Sigma

I have removed the original picture, and substituted another higher quality picture.  I'm still not sure it's high enough to resolve the problems you were describing, but perhaps it will eliminate some of the compression artifacts.  I am not aware of any high resolution still pics available that show straight-on closeup shots of the lock.
"I just put 1.795372 & 2.204628 together." - 4th Doctor

lespaceplie

Oct 30, 2010, 02:23 pm #20 Last Edit: Jul 03, 2019, 03:26 am by warmcanofcoke
Here's the pic with the distortion compensated for, but it would be hard to use this with any accuracy.

ydp1.jpg

lespaceplie

Oct 14, 2011, 05:06 pm #21 Last Edit: Mar 26, 2012, 04:39 pm by lespaceplie
http://www.doctorwhoscarf.com/drwho/s18imp.pdf

There have been some very modest changes to the plans to reflect a more general arrangement. It's nothing that should interrupt your builds!

Thanks to a recent photo appearing on Purple's personal blog, a better idea of the roof dims could be had (though possibly smoothed for toy manufacturing practicality). The new dims are at the probable maximum heights for each tier and the largest lamp base. The corner post caps are a little wider now. The corner post width of 6.5" has been confirmed (at least proportionally). The previous version of the plans had the lamp base as 8" square, but it should be 9" for all versions of the prop. In practical terms, the base should probably be proportional to whatever fresnel you can get.

Another error was the height of the stepped strip above the doors. It had been 3.5" total height, but it should only be 3" (appears taller due to steps projecting forward). The optional 4th strip is shown and doesn't change the dims of anything around it having only been added to retain the doors.

Though I believe this was already corrected in the last update, it should probably be noted that the ends of the lintel boxes extend a little wider than expected and do not align with the centers of the corner posts.

Sorry that work on these plans has been at a glacial pace. There's always something new.