May 29, 2024, 05:15 am

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


Door Sign Reference

Started by Scarfwearer, May 14, 2009, 03:14 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

hb88banzai

Sep 01, 2012, 07:32 am #135 Last Edit: Sep 01, 2012, 07:44 am by hb88banzai
Quote from: deck5 on Sep 01, 2012, 03:59 am
Another side-by-side, this time with the new sign scan.  I think it's fair to say exactly the same silk-screen was used on the Barnet box as on the police post sign.

barnet2.jpg


Yes, I'd say we have a winner.

Quote from: deck5 on Sep 01, 2012, 04:00 am
Starcross, would you be so kind as to tell me the exact DPI of your scan?  Or alternatively the width of the text in the longest line?
(snip)


The full sign scans (except the one with the door frame in picture) were all done at 600dpi. This was per our private conversations on the matter and his usual preference for archival scans (as with his wonderful Mark 3 Top Sign scans), and confirmed just now by looking in the Properties-Details for each pic.

Nice thing is that from this we can get decent measurements off photos for the Barnet Phone Door and compare it to Crich's to see if there were more differences than just the hinges.

deck5

Quote from: hb88banzai on Sep 01, 2012, 07:32 am
Nice thing is that from this we can get decent measurements off photos for the Barnet Phone Door and compare it to Crich's to see if there were more differences than just the hinges.


Thanks for the info.  My analysis shows the overall size of the frame is 10.5x14.5.  The frame is 1" wide all around; the visible sign is 8.5x12.5.

deck5

Here's a diagram.  Forgive my paintbrush drafting skills.

barnet-sign-dims.jpg

hb88banzai

Sep 02, 2012, 08:38 am #138 Last Edit: Sep 02, 2012, 09:44 am by hb88banzai
Nice round measurements are a good sign.

The 1" frame width certainly agrees with ironageman's record of his on-site measurements.

The 1.5" between frame edge and top of letters also agrees, but the corresponding distance from the bottom edge (which he also wrote as 1.5") doesn't - however, a quick look at the original photos shows his measurement there must be a little off.

There seems to be some further inconsistencies with his recorded measurements of the panel insets and the gaps around the door, but some of his measurements contradict visual references in photos, so would be interesting to see this expanded to the surrounding area as an additional reality check for both these extrapolated measurements and his recorded ones considering there were some irregularities he noted as well.

These might have too much lens distortion to use (appears to be more complex than simple pincushion distortion as well) --

Barnet_Phone_Door_Area.jpg

Barnet_Phone_Door_Area_2.jpg

Anyone have any better pics?

Ironageman's measurement drawing --

Barnet_Box_Measurements-Ironageman.jpg

deck5

Sep 06, 2012, 11:33 pm #139 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2012, 04:35 am by deck5
I took another crack at ye olde Brachacki.  Let me know what you think! (tweaked)

smallsign.jpg

Comparisons:

compare.jpg

compare2.jpg

compare3s.jpg

galacticprobe

Sep 07, 2012, 06:04 am #140 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2012, 06:06 am by galacticprobe
The lettering looks spot on with the photos. But maybe because the photos aren't totally "head-on" the jpg looks a bit tall and thin. What's the size of your sign (visible area)? According to Bill Rudloff's "Original Brachacki" PDFs (at least I think they're Bills - correct me if I'm wrong), the recessed panels on the doors are 15 inches tall by 12 inches wide. Allowing for a 1-inch frame around the sign would make the visible area 13 inches tall by 10 inches wide.

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

hb88banzai

The U looks a tiny bit bottom heavy to me. Seems like the original curves up a bit more - is more rounded at the bottom.

deck5

Quote from: galacticprobe on Sep 07, 2012, 06:04 am
The lettering looks spot on with the photos. But maybe because the photos aren't totally "head-on" the jpg looks a bit tall and thin. What's the size of your sign (visible area)? According to Bill Rudloff's "Original Brachacki" PDFs (at least I think they're Bills - correct me if I'm wrong), the recessed panels on the doors are 15 inches tall by 12 inches wide. Allowing for a 1-inch frame around the sign would make the visible area 13 inches tall by 10 inches wide.


I'm using 12" x 15.5", which holds up well using multiple sources:

a120x155.jpg

The visible part of the panel is 9" x 12.5", with a frame of 1.25" all around, and a gap of 1/4" on each side surrounding.

deck5

Thanks, I'll see if I can tweak the U!

DoctorWho8

Nope, not my plans.  I've only done up the Newbury and 2005 boxes.  The others are probably lescaplie's.
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

galacticprobe

Sep 07, 2012, 07:10 pm #145 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2012, 07:14 pm by galacticprobe
You're right, Bill. Those were lespaceplie's plans (http://www.doctorwhoscarf.com/drwho/brachaki.pdf - from this thread here http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=644.0. Sorry for the mistake, lespaceplie).

But going by those measurements you can see why I thought the sign looked a little tall. But that head-on photo you just posted above sort of clinches it.

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

mechanoid

Quote from: deck5 on Sep 06, 2012, 11:33 pm
I took another crack at ye olde Brachacki.  Let me know what you think! (tweaked)

smallsign.jpg

Comparisons:

compare.jpg

compare2.jpg

compare3s.jpg


Sorry, but the P of police seems too small or the kerning is wrong betwenn the P and O

deck5

Quote from: mechanoid on Sep 07, 2012, 10:58 pm
Sorry, but the P of police seems too small or the kerning is wrong betwenn the P and O


Thanks!  Few tweaks here: let me know what you think.

TRY4.JPG

galacticprobe

Sep 08, 2012, 05:23 am #148 Last Edit: Sep 08, 2012, 05:23 am by galacticprobe
Looks pretty well tweaked to me! Nice job!

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

hb88banzai

Sep 08, 2012, 11:50 am #149 Last Edit: Sep 08, 2012, 11:56 am by hb88banzai
POLICE seems to be just a tiny bit bolder in the original. Hard to tell for sure as your comparison samples appear to be overlays on the originals, so if the originals are a bit bolder that bleeds through to the reproduction.

Good work, though.