Mar 07, 2021, 05:44 pm

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


Hudolin Movie Prop Plans

Started by lespaceplie, Oct 02, 2009, 04:21 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Kingpin

Apr 27, 2020, 02:32 pm #30 Last Edit: Apr 27, 2020, 02:36 pm by Kingpin
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 26, 2020, 04:16 pm
35b36d16e21fdbf6b2673733359e90ce07b2cd8e.jpg
Doors lit but not side?

f529516e1e1176110b4795e7f9a0939f2f494dc4.jpg
Fully lit.


I'm not convinced there is a lighting rig installed on the windows for the doors/sides of the Hudolin prop.  I think there's only a single lighting source within the box which is illuminating the windows for the publicity photos (much like how the modified http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=7920.45 prop was lit for its recent appearance in Fugitive of the Judoon http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=10227.0), which is the same light source illuminating Paul, the thick door stile, and the panel covering the windows.

In the photo with Paul and the candle, the light is brightest towards the top of the top-left pane of the left-hand window on the side, and the rest of the light visible in that window, and the windows on the doors almost seems to fall in line with the spherical drop-off of a single bulb.  Note how dim the window above the Pull to Open hatch is even compared to the window on the door with the lock.

Taking into account the efforts used to light the 2005 TARDIS prop's windows to try suggest a Police Box interior, I think if there were designed light boxes built for this prop, we'd be seeing a more consistent level of lighting from one window to the next.  I think if each window had a light, you'd see a bright spot in most of them, rather than just that one on the side.

Rather than a lighting panel, I believe the removable panel visible behind Paul is a blackout for the windows.  I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if that shadow visible in the pebbled middle pane of the side window was the power cord for the light.

tony farrell

Quote from: Kingpin on Apr 27, 2020, 02:32 pm
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 26, 2020, 04:16 pm
35b36d16e21fdbf6b2673733359e90ce07b2cd8e.jpg
Doors lit but not side?

f529516e1e1176110b4795e7f9a0939f2f494dc4.jpg
Fully lit.


I'm not convinced there is a lighting rig installed on the windows for the doors/sides of the Hudolin prop.  I think there's only a single lighting source within the box which is illuminating the windows for the publicity photos


TBH Kingpin, I'm not sure how the lighting was achieved which is why I refer to to the light-boxes as "window backings/light-boxes" in my explanatory text.

If - as you state - that  "there's only a single lighting source within the box", how do you explain the first photo immediately above which clearly shows that the interior of the box is  in darkness yet the front doors' windows are lit?

I'm not on Twitter but I know that Philip Segal is. Perhaps someone would like to ask him?  :)

T

Angelus Lupus

Addendum to the EL sheet theory, jumping off of Kingpin pointing out the brighter top regions.
The interior panel (with handholds) that goes up to the roof-line allows enough space for separate light-sources in the tops-signs (maybe bulbs, which would account for the lack of blue tint) and for light-spill to bounce off the panel and show up in the tops of the windows.
This would still allow for the interior of the box itself to remain dark as Tony mentions.

Caveat: I'm no expert, and this is all just speculation based on the images - if new information proves me wrong, then that's fine, I'm just spit-balling theories  ;D
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

watcher

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 27, 2020, 02:57 pm

I'm not on Twitter but I know that Philip Segal is. Perhaps someone would like to ask him?  :)

T


Good luck!

He's very secretive about the fact he still owns that box, and has never (as far as I'm aware) actually acknowledged it.

"This Planet Earth" did approach him to see if they could fly over and measure the actual box for their replica (pics of I posted earlier), but didn't get a response  :-[

Volpone

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 27, 2020, 02:57 pm...If - as you state - that  "there's only a single lighting source within the box", how do you explain the first photo immediately above which clearly shows that the interior of the box is  in darkness yet the front doors' windows are lit?...

You guys always overthink things and overlook old practical effects.  Granted, I could be wrong, and a larger version of the picture could easily prove that, but looking at that picture I can immediately answer "black velvet curtain."  Drape a black velvet curtain over the inside of the doorway and voila.  Bright windows, dark "interior." 
"My dear Litefoot, I've got a lantern and a pair of waders, and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England. What could possibly go wrong?"
-The Doctor.

Angelus Lupus

Quote from: Volpone on Apr 28, 2020, 02:21 am
You guys always overthink things and overlook old practical effects.  Granted, I could be wrong, and a larger version of the picture could easily prove that, but looking at that picture I can immediately answer "black velvet curtain."  Drape a black velvet curtain over the inside of the doorway and voila.  Bright windows, dark "interior." 


That could work, and it would be simpler. It would also mean the big sheet inside the box would be a diffuser rather than a light source, and I wonder if that would lead to the similar levels of light from the closed and open doors?

Either way, diffuser or EL Sheet, I have two observations: Firstly, in most images it doesn't look like a lot of light is coming through the windows, and secondly (I may need to rewatch the movie to confirm) so far I'm only seeing lit windows in the publicity shots, not screengrabs from the movie itself - did the effect not work on camera?
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

Kingpin

Wouldn't it be a hoot if like the BBC, they ended up leaving some of the bits they needed for the prop back in the studio when they took it outside?

tony farrell

Quote from: Volpone on Apr 28, 2020, 02:21 am
You guys always overthink things and overlook old practical effects.  Granted, I could be wrong, and a larger version of the picture could easily prove that, but looking at that picture I can immediately answer "black velvet curtain."  Drape a black velvet curtain over the inside of the doorway and voila.  Bright windows, dark "interior." 


Hang on, the doors' windows are lit. If the box is only lit from a single source from within, and you then go and hang a black drape behind the doors, the doors' windows would be in darkness too. (Unless you're saying that they cut holes in the black drape to let the light through for the windows)!  And, if there is nothing behind the front windows, what are the window's mullions casting a shadow on? 35b36d16e21fdbf6b2673733359e90ce07b2cd8e.jpg

Kingpin

Apr 28, 2020, 04:21 pm #38 Last Edit: Apr 28, 2020, 04:39 pm by Kingpin
I'm even more convinced the windows aren't lit by separate units:

bf962719a1ee79a43f21d2f2e03926c4584a8301.jpg

And a couple more shots with a bit of a glimpse of the interior:

DOCTOR_WHO_Revisited_Eighth_Doctor_PAUL_McGANN_-_Aug_31_BBC_AMERICA.jpg
doctor-who-96-tv-movie-8thdoctor.jpg
PDF00412-DOCTOR-WHO-eighth-doctor-tardis.jpg

Volpone

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Apr 28, 2020, 12:30 pm
Quote from: Volpone on Apr 28, 2020, 02:21 am
You guys always overthink things and overlook old practical effects.  Granted, I could be wrong, and a larger version of the picture could easily prove that, but looking at that picture I can immediately answer "black velvet curtain."  Drape a black velvet curtain over the inside of the doorway and voila.  Bright windows, dark "interior." 


Hang on, the doors' windows are lit. If the box is only lit from a single source from within, and you then go and hang a black drape behind the doors, the doors' windows would be in darkness too. (Unless you're saying that they cut holes in the black drape to let the light through for the windows)!  And, if there is nothing behind the front windows, what are the window's mullions casting a shadow on? 35b36d16e21fdbf6b2673733359e90ce07b2cd8e.jpg

No.  What I would do is just cut a strip of velvet, maybe 14-17" wide and as tall as the door, plus 3' or so.  You could taper one end to a point if you wanted to.  Tack one edge to the top of the open door by the hinge and again at the edge that opens.  Let the rest hang down over the opening.  If you needed to, you could stick a short rod across from the POLICE BOX sign to the top of the open door to work like a curtain rod.  Or just tack the other side of the velvet to the POLICE BOX sign.  The only thing you need to black out is the opening for the door.  Since it is just a publicity photo, the door doesn't have to work for someone to go in and out. 

I do something similar to this with a sun room on the back of my house.  It has big old energy inefficient windows so I don't want to heat/cool it.  But the cat's litter box is out there, so I hang a long coat over the edge of the door and a scarf from the outside doorknob.  The cat pushes the scarf out of her way when she wants to go out to use the litterbox.  I've considered building something more energy-efficient, but who has the time?  But anyway, the door has a big window in it and there's a picture window on the wall next to the door.  If I were to turn the lights on in the kitchen and stand out in the sun room, I'd see light coming through the windows, but the doorway would be black where the coat and scarf were (with some gaps because they don't perfectly fill the gap in the partly opened door). 
"My dear Litefoot, I've got a lantern and a pair of waders, and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England. What could possibly go wrong?"
-The Doctor.

tony farrell

Apr 30, 2020, 02:14 am #40 Last Edit: Apr 30, 2020, 03:21 am by Tony Farrell
I'll have one last try Steve - purely in the interests of academic debate :):

Your black drape theory doesn't answer the questions I put.

If there's nothing behind the windows what are the doors' window muntins casting a shadow on?

The door's inner stile is much thicker than it's hinged stile. This extra deep stile cannot be anything to do with the doors operation or rigidity - that simply isn't how doors are made. You say I'm over-thinking things, but, I'm simply asking questions based on my observations of the Hudolin Tardis:

Why add a strip that's almost an inch thick to the inside edge of a door that's already two inches thick? Why is it there? What is it concealing? Why does what it's concealing need to be almost an inch thick?

If the detachable window backings are simply there to block out the windows, why do they need such depth? Surely - to use the simplest/most obvious solution as you suggest - a simple thin sheet of hardboard or plywood would suffice? They don't need to be nearly an inch deep. And, if they don't need to be nearly an inch deep, then you don't need the extra depth in the door's stile either... And, this extra thick stile hasn't been added as an afterthought or in a hurried fashion, it's been properly done. This has been properly thought through.

Now Kingpin points to the illuminated side windows as being lit from a single source within the box and, in the first picture he posted, the shadow of something behind the window is clearly visible. But, as I pointed out earlier, the doors' windows appear to be capable of being lit independently of the windows on the side panels. So, maybe, what we are seeing here is the absence of the (detachable) internal window 'backing' on this side of the Tardis prop. In the more 'front-on' shots of the Tardis where the doors' windows appear to be lit but the side's are in darkness, perhaps we are seeing the prop with the sides' window backings fitted.

(The publicity shots of Paul McGann, Silvester McCoy and the Tardis were taken over several hours on the afternoon of 31.1.1996. I don't think it's inconceivable that the internal side panel could have been removed or (re)fitted at some point in the photo shoot. Alternatively, they could have just left the window backing off from this side of the Tardis.)

So, if this is correct, what we could be seeing is light boxes fitted to the rear of the doors but simple (albeit unnecessarily deep)  removable 'blanking plates' fitted to the insides of the sides and rear of the prop.

This would mean that everyone's observations are correct:

1. There is an internal light-source for the box but, this is operated entirely separately from both the top signage and roof lamp.
2. This internal light can be seen through the side windows when these windows 'blanking plates' are removed.
3. These removable 'blanking plates' extend up inside the box so as to conceal the insides of the sign-boxes from view and are fitted to the sides and rear of the box.
4. The front doors' windows can be independently lit from behind and that the units required to do this are concealed behind thicker than would otherwise be necessary internal door-stiles.

(5. Speculation - perhaps the side and rear blanking plates were built so thick ready to accommodate lighting units but these units weren't fitted at the time of filming. This might explain why none of the windows are lit during the actual film itself and only in the photo-shoot i.e., it would look odd to have the doors' windows lit and not the side windows too or, if you removed the blanking plates from the sides in order to have all the windows lit from within the box then you'd be able to see the actors silhouettes which would ruin the illusion and might also reveal the inside of the box when the door was open.)

6. And, definitely not speculation, the Hudolin Box was a well thought out, beautifully and robustly built prop. It looks chunky and solid because it is chunky and solid. I've grown very fond of this version of the Tardis.  :)

T

too_many_cars

Apr 30, 2020, 10:06 pm #41 Last Edit: Apr 30, 2020, 10:17 pm by too_many_cars
Tony - brilliant job on the plans!  Hopefully mine were some sort of decent jumping-off point.

EDIT:  Just took a look.  Most of our dimensions either agreed or were 0.25" off.  I'd say that's a win!

--Brian

Volpone

Hi Tony.  Missed the bit about the shadows.  Now I see what you mean on that.  And my theory doesn't answer that so I will let the argument drop (for now, because I'm too busy/lazy to go get a strip of heavy fabric and go out to my TARDIS take pictures ;) ). 

But yep.  Wonderful prop.  Hudolin was very lucky.  Got to do the update/reboots for Dr. Who, Stargate, and Battlestar Galactica. 

It sure was a different era.  No smart phones.  Heck, most people didn't even have cell phones.  You had dial-up Internet if you had anything.  Windows 95.  VCRs.  People actually got their information from maps, phone books and...TV Guide.  I remember the thrill, the sheer joy, of being in the checkout line of the supermarket and seeing the TARDIS on the cover of TV Guide.  I grabbed it up and was thrilled to learn Dr. Who was coming back.  I doubt I've got it anymore.  Can't hold on to everything on the off chance that it will one day be valuable. 

Anyway, I still have the Dr. Who movie on a videotape of its broadcast.  It is a bit like the 1978 "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."  It has its flaws, but people were so desperate for Dr. Who that we were willing to overlook them. 
"My dear Litefoot, I've got a lantern and a pair of waders, and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England. What could possibly go wrong?"
-The Doctor.

tony farrell

May 02, 2020, 12:51 pm #43 Last Edit: May 02, 2020, 01:17 pm by Tony Farrell
Quote from: too_many_cars on Apr 30, 2020, 10:06 pm
Tony - brilliant job on the plans!  Hopefully mine were some sort of decent jumping-off point.

EDIT:  Just took a look.  Most of our dimensions either agreed or were 0.25" off.  I'd say that's a win!

--Brian


As I wrote earlier, Brian (I may call you Brian, mayn't I?), your plans are beautifully presented and are really easy to follow. I hope the same can be said of my version(s). And - to be honest - your plans with their slightly narrower recessed panels would result in the creation of a box with a (perhaps) more pleasing, sleeker appearance than the version actually built for the Dr Who TV Movie.

I think things like the creation of plans are really something of a detective story. We have snippets of information (and - in the case of the Hudolin Box - after one appearance, 25 years ago, this is all we're likely to get); from this partial information we make and test assumptions. Some assumptions may prove to be correct, others might not.

Having studied your plans, I can see where you've got certain dimensions from - for example, 50 inches square for the box is mentioned in the early/draft/partial plans we have from the production paperwork. The width of the doors is mentioned in the partial production plans we have for the wider motorbike 'stunt prop' and the plans for this stunt prop also specify the width of the illuminate-able top "Police Box" signage.

The question then becomes "how closely did the builders actually follow these (partial) production plans"? For example the TY-J Box as built bears only a passing resemblance to what was planned, whilst the Newbery Box as built bears no resemblance whatsoever to the production plans we have for it.

Here, I have no special tools (except, maybe, pixel counting something that is square-on to the camera) at my disposal other than to 'eye ball' the prop's proportions i.e., I mentioned in an earlier post that the depth of the sign-box is half the height of the sign-box so, if it is six inches tall, it has to be 3 inches deep. If the recessed panels are 15.5" tall, they have to be 13.5" wide, etc.

But, this methodology means you need to know one dimension - your starting point - before the other dimensions can be calculated. Mathematics cannot lie but, if your starting dimension is incorrect, the result of any calculation will also be incorrect.

And here, I am grateful to my friend Slava/DW_1200 for his help in building 'wire frame' CGI models of the various props from the dimensions I've given him. We have worked together on the original Brachacki Tardis and on things like the Pertwee console. By overlaying the 'wire frames' onto various photos, the accuracy of those wire frames and therefore of the dimensions can be tested and adjusted until as near perfect a match as is possible is achieved.

I'm hoping that once Slava has completed his degree course (and is suitably rested) that we'll be able to co-operate once more to produce an accurate as possible set of plans for the Hudolin iteration of the Tardis.  :)

Lastly, in the wake of me posting my plans for the Hudolin Box, I've received numerous direct messages (please be patient, I will reply to all of them). I suspect that we might well experience the building of a few more Hudolin replicas. And this can only be a good thing!  :)

T

too_many_cars

Quote from: fivefingeredstyre on Apr 27, 2020, 01:23 pmExcellent work as ever, Tony!

I have to say the Hudolin is one of my favourite boxes, it just looks so sturdy, solid and bloody well built - even down to fitting flush bolts on the rebates of the left hand door leaf.


My refurb of a fan built slightly undersize NST to a Hudolin box is well underway, and I'm picking up a lot of hardware to finalize the new collapsible structure.

ea0f67de3df7d7dc0cfe45e2bb7ace10dc920ca2.jpg

It looks like that piece of hardware is a standard "7 inch flush bolt":

DEL-7FBZ.png

Do we have any photo reference for whether there is a matching bolt on the bottom as well as the top?

--Brian