JW Tardis Plans Discussion

[Angelus Lupus]

I added up the dimensions of the door in the plan and got 1873mm.
We still don't have an unambiguous reference for scale, but a doorway opening of 1.873m (6' 1 3/4") seems implausibly small, both given the estimates we've made and practicality with tall actors. If it turns out that that is in fact the height actually measured from the prop, I'd be... surprised. But then I've been surprised before.

Just a thought, but if that bottom stile is meant to be twice the height of the ones between the panels, wouldn't it be 148mm, rather than 124mm? That would give us 1897mm - which google tells me is a fairly common door height.
Also, I tried to double-check the door height, working back from the given measurement of 2176mm for the corner-post. Now, bear in mind this is tricky because we aren't given the distance between the post-top and the top-signs, but I got 1901mm, which is only 4mm difference.
OTOH, it's late, I'm tired and I could be getting this all wrong 

[lespaceplie]

Even without an ideal reference of measurement, I'm going to have to go with nope on these plans. The weird thing is that all the widths are feasible, but the heights are definitely not. The scan isn't straight, but this overlay pretty much knocks it out.

[lorisarvendu]

At this point I'm holding out for someone with a tape measure or some very unambiguous reference.
Measuring against wobbly blobs like humans gives you at best a rough approximation.

Agreed, I just figured figuring out if those measurements are at least in the same ballpark or not might be s doable thing

If anyone can get near the prop with one of these, it has Pythagorean functions, presumably allowing you to correctly measure the height of any part of the prop.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01CYJQ6Z2/ref=asc_df_B01CYJQ6Z256391114/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=B01CYJQ6Z2&linkCode=df0&hvadid=218092154549&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1409962485738920691&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046399&hvtargid=aud-548500765412:pla-405643183121&th=1&psc=1

[Angelus Lupus]

Here's the plan from my digital copy of the book (which I won't share. 'cos, y'know, copyright) overlayed on the Mme Tussauds box, which we're sure is a filming prop:


It compares far better than when I tried it on the image released for the cardboard standee. In fact - allowing for 3D depth to make the roof stacks seem smaller - it really only disagrees with the height of the base.

[lespaceplie]

I wrote the illustrator who told me that no special access was given to the prop. In this instance, at least, the plans were interpreted from very few reference photos at the time. In other words, the creators of the book were doing nothing different than what we're doing in this forum except they had a deadline.

It seems we'll need to regard most of the other illustrations the same way, though there should still be some interesting info given Mike Tucker's involvement.

[Angelus Lupus]

Even with the new info that the plans were eyeballed rather than from measurements, I overlayed the image onto this one of Jodie at (IIRC) a press-only event - it's another good match!

[tony farrell]

Whilst I have no real interest in this version of the Tardis' exterior, it strikes me that Gene/Lespaceplie and Angelus are expressing two diametrically opposed views here:

On the one hand we have Angelus who is showing us that the Type 40 Handbook's plans do seem to match the photographic evidence whilst Gene is showing us pictures which seem to contradict this view.

Taking on board Crispin's point that 'blobby humans' rarely stand up straight, comparing the height of an object to the 'known' height of a human/Gallifreyan can be revealing in that it will show us what is not possible; if Jodie stands at 1.67 metres tall (say 1.7 metres in shoes and allowing for her hair), then from the pictures of her inside the Tardis doorway we can see that she is approximately the same height as the middle cross-rail of the windows - the cross-rail of the windows must be approximately 1.7 metres up from the floor of the Tardis' doorway. Thus any plan which asserts that the middle cross-rail of the windows is substantially higher or substantially lower than 1.7 metres cannot be correct.

The handbook's plans give the height of the middle rail of the windows as 124 + 361 + 74 + 361 + 74 + 361 + 74 + 180.5 = 1609.5 mm. As I say, I've no real interest in this iteration of the Tardis' exterior but, it strikes me that even allowing for an actor stooping or stretching, 10 centimeters is a big discrepancy.

Given this apparent discrepancy, I wonder if anyone has thought to actually check whether the plans in the Type Forty Handbook have been drawn to scale i.e., when the plans in the handbook state that the panels are 361 mm tall and each cross rail is 74 mm tall are the cross rails actually drawn at 74/361ths the height of the panel?

Before anyone asks, no, I'm not going to draw the handbook's plans to scale. But before anyone dismisses them (or, indeed, relies on them), it might be a worthwhile exercise to check them out properly and then find out where a 1.67 metre tall actress' height would actually come to when she is stood in a Tardis' doorway which had been built to these dimensions.  

T

[lespaceplie]

Problem 1 - how the illustration is overlaid on the photo. I scaled it to match the overall door width. Those are the only edges guaranteed to be in the same plane.
Problem 2 -  the diagram is not to scale and has a error in the dims labeling. The total corner post height is not possible and would need to be more like 2144.
Problem 3 - some photos have an aspect ratio problem. The standee might be adjusted to fit the cardboard.
Problem 4 - the illustration has thick lines. Redrawing it will work better.

We have an extreme closeup of the phone panel so, barring distortion, we know the proportion of it and the cross rail above it. Either was sized to fit, which ended up increasing the relative size of the Instruction Manual illustration. Regardless of scale and the correction of the corner post height, the proportion is off on the one from the manual.

[lespaceplie]

One more thing: Look at the illustration (center) compared to what I think is probable and the Brachacki. There's just no way the new prop doors are that short.

[Angelus Lupus]

Well, I never claimed to be any good at matching dimensions/measurements to photographs, and it looks like I've only added to the confusion. Sorry  

If it helps, then I'll have a go at drawing the plans (as the are in the book) out in my vector program, and seeing if the measurements correlate.

[Scarfwearer]

That might well show us something interesting.

I think at this point that what we really need is for someone to do the 3D photogrammetry thing that DW_1200 and Tony Farrell did for the Brachacki prop and that Mike Verta is doing for the Yardley-Jones. Start with a model built from estimated plans and tweak it until it fits. This would give us a very good idea of the proportions of the prop, leaving only the exact scale as a variable. If it were possible to model it in a scene from a couple of angles with a largish object of known size, we might even be able to determine the scale with some accuracy.
I'd do this myself, but I've yet to be able to master the necessary tools.

[lespaceplie]

Don't be. Yours is as much a part of the ongoing research as any other.

[Angelus Lupus]

Well, rather than be disheartened, I'm having a go at this... Early stages, but even so, I can 100% state that (regardless of actual measurements, and speaking relative dimensions) the given heights for the bottom style and the Top Sign don't correlate - in both cases the stated distance is too small to match the drawing while keeping everything else in scale.
It's tricky because that throws off measuring up from the bottom, and down from the top. Also the key distance between the top of the posts and the first roof stack is not given, which is making it very hard to put the roof on, so to speak.
On a positive note: so far all the other measurements seem to be falling in to place nicely.
Stay tuned  (I may even have images soon!)

[galacticprobe]

It's tricky because that throws off measuring up from the bottom, and down from the top.

If the middle measurements are falling into place, have you thought about measuring up and down from the middle? That might allow you to adjust the bottom rail (the crosspiece; the stiles are the vertical ones) to the proper height, and also correct the Top Sign.

Just a thought.

Dino.

[Angelus Lupus]

If the middle measurements are falling into place, have you thought about measuring up and down from the middle? That might allow you to adjust the bottom rail (the crosspiece; the stiles are the vertical ones) to the proper height, and also correct the Top Sign.

Yeah, I was thinking something like that. Also, the relative heights of all the bits on the roof are fine, it's just working out the correct distance 'twixt it and the box.
Quick question: did we get a (more or less) definitive size for the lamp? Because that would be a good place to extrapolate measurements from.