Millennium FX Dr Who Sonic Screwdriver

phez said:

---

Have you ever machined anything? Can you explain why it is easier to deliberately cut a weird bowed angle instead of just turning the off the shelf tool into the metal?

Friend Phez, I am a machinist. It's what I do. Every day for 12+ years. It's what I went to school for. And I am good.

I tell you this so that you understand where I'm coming from. And that my answer isn't some ill-informed claptrap.

If someone handed me this, and said "I need this sort of nowish."...

...I wouldn't go shopping for a specialized button tool, or grind a custom tool like I would for making multiple production pieces. I would just use the turning tool that LIVES in my lathe's tool block...


...because it is more than capable of cutting those grooves, and unlike a button tool, it will bevel the backside of the groove on it's own. The only downfall would be that I'd need to try to match the bevel on the front side by hand. I'd hit it with a file, or even the same tool while breaking the corners of the ridges I just created.

Cutting those grooves by this method would take about 5 minutes per part. Less time than it would take to procure a specialized tool, even if I already owned it, as the lathe is ALWAYS set up for this process. The ridges would just be a bit...asymmetrical. Not so much as to be obvious to the average person, but under the scrutiny of a trained eye...

I'm not saying that that's what was done. But I am saying that were I the BBC prop guy, that's how I'd have done it, and that's how it looks to have been done to my eye.

OM, if I could give you rep points for that I would. Great post and makes 100% sense.

LeAngeSolitaire said:

---

OM, if I could give you rep points for that I would. Great post and makes 100% sense.

It's the thought that counts my friend.

This is all just SO ridiculous. Phez, man, I'm glad you are happy with the sonics you've made and/or bought. That's all that really matters. That said, you are absolutely the most obtuse person on the planet. Your arguments are akin to Evolution deniers, making up whatever they have to in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that is being illustrated by an ever-growing pile of empirical evidence.
In the past couple days alone, you have said that a fish-eye effect, which SOMEHOW affects ONLY the ridges in the entire photo, is responsible for the "appearance" of asymmetry. You have posted your own photos that CLEARLY show asymmetry and, when called on it, have made excuses against your OWN evidence. You've used camera angle as an excuse. You've used the angle of the sonic as an excuse. You've used some malarkey about the photo having been edited as an excuse. You've even used machining methodology as an excuse against photographic evidence just because you can't see why someone would do something in a certain way despite the fact that they obviously did.
I'm not trying to convince you as to the shape of the ridges. I'm not saying that any replica is better than any other replica. It's not at all important. But, my god, man. Learn to take in information rather than fervently adhering to your preconceived notions. You'll never learn and grow if you try to explain away things that don't agree with your world view. You'll constantly find that there will be things that you thought were true that turn out not to be. It's called progress.
In the past three years, the people on this board (and elsewhere) have made a lot of progress into understanding this prop. Including the mind-blowing realization that the thing was a different COLOR than we all thought. It takes an open mind to be able to go "Wow. I was incredibly wrong," and be EXCITED that you were wrong, because you've just increased your knowledge a bit.

Or you could always just explain that radio-carbon dating is flawed, because clearly dinosaurs and man co-existed from the time they were created 6,000 years ago until the flood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

How did you turn a flat bottomed groove with a a tool like the one I posted? Your standard CNMG (80*) insert comes with either a 1/32", or a 1/64" nose radius. Feed it straight in in "X" and you cannot help but to have a rounded groove.

Understand, the prop makers were NOT trying to do what we try to do. I've got a shiny nickle that says Nick never once considered matching the exact radii or daft angle of the Aztec props. He wasn't making a replica. He was making a prop to order.

I believe, and I say this with no malice, that a lot of your argument is based on your inexperience with the tools at hand.

For example, I would never consider using a mill to cut those handle grooves. It's a lathe job. Period. But on the same note, I'd not use a a stock tool to replicate them either. For that, I'd make a tool with the proper angles and radii and cut it in a single pass, or I'd CAD up a 3D model and cut it on a CNC.

To make a one-off piece, which the actual props were is a completely different thing than reproduction or mass production. With the one-off you can do whatever gets the job done with the least fuss. To reproduce that, or to make multiples, things get a bit more involved.

===================================

Now, here's my real question:

Why are we even discussing the nature of these grooves/ridges? They are the easy bit of these SSs. Just cut 'em like you see 'em. The thick nature of crackle paint tends to blur the finer points anyway. For example, I disagree with your cutting method and your choice of profile shape, but I think your finished product looks damned fine. Grooves is grooves. S1-2 had a rounded top, S3-4 had a flat-ish top, and no two were identical. Just don't idealize 'em too much, or it will end up looking like the MFX which manages to not look right.

The trick to these props is in the mill work, as I'm sure you know. There is no paint to cover your ass when it comes to the head cage, body cap or end bulb. So if we're going to nitpick details to try and get it down to a science, shouldn't we be arguing about that?

jedibugs said:

---

Your arguments are akin to Evolution deniers, making up whatever they have to in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that is being illustrated by an ever-growing pile of empirical evidence.



Or you could always just explain that radio-carbon dating is flawed, because clearly dinosaurs and man co-existed from the time they were created 6,000 years ago until the flood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Here's a whole NEW issue to fight about in this thread!

NakedMoleRat said:

---

Here's a whole NEW issue to fight about in this thread!

Not on your life. You can Google my real name and see a whole (no longer updated) blog full of my thoughts on that, as well as some articles published here and there on the web.

NakedMoleRat said:

---

Here's a whole NEW issue to fight about in this thread!

I'm a firm believer that sonics don't evolve, they are created.

Orange_Blend said:

---

I'm a firm believer that sonics don't evolve, they are created.

Daleks however...

In Phez's defence, I would have agreed with him on the ridge shape a year ago, it is difficult to see when you have accepted for years that the ridges are symmetrical. But if you see the prop in person, or get the chance to see continuity shots and the hi-res pictures taken of the prop by er... someone during their research. Then the asymmetrical ridges are quite pronounced. More than you would think by judging the few sparse pictures in public domain. But they are there on both 'hero' props, one moreso than the other. The one Tennant now has in his personal possession is the one with the lesser pronounced asymmetry.

In a review I did, I remarked on the familiarity of the prop replica I had in hand. Much of that had to do with how the ridges appear when angled and in different light. So if you want your sonic to appear like the one on the screen, then put in a touch of asymmetry in those ridges, and you'll be surprised how accurate they look when painted up, despite your eyes and brain conflicting and telling you that it's wrong.

Symmetry ruins a good prop that has been much loved in its asymmetrical form. You only have to compare the original Vader helmets to the prequel version. That symmetrical new version looks all wrong, but it's hard to put your finger on exactly why it doesn't match the originals you know and love so much. But we know it's because Lucas created a perfectly symmetrical helmet.

LeAngeSolitaire said:

---

Phez, the lower photo is the one you should be using as it has been taken side on with the sonic level with the lens. The resolution of the upper photo may be clearer but the perspective distortion is clearly off as you can see the front edge of the slider and the rear edge is further away. This means that the front edge of the ridges are closer to the camera than the rear edge which should cancel out the asymmetry. Do the same test on the lower pic or another pic of the same sonic without the perspective distortion. You are clearly seeing what you want to see to avoid been proven wrong. Just measure the angles of the tangents. Even better, flip and overlay the ridges.

It's the paint, the crackle doesn't settle in corners so it creates a build up against it.

jedibugs said:

---

This is all just SO ridiculous. Phez, man, I'm glad you are happy with the sonics you've made and/or bought. That's all that really matters. That said, you are absolutely the most obtuse person on the planet. Your arguments are akin to Evolution deniers, making up whatever they have to in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that is being illustrated by an ever-growing pile of empirical evidence.
In the past couple days alone, you have said that a fish-eye effect, which SOMEHOW affects ONLY the ridges in the entire photo, is responsible for the "appearance" of asymmetry. You have posted your own photos that CLEARLY show asymmetry and, when called on it, have made excuses against your OWN evidence. You've used camera angle as an excuse. You've used the angle of the sonic as an excuse. You've used some malarkey about the photo having been edited as an excuse. You've even used machining methodology as an excuse against photographic evidence just because you can't see why someone would do something in a certain way despite the fact that they obviously did.
I'm not trying to convince you as to the shape of the ridges. I'm not saying that any replica is better than any other replica. It's not at all important. But, my god, man. Learn to take in information rather than fervently adhering to your preconceived notions. You'll never learn and grow if you try to explain away things that don't agree with your world view. You'll constantly find that there will be things that you thought were true that turn out not to be. It's called progress.
In the past three years, the people on this board (and elsewhere) have made a lot of progress into understanding this prop. Including the mind-blowing realization that the thing was a different COLOR than we all thought. It takes an open mind to be able to go "Wow. I was incredibly wrong," and be EXCITED that you were wrong, because you've just increased your knowledge a bit.

Or you could always just explain that radio-carbon dating is flawed, because clearly dinosaurs and man co-existed from the time they were created 6,000 years ago until the flood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I can definitely see your point, a essay of insults and brutal corrections, this can be read from CT's tweets. I pretty much know all of this and that Phez is kinda ignoring our points because he doesn't believe it, but dont roast Phez or you'll get banned for abuse. If he doesn't take your advice, well that's just tough **** for Phez. Just don't verbally rape him about it.

Asp9mm said:

---

In Phez's defence, I would have agreed with him on the ridge shape a year ago, it is difficult to see when you have accepted for years that the ridges are symmetrical. But if you see the prop in person, or get the chance to see continuity shots and the hi-res pictures taken of the prop by er... someone during their research. Then the asymmetrical ridges are quite pronounced. More than you would think by judging the few sparse pictures in public domain. But they are there on both 'hero' props, one moreso than the other. The one Tennant now has in his personal possession is the one with the lesser pronounced asymmetry.

In a review I did, I remarked on the familiarity of the prop replica I had in hand. Much of that had to do with how the ridges appear when angled and in different light. So if you want your sonic to appear like the one on the screen, then put in a touch of asymmetry in those ridges, and you'll be surprised how accurate they look when painted up, despite your eyes and brain conflicting and telling you that it's wrong.

Symmetry ruins a good prop that has been much loved in its asymmetrical form. You only have to compare the original Vader helmets to the prequel version. That symmetrical new version looks all wrong, but it's hard to put your finger on exactly why it doesn't match the originals you know and love so much. But we know it's because Lucas created a perfectly symmetrical helmet.

Why can't anybody mention Celestial toystore anymore? His blog is the best source of research on the sonic screwdriver, it's history and it's creation. Had I not read about it, I would have been happy believing the prop was a cast of the toy.

TheSexyBlueBox said:

---

Why can't anybody mention Celestial toystore anymore? His blog is the best source of research on the sonic screwdriver, it's history and it's creation. Had I not read about it, I would have been happy believing the prop was a cast of the toy.

As far as I can tell, there is no rule against it. Unfortunately, the group needs to self police itself as any mention (or implied mention) of the Celestial Toymaker and his products results in meltdown.

Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie...no matter how one feels about the dog.

Guys, please we do not need to bring in religious comments or any hostilities. Very simple, I think the riges are streight and distort when the handle is photographed at different angles, you guys think it is distored in the machining and looks right when seen at certain angles.

Lets be clear, I see the distortion you guys are talking about. I simply have a different take on what is causing it.

I will try it with the straight grooves, compair to refrence photos and see if it matches. If not I will try again until I match it. It is really not that big of a deal .

Symmetry ruins a good prop that has been much loved in its asymmetrical form.

I agree with this 100% and once I see how the different cuts look compared to the reference I will modify what I do if needed. I know what I am currently doing is not dead on at this point, I know already that I have to adjust the size of the grooves a bit to take into account the paint thickness which I did not do in my drawings.

I will post what I do, direct comparisons to reference and see how it looks. Arguing is not productive unless we have something to look at.

Phez is kinda ignoring our points because he doesn't believe it

Not ignoring your points, just testing them to see if they are true. If I am wrong the comparison photos will show it no? .

jedibugs said:

---

This is all just SO ridiculous. Phez, man, I'm glad you are happy with the sonics you've made and/or bought. That's all that really matters. That said, you are absolutely the most obtuse person on the planet. Your arguments are akin to Evolution deniers, making up whatever they have to in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that is being illustrated by an ever-growing pile of empirical evidence.
In the past couple days alone, you have said that a fish-eye effect, which SOMEHOW affects ONLY the ridges in the entire photo, is responsible for the "appearance" of asymmetry. You have posted your own photos that CLEARLY show asymmetry and, when called on it, have made excuses against your OWN evidence. You've used camera angle as an excuse. You've used the angle of the sonic as an excuse. You've used some malarkey about the photo having been edited as an excuse. You've even used machining methodology as an excuse against photographic evidence just because you can't see why someone would do something in a certain way despite the fact that they obviously did.
I'm not trying to convince you as to the shape of the ridges. I'm not saying that any replica is better than any other replica. It's not at all important. But, my god, man. Learn to take in information rather than fervently adhering to your preconceived notions. You'll never learn and grow if you try to explain away things that don't agree with your world view. You'll constantly find that there will be things that you thought were true that turn out not to be. It's called progress.
In the past three years, the people on this board (and elsewhere) have made a lot of progress into understanding this prop. Including the mind-blowing realization that the thing was a different COLOR than we all thought. It takes an open mind to be able to go "Wow. I was incredibly wrong," and be EXCITED that you were wrong, because you've just increased your knowledge a bit.

Or you could always just explain that radio-carbon dating is flawed, because clearly dinosaurs and man co-existed from the time they were created 6,000 years ago until the flood.

It would seem that you have been called out jedibugs, regurgitating insults and brutal corrections, this can be read from CT's tweets as quoted by thesexyblubox and then posted them on rpf as your own comments, all because you lack the skill need to do it your self.

I would think the ice by now is getting very thin.

Rassilon said:

---

It would seem that you have been called out jedibugs, regurgitating insults and brutal corrections, this can be read from CT's tweets as quoted by thesexyblubox and then posted them on rpf as your own comments, all because you lack the skill need to do it your self.

I would think the ice by now is getting very thin.

Can we have that again, this time in English please?

phez said:

---

Guys, please we do not need to bring in religious comments or any hostilities. Very simple, I think the riges are streight and distort when the handle is photographed at different angles, you guys think it is distored in the machining and looks right when seen at certain angles.

Lets be clear, I see the distortion you guys are talking about. I simply have a different take on what is causing it.

I will try it with the straight grooves, compair to refrence photos and see if it matches. If not I will try again until I match it. It is really not that big of a deal .



I agree with this 100% and once I see how the different cuts look compared to the reference I will modify what I do if needed. I know what I am currently doing is not dead on at this point, I know already that I have to adjust the size of the grooves a bit to take into account the paint thickness which I did not do in my drawings.

I will post what I do, direct comparisons to reference and see how it looks. Arguing is not productive unless we have something to look at.



Not ignoring your points, just testing them to see if they are true. If I am wrong the comparison photos will show it no? .

Empathy is not my strong point, I spent a good portion of my life working off an inferiority complex. You truly are a fan, but the kind of fan that finds something awesome in the smallest details of the show. We are telling you the two props do not have identical ridges. Freehand lathed, there is little possibility of it. From what I've seen from various sources and firsthand experience with the actual prop at the Experience, I am 98.3% they are different. (1.7% because however plausible, there is always room for error.)

Rassilon said:

---

It would seem that you have been called out jedibugs, regurgitating insults and brutal corrections, this can be read from CT's tweets as quoted by thesexyblubox and then posted them on rpf as your own comments, all because you lack the skill need to do it your self.

I would think the ice by now is getting very thin.

I cannot believe you are taking a personal grudge out on his fans because you differ. We are not his microphone, we are just fans. But ultimately, this being a forum for props, I and Jedibugs are really trying to get this point across as common knowledge so that if people want to know about the sonic, anybody can read through more than one source and get correct, serious and unbiased information on the prop. That information should not be tampered with because of a grudge between one source and another. To me, the props, effects, stunts and sets of the shows I love are the world to me.

"This world is meant to be shared."

Take that quote from the good Doctor himself, and stop this stupid bickering and do what you wanted to do when you first signed up here. I'm gonna go ahead and share everything I've gathered on the props I love with anybody else who cares enough to listen.

Yes I'm sorry for making it to hard for you, I will dumb it down just for you.

Rassilon said:

---

It would seem that you have been called out jedibugs, regurgitating insults and brutal corrections, this can be read from CT's tweets as quoted by thesexyblubox and then posted them on rpf as your own comments, all because you lack the skill need to do it your self.

I would think the ice by now is getting very thin.

Nothing I said has been said by anyone in any other area of the web. That diatribe was my own words and thoughts based on nothing more than what I've seen in this thread over the past several days.
I do not repeat the views of someone else, I am a grown up with my own mind. If you can find proof that anything I said there was a re-hash on twitter or elsewhere, PM me a link and I'll publicly apologize.

Rassilon said:

---

Yes I'm sorry for making it to hard for you, I will dumb it down just for you.

Wow, I really didn't believe him at first.
But he's right, you're a total ass.
t(-_- )

Rassilon said:

---

Yes I'm sorry for making it to hard for you, I will dumb it down just for you.

Shall we distract Rassilon? Maybe this might help

TheSexyBlueBox said:

---

I cannot believe you are taking a personal grudge out on his fans because you differ. We are not his microphone, we are just fans. But ultimately, this being a forum for props, I and Jedibugs are really trying to get this point across as common knowledge so that if people want to know about the sonic, anybody can read through more than one source and get correct, serious and unbiased information on the prop. That information should not be tampered with because of a grudge between one source and another. To me, the props, effects, stunts and sets of the shows I love are the world to me.

"This world is meant to be shared."

Take that quote from the good Doctor himself, and stop this stupid bickering and do what you wanted to do when you first signed up here. I'm gonna go ahead and share everything I've gathered on the props I love with anybody else who cares enough to listen.

You need to do your research with this topic on rpf sir.
As a newbie you may not be aware of the history surrounding this prop, use the search to now find out why it is the way it is. And if you had, you would very well know why some members are walking on thin ice with there membership to rpf.