Millennium FX Dr Who Sonic Screwdriver

[Anakin Starkiller]

No, you're confusing everyone by introducing something irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pic you are talking about is photoshopped as the body hasn't and that is what people should be looking at. From what I can see the CT shadowgraph of the prop should be conclusive that both tennant props share the same geometry albeit it is more pronounced on one prop than the other.

And the pics shown by Asp9mm prove that MFX got their ridges wrong.

This statement doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. You're arguing that the two sonics are the same but one is more pronounced...? If the ridges on one are more pronounced, then they're not the same. No one is saying that the sonic that mfx referenced had symmetrical grip ridges and that they did not idealize the ridges on their sonic. But the sonic that they referenced is NOT the one CT based his sonic off of--even he admits this--and the ridges on the two sonics are different since they were hand machined, filed, and sanded independently and thus have a ridge profile that differed between the two props. Why are you do opposed to discussing the different appearances of the two props?

They are very different. On the sonic that DT owns and which mfx referenced the emitter head was made from a stripped down Aztec prop, the ridges on the body are more rounded and more symmetrical, and the bottom aluminum cylinder( the part that the cap slides on) is a bit shorter and a bit larger in diameter. On the 11th hour sonic the one that CT says he referenced, the emitter head was taken from the season 3 slider sonic (which itself was modified from the season1 wide slider), the ridge profile had a more asymmetrical slope towards the cap, which is why the ridges on CTs sonic look like they do, and the aluminum cylinder at the bottom was a bit longer and thinner. These differences are noticeable and traceable as you see the different pics Nick has on his site, and they do, in part, reflect some of the differences on the different sonic replicas out there.

If you keep trying to shut down the conversation about these details you will be contributing nothing to the conversation.

 

[phez]

The main factor you are dealing with is the camera distorting the riges (fisheying) when it is too close. Here is two shots of the same handle one close one farther out. Notice the ridge distortion is gone in the photo that is from a distance (top). They are just grooves with a bit of hand rounding on all of them. Look at the two pic's here. What is going on is obvious. They were all a bit different but done the same way.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

This statement doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. You're arguing that the two sonics are the same but one is more pronounced...? If the ridges on one are more pronounced, then they're not the same. No one is saying that the sonic that mfx referenced had symmetrical grip ridges and that they did not idealize the ridges on their sonic. But the sonic that they referenced is NOT the one CT based his sonic off of--even he admits this--and the ridges on the two sonics are different since they were hand machined, filed, and sanded independently and thus have a ridge profile that differed between the two props. Why are you do opposed to discussing the different appearances of the two props?

They are very different. On the sonic that DT owns and which mfx referenced the emitter head was made from a stripped down Aztec prop, the ridges on the body are rounded and more symmetrical, and the bottom aluminum culinary ( the part that the cap slides on) is a bit shorter and a bit larger in diameter. On the 11th hour sonic the one that CT says he referenced, the emitter head was taken from the season 3 slider sonic, the ridge profile had a harder asymmetrical slope, which is why the ridges on CTs sonic look like they do, and the aluminum cylinder at the bottom was a bit longer. These differences are noticeable and traceable as you see the different pics Nick has on his site, and they do, in part, reflect some of the differences on the different sonic replicas out there.

If you keep trying to shut down the conversation about the details you will be contributing nothing to this conversation.

No, the pics that Asp9mm has shown are of the prop that MFX referenced. It shows the same asymmetry, only less pronounced, than the 11th Hour ridges possess. Therefore MFX got it wrong. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. I ask you, what does the fact that the head being photoshopped onto it have ANYTHING to do with it??? What can that possibly add to the debate? :facepalm

And I never said that the two sonics in Organic Mechanic's post were the same. It is obvious that they are clearly 2 different props.

 

[mooneye63]

This statement doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. You're arguing that the two sonics are the same but one is more pronounced...? If the ridges on one are more pronounced, then they're not the same. No one is saying that the sonic that mfx referenced had symmetrical grip ridges and that they did not idealize the ridges on their sonic. But the sonic that they referenced is NOT the one CT based his sonic off of--even he admits this--and the ridges on the two sonics are different since they were hand machined, filed, and sanded independently and thus have a ridge profile that differed between the two props. Why are you do opposed to discussing the different appearances of the two props?

They are very different. On the sonic that DT owns and which mfx referenced the emitter head was made from a stripped down Aztec prop, the ridges on the body are more rounded and more symmetrical, and the bottom aluminum cylinder( the part that the cap slides on) is a bit shorter and a bit larger in diameter. On the 11th hour sonic the one that CT says he referenced, the emitter head was taken from the season 3 slider sonic (which itself was modified from the season1 wide slider), the ridge profile had a more asymmetrical slope towards the cap, which is why the ridges on CTs sonic look like they do, and the aluminum cylinder at the bottom was a bit longer and thinner. These differences are noticeable and traceable as you see the different pics Nick has on his site, and they do, in part, reflect some of the differences on the different sonic replicas out there.

If you keep trying to shut down the conversation about these details you will be contributing nothing to the conversation.

Actually I started this & the question I asked was about the ridges nothing else on the sonic, so you are muddying the conversation. I have now found the answer by mr reliable. Its the Cordroy Aztec with ridges filed down. So thankyou & goodnight

 

[jedibugs]

Why is everyone arguing about these weird lightsabers?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[phez]

No, the pics that Asp9mm has shown are of the prop that MFX referenced. It shows the same asymmetry, only less pronounced, than the 11th Hour ridges possess. Therefore MFX got it wrong. THAT is the point I'm trying to make. I ask you, what does the fact that the head being photoshopped onto it have ANYTHING to do with it??? What can that possibly add to the debate? :facepalm

And I never said that the two sonics in Organic Mechanic's post were the same. It is obvious that they are clearly 2 different props.

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


I really am not seeing it, just round grooves with the edges of the ridges smoothed out (unless you are seeing something I am not here :confused). This is one of the original MFX reference photos of the one used for the MFX replica. This is the Sonic without the screw on the front on the rubbertoe site. I honestly do not know if the other Sonic has asymmetric grooves or not but it is obvious this one does not. You can see the circles are sitting right in the grooves (with a tiny bit of space so that you can follow the contour of the groove) and the feathering is very close to the same on both sides on this particular Sonic (the one MFX used). You can very clearly follow the bottom edge of rthe handle. If there is an error in my procedure please point it out a show an example of how to correctly view the ridges.

By all means I always want to improve my Sonic build so if there is any good proof that the ridges on this particular piece (the one MFX used) are not the way I am seeing them I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Show a dead on side view of the other one with simple circles in the grooves so we can see if the area around the circle are asymmetric.

The clean up angles look really close to the same on this one.

Here is a close up with circles of the piece asp9mm posted. Again you can follow the top edge pretty well. The grooves look fairly symmetric (again, pretty damn well done for file work). Again, look at the paint pattern, this is the same Sonic MFX used for reference and the same one that is in the previous photo.

 

[TheSexyBlueBox]

The main factor you are dealing with is the camera distorting the riges (fisheying) when it is too close. Here is two shots of the same handle one close one farther out. Notice the ridge distortion is gone in the photo that is from a distance (top). They are just grooves with a bit of hand rounding on all of them. Look at the two pic's here. What is going on is obvious. They were all a bit different but done the same way.

Excellent pictures. Thanks for noting it, however...the two props did not have symmetrical ridges.
I know this because Robatto lathed them free hand. There's no way they could have been.

 

[phez]

Excellent pictures. Thanks for noting it, however...the two props did not have symmetrical ridges.
I know this because Robatto lathed them free hand. There's no way they could have been.

Those two pics are the same handle. The asymmetry is fairly minor even on that one. they just filed the ridge edges a bit more to round them.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

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


I really am not seeing it, just round grooves with the edges of the ridges smoothed out (unless you are seeing something I am not here :confused). This is one of the original MFX reference photos of the one used for the MFX replica. This is the Sonic without the screw on the front on the rubbertoe site. I honestly do not know if the other Sonic has asymmetric grooves or not but it is obvious this one does not. You can see the circles are sitting right in the grooves (with a tiny bit of space so that you can follow the contour of the groove) and the feathering is very close to the same on both sides on this particular Sonic (the one MFX used). You can very clearly follow the bottom edge of rthe handle. If there is an error in my procedure please point it out a show an example of how to correctly view the ridges.

By all means I always want to improve my Sonic build so if there is any good proof that the ridges on this particular piece (the one MFX used) are not the way I am seeing them I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Show a dead on side view of the other one with simple circles in the grooves so we can see if the area around the circle are asymmetric.

Here is a close up with circles of the piece asp9mm posted. Again you can follow the top edge pretty well. The grooves look fairly symmetric (again, pretty damn well done for file work). Again, look at the paint pattern, this is the same Sonic MFX used for reference and the same one that is in the previous photo.

Phez, Asp9mm already showed you the correct way of viewing the ridges by looking the slope angle of the front and back edges. Anyone can see that the ridges are assymetrical. Your circular method is incorrect as that just demonstrates spacing consistency between ridges. The angle of the ridges is all about measuring the angles of the tangents. Even without the annotations you can clearly see the difference in angles especially in the bottom pic. The top pic less so because the picture is not precisely straight side on (you can tell from the angle of the front slider edge compared to the graph paper which suggest that the left hand side of the sonic is closer to the camera that the right) so you are getting a distorted view.

 

[phez]

Phez, Asp9mm already showed you the correct way of viewing the ridges by looking the slope angle of the front and back edges. Anyone can see that the ridges are assymetrical. Your circular method is incorrect as that just demonstrates spacing consistency between ridges. The angle of the ridges is all about measuring the angles of the tangents. Even without the annotations you can clearly see the difference in angles especially in the bottom pic. The top pic less so because the picture is not precisely straight side on (you can tell from the angle of the front slider edge compared to the graph paper which suggest that the left hand side of the sonic is closer to the camera that the right) so you are getting a distorted view.

Does this help?

The circles are the shape of the front edge of the tool that is used to cut the groove, that is why I put them there. So we could see what material would need to be removed by file in addition to the basic cut.

So the clearer photo that shows clean cut grooves should be ignored because it is distorted and I should use the blurry one (that has some kind of editing artifact along the top edge of the handle) as reference despite the fact they are the same handle?.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

Does this help?

The circles are the shape of the front edge of the tool that is used to cut the groove.
So the clearer photo that shows clean cut grooves should be ignored because it is distorted and I should use the blurry one (that has some kind of editing artifact along the top edge of the handle) as reference despite the fact they are the same handle?.

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.

 

[phez]

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.

Here is another shot, same Sonic.

Notice as you tilt the handle that supposed ridge angle changes direction. Notice in the left photo the more vertical looking angle is on the bottom, in the right pic it is on the top.

All that is done is a round head tool cuts streigt in to the handle and a small file rounds the sharp edge. Why would you assume the weird angle is the norm rather than a very basic tool cuts a simple groove :confused

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.

You could be correct, but I think I am seeing it from applying common sense having made that handle a few times the same way the origenal was done. Either I can measure the angles of the tangents or whatever and try to cut a weird angle in, or I can take an off the shelf forming tool put it in the lathe correctly and turn the wheel.

What do you think is more likely?

This is really a silly thing to debate. Make it how you think it looks good. If you can't see that those are cut streight they will never look right to if you do them that way anyway. The goal is really just to make a prop that you think matches the real one as close as possible.

Take what you make, do a side by side or crossfade with the screen caps/refrence photos. If it matches at the different angles you nailed it, if it does not it is wrong.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

Here is another shot, same Sonic.

Notice as you tilt the handle that supposed ridge angle changes direction. Notice in the left photo the more vertical looking angle is on the bottom, in the right pic it is on the top.

All that is done is a round head tool cuts streigt in to the handle and a small file rounds the sharp edge. Why would you assume the weird angle is the norm rather than a very basic tool cuts a simple groove :confused

You could be correct, but I think I am seeing it from applying common sense having made that handle a few times the same way the origenal was done. Either I can measure the angles of the tangents or whatever and try to cut a weird angle in, or I can take an off the shelf forming tool put it in the lathe correctly and turn the wheel.

What do you think is more likely?

This is really a silly thing to debate. Make it how you think it looks good. If you can't see that those are cut streight they will never look right to if you do them that way anyway. The goal is really just to make a prop that you think matches the real one as close as possible.

Take what you make, do a side by side or crossfade with the screen caps/refrence photos. If it matches at the different angles you nailed it, if it does not it is wrong.

Phez, if you have made it "the same way the origenal was done." then you should understand that it is easier to make it assymetrical than symmetrical. Look at the 11th Hour ridges and look at the River Song sonic where the assymetrical ridges are even more highly pronounced. Made by the same hand using the same tools. Is this the same common sense you applied when you tried to convince us the sonic was heritage gold? Yes, it is a silly thing to debate. The answers are evident from the pics.

 

[phez]

Phez, if you have made it "the same way the origenal was done." then you should understand that it is easier to make it assymetrical than symmetrical.

What :confused

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?

Lets just stop here. When I get back we can compaire your Sonic against screen caps and the one I am making against the same caps. We can just look at which points on each match the screens caps and reference photos. If we are matching a photo of a 3D object against a photo of another 3D object we should be able to sort this out. Much more productive than speculating on what we think looks right. It either matches the photos or it does not, that simple.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

What :confused

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?

Lets just stop here. When I get back we can compaire your Sonic against screen caps and the one I am making against the same caps. We can just look at which points on each match the screens caps and reference photos. If we are matching a photo of a 3D object against a photo of another 3D object we should be able to sort this out. Much more productive than speculating on what we think looks right. It either matches the photos or it does not, that simple.

I'm not a machinist but I can say that if something is done freehand natural left or right handedness is much easier to go with than to fight against.

 

[Organic Mechanic]

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.

 

[LeAngeSolitaire]

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

 

[Organic Mechanic]

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

It's the thought that counts my friend. :cool :thumbsup

 

[phez]

That is a good call and I used an indexing bit to do the first few when I started working on the project (It left a flat bottom to the grooves). I stopped using it when I noticed the bottom of the grooves look rounded. I cut the grooves for the Season 1/2 using a mill bit and got the rounded bottom. Then got a form bit so I could just do the same cut on a lathe (not need to move the part).

Now, that being said the paint job is easily thick enough to fill in and round the bottom edges of the grooves if they were flat.

But really if you look at the reference photos we can see that the same handle looks like edges are fairly symmetrical in some shots and looks asymmetrical in either direction depending on the angle the photo is taken at. So the question really is are they cut straight and the handle in reference to the camera is causing the distortion. Or is it cut weird and the handle angle just happens to correct the asymetry in some photos.

All three cases are clearly shown in this set of photos. The first one looks like the ridges are almost perfect. You can see it looks like groove is wonky in either direction in the bottom photo. As a machinist would you assume it was cut strait and photographed funny (my assumption while working on this) or that the groove was done wonky and just happens to look almost perfect in some photos.

Focus on this one prop as comparing different props really does not accomplish anything.
Draw you little angle lines on all three of those photos and explain what you see.

Again does not really matter, pic's of the replica sitting next to the reference photo will tell the story. The rest is speculation. My guess is that if you cut the ridge with that angle it will look like the ridges are stretched out.

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.

 

[jedibugs]

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