Highest mm Decimal Achieved By LFL Prop Dpt.

[Crimsonnaire]

Assuming that the LFL prop department has access to CNC machines, is it likely that they would achieve measurements that go into the hundredth millimeter when making their sabers, or would they likely round the number to the nearest tenth place and settle for a resulting measurement that ends with an odd, non-half (5) integer? I've noticed that every casted plastic piece ends with a tenth decimal of .05 mms.

Also, does casting maintain a hundredth decial place value in millimeters? I understand that all plastic parts were produced by casting, so if the prop team decides that a certain part needs to have the same height as another surface on the saber, and later notes that an exact height would go into the hundredth millimeter decimal, would they aim to have the casted piece under the 3-decimal measurement through compensation by having the prototype piece being made in the exact measurement greater than what casting would take away? How exactly do they go about making the molds? Do they machine a metal prototype to create the mold, in which later it yields a plastic reproduction, or do they go about making the master mold differently?

The reason I am asking is because I have stumbled onto a measurement that reaches the hundredth millimeter, and I'm not sure if I should round it to the nearest tenth place. Of course, another difference is that my measurements will be followed through a non-CNC lathe and not casting.

I appreciate any information or suggestion given.

 

[Malbona]

Dude,
I think you are over thinking things too much. Really. :confused Usually, just close enough to look good from three feet away is the standard from my understanding. With time constraints and deadlines,why would they get so anal? It doesn't make sense, time is money and what you describe would be wasted time out here in the real world.

 

[Gytheran]

You're not going to see .01mm, much less find a movie prop that uses the measurement.

 

[_Lee_]

Wow.Got to agree here,you may be thinking too much about things

I would think that all they did was maybe make the hilts big enough so that both hands could wrap around,although in some scenes only one hand held the hilt.I think the precedent was set with the OT flash handle sizes,and they continued to use this for a rough guide as to how big a saber should be.Obviously the PT saw some rather different designs but the basic size stayed the same,except for Maul and Sidious and also Yoda,but seeing as though he is small a smaller hilt was the only option.Dooku is another exception also.

 

[SithLord]

Molding the metal master to make a resin stunt saber would likely not yield hundreth of a millimeter retention of size....

They create the heros out of metal, make standard silicone or rubber molds with different kinds of casings depending on the size/shape of the piece...ie: plastic or fiberglass....or even something like stone...I have examples of each . The way the molds sits in the jacket and how the casting comes out of the mold will affect those measurements slightly and they won't care too much about variation of the resin castings...if more than one metal hero is made, they don't need to apply precision machining techniques on the order you are taking about as those in an of themselves are very expensive and more time-consuming to execute....

 

[CaptCBoard]

Imperious--

What you are asking about simply is not the way things happen in the movie business. There can be drawings generated, but the only time you'll see decimal points is when something done in CG is converted to real world drawings for the propmakers or set builders to work with. And they'll ignore the decimal points. Most props are rarely done to more than a general description and a line drawing.

As builders of the original items, the propmakers just build them and build them to the simplest of measurements. It is later, when the propreplicators are salivating over something, that the dimensions become important to somebody.

Scott
Miniatures and Props builder for 18 years.

 

[TOKI]

Actually I think it's a perfectly fair question.

The entire concept of this board is to analyze props (if not to over-analyze). If we simply settle for close enough things would get boring pretty quickly, and no thread would go past 10 or so posts.

So with that in mind I would say "yes" .

Unless of course it's Tuesday, and then the answer would be "Pink76".

Have fun.

Arthur

 

[Crimsonnaire]

Thanks to all five of you, I've snapped out of the dark depths of obsessive compulsiveness.

I made the mistake of assuming that just because the .05mm-measurements are probably contrived, the .005mm-counterparts must also be contrived.

I've rounded my measurements .025mms up to cancel out the hundredth decimal and to land the number in the half-tenth (.05) decimal at the same time. The .05mms is just a gamble, judging from all the other .05mm-endings I've scaled. I'm satisfied with my measurements now.

 

[Chris Martin]

If the props are made to within 1mm, I'll be amazed.

 

[Gytheran]

<div class='quotetop'>(Chris Martin @ Aug 6 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1295110[/snapback]</div>

If the props are made to within 1mm, I'll be amazed.
[/b]

No kidding. :lol

Anything less than that is ridiculous.

 

[Crimsonnaire]

Does anyone have a guess as to whether the LFL prop department measures distances between drilled holes from their center points or surfaces of the holes?

 

[Crimsonnaire]

Additionally, are there drills with diameters that reach in between millimeters, or are they all measured on whole values?

Thanks.

 

[Crimsonnaire]

Assuming that they had access to drills with diameters ranging between millimeters, which is more likely: The LFL prop team using a drill diameter that has a fractional millimeter value and spacing the holes apart at a hole millimeter count, or using a drill diameter that's at a whole mm value and spacing the holes apart in a fractional mm value?

 

[Malbona]

I'd say the first one...unless it was a tuesday, at which point they have to burry a rotten turnip in the back yard at sundown along with the drill bits, which then have to be removed before midnight....the turnip must be then worn around the neck on a string while you do all your drilling.

 

[Blad]

<div class='quotetop'>(Imperious825 @ Aug 12 2006, 07:08 AM) [snapback]1298911[/snapback]</div>

Assuming that they had access to drills with diameters ranging between millimeters, which is more likely: The LFL prop team using a drill diameter that has a fractional millimeter value and spacing the holes apart at a hole millimeter count, or using a drill diameter that's at a whole mm value and spacing the holes apart in a fractional mm value?
[/b]

Yes and no.

The smallest set of mm drill bits I have are made by Bosch and go in these increments - 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 10

I've never seen an increment smaller than 0.5, but I'm sure they are around.

 

[Chris Martin]

Drill sets are available that go from 1mm up in 0.1mm (one tenth of a millimetre) increments. In addition Dormer do drills that go in 0.05mm sizes (one twentieth of a millimetre) so all the inbetween sizes can be supplied. You can also get sets of micro drills that go from 0.25mm to 1.6mm in 0.05 (one twentieth of a millimetre) increments. However it's more likely that if things had to be machined to those sorts of tolerances, they'd have been cutting with either stub drills, slot drills or milling cutters. If the items were machined by anyone with a machining background (and the right equipment), then 0.05mm tolerances are a piece of cake. If the stuff was put together using basic workshop equipment and a pillar drill, I'd be surprised if they were accurate to within a millimetre. Regular drill bits are notoriously inaccurate. Firstly they're actual ground slightly undersize anyway because they tend to cut a hole slightly bigger than their diameter and secondly, they tend to wander because they're not very stiff. There is absolutely no point in getting anal about fractions of a millimetre under such circumstances.

If they have to drill a line of holes accurately, the chances are the item will be bolted to a milling table and the table traversed under the cutter. If it's a circular set of holes, the item will be held on a rotary table and the item rotated by a fixed number of degrees each time.

If no such equipment is available, it's likely that each position is marked out and centre punched to start each drilling position but since this is dictated by the accuracy of the marking out and the person doing the punching, again expecting accuracy better than a millimetre is an unreasonable and pointless expectation.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

The LFL prop team using a drill diameter that has a fractional millimeter value and spacing the holes apart at a hole millimeter count, or using a drill diameter that's at a whole mm value and spacing the holes apart in a fractional mm value?
[/b]

It could be either or neither. Without measuring the actual item it's impossible to say.

 

[Sporak]

I believe that the standard is to measure from centerpoint to centerpoint.


<div class='quotetop'>(Imperious825 @ Aug 12 2006, 01:01 AM) [snapback]1298890[/snapback]</div>

Does anyone have a guess as to whether the LFL prop department measures distances between drilled holes from their center points or surfaces of the holes?
[/b]

 

[Crimsonnaire]

Thank you very much.

My first concern was to find out if there are drills that have the 0.1mm increment. Now that I know there is, I realize that my diameter is achievable. The next factor is the spacing of the holes, which, after careful review and consideration, I am more satisfied with a whole unit than a fractional one. My first rule of thumb in this particular section of research is maintaining the overall proportion that's dependent on the diameter and spacing of these holes. If the spacing or diameter of the holes cause a breakage in the overall proportion, I would have to change the dimensions within the overall proportion with respect to maintaining it, and not vice versa. My maintainance of this particular proportion is, of course, determined by another proportion that was established earlier. While I understand that such critical accuracy may ultimately be in vain upon revelation of the actual dimensions, I am still relentless in finding the paragon medium with which any replicator would attempt to achieve perfection. I am very conscious of the fact that failure to acknowledge and comply with such a medium by any perceivable measure would result in deliberate inaccuracy, which, of course, should always be avoided, so long as it remains possible to do so.

Can any of you throw me a tolerance value that would allow a clamp to sit smoothly on another tube, but at the same time, not loose enough for it to dangle at the slightest bit when shaken? So far, I have a tolerance value of 0.125mms that I've applied to just about every relevent portion of the prop, but I suspect that this may be too loose for the clamp, which I do not intend to have it attached by glue. In the case of using glue, you would actually need a bit of extra tolerance so that a decent amount of glue sets in between the layers, but in the case of using nails or screws to secure such a piece, I imagine the tolerance would have to be substantially lower. How's 0.1mm for a tolerance? Would a clamp rest tightly enough not to dangle, but still loose enough to slide with ease?

 

[Chris Martin]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

My first rule of thumb in this particular section of research is maintaining the overall proportion that's dependent on the diameter and spacing of these holes. If the spacing or diameter of the holes cause a breakage in the overall proportion, I would have to change the dimensions within the overall proportion with respect to maintaining it, and not vice versa. My maintainance of this particular proportion is, of course, determined by another proportion that was established earlier. While I understand that such critical accuracy may ultimately be in vain upon revelation of the actual dimensions, I am still relentless in finding the paragon medium with which any replicator would attempt to achieve perfection. I am very conscious of the fact that failure to acknowledge and comply with such a medium by any perceivable measure would result in deliberate inaccuracy, which, of course, should always be avoided, so long as it remains possible to do so.
[/b]

Er....yeah.... what? :confused

In plain english, what are you trying to do?

Why not make your parts a loose fit and then shim up whatever part you're putting them over with thin strips of masking tape until they're a good grip fit and then run superglue into any gaps.

(edited for typos)

 

[Blad]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

but in the case of using nails or screws to secure such a piece, I imagine the tolerance would have to be substantially lower. How's 0.1mm for a tolerance?[/b]

A tenth of a millimetre? You won't need that kind of tolerance with nails or self-tapping screws. Maybe very small diameter machine screws.

Maybe I'm misreading your post.