Millennium FX Dr Who Sonic Screwdriver

[mooneye63]

Ok, seriously, when we say something incorrect we're flamed for it on his blog, but when his supporters say stuff that's wrong they get off Scott free. Comparing the MFX and CT sonics side by side would not tell you which one is more accurate, they're based off of different props. The only proper comparison would be to compare each one to the respective prop it was copied from.

I'm not flaming anyone, I just want to point out facts thats all & I belive people made up their minds about the CT sonics that they think will be a sign of weakness now if they admit they were wrong thats all. Look at all the evidence on CTs blog page.

I believe CT's was sonic was reverse engineered from the original prop. One question I have to ask though did MFX ever go near an original prop? If so why are some the measurements wrong? Looking at pictures for the prototype even that is even different from the prop that was sold, so which of the MFX was based on the original? All the measurements of CT's MFX against screen grabs proves that MFX got it wrong. Yes, I know there were different props for the TV but which was the one MFX used?

Now, I was going to buy a MFX prop & asked if there was any chance of seeing a picture of it on their webpage rather than the glossy advertising one. When they said this wasn't possible I smelt a rat & decided to hang around for the CT version. What impressed me was the constant updates & info he gave.

One final thought re not buying a CT replica because the TV didn't have sound... If someone came up with a Sonic that could open doors would you not buy it because the TV prop didn't really do it? I want a Sonic that is close to making the fantasy a reality.

Now if you want do want a Sonic that can open your car door, or another that can be used as a TV remote, CT's your man. I see he is working on these next. I know what I'd choose ;-)

 

[fettster]

sorry but i respectfully dissagree about the Millennium one not being accurate, I cant speak on the other one and to be honest, im not much of a Dr who fan anyways so dont know the differences.

All i know that comparing screecaps and saying someone measurements are wrong is not really based on fact. MFX did have access to the original, i have no idea how many different versions there were but i can bet there were a few.

 

[Birdie]

The CT screwdriver is not accurate, it is idealised, and in that respect it is less accurate than the MFX.

As someone already pointed out, the channel that the slider runs up is much narrower than the shooting prop (essentially making it nicer looking than the original).

As for the CO driver, that is a toy, not a prop. MFX stated from the word go that they were intending to replicate the actual prop that you would find in the studio, not an idealised version. It's pretty much accepted that they didn't entireley get there, with small innacuracies in the emitter head that were not present in the prototype.

Aesthetically, I prefer the MFX, as I don't care for the huge slider button from the Eccleston screwdriver.

I haven't handled a CT, it looks great, and I think both companies did amazing jobs.

But please stop saying that the CT is more screen accurate. It isn't.

 

[Howard]

MFX did have access to an original - fact.
The measurements are not wrong.

 

[mooneye63]

The CT screwdriver is not accurate, it is idealised, and in that respect it is less accurate than the MFX.

As someone already pointed out, the channel that the slider runs up is much narrower than the shooting prop (essentially making it nicer looking than the original).

As for the CO driver, that is a toy, not a prop. MFX stated from the word go that they were intending to replicate the actual prop that you would find in the studio, not an idealised version. It's pretty much accepted that they didn't entireley get there, with small innacuracies in the emitter head that were not present in the prototype.

Aesthetically, I prefer the MFX, as I don't care for the huge slider button from the Eccleston screwdriver.

I haven't handled a CT, it looks great, and I think both companies did amazing jobs.

But please stop saying that the CT is more screen accurate. It isn't.

You're right they didn't entirely get there, one HUGE inaccuracy was the die cast head which is a different colour than the rest of the metal on the sold prop.

Aesthetically, you prefer the MFX, but that is a different version of the Sonic & CT is releasing the Tennant version anytime now so you will get the accurate slider on this for this version so you will be able to compare then.

Sorry I wont be able to stop saying that the CT is more screen accurate when the Tennant version comes out, because it will be. All the evidence points to it no matter how you try and argue it. On the same token, perhaps it would be better if people stop saying the MFX is more accurate. You have admitted your self re the MFX Sonic that 'It's pretty much accepted that they didn't entirely get there.'

The great thing is we have a choice, with or without sound, Eccleston or Tennant. You pays your money...

 

[Foxmeister]

The CT screwdriver is not accurate, it is idealised, and in that respect it is less accurate than the MFX.

I agree that CT's screwdriver is idealized in places, and therefore strictly speaking is not "screen accurate" to a single prop, but rather to what a range of props is supposed to represent. e.g. a combination of the Ecclestone "slider" prop and the "non-sliding" hero prop that has no slider slot at all.

However, it does not necessarily follow that this make it less accurate than the MFX. According to CT, the original MFX prototype was pretty much identical to a screen used prop. Since the final version now differs from that prototype (which is allegedly screen accurate), I fail to see how the MFX version can now be considered more accurate than the CT version. Either the prototype was accurate to the prop, or the final version was - and given the final version has a diecast emitter head, I presume it was the former.

Having handled both the MFX and the CT sonics, I do prefer the CT, but that is purely a matter of personal preference and that I prefer grey colour to the sandy. However, if the MFX had been the only game in town, I'd have been very happy with an MFX, and I'm sure that people who have them are.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Birdie]

You're right they didn't entirely get there, one HUGE inaccuracy was the die cast head which is a different colour than the rest of the metal on the sold prop.

Aesthetically, you prefer the MFX, but that is a different version of the Sonic & CT is releasing the Tennant version anytime now so you will get the accurate slider on this for this version so you will be able to compare then.

Sorry I wont be able to stop saying that the CT is more screen accurate when the Tennant version comes out, because it will be. All the evidence points to it no matter how you try and argue it. On the same token, perhaps it would be better if people stop saying the MFX is more accurate. You have admitted your self re the MFX Sonic that 'It's pretty much accepted that they didn't entirely get there.'

The great thing is we have a choice, with or without sound, Eccleston or Tennant. You pays your money...

Die cast?

I've thought it was proven the MFX was machined?

Whatever. I look forward to CT releasing his version of the Tennant. I would be even happier if he turned his talents to the Matt Smith sonic, seeing that it seems unlikeley that we're going to get a decent quality replica of that.

 

[Birdie]

I fail to see how the MFX version can now be considered more accurate than the CT version

Eye of the beholder. The narrow slot slot jumps out at me far more obviously than the bareley perceptible innacuracies on the MFX emitter.

Semantics really. They're both great replicas. Pay your money and make your choice.

 

[Primrodo]

Die cast?

I've thought it was proven the MFX was machined?

Whatever. I look forward to CT releasing his version of the Tennant. I would be even happier if he turned his talents to the Matt Smith sonic, seeing that it seems unlikeley that we're going to get a decent quality replica of that.

They are persisting its Die Cast because Celestial Toystore says it is repeatedly on his blog, despite Neill coming in on here stating a few times its not. Its a circle argument as you basically have to decide whose word is more viable, a prop maker that has made the replica stating how it was made, or someones personal assessment that is technically competition and has an axe to grind against the prop makers.

Celestial Toystore's sonic is nice, and some may feel its better than MFX's because of this reason and that...sound is so secondary though. There are plenty of idealized details with his sonic that makes it just as inaccurate as well. As you said Birdie, some make it look nicer, but still idealized.

 

[Clutch]

Just by looking at the MFX you can tell it is machined.

 

[phez]

one HUGE inaccuracy was the die cast head which is a different colour than the rest of the metal on the sold prop.

I am not arguing on way or the other as far as the quality of these two Sonics (both look very nice) but this statement is very simply wrong.

The head on the MFX is very obviously machined and not cast. There is something sprayed on the outside of the head that knocks down the shine (it looks like it was done after the blue tip was glued on, you can easily see the metal flake of whatever was sprayed on the blue tip). But we know there were a bunch of Sonics, so was the one from the Hi-Res photo even the one that was used for reference. We have no choice but to use that photo, that is not the case if you can walk up and grab any of the real ones and measure it.

If you look at the inside of the of the milled out area in the head you can see that the non-sprayed parts of the head is exactly the same sheen as the rest of the machined aluminum parts. You can also (I would not recommend doing this) rub off the spray and the plain machined aluminum is underneath.

MFX did have access to an original - fact.
The measurements are not wrong.

In an episode of DrWho confidential Neil does a short interview on the set while working on one of the Sontarn costumes. It is ridicules to think that he did not have access to the screen used Sonics when he likely could have just asked Tennent (or anyone else) to see it while he was working (not to even mention he had the license and the access that provides.

The only thing on the MFX that looks different to the hero Sonic that I am used to seeing in photos is that the openings in the head look sort of rectangle instead of square (they extend farther up towards the the tip) ant the corner radius look different. That being said, those few photos are all I am comparing against. We know there were multiple hand made Sonics and that MFX could have used any one of them as reference. It is not fair to use a photo of one prop out of many and say it proves inaccuracy.

I am not sure what the point of the argument is anymore. The MFX was limited edition made by the shows actual prop people. It is no doubt a much better investment if your goal is to get something that will likely go up in value over time. It is sold out and gone. The CT Sonic is still available and other than buying an EFX on the secondary market is the only current high end version available.

 

[karstva]

Deleted

 

[Pastor Jedi]

I was not aware that Russ made these. Is he going to offer them here?

 

[karstva]

deleted

 

[Foxmeister]

2) Here is a picture of the machined box of emitter heads to remove any doubt that these were ever die-cast. Machine marks are very clear in this picture, please excuse Russ's mangled...I mean sprained hand.

I'm not in any way doubting your veracity here, but as just as an FYI I can't see any discernible machine marks in this picture because by the time it has got onto Photobucket it's far too low a resolution (600x800) to make out any real detail.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Primrodo]

Beautiful! Those Gold sonics look great! I wonder what David Tennant thought of a gold Sonic?

Thank you for sharing these Karsten!

 

[karstva]

deleted

 

[Foxmeister]

Hmmm interesting, I can see them with no issues right in this thread..not sure why you are having difficulty with that.

karsten

Downloading the image and zooming in, anything that might appear as a machine mark from a distance just looks to me like a digital artifact due to the low res and JPEG compression. I should add though that I know far more about digital compression techniques and digital artifacts than I know about CNC machining!

I should also add that I don't really care whether it the MFX head was diecast or machined - as I've said before the MFX sonic is a fine piece.

Regards,

Dave

 

[karstva]

deleted

 

[Asp9mm]

Your pics actually make it look diecast. I can see machining on the interior of the lens housing and the attached base part, but none on the emitter head itself at all.

Those gold ones look like something you'd find in Saddams palace :lol

I don't think it was wise of you posting about Russ Browns involvement though. He makes unlicenced sonics and will certainly add fuel to the fire regarding the CT issue, as ethically it is exactly the same. Batton down the hatches guys.