Ok, I'm going to take this slow.....

Phez made this observation about my prop:

"Like why is the head connected to the slide totally different than the screen used ones? Even the plastic background piece this is based on is not like that."

Now I like to think my grasp of the English language is far from tenuous but even a wordsmith of my calibre cannot decipher this garbled mess.

However, Phez has made himself clearer.

He subsequently posted this:

"You guys I am not trying to debunk the guys props. He did a great job on it period. I am dropping the photo proof question because it just does not matter. Here is what I am talking about. The tube that goes up the center of the headpiece one size all the way through. In the photo (and all of them I have seen) all around where the tube goes into the tip (and the body end of the head) is a flat surface. If you look at the replica on the first page of this thread you can see the rings where two sides of that pin are bigger where they screw in from the center post on the bottom and go into the tip of the unit.

It is a small detail and was probably just another design decision no doubt like the slider was so you could replace the LED or something. Not a big deal."

It's a decent enough question which I have covered previously, but I'll cover it again with much the same patience that a remedial kid needs.

 

Ok. The construction on mine is based on the Penny Howarth made hero prop. The prop picture above is the Aztec 'static' prop (it actually wasn't that static, it can slide in and out).

 

In any case, the way my prop fits together is that the LED sits in an LED holder and the head cage slides on and screws into the ball. This featured a circular join at the base of the head recess below the centre pipe.

Look here at a shot of the Tennant prop from the Visual Dictionary:

The pencil is pointing to the join I refer to. There is also a join on the upper part of the inner recess too. This is where the ball join screws into the emitter head cage. Here is the head without the emitter cage screwed in showing the LED holder:

Mr Jedibugs also reminded me of something else that will confirm I am correct in my observations and engineering:

This picture clearly shows the large upper aperture where an LED holder, such as on mine will fit into. This aperture is clearly larger than the diameter of the central pipe.

Ok, some caveats here. I do not know if ALL the props including the Tennant one had this construction (but based on the above DK pic I know at least one did). I suspect that the hero props do as there were only 4 to 6 heads (including the 3 Aztec heads that I know DO NOT have this construction) ever made that were constantly recycled and mounted onto different bodies. I also cannot say 100% this construction is actually correct as I never took apart the prop. I can tell you that externally, my replica looks identical with the correct joins, the rest I engineered using common sense principles of design, including the LED holder.

For next week's lesson Mr Phez, please bring along some chewing gum. I'll teach you how to chew it.

Edit: Einstein Phez has tried to argue his case by presenting the following two pictures as proof of the absence of the LED holder:

Firstly, the top picture can be discounted as it is the Aztec prop. The second pic is the prop I had access to.

Let me state that the tolerance between the LED holder and the head cage is tiny. Thousandths of a millimeter. The seam is virtually invisible and that close tolerance has practical problems such as galling and thermal expansion (which I solved by making the tolerance larger). Having stated that, let's look at the pics.

Here's a closeup of the head of the second pic:

Can't see anything? Look a bit closer:

See it now? If not, here's the same pic with contrast turned up:

See what I mean? Look and all shall be revealed. I think this what you call, getting 'pwned', lolololol.

The turd that won't flush

Once upon a time, not so long ago in fact, I was sitting in a bar on The Bund in Shanghai (a delightful stretch of waterfront to those of you worldly enough to make the trip out to this part of the world, yellow peril bedamned), shooting the breeze over a couple of Tsingtao with an old chum of mine. Now this chum was a sagacious sort, the type of ex-pat British civil servant identikit construct that usually frequents ex-colonial establishments constantly bemoaning the demise of the British Empire and refers to me as his WOG compadre. As archetypal as he may have been (and he was - he wore a fucking Pith helmet for chrissake), he has a very cutting and quite elegant way of looking at the world. On this occasion I was on one of my rare bouts of loathing just about everyone but on this particular afternoon, I excelled myself and hated on the entire human race. I remarked, after about the eight beer of that particularly torpid session, that 'the entire human race is, in fact, shit'. Without batting an eyelid, my sagacious ex-pat chum replied 'That may be the case, CT old boy, but one must aim to be the turd that floats'.

Now where is this leading, the deafening question I hear resounding before me? Well, I had to have drawn that conclusion from somewhere and from something, or more pointedly, from someone.

Many candidates spring to mind, and many of them I have featured on this very blog, but tonight I have had the misfortune of encountering an imbecile of such distinction that crimes against common sense and reason that have been perpetrated prior to this epiphanic moment by lesser imbeciles pale into comparison to the utter tosh that has manifested itself tonight.

Who, I hear you all collectively clamour, is this wingnut?

Come a bit closer and I shall tell you....

He calls himself 'Phez' and is a prime example of what Stephen King refered to as a 'child of the corn' and through his sycophantism, has done more to damage the tarnished image of Midwesterners being inbred numbnuts than Britney Spears ever could. This tool managed to put down his pitchfork and banjo for long enough to type the following missive on the RPF:

[my response in red]

"This is still going huh

Er....actually it wasn't until you decided to stick your oar in.

Why doesn't CT just produce one or two pictures of the screen used Sonic that are NOT publicly available (that he took while examining the real Sonic). You can not tell me that some insider said "take all of the measurements with a caliper etc... that you want but do not bring a camera". There is absolutely no way that a single photo could get a secret source in trouble and would be one single shred of proof other than saying "I had access but can not say how due to legal issues".

You really, really, really must think I'm thick or something. I have no need to prove anything to you. My product speaks for itself. I have put out a challenge to Neill, to the BBC, to Nick fucking Robatto to prove that my dimensions are off. You can't. So are you saying that the MFX dimensions are correct? They're not and if any MFX owner wishes to test this contention, I am more than happy to fund a court case to this end. Everyone knows I have had access to the prop because my sonic matches up in every single dimension. Ultimately, whether I had access or whether MFX had access is moot because what one does with that access, and the product one produces with this data, is more important than prop access argument. You're just a childish little cunt who is just trying to hang on to whatever sliver of high ground you think you have. It's pathetic and transparent and so are you. Just fucking grown up, you wanker.

I would believe the guy if there was ANY evidence at all to back it up, any. I do not care if a story makes sense, sounds reasonable, or follows a timeline. Con artists operate off of making up a good story to people who want to believe them every day (JUST TO MAKE PERFECTLY CLEAR THE INTENT OF THIS STATEMENT, I AM NOT IMPLYING HERE THAT CT IS A CON ARTIST OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GUY MAKING SOME NICE REPLICA SONICS, SO DO NOT BE A DINK AND TAKE MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT).

I really don't give a squirt of piss whether you believe me or not. It makes no difference to me. Those that matter (ie, not you), know that the only way I could have produced such a magnificent piece is by having access to an original.

I (and most of us) have seen replicas that could pass for forgeries that were made from screen caps and publicity photos hundreds of times on this forum. A very good replica can be made by someone with a good eye using just those resources and does not in any way mean access to an original took place (Some times better because the replica looks like what we see on screen which the original props sometimes do not).

Do you honestly think anyone is that good they could produce a piece that is within 0.03mm tolerance of the original prop using eye or just visual material? You are kidding youself and make the object of your asslicking look even worse than they do already. Not even I'm that good and I'm fucking head and shoulders above most of the hacks that call themselves propmakers. Let's be honest here, if I did make such a piece using just screencaps and pics, it makes MFX/Russrep who did have access to a prop look like a bunch of hamfisted monkeys, doesn't it?

CT's Sonics look great, but what exactly is the point in continuing to attack Neil when he has posted proof photos and talked about everything any of us has asked for. Our own screen cap based analysis aside (we know how well that works for color matching), a licensed piece had to get inspected and approved by the BBC. Wouldn't someone have gone "hey this is totally the wrong color" at some point if it did not match the one they used for refrence to some degree (Just Sayin). Why exactly would MFX just make up a color when they obviously (due to photo proof) had direct access to just look at the real one?

Because, you dumb fool, Neill's proof shoots himself in the foot and has been comprehensively and verifiably dismantled by someone a hell of a lot brighter than he is. The majority of people out there know the truth, they know my data is not smoke up their ass and they know that this is a victory of both commonsense and axiomatic fact over puffery and ill-thought out spin. Even those cunts at the BBC must know but will never admit it. So why don't you re-read the evidence, absorb it, allow yourself to be washed over by the deluge of enlightenment that you will surely be engulfed by, and run along to mummy and daddy, tail between your legs, knowing that there is no shame in being soundly spanked by someone intellectually more capable than you will ever be?

EFX Staff Meeting

Neil:

"Ok hear me out on this one, I know this is crazy but the piece we examined was gray but let go ahead and paint this F****er gold!!!!!. The prop collectors love it when you do stuff like this. What do you guys think?"

EFX Team response

Is this really reasonable or do all just like to argue?

You know what? Never a truer word said in jest.

I think we are being very unfair calling Neil a lier based on screen caps and photos of the sonic with the finish obviously heavily worn. The MFX is obviously made to look new and not beat up. If there are only three colors and one is out of the question, could it be the white worn white? Maybe, could it be the worn gold, maybe. Do we know exactly what either color looks like after it has been heavily used and striped and repainted over and over. My question is why would he not have just called Nick Robatto and asked what color paint he uses on them? Neil makes the alien effects for the show, Robatto is obviously on speed dial. It simple does not make any sense. "

That is a very good question. I know the secret to this paint and I even alluded to it about two years ago when I announced my sonics and so do several other people, even Mr Robatto himself but that is another story for another time. Whether it will be told is something that you will all have to wonder what this secret is. One hint though. Look at the crackle patterns, therein lies all manner of secrets to be unlocked.

So this brings me full circle. Humankind may well be shit, and one might do well to aspire to be the turd that floats, but with one major caveat:  one mustn't develop such bouyancy that Mr Phez has displayed tonight and steadfast become that annoying floater that just won't flush.

Time to bring out the loo brush I think....

ADDENDUM: Just to make sure that the moron Phez is 100% clear on this point, I have never claimed access to the Tennant prop just the Season 1 prop. My replica has been extrapolated from the Season 1 prop. 

Tennant Sonic Ready for lift-off

After a protracted development I've finally finished my Tennant sonic. Here's some quick and dirty shots to whet your appetite. I apologise for the quality of the shots but it's just gone midnight here and I've got no real 'white' light source except my fluorescent desk lamp. I'll take better shots when the sun comes up but for right now, these should give you an idea as to what I've done:

Here's the grey:

Here's the 'DK Limited Edition' which looks like a grubby version of the Grey one above. I've reduced the yellowness to make this version closer to the grey but still retained enough yellow to differentiate it, ultimately, it's still a matter of aethetics as they both look sensational, if I do say so myself:

UPDATE: I'm canning the yellow sonic. Don't think it's going to fly. Stripping the yellow body down tomorrow.

I'm doing some final tweaks on the crackle pattern this weekend so will be down at the paint workshop trying to reduce the capillary like nature and make the cracks more polygonal: geometric as opposed to organic, as it were. They will be ready for ordering in the next 24 hours, when I update the store and shall be shipping next week.

Allons y.

Peter Davison & Colin Baker shirts sneak preview

Just had a call from my buddy at the clothing factory. They have just finished making these:

He's dropping them over to me tomorrow so should have some more pics for you soon. The correct original manufacturers labels are being made and will be stitched in next week but these are about as correct as you can get. They are 'museum quality' and have been patterned off original screen worn shirts. (Sorry about the color in the pics, the actual shirts have been color matched using a special Pantone colorimeter on the original costumes).

Price will be around the £100 mark. Only making a handful of these so get your orders/interest registered quick.

Edit: Just noticed a small snafu on the Davison shirt. Need to get a couple of bit reversed. Correction should be ready in a day or two ;-)

Burning the sonic at both ends

Some pics of the burnt sonic prop from Smith & Jones on display at the Glasgow Exhibition taken in June 2009 that have been sent in by a reader, both with flash and without:

And one more sent in by one Scouse reader (why didn't you conform to type and nick it?!):

As you can now see, it is a haphazard resin scratchbuild. The color balance is not brilliant as it's taken indoors with artificial light but it  does give a clear indication of the color used, since under low temperature artifical light, yellowness should predominate and the paint should be very yellow. Heritage Gold anyone?

Did someone order another cunt? Coz, another one's just turned up...

By special delivery, 'Orange Blend' posted the following piece of nonsense on the RPF:

"I don't know CT and I don't know Neill. I haven't seen either of these sonics nor will I ever likely be in a position to buy one so you can trust me when I say that I'm not biased in the evaluations I make.

As a trained Director of Photography I can safely say that the pic on the right is VERY CLEARLY a daylight lit photo. To create that convincing a daylight (I'm talking about color temp and softness, not just brightness) takes some doing. Even if it is artificial lighting it's artificialy set up to daylight specs so the color temp is in the proper range to be considered "daylight" lighting.

As I said, I don't know either of these manufacturers but CT is mistaken if he says the right pic is artificially manufactured to make it look more gold. "

Obviously Orange Blend is a numpty who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Let me clear up one thing. I have never said Gorton's photo was artificially manufactured. Never. Not once. Maybe I just drowned it out with the sound of my own awesomeness.

Secondly, as a 'trained Director of Photography', he should be fully familiar with histograms, color levels and white balancing. He would also be more familiar with Photoshop than the rudimentary 'color picker/eye dropper' test. A trained DP should know that doesn't prove anything. The color sampler tool should be used as I have done as it gives accurate data in the form of absolute RGB values. He, more than anyone should know that light increases color temperature during the day from angle and height of the sun, dipping at dawn and dusk and then increasing as it gets darker, hence why you have yellow/red light the lower the sun and why sunsets are so spectacular due to blue light scattering. It's far from 'very clear' that it is daylight .

The histograms do not lie. The clearly show an oversaturated pic where red, magenta and yellow display marked clipping meaning they are out of balance and are unusually high. What I believe has happened is that the camera has auto white balanced itself to Neill's hand which has lots of red in it. Normally cameras lock onto a known white source or a 18% grey source to calaibrate itself. In this case, it appears that it has not done so and locked onto the red in the hand and thus knocked white balance off. Do this for yourself: white balance your camera to your hand then shoot a piece of white paper. You will end up with a very yellow piece of paper! As a more extreme example, white balance onto a piece of red paper and then shoot a pic: you will end up with a very peculiar picture.

I have stated that it is a pic where there is a window on the left letting in daylight into an artificially lit room. Without white balancing the camera first and in the absence of a neutral density filter, the high temp daylight will react with the 3500K artificial lighting causing chromatic aberration. Fact. It is also a known fact that auto white balancing does not handle mixed lighting well at all, especially if those sources differ in color temperature.  As a 'trained director of photography' he should know this.

To put this into context, this is the fucking deadhead who wrote the following:

"The photo on the right in Neill's pics is very obviously taken in daylight lighting (5200k+) probably by a large window or even outside whereas Risu's pic is indoors with tungsten lighting (3600k at best). His pic on the left is indoors with flash much like the pic of the replica on the bottom. I think the pic of the replica sonic is a "close enough" lighting comparison to the left pic of the original to show that it's the same colour.

Lower color temps will be more yellow, higher temps will be more blue."

If he thinks the pic could possibly be taken outdoors, where the ground is covered in carpet, then he is an Honours graduate of the 'Ninja' Risu School of Visual Acuity.

Answer me one question, Mr 'Trained Director of Photography', how do you account for the histogram reading that shows low relative blue levels, low relative green levels and high red levels?  After all, "Lower color temps will be more yellow, higher temps will be more blue,"....right?

In case you forgot, here are those histograms again:

Do you want to see a well white balanced photo where all the colors are true? Here is one:

Here is a pic where all the colors are as near to dammit to what the eye actually sees as the light has been properly white balanced and all RGB values are near identical to each other in saturation and hue. Look at the histogram and you will see exactly what I mean:

All values are slightly right of centre which means that brightness is a little high but the important thing to note is that all RGB values are practically equal meaning color saturation is neutral and all colors are true. This being the case, I can categorically state, without equivocation or opinion, that this picture is undoubted the most accurate pic in regards to color yet published. This is not me making a claim: this is cold hard figures. The above histogram does not lie, it has not been altered, it can be confirmed by anyone with Photoshop using the original source file.

Contrast to the previous pic and you will see that the previous pic had serious colour imbalance. Anyone who can deny that especially when presented with a pic where color levels are true, is an idiot. Does this sonic look in the slightest bit 'Heritage Gold'? Anyone?

(Between you, me and the gatepost, I don't think Orange Blend  actually is a 'trained director of photography'. Not sure why I think that, just a hunch....)

"It's like, 'how much more grey could this be?' and the answer is 'None. None more grey.'"

Here a little bit of fun MFX owners can do at home.

Remember this pic of the Season 4 prop in the art department workshop?

Look towards the left and you will see one of these:

Yes, a commonly available twin tip Sharpie with a light grey body! Look at the body of the sonic. Similar grey, right? Now see if any of you can take a picture of the MFX and the Sharpie and get them looking grey as in the above shot. You can't. If anything, having the two together should ram home the fact that they are TWO DIFFERENT COLORS!!!!!! One is undoubtedly in the grey family of colors and the other is in the yellow family of colors. You can see that yellows are not washed out: look at the yellow of the paint brush handle and the yellow of the masking tape.

Your move Gorton.