Discussing about scales of ships in star wars — Page 2

Really?  I thought Bossk's were the best.

adywan said:

savmagoett said:

Ady won't like it but you're making my point Angel :)

I'll explain later got to sleep now :o

I won't like it? you don't even know me yet you're making assumptions like that. I'm the first to admit when i am wrong, but in this case i have proved that i am right with the scale issue here. At least i'm providing logcal and illustrated proof to back up my arguments. I asked you a few times in the ESB:R thread, before you made this one,  what you were using to calculate the scale of the stardestroyer in conjunction with the shuttle but failed to answer my question , yet keep harping on that you are right and i am wrong. So i'll ask again: how are you calculating the scale between the two? Your arguments for the scale of the shuttle would mean that the outer edges of the stardestroyer are only about 3 decks high?

Check the scale proof that i provided and there can be no question about the scale of the shuttle, and that;s taking into account the differences between the studio shuttle set and the miniature model. With the stardestroyer & executor towers being the same size the logical choice is to use the executor exterior bridge dome as a scale reference. The dome on the 1 stardestroyer model that has this feature is too big. Don't forget that the lights we see on the stardestroyer aren't for decoration. They are meant to represent windows, so if you go by the larger scale bridge, the windows would be more like portholes. lol

But i guess no matter how much proof i give, you will always be right ;)

Wow wow, Ady, I was just kidding (that's why I putted the smiley). Maybe my english was ambiguous, if so, I'm sorry. I'm a French talking guy who do his best to speak your language, and humor is the most difficult part of that. I assure you I wasn't making any assumption toward your personality.
Besides I'm not harping anything about you being wrong or me being right. I just said once "I think you are mistaken" and that I will develop my point of view later. The use of "I think" in a sentence is only to expose an opinion not to make an assertion, am I wrong? That's what I always try to do when presenting an argument, using conditional sentences and asking peoples what they think about my argument.

For the rest of your diatribe as you are so prompt judging me I will be as well, I'm sorry Adywan, but you're the one making affirmations here, saying "i have proved that i am right", "this shot is wrong", "this one is right", "this tower has an oversized bridge section", "the Executor is the only one that has the bridge section at the correct scale" (based on what please?). For someone who's "the first to admit when he's wrong" you don't sound very open to discussion…
You're even patronizing me about what I should consider as argument: "Forget about the so called sizes of ships that are documented because many are just so wrong". At least speak for yourself man! If I choose to use one such document it's because i find that one relevant, not because they are "official". I'm not taking them for granted nor as stand alone proof but I'm not systematically discarding them either. In the Tydirium continuity I used a SW Incredible Cross Sections document only to say "Very consistent inside layout from SW Incredible Cross Sections" in other words "here is a believable inside layout that says a 20 M shuttle is possible" nothing more.

Besides, for me there's no right or wrong in that matter, only contradicting shots regarding an issue (such as the ISD size), that's what I call discrepancies, isn't it the good term?
BTW I find your conning tower/Tydirium shuttle scale analysis absolutely correct. I only dissagree with the absoluteness of your conclusion. You said it yourself, it's the Executor tower not a regular ISD's. I'm the first one to say that similar conning towers in different ships must be meaning "same size" and to serve as a reference point for the viewer. But the very existence of that regular ISD coning tower establishing a different size in the same movie should a least raise some debate, not just "that one is wrong".
And anyway, as I said before, it's only one scale establishing shot. I was about to analyze other ones and then make open conclusions.

All in all my position is that if one wishes to solve scale continuity problems in a movie, one has to make a choice. And my opinion is that to make that choice one should consider all the scale establishing shots. Major shot and minor shots should be taken in consideration in relation to their importance, but one shouldn't completely discard a shot just because it doesn't get you where you want to go.
For example, If there are, let's say, five shots saying the ISD is 1 mile long against one shot saying it is bigger, shouldn't one at least consider the possibility that maybe the ISD was meant to feel like 1 mile.

I just wish to explain my point of view here (which can only be done trough several posts) and therefore answering your question. Sorry I failed to answer you question right away sir! Why are you getting obnoxious just because someone is challenging your statement. I'm not interested in a fight Adywan, and I don't just want to proof you wrong. TESB(R) is your project so it will be your call. I was just trying to present you with some document that you may not know and alternate reasoning that you may not have come up with, that's all…

But you just won't let me, don't you?

savmagoett said:

For the rest of your diatribe as you are so prompt judging me I will be as well, I'm sorry Adywan, but you're the one making affirmations here, saying "i have proved that i am right", "this shot is wrong", "this one is right", "this tower has an oversized bridge section", "the Executor is the only one that has the bridge section at the correct scale" (based on what please?). For someone who's "the first to admit when he's wrong" you don't sound very open to discussion…

For one, i have not judged you whatsoever. You have totally taken what i have said out of context by quoting a few sections here . For one, the bridge size on the Executor was introduced in ESB where as the oversized bridge on the large scale stardestroyer tower wasn't introduced until ROTJ. And we know that the towers between the tow designs of ships are the same size as the proof was in the movies. The stardestroyer tower built for ROTJ wasn't a very detailed model because it was only to be used in a couple of shots. It's seems that they were working on the assumption that the Executor tower was supposed to be larger so they made the bridge section larger to fit with that scale. They got the scaling wrong about a lot of things in ROTJ so i wouldn't use that movie as any point of reference, which is why i use the Executor as a point of reference for my scaling. Plus as i showed in my examples the Tantive IV is at least 25% smaller than you have in your scaling diagram which indeed fits in with the smaller shuttle scale.

savmagoett said:

You're even patronizing me about what I should consider as argument: "Forget about the so called sizes of ships that are documented because many are just so wrong". At least speak for yourself man! If I choose to use one such document it's because i find that one relevant, not because they are "official". I'm not taking them for granted nor as stand alone proof but I'm not systematically discarding them either.

When was i patronising you? All i said that you shouldn't really use a lot of these guides as reference because they have been proven to be incorrect many times. How is that patronising? You see it all the time that people will argue facts about things in Star Wars just because it says so in a book and not even bother to try an work things out for themselves, so i was just offering some advise. You want to read through my ANH:R & ESB:R threads to see just how many times an argument has started because i'm doing something that in "such and such" book it says different and that i'm making a mistake. At least you seem to be working things out for yourself to provide your side of the arguments, for which i applaud you.

savmagoett said:

I just wish to explain my point of view here (which can only be done trough several posts) and therefore answering your question. Sorry I failed to answer you question right away sir! Why are you getting obnoxious just because someone is challenging your statement. I was just trying to present you with some document that you may not know and alternate reasoning that you may not have come up with, that's all…

But you just won't let me, don't you?

Me getting obnoxious? Where was i being obnoxious? All i was asking was how you were determining the scale of the shuttle against the stardestroyer and even though i had agreed with you the shuttle was approx 20mtrs long your reply was to go on about the size of the shuttle again. All i wanted to know was your calculation, so how is that being obnoxious? All i was trying to do was open up the discussion a bit, that's all. But now who's being patronising calling me sir like that? Hmmm? lol

savmagoett said:

Wow wow, Ady, I was just kidding (that's why I putted the smiley). Maybe my english was ambiguous, if so, I'm sorry. I'm a French talking guy who do his best to speak your language, and humor is the most difficult part of that. I assure you I wasn't making any assumption toward your personality.

smiley or no smiley what you said came across as a smug assumption that i'm not going to like your arguments for your case, which is totally wrong about me. But now you have explained that English isn't your first language then i can see how things may be getting confused between what we both say and the manor in which they are meant, so i say we should start a fresh. I really do want to hear your side of things, maybe you will come up with a good argument that may change my mind? You never know.

You have to remember that things do come across differently in a forum because you can't hear the tone in which something is said. And if you read through my threads you will see that i am very willing to admit when i am wrong. In my ESB:R thread i have admitted that i am wrong about the original size i had for the shuttle and have changed it accordingly to my final calculations, which i wouldn't have bothered doing in so much depth if you hadn't put your argument across. So please don't think i'm trying to stop you in any way, because that isn't my intention at all.

adywan said:

savmagoett said:

Wow wow, Ady, I was just kidding (that's why I putted the smiley). Maybe my english was ambiguous, if so, I'm sorry. I'm a French talking guy who do his best to speak your language, and humor is the most difficult part of that. I assure you I wasn't making any assumption toward your personality.

smiley or no smiley what you said came across as a smug assumption that i'm not going to like your arguments for your case, which is totally wrong about me. But now you have explained that English isn't your first language then i can see how things may be getting confused between what we both say and the manor in which they are meant, so i say we should start a fresh. I really do want to hear your side of things, maybe you will come up with a good argument that may change my mind? You never know.

You have to remember that things do come across differently in a forum because you can't hear the tone in which something is said. And if you read through my threads you will see that i am very willing to admit when i am wrong. In my ESB:R thread i have admitted that i am wrong about the original size i had for the shuttle and have changed it accordingly to my final calculations, which i wouldn't have bothered doing in so much depth if you hadn't put your argument across. So please don't think i'm trying to stop you in any way, because that isn't my intention at all.

 

Well, I was not really saying you are like that, was trying be humorous and "pretend" you were. But I guess that didn't felt that way, sorry…

So all right, it seems we misinterpreted each other's intentions/tone/humor, and let's star a fresh.

I'll proceed with the topic if you please.

I wanted to begin with the shuttle because it's one of the most consistent scale establishment throughout the trilogy IMHO, because it will serve me to make my point later and because it illustrates my way of analyzing scales in a positive way (I think).

So for this one I think every one is pretty much ok with a 20 m long Tydirium…

The next ship I'd like to analyze is the Tantive IV "Blockade runner":

This one is not as easy as the Tydirium, as the only good comparison we have is precisely the ISD so…
But at least we can say that a mile long ISD would make a 150 m Tantive, and Ady's 2 mile ISD would make's it 300 m
(is that what you meant Ady? I postulated 3 times the 1 mile ISD before, but I think I was wrong, I'll come back to that later)

So the best we can do for now is make assumptions with the little we got from the movies and see later how it holds in the "big picture" (at the conclusion of my 1 mile ISD plea).

Ady you said that "the so called official scales of that ship are still based on the original scaling" when the Tantive was meant to be the falcon, right? I assume you were talking about this rough sketch made by Joe Johnston?:

Actually this was not what I was talking about, it looks like 50 m here, and, as you said, that wouldn't be consistent with the interiors set we see in ANH. The official size at SW.com is 150 m, but that's not because it's official that I made a 150 m Tantive in my scale chart. Let me explain…

Here are some scenes from ROTJ (as everything is moving you may want to watch the actual DVD for a better feel):

both scenes seems more or less continuous to each other but it's verry hard to guess a size from that (especially since the Falcon size brings its own debate). So let's say the Tantive here is way bigger than the Falcon…

There's another one:

this one is odd regarding the previous two, it feels to be about the size of the Falcon according to this other shot from TESB:

So as this particular scene from ROTJ is off regarding the whole saga, I'd say let's discard it…

To conclude, even though it's only an assumption, I like the 150 m Blockade Runner because:

A. It makes the OT shots consistent with this shot of the Tantive IV in TROTS:

the humans inside the cockpit are making a good 150 m consistency too:

B. At that length the interiors set could fit inside, as this nice reconstitution proposes:

C. It makes sense for me in the whole saga, but I'll come to that later…

you can see below a 150 m Tantive as portrayed above:

What do you think guys?

Hah. I like this pic particular

Because if you notice how cheap are the elements the Tantive is actually shrinking when it comes to camera.

Super elements work.

The scaling in ROTJ is fucked up for sure.

-Angel

yeah, maybe they got the blockade runner on the wrong layer or something…

This could be a fix:

is there already a ROTJ (R) tread?

THX TV's Frink… :)

Sluggo said:

This seems too big to me.  I may be totally wrong, but it seems like all the composite shots are too inconsistent to be relied on that heavily.

I admit it's a hard one according the references we have, but what makes you feel it should be smaller?

Sluggo said:

Another possibility may be to try to judge the size of the ship based on the interior corridors.

Isn't it what the cross section does? What do you think of that drawing?

Sluggo said:

The droids are a consistent size as are the escape pods and the spacing of the pod hatches in the ship.  I don't know if that approach would be helpful or not.

Well the proportions of the pod (as also seen in the Tatooine desert) lead to a Tantive of 75 m, but that would leads us to another problem.

The big debate about the size of an ISD, leads us to the 1 mile theory against the bigger (2 miles?) theory. (I don't think I've seen a smaller ISD scale theory around, I'm I wrong?)

I personally don't seek what's reliable or not, I take all the 6 movies as a whole, even though I know they're filed with discrepancies, I only seek here to find the best choice one can make (when it comes to fix things) in order to make the whole saga more consistent. I don't think it's wise to reject data in general according to their kind or origin. I rather choose to discard data if it leads to less consistency to the saga as a whole. That's why I like the 150 m blockade runner because it's the "less inconsistent" theory IMHO…

Sluggo said:

I see where you are coming from.  But it seems that in the 150m version, the average person wouldn't be the same height as the cockpit window.  The models and the interior seem to have a window of maybe 1 meter.  The line drawing looks like the window is closer to 2 meters.

…

To me, it just feels like it should be closer to 120.

I think I know why you feel that, the side view of the cockpit is deceptive. The shape you see in there is not the window but the red "missing" part surrounding the window. I made a little front view of the head section to show you better the proportion between the surrounding shape I mentionned, the window and a human, and I compared the different approaches:

As you can see the 75m and the 300 m scales just don't feel right, the 150 m version is pretty much ok with the 1 m window, don't you think?

TV's Frink said:

Not specific to Adywan's edits but:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/ESB-and-ROTJ-Wishlist/topic/8826/

Even though its not on the Wishlist thread, I'm adding it to the wishlist.  Great mockup savmagoet!

doubleofive said:

Even though its not on the Wishlist thread, I'm adding it to the wishlist.  Great mockup savmagoet!

Oh, THX 005 :)

I guess there no need to post it on the OT.com whishlist tread anymore?

savmagoett said:

doubleofive said:

Even though its not on the Wishlist thread, I'm adding it to the wishlist.  Great mockup savmagoet!

Oh, THX 005 :)

I guess there no need to post it on the OT.com whishlist tread anymore?

You can if you want.  Just to have it all in one place if anyone finds the wishlist and wants to see us all argue about it. ;-)

zombie84 said:

ILM made a scale sheet for ANH. I have a copy of it somewhere.

Even still though, stuff like that was a loose reference. They didn't put as much thought into it as anyone here is. Whatever looks good by eye, when theres 100 other elements flying around and the shot goes by in 4 seconds, is how they judged how to composite the things; if its off, who cares, as long as it looks okay when there's 100 other spaceships flying by and the shot ends before you can even figure out if its off or not. Like the shrinking ROTJ blockade runner. Scrutinizing it shot by shot to determine precise scale is pretty fruitless because it will never match perfectly. There is no precise scale in the films, only a general one that perpetually changes, so whatever you attempt to "standardize" in one way will be wrong in another way. I say just accept that its a movie and move on.

zombie84 said:

Ah here it is. I notice now that the Tech commentaries has this, but its uselessly small. I just took these with my camera right now so they are a bit blurry, but they are good enough for use.

As the Tech Commentaries points out though, these scales don't often correspond to the films. You can see that this is simply a rough pen sketch by Joe Johnson, just going by eye rather than any kind of measurement. When it came to the film they just did things "close" to this, whatever looked good in the frame, or sometimes imperfect because they didn't notice or didn't have the time to do it again, or outright didn't care. But the net result of all this is that the scaling in any of the films is only in a general sense, there is no actual "measurable" way to prove what it should pricisely be, you just go by eye so that it looks about right.

Zombie84 but did you read some of the recent posts here? I think you should have read post n°33 of the tread… Especially this:

savmagoett said:

…

So the best we can do for now is make assumptions with the little we got from the movies and see later how it holds in the "big picture" (at the conclusion of my 1 mile ISD plea).

Ady you said that "the so called official scales of that ship are still based on the original scaling" when the Tantive was meant to be the falcon, right? I assume you were talking about this rough sketch made by Joe Johnston?:

Actually this was not what I was talking about, it looks like 50 m here, and, as you said, that wouldn't be consistent with the interiors set we see in ANH. The official size at SW.com is 150 m, but that's not because it official that I made a 150 m Tantive in my scale chart. Let me explain…

 

and this:

savmagoett said:

I personally don't seek what's reliable or not, I take all the 6 movies as a whole, even though I know they're filed with discrepancies, I only seek here to find the best choice one can make (when it comes to fix things) in order to make the whole saga more consistent. I don't think it's wise to reject data in general according to their kind or origin. I rather choose to discard data if it leads to less consistency to the saga as a whole. That's why I like the 150 m blockade runner because it's the "less inconsistent" theory IMHO…

Have you? ;)

Zombie is too busy trying to figure out how Lucasfilm thinks to read threads!  Let him be! ;-)

Sluggo said:

Maybe if one reads TF.n.  And I don't always trust them over there.  I think we have enough fans who can think for themselves here to come up with a good analysis or two.

Hear Hear!!!!!

The Star Wars fans here are the only ones I like. Too many GL worshipers and PT lovers elsewhere.

EyeShotFirst said:

Sluggo said:

Maybe if one reads TF.n.  And I don't always trust them over there.  I think we have enough fans who can think for themselves here to come up with a good analysis or two.

Hear Hear!!!!!

The Star Wars fans here are the only ones I like. Too many GL worshipers and PT lovers elsewhere.

Even though Star Wars Technical Commentaries are hosted on TF.n, they are not part of the GL worshipping occurring on the main TF.n site. *sigh*

Oh, by the way, these technical commentaries are written by Dr Curtis Saxton, PhD who contributed to some of the best Star Wars reference books, in the Incredible Cross Sections and Inside the Worlds of series.