logo Sign In

Discussing about scales of ships in star wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

(Wishing to make my case on a star destroyer dimension issue in Adywan’s ESB®, I was asked to create a separate tread about it, so, there it is)
Hello everyone I’m savmagoett, I’ve been working on a fan project about scales in star wars for years, so I studied those a lot, and I think I got a good global view of the ship dimension in star wars (IMHO).
For me the main problem with discrepancies in such movies is that it’s very hard to tell what is right or wrong, everything is imaginary, so it’s more about facts that are in contradiction to each other, things that works and other that doesn’t. Only by having a global view at things we can tell what “version” is more occurring or makes more sense and then point out what should be change for more consistency or more logic.
My goal here is to propose a possible scale chart, giving an average dimension to each ship seen in the saga, that would work with most of the major “scale establishing shots” (as I call them) such as scenes with actors around ships, the blockade runner inside the ISD, the Falcon behind the ISD, the Falcon docked to the medical frigate, etc…
And therefore isolate as less shots as possible that needs fixing (and also given the possibilities of fixing we have).
To do so I will post some successive analyses of several ships dimension continuity, in order to come to a conclusion.

you can add your own counter-analysis of course…

I don’t claim there actually is scale consistency in the star wars saga, I just know it’s filed with discrepancies. What I seek is to find the best choices one can make (when it comes to fix things) to make the whole saga more consistent.

Here is my course of action in order to keep the tread constructive:

I don’t automatically reject data in general according to its kind or its origin (such as “official” scaling, or technical SW literature), but I don’t use it as gospel either, I use it as long as it argues a theory.
I don’t make statement without arguing it.
I try not to make use of generalizations like “all the SFX in that movie are crap so don’t look there”.
I don’t seek to find out what’s wrong or what’s right, <span>instead</span> I think each “scale establishing shot” is creating its own reality.
I don’t make assertions, I rather give my feeling on the matter.

(Please forgive my “frenglishness”)

Author
Time

This is where it began…

savmagoett said:

You see Ady, I'm currently working on my own fan project which is all about starship dimensions in star wars so I have analyzed those a lot. And suddenly I stumble upon your unexpected point of view. I find this… disturbing ;)
Here is my point of view:
In the matter of size of things there are shots that are establishing scale more than others (like shots of ships with actors around). And I find most of these "scale establishing shots" pretty consistent to each other and also consistent with the special effects with models, the scale chart I posted was illustrating that.
Most of the discrepancies only appear when you make relation between inside and outside shots. ILM guys didn't bother to be scale accurate in those relations simply because no one would have noticed anything in the theater so they did what they had to do to tell the story with the best time/money/efficiency compromise they could come up with at the time. Maybe some inside sets are build out of scale (bigger) for filming (scope) purpose, something like that.
Of course when you're looking a movie through a microscope nothing is holding together. I know your goal is to fix most of the problems.
But if you can't change every "scale establishing" shots to match inside shots, aren't you creating other discrepancies somewhere else.
For example you're ok to change the scale of the Tydirium shuttle in one shot and leave the other shots that are establishing another destroyer scale (like the hiding Falcon). Doesn't it bother you?
I will post some images to illustrate my point, but later not to monopolize the tread.…

Author
Time

Doesn't this belong in Ady's Empire thread?

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, don't bite me yet! lol

My point here is to make my case for the one mile Star Destroyer first, as I think it is how we are seeing it in the movies.

To do so I will post some successive analyses of several ships dimension continuity, in order to come to this conclusion.

Then we will be able to speak about other scale issues…

you can add your own counter-analysis of course, whether you back me up or contradict me…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

savmagoett said:

First, the 20m (65 feet) Tydirium shuttle continuity.

The 1/1 Thydirium on live set:

Special effect with CGI model (I guess) inside the Executor for TESB(SE):

Inside set:

Very consistent inside layout from SW Incredible Cross Sections (great book BTW):

Conclusion: pretty consistent what do you think?

So what do you think of that one alone?

Author
Time

xhonzi said:

Doesn't this belong in Ady's Empire thread?

I think xhonzi is a Customer Representative for a phone/cable/satellite/bank/etc. company lol.

Author
Time

I'd be interested in seeing the Falcon's scaling issues discussed here as well.  I wonder what a larger Falcon set would look like if one was to make it match the scaling of the cockpit set?

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

xhonzi said:

Doesn't this belong in Ady's Empire thread?

I think xhonzi is a Customer Representative for a phone/cable/satellite/bank/etc. company lol.

 Remember who's buying my steak dinners.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Sluggo said:

I'd be interested in seeing the Falcon's scaling issues discussed here as well.  I wonder what a larger Falcon set would look like if one was to make it match the scaling of the cockpit set?

Don't worry, I will be treating her, as she appear in some important star destroyer reference shots…

And as well as it goes, I think you'll be surprised ;)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

As this has now been given its own thread its probably best that i place my reply to your scaling in here:

adywan said:

OK, i have to put the debate about scales to rest now. Forget about the so called sizes of ships that are documented because many are just so wrong. The scale of the Lambda shuttle in the ROTJ opening , which seems to be the basis of the scale, is wrong. See the pics below:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

1:- taken from the pic you posted, savmagoett,  of the scale between a human and the shuttle. Now the interior of the bridge and its windows is the same size for the Executor as it is for the stadestroyers. But in the models they only added the correct domed outside of the bridge to the executor. There is one stardestroyer model that has the domed bridge but the scale for that would have made the stardestroyers bridges almost 3x the size of the Executors one. Now the Towers of the stardestroyers and the Executor are exactly the same size so we can use the Executor tower with the domed bridge for the comparison. As you can see the scale of the human is the correct scale with the bridge.

2:- Now zoomed out so we can see the full tower, which you can see the scale of the shuttle in comparison to the tower.

3:- Full zoom out. The highest points of the zoomed tower perfectly matching the highest points in the full model, which is the centre point of the stardestroyer so the scale is correct. Copied and pasted the shuttle from the zoomed section and placed it next to your shuttles scaling.

4:- the scaling zoomed in. As you can see the correct scale of the shuttle in comparison with the stardestroyer should be a lot smaller than your calculations. So the shuttle in ESB:R will be the correct smaller scale which will fit inside the stardestroyers docking bay

You also have the scaling of the Tantive IV in comparison to the Stardestroyer wrong also. Here's a pic from ANH that demonstrates this:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Now looking at your scaling that i used for image #3 you have the Tantive IV almost as long as the Stardestroyer bay. Well in this shot it isnt even fully inside the bay, as can be clearly seen, yet isn't already a lot smaller in its length than you have it.

I'd like to know what reference you are using for the size of the Stardestroyers and the Tantive IV, especially when you have said that i'm wrong in my scaling even though i have clearly proved the correct scaling of the ships in conjunction to the stardestroyer. Yes, i agree that the Lambda class shuttle is about 20m long, but  are using an online /published reference of the size of the stardestroyer to get your scaling of the shuttle because i would suggest not to take the scaling in the reference books as gospel because many are very wrong. Also using the scale of a human against a ship in a hnagar shot etc to get the correct scale is also not entrely an accurate way to do it. Just look at the scaling problem of the on-set Millennium Falcon in ESB. It's probably around 25% smaler than it should be. And check out this shot of the hangar in ROTJ

Just look how tiny the Millennium Falcon is compared to the people in that matte painting. It should be hell of a lot bigger. It's even smaller than the studio set one in ESB

 

 

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

I dont get it.

I mean why the millenium falcon is wrong in the back of the sd?

I run the scales on 3d max i put the falcon in the back and it looks the same...


-Angel

–>Artwork<–**

Author
Time

vaderios said:

I dont get it.

I mean why the millenium falcon is wrong in the back of the sd?

I run the scales on 3d max i put the falcon in the back and it looks the same...


-Angel

I think its just slightly too big when we see it on the back of the stardestroyer. how are you judging the scaling? are the 2 models you are using accurate?

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

Well correct me if im wrong.

The model used on back is the exact same with the human scaling.

Sorry long image lol

-Angel

–>Artwork<–**

Author
Time

vaderios said:

Well correct me if im wrong.

The model used on back is the exact same with the human scaling.

Sorry long image lol

-Angel

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

I'll explain later got to sleep now :o

Author
Time

Ah, i can see where the scaling is going out there Angel. The stardestroyer model you are using for the comparison is has been modelled on the stardestroyer with the oversized bridge section. Heres the different towers that were used for the models in the OT. The Executor is the only one that has the bridge section at the correct scale when compared to the tower.

 

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

No idea who is right, right now :P

I can assure you that the shuttle is small tho like ady did.

 

-Angel

–>Artwork<–**

Author
Time

adywan said:

Ah, i can see where the scaling is going out there Angel. The stardestroyer model you are using for the comparison is has been modelled on the stardestroyer with the oversized bridge section. Heres the different towers that were used for the models in the OT. The Executor is the only one that has the bridge section at the correct scale when compared to the tower.

Thats depressing. So the executor has the right dimensions? so its bridge is the same as the SD's ones? MEH!

So ady can you illustrate please -roughly- how the MF should be in the back of the SD?

 

But again the MG should have different angle when it flybys from Needa's bridge. Otherwise with that angle it could hit :)

 

-Angel

–>Artwork<–**

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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 ;)

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

I can tell I'm going to enjoy this thread.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

adywan said:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

1:- taken from the pic you posted, savmagoett,  of the scale between a human and the shuttle. Now the interior of the bridge and its windows is the same size for the Executor as it is for the stadestroyers. But in the models they only added the correct domed outside of the bridge to the executor. There is one stardestroyer model that has the domed bridge but the scale for that would have made the stardestroyers bridges almost 3x the size of the Executors one. Now the Towers of the stardestroyers and the Executor are exactly the same size so we can use the Executor tower with the domed bridge for the comparison. As you can see the scale of the human is the correct scale with the bridge.

2:- Now zoomed out so we can see the full tower, which you can see the scale of the shuttle in comparison to the tower.

3:- Full zoom out. The highest points of the zoomed tower perfectly matching the highest points in the full model, which is the centre point of the stardestroyer so the scale is correct. Copied and pasted the shuttle from the zoomed section and placed it next to your shuttles scaling.

4:- the scaling zoomed in. As you can see the correct scale of the shuttle in comparison with the stardestroyer should be a lot smaller than your calculations. So the shuttle in ESB:R will be the correct smaller scale which will fit inside the stardestroyers docking bay

 

I just wanted to show an Executor 'exterior' Bridge shot in close proximity to the photos above, for comparisons sake. 

Perhaps you can clear this up for me Adywan? -  I always thought this 'rounded' exterior Bridge shot below was meant to be the Executor's tower....but I was never sure (the dvd colouration is misleading)....

....and both of these behind-the-scenes miniature shots seen below are listed as being the Executor's tower (and either or both these shots may be 'flipped' the wrong way round for all I know, when it comes to studying the detail) 

Do you reckon the first one shown below is actually the 'oversized' Bridge that you mentioned in your post #17 on this thread, and that only the one at the bottom is the correct Executor one?  -

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Have any of you guys looked at the Slave one?  It looks off from the exterior shots to the cockpit shots.

Author
Time

Wasn't the whole scale issue of all the different starships already beaten to death ?

 

See the Star Wars Technical Commentaries site, here and here.

Han: Hey Lando! You kept your promise, right? Not a scratch?
Lando: Well, what’s left of her isn’t scratched. All the scratched parts got knocked off along the way.
Han (exasperated): Knocked off?!