savmagoett

Davnes007 said:

This is just an edit of Luke's training I whipped up for fun. It took a bit longer to do than I expected, but it turned out half decently. Enjoy :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4hb7NcrJzQ 

The link doesn't work :(

My condolences Ady to you and your family, she lives in your hearts and your memories now, may time soften your grief…

Oh sorry I got it wrong
it seems my English needs some improvements

ImperialFighter said:

…

…
so although the 'scaling' issues may have to slide, I reckon things would have tied better together if we could at least have seen the brief hint of an 'opposing leg-joint' coming in-and-out-and-in-again added during the approximate 5 seconds of 'prop' footage where Luke swipes upwards with his lightsaber....since the shot seems to show the AT-AT 'lurching forward' in motion slightly, and has matching sound effects already in place....

Great post Imp :) I like the idea…
If I get you well you're postulating that the two joints on this picture are moving nearer and further to one another as the ATAT walks, right?

Unfortunately, as I understand the working of an ATAT, it's not the case…
I think these two joints only rotate on themselves and stays exactly at the place they are in this picture, plus you never see those joints doing the movement you suggest in wider shots. So the forward joint should always be visible in the prop shots with Luke, just like Angel's mockup…

PS: BTW I've posted some ATAT discrepancy stuff  on my thread:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Discussing-about-scales-in-star-wars/post/387107/#TopicPost387107

here's the lighting matter I was talking about:

Both Ady versions feels earlier in the day for me…

In the mockup above I tried to recreate the "evening" look by darkening the image while keeping Luke's face still "visible"

what do you think?

Bingowings said:

I still think your diagrams and silhouettes would make great posters and cover art.

I could see them blown up really huge in a frame on a wall in nerd heaven.

Oh thanks :)

Actually that's exactly what my project was about at the beginning, a big wall art with pretty much what you can see in my sig… ;)

Bingowings said:

I hate to be a git (I hope I'm not) but it's clear all the scales of almost all the vehicles and ships are pretty much mucked up not just between movies but sometimes (as proved) within shots.

So it presents fans, artists and editors with an eye for consistency with either an unshakable headache or an entertaining free canvas to stretch or shrink to the best of their abilities.

The only way to square circles of this kind is to play it by eye.

If it feels right it probably right for you and whatever you do someone will complain because lets face it, we are all nerds (nothing to be ashamed about nerds are often the best people in the universe).

I completely agree with you, but as I stated in my intro:

savmagoett said:
…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)…

…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.

I was a little busy lately (including search and drawing for the next ship I will discuss here) but I'm not giving up and I do hope to find a chart that will please most peoples, future will tell, but I think I can do that…

I think Ady and this guy should have a talk…

And that Luke's rescue clip is awesome, the colors are so right now, it's a huge improvement.

Is anyone feeling the second part (beginning at Obi's apparition) could be darker, as night is meant to be falling?

Aaaah good news here Ady :)

savmagoett said:

Also this shot is odd (thx to Vaderios who pointed this out to me):

The armor plate section is a little too big, the rounded shape Luke is pushing to is two small and the one for the front leg is missing…

A fix by Vaderios (thx Angel)

vaderios said:

…

-Angel

I've decided to put my signature finally. I didn't wanted to start a controversy at first, as there are one mile ISDs in it, but whatever. :p

Something, something, something, Dark Side said:

 In the close-up of Luke, the outline looks a bit larger than him.

Actually this outline was made a lond time ago, to portray Luke ascending the ATAT in my fan project, not for this demo, so the stance is a little different.
But anyway you can see the "pixel Luke" is the same height as the 172cm Lukes I draw, and don't forget you have to consider the blur zone too, I even discarded the Dangling Feet.

Something, something, something, Dark Side said:

Savmagoett, what dimensions did you calculate for the Tydirium? Did you use the ILM version…

…Or the stumpy set version?

<span>Well I didn’t wanted to get onto that in my Tydirium analysis in the first place because the tread is more about the ISD size actually</span> <span>(a least for the moment)</span><span>, but</span> there is indeed shape discrepancy between the set and the model.

Actually I used the shape of the ILM model because I find it more beautiful, I simply rotated the cockpit for the landed version to make it look like the set version (I played around the idea of a droop-nose Concorde like cockpit but in the wrong direction! :p , that could be another fixing matter to add to the ESB/ROTJ whishlist)

Plus i don’t find it really relevant in the size matter. It’s a bit like the differences between ANH ISD and ESB/ROTJ ISDs, there are contradictions between the FXs but it is still the same ship, and because the two shapes aren’t <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>that</span> different, I think we can still size up the Tydirium being <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>roughly</span> 20m long, can’t we?

Z6PO said:

…

The Tech. Coms. on that gushers site has somewhat similar estimates on the AT-AT dimensions.

savmagoett said:

So they say "Long-range views of Luke Skywalker ascending a cable beneath an AT-AT indicate a height of 22.6m", which is not what I calculated, hummm.

My screenshot being taken from the DVD, Luke was about 24px! So I could have been wrong.

To verify my calculation I've replaced it with Angel's HD screenshot (Thx pal!), without changing the scaling I've made, and it turns out I was scaling Luke correctly, what do you think?

I don't know how Curtis Saxton did his calculation, but it seems to me he must have screwed up somehow :p

Z6PO said:

It is Luke Skywalker ascending the cable, but is it Mark Hammil ?  It seems to me that it may be a puppet... So, are we sure the puppet is correctly scaled ?!!

For me that doesn't matter, as I wrote in the intro of the tread:

I don't seek to find out what's wrong or what's right, instead I think each "scale establishing shot" is creating its own reality.

That's my position (BTW guys I'd like to know what do you think of that course of action?)

In this case the movie tells this is Luke ascending an ATAT, so in this picture we can say the shape is 172cm (which is Mark Hamill's height) + the helmet. That's what I've been doing since the beginning. I added the Luke I draw for another SWScale wallpaper and a stormtrooper above, so you can see how "short" Luke is in my drawing.

http://impstherelentless.com/tek9.asp?pg=chapter2

Here you go :)

Z6PO said:

…

The Tech. Coms. on that gushers site has somewhat similar estimates on the AT-AT dimensions.

I've just checked that , and I must admit I haven't read that one, shame shame.

So they say "Long-range views of Luke Skywalker ascending a cable beneath an AT-AT indicate a height of 22.6m", which is not what I calculated, hummm.

As I don't have the movie in HD, could someone post HD version of this shot please?

that would help me verify my statement.

Z6PO said:

Absolutely incredible post ! Great analysis pictures. How did you draw the vehicles outlines ?

 

THX :)

Well being the perfectionist I am, I'm not satisfied with the available blueprints on SW books as sometimes they are wrong, or simply they doesn't exist, so most of the time I draw them myself. To do so I have to recreate a side view with photos of the model or screencaps from the movies, consider perspective effects and other problems such as different existing models for the same ship, and then trace over it like this:

savmagoett said:

Monroville said:

I would love to see the model they used for this shot, much less to see someone do a drawing or mock-up of how the Executor would look from a front "dead-on" angle.

Something like that:

I made this for my fan project about scales, patchworking these pictures.

Other than the Executor I've done it for the regular ISDs, the moon cal ships, the y-wing, the Tydirium shuttle, the Medical Frigate (what a beauty ;) ), the Rebel Transport, etc… And also some background ship such as the ANH(SE) Imperial Landing Craft "Sentinel", the Mos Eisley  Mobquet A-1 Deluxe Floater, Mos Eisley TX-3 Airspeeder, the Dornean Gunship (background ship in battle of Endor).

Here are some examples of what I do (sorry for the low def, photobucket auto resizes them grrr):

Tell me what you think…

Very sorry for your mom Ady, I hope she'll recover quickly.

Don't feel like you have to reply the posts here, I think everyone here understand you have more important matter to attend to. We'll wait for you as long as you need…

Meanwhile I have posted an analysis on my tread that should enlighten the ATAT-Snowspeeder discrepancy in ESB. It's huge so Here's a quote:

…

Below the most obvious scale establishing shot of the At At is portraying a length of about 30 m length (height varying between 24 - 26 m, depending of the stance):

…

The crushing scene however shows an AT-AT foot that would make a 18.5 m AT-AT, not very convincing and inconsistent with all the above said. I'd say it has to be fixed (as said on Ady's tread). (the red lines are the 30m ATAT & the green ones the 18.5m ATAT):

I've made a mockup with a foot scaled up to 140% (to make a 30m length AT-AT).
The original shot:

My mockup:

And here's my conclusion chart:

Give me your thoughts.

Also this shot is odd (thx to Vaderios who pointed this out to me):

The armor plate section is a little too big, the rounded shape Luke is pushing with his foot to is too small and the one for the front leg is missing…

I'll put the capital ships mater on hold for a little while. This time I'll talk about the At-AT vs Snowspeeder as Vaderios pointed out to me that Ady wishes to fix this issue. I hope it will help visualize the matter.

Let's start with the snowspeeder size:
The 1/1 scale set:

The destruction model insert with live actor:

The scaled model used for SFX:

Those three images are pretty consistent with the rest of the snowspeeder shots and are portraying a snowspeeder of approx 5.3m length.

Now the AT-AT.
Below the most obvious scale establishing shot of the At At is portraying a length of about 30 m length (height varying between 24 - 26 m, depending of the stance):

it's consistent with all these shots (red lines are for the 30m ATAT):
(considering the perspective)

(assuming Luke is standing next the furthest foot)

It's working a little less well below but it's not far (red lines are still for the 30m ATAT):

-in this one the windscreen is a little too large:

-in this one the snowspeeder seems a little small to me (actually it's hard to tell given the speed & the moving nature of the shot):



The crushing scene however shows an AT-AT foot that would make a 18.5 m AT-AT, not very convincing and inconsistent with all the above said. I'd say it has to be fixed (as said on Ady's tread). (the red lines are the 30m ATAT & the green ones the 18.5m ATAT):

I've made a mockup with a foot scaled up to 140% (to make a 30m length AT-AT).
The original shot:

My mockup:

And here's my conclusion chart:

Give me your thoughts.

Z6PO said:

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.

tell me about it ;)

That's why I sometimes make use of Mr Saxton analysis, they make so much sense to me, or the incredible cross sections cutaway, very consistent IMHO.

Anyway, no thoughts on the tread guys? I've also change the 1st post to be more an intro…

What do you think?

Monroville said:

I would love to see the model they used for this shot, much less to see someone do a drawing or mock-up of how the Executor would look from a front "dead-on" angle.

Something like that:

I made this for my fan project about scales, patchworking these pictures.

Hi guys, I made this observation:

this shot makes the Blockade Runner look like it's about the size of the Falcon…

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

A simple fix would be to make it passes behind the med frigate:

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? ;)

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?