savmagoett

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?

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…

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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:

 

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 hope this has now put a rest to the great scaling debate ;)

Well, I still have some cards in my game…

At least I'm pleased you're apparently agreeing about the 20 m length Tydirium shuttle :)

I'm aware of that analysis, and I have arguments about that, I was about to come to that later.

But for the rest of your tread I moved the subject and created my own topic here:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Discussing-about-scales-in-star-wars/topic/10969/

Feel free to go there and give your feeling as I make my case :)

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 ;)

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?

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…

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.…

(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”)

All right I'm on it…

Sluggo said:

savmagoett said:

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

 This would be awesome as its own thread over in General Star Wars Discussion.

 

IMHO

Oh, sorry =/ am I going of topic? I would hate to spoil Ady's thread!

I just wish to make my case on the whole star destroyer dimension issue, it shouldn't take more than 4 other posts like this one…

Do you think I should create another tread anyway?

vaderios said:

You dont call it iconic, just "an" establishing shot.

Not suggesting to change. More I  wanted an indication of heights since the bird's eye view shows us nothing. Subconsciously cant work..

 

I checked the size comparison of shuttle and i run it near an SD's bridge. The results were almost identical with ady's. Still want the milelium falcon with a fixed angle when it flybys from needa's bridge...

 

I also run again some bridge shots in 3d of how visible can be the hull from there. Zero for SDs and some hull for executor in ROTJ only.

 

-Angel

I have some arguments about that, but I'll come to it later Angel…

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:

Inside layout consistency:

Conclusion: pretty consistent what do you think?

(I hope I'm not creating any lag with my photos…)

adywan said:

The thing is, they have taken the scale of the Lambda shuttle from the size of it at the opening of ROTJ, and the scale of the falcon when its docked onto the stardestroyer, which is completely the wrong scale, but there is nothing i can do about that. Even the TIEs in the opening of ROTJ are the wrong scale. By that scale the TIEs cockpits are about the same size as about 2 stardestroyer decks. Are the stardestroyers manned by the Borrowers? lol. The Lambda class shuttle should fit easily in a standard Stardestroyer docking bay. Look at the size of the Stardestroyers bridge and then look at the size of the shuttle in that comparison pic you posted and you can see just how wrong the scale is. And don't forget the Tantive IV was originally going to be the Millennium Falcon and most of the so called official scales of that ship are still based on the original scaling. The scale there compared to the shuttle means that there would be no room for all those corridors. They screwed up the scaling of the Tantive IV yet again in ROTS. For the scale of the Lambda class shuttle just look at when Vader or the Emperor exits. You can see the scale of a human against the shuttle. Now compare that to the size of the Stardestroyers bridge in comparison to a human and you can work out the correct scale of the ships that way. So, yes, the Lambda class shuttle is indeed that small so it can fit into the stardestroyers docking bay

And no, i haven't got confused with the Executors docking bay in the ESB SE scenes.

That whole sequence at the beginning of ROTJ:R will be gone so there will be no problem with the scaling when i get to that.

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.…

ImperialFighter said:

Welcome aboard savmagoett.  Interesting 1st post there.

...

I'm curious, are all the Stardestroyers seen in ANH, ESB, and ROTJ meant to be exactly the same size?

Well, (extended universe took aside, Siliconmaster) there are two different complete studio models for the star destroyers, (they builded the second one because they needed a more detailed destroyer model for TESB), and it's true that mostly due to the model making process (involving heavy scratch building) there are some differences between the ships (like the thrusters, the weaponry, or the antenna array), but I don't think it was meant to be another model/class of ship (BTW the same thing happened to the Falcon models).
Of course hard core fans (like wookipedians) wishing to solve the issue created two different class from these different models:
the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer (ex: the "devastator") http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer
the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer (ex: the "Avenger") http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_II-class_Star_Destroyer
but I don't consider that "movie intended".? According to what we see in the movies, you could say the destroyer capturing the Tantive IV, Captain Needa's and the one chasing the Falcon are the same exact ship type and if so  should have the same size. After all for what other reason would the filmmakers show us "almost" identical ships if not to say "these are the same model"?
That's my opinion, what do you think?

adywan said:

doubleofive said:

Is that new shuttle a little on the small side?  Or was Vader's shuttle in RotJ too big?

I'll try to get some comparisons together.

It's the correct scale. Just look at the size of the docking bay compared to the shuttle. Plus in ROTJ the shuttle came out of the front smaller bay not the main one

And, yes, the scale is wrong in ROTJ. It would never have fit in any of the docking bays

Hello Adywan!
I'm sorry if I seem complaining for my first intervention here, but (with all the respect for your wonderful job here) I think the scale in ROTJ is right!
In fact the dimensions of those two ships are quite well established:
A Tydirium shuttle is about 20 m (65 feet) long. You can tell this is right by checking on set scenes with the actors.
A star destroyer is 1.6 km (a mile) long. That can be verified by comparing the blockade runner (150 m (492 feet) long) fitting inside the main bay, and the Falcon (26.7 m (88 feet) long) hiding behind the coning tower. (detailed analysis here: http://www.theforce.net/SWTC/isd.html#dimensions )
Here's a mockup comparing the three ships:

What is wrong is the idea of a Tydirium shuttle fitting into a destroyer's docking bays. You are right Ady, the hangars in the main bay are simply too small for a Lambda shuttle, and the forward bay is not deep enough.
The problem is by the time ILM created the star destroyer for ANH, there were no lambda shuttle created yet. This shuttle was created for ROTJ. So it was never planned for a Lambda shuttle to fit inside a star destroyer. However in ROTJ's opening scene they needed to show Vader's arrival at the new death star, so they cheated a little and we see a lambda shuttle going out of that forward docking bay. I agree it should be impossible, but you can't see how deep is that forward bay from that POV, so it's no big deal.
I understand you want to repair this so that the shuttle can actually fit inside one of the two hangars we see in the main bay.
Maybe you are also mistaken by that scene in TESB (made for the special edition) where we see Vader's Tydirium entering the main hangar of the super star destroyer. But this is the super star destroyer not a regular one.
By changing the scales you make it looks like 3 Blockade runners could fit inside the main bay! Like this:



Are you sure you want to do that, isn't there another solution? Anyway, I personally found the ROTJ opening scene the lesser of two evil. Why not do that?
Or you could make it go from the other side of the bay, the one we don't see from this angle…
What do you think?