Some idiots never learn

[Slartibartfast]

I knew someone would point this thing out from my sentences. What I intended to say was, the movies never gave the length, and so, whatever source below the canon hierarchy that states the length should be taken as real. Basing the length on the models shown in the movie (and not the actual models themselves.) is not a reliable method.

Ah, I see, then the Blockade Runner is bigger than a ISD, right? I mean the model is bigger.

Damn you're dense... let's change your words a bit, without changing your logic, and you'll see how stupid it sounds:

What I intended to say was, the movies never gave the color of Yoda, and so, whatever source below the canon hierarchy that states the color should be taken as real. Basing the color on the puppet shown in the movie is not a reliable method.

So according to you, Yoda is blue, despite that the visual show that he is green, because some lower source says he's blue, and his actual color is never mentioned. Great. Buy yourself a clue.

[vakundok]

Are the ISDs at the appropriate positions to make an accurate measurement of the Star Destroyer? Unless you can very clearly prove that is is at the 'right position', you can't straight away say.

Yes, they are.

The longer line is at an angle of 102.8°. The shorter line is at an angle of 102.4°, for a difference of .4° in terms of orientation. This results in a statistically negligible angle of orientation for the two ships. Ergo, the two ships do appear to be of the proper lengths relative to each other.

To make it quite clear... a .4° difference in orientation would not explain the many hundreds of meters of differential in apparent length that you would have us accept.

NOTE: Upon further review, a .4° differential would also be explained away by a hasty line drawing. Looking at it again, it looks like the further end of the longer line is a tad too low. But the point remains the same... the perspective of the two vessels proves, conclusively, that the two ships are lined up properly

Excuse me, but orientation in 3D space canot be decided from this picture. The same angle can be reached in endless ways.
The only sign of orientation would be the angle between the horizontal line (you drew) and the center line (not the middle line of an angled surface). Sadly we canot see the back of the Executor, so its center line canot be determined.

[Slartibartfast]

Excuse me, but orientation in 3D space canot be decided from this picture. The same angle can be reached in endless ways.
The only sign of orientation would be the angle between the horizontal line (you drew) and the center line (not the middle line of an angled surface). Sadly we canot see the back of the Executor, so its center line canot be determined.

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong. The bottom of the Executor is divided right in the middle by an angle, it's not flat. The shadow gives away very clearly the centerline of the executor. And the red line determining the orientation connects two points of the executor that are at the same Y coordinates relatives to the model's center, and at equal distances from the middle. This means that this line will ALWAYS be lined up with the X axis of the relative plane. Same with the ISD, since both points used are equidistant from the X and Y axis and if you watch the ISD sideways, they will always overlap perfectly.

Therefore, both lines in this image give a perfect indication of the orientation of the ships along the X axis.

If you can't grasp this, then your knowledge of geometry is very limited.

[vakundok]

Excuse me, but orientation in 3D space canot be decided from this picture. The same angle can be reached in endless ways.
The only sign of orientation would be the angle between the horizontal line (you drew) and the center line (not the middle line of an angled surface). Sadly we canot see the back of the Executor, so its center line canot be determined.

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong. The bottom of the Executor is divided right in the middle by an angle, it's not flat. The shadow gives away very clearly the centerline of the executor. And the red line determining the orientation connects two points of the executor that are at the same Y coordinates relatives to the model's center, and at equal distances from the middle. This means that this line will ALWAYS be lined up with the X axis of the relative plane. Same with the ISD, since both points used are equidistant from the X and Y axis and if you watch the ISD sideways, they will always overlap perfectly.

Therefore, both lines in this image give a perfect indication of the orientation of the ships along the X axis.

If you can't grasp this, then your knowledge of geometry is very limited.

My knowledge of geometry can be very limited, so I drew a line on a box. I turned the box horizontally. Of course, the angle of the line changed. Then I turned the box vertically until the angle of the line reached the original. Of course, the line seemed to be shorter, but in the same angle, and the box had totally different position. A single line is not enough. (The most simple experience: Place a box in front of you. Draw a horizontal line on it. Turn the box horizontally. The line still will be horizontal, but the position will be extremely different.)
The shadow only shows the middle of the ventral surface which is (vertically) angled relative to the real centerline of the Executor. (This can be seen from side views.) The red lines SPOOFE drew can be used as Y axises. The X axis of the ISD can be determined using the nose and the center of the middle engine. However I canot determine the X axis of the Executor.

[SPOOFE]

Excuse me, but orientation in 3D space canot be decided from this picture.

Sure it can. Take a drawing class and learn about perspective.

The same angle can be reached in endless ways.

Name them.

[vakundok]

Excuse me, but orientation in 3D space canot be decided from this picture.

Sure it can. Take a drawing class and learn about perspective.

I took. However it was only an engineer class, so my knowledge is limited relative to dedicated "perspective scaling" course.

The same angle can be reached in endless ways.

Name them.

Have you read my reply to Slartibartfast?

My knowledge of geometry can be very limited, so I drew a line on a box. I turned the box horizontally. Of course, the angle of the line changed. Then I turned the box vertically until the angle of the line reached the original. Of course, the line seemed to be shorter, but in the same angle, and the box had totally different position. A single line is not enough. (The most simple experience: Place a box in front of you. Draw a horizontal line on it. Turn the box horizontally. The line still will be horizontal, but the position will be extremely different.)

EDIT: Get a box. Draw a line on it which is parallel with the the bottom edge. Close one of your eyes to avoid stereoscopic view. Place the box in front of your open eye, to see the line as a horizontal one. (The line must be lined up with your eye.) Turn the box horizontally. If you do it correctly you will see that the line is allways horizontal, despite the different orientation of the box.

[SPOOFE]

I took. However it was only an engineer class, so my knowledge is limited relative to dedicated "perspective scaling" course.

That's terrible. You've been sorely deprived.

Have you read my reply to Slartibartfast?

Yup. You mentioned one method, after claiming that there were endless methods.

Get a box. Draw a line on it which is parallel with the the bottom edge. Close one of your eyes to avoid stereoscopic view. Place the box in front of your open eye, to see the line as a horizontal one. (The line must be lined up with your eye.) Turn the box horizontally. If you do it correctly you will see that the line is allways horizontal, despite the different orientation of the box.

Except that method only works if the box is angled in one dimension. The ISD and Executor are properly lined in in all three dimensions, as seen in the picture above, thus invalidating your example.

[SPOOFE]

For ease, I created some really quick visual aids to demonstrate my last point:

Your proposal, vakundok, would have us believe the following to be true with real-life visuals...


As near as I can tell, that's the sort of visual aid you were describing.

The problem with it is that it only works if perspective is "turned off"... the nearer and the further edges of the box appear to be the same distance away. Clearly, this is not what one would see in real life... one would see something more similar to this...


As you can see, the further edges of the box, when rotated, appear to be further away from the viewer than the closer corner of the box... as it SHOULD appear. Moreover, the line that you describe ALSO suffers the effects of perspective... its further ends appear smaller than the nearer corner.

Now, the only way your explanation could work with the ISD against Executor picture referenced above would be if we assume that the ISD is both tilted away from the viewer AND rotated along its lengthwise axis. That would, indeed, result in the similar angles of the lines that I made above. However, that would also have the added effect of making the lengthwise axis of the ISD seriously out of whack with the SSD.

Now, the ISD does appear to be angled down slightly - by a matter of a couple of degrees - so as to avoid actually crashing into the larger ship. However, a couple degrees would NOT - repeat, WOULD NOT - account for a variation of 400 or so meters, which is what you are asking us to accept. Indeed, there would need to be at least a 20 degree difference in orientations between the two vessels to account for any apparent variation that would explain the length discrepancy... and a difference of 20 degrees would be INSTANTLY apparent to even a casual glance. A difference of three or four degrees, however, most certainly would NOT explain the discrepancy.

[vakundok]

I took. However it was only an engineer class, so my knowledge is limited relative to dedicated "perspective scaling" course.

That's terrible. You've been sorely deprived.

Have you read my reply to Slartibartfast?

Yup. You mentioned one method, after claiming that there were endless methods.

I wrote endless ways. One method with infinite number of possible angles (unless you can specify the number of angles within a single degree). How many ways it means?

Get a box. Draw a line on it which is parallel with the the bottom edge. Close one of your eyes to avoid stereoscopic view. Place the box in front of your open eye, to see the line as a horizontal one. (The line must be lined up with your eye.) Turn the box horizontally. If you do it correctly you will see that the line is allways horizontal, despite the different orientation of the box.

Except that method only works if the box is angled in one dimension. The ISD and Executor are properly lined in in all three dimensions, as seen in the picture above, thus invalidating your example.

The box is angled in only one dimension. As I wrote previously it is the simplest experiment to show that becouse we see that one axis is parallel it does not mean that the orientation is the same.
You created a quick visual aid. It was so quick that you missed one of my sentences: "(The line must be lined up with your eye.)" Or my english was so poor that you was unable to understand it. It means that the line must be neither above nor below of your eye, so you will see this:

(The side view is not perspective.)

[Coaan]

Then he did disappear.. It is just not seen on film. If it is not seen on film, the official site has the final say.

Blind as well as stupid?

We saw his ass burn at the end of Rotj. no way did he disappear. look at his suit, for one thing...it was a part of him...for two, had it not been occupied...it would have flattened. Did it?.. Noop. Vader becomes a hotdog and THEN goes up to join casper.

[Cal Wright]

That doesn't change jack shit and you know it. They have a concrete, CONCRETE way of scaling. The fucking bridge towers. They are the EXACT same.

I don't get what you mean. I know they have a concrete way of scaling. But the ones we see on film, are the ISDs lined up perfectly to allow us to measure the length of the SSD?
Oh, 'same' is 'same'. There is no need for the word 'exact'.

They don't just slap shit on the screen jackass, or else things would be out of whack from shot to shot.

According to the OFFICIAL site Vader disappeared upon death. Did you see his wrinkled ass vanish? It was up there.

Then he did disappear.. It is just not seen on film. If it is not seen on film, the official site has the final say. [/quote]

The site is crap. That suit doesn't support itself. He was there and he fucking burned. It's a symbolic meaning with his body burning.

No, it's agreed upon by the official assholes and the rabid EU fans. The ones that want to look like they know everything. Even when it's in front of thier god damned faces.

Let me ask you this: Why would the officials not ask the people from ILM before determining the length? [/quote]

For the same reason they wouldn't watch the god damned movie before making a fuckign assumption. They just take WEGs shit without question. hell they've gone so far as to say the Force has no Light or Dark Side. According to the movies it DOES. Official says the Death Star II is only 160km in lenght. According to ILM modelmakers. hmm, the ones on the official site btw, state they made it to scale to come out as 500miles or 900kms on screen. Get some.

Read the Behind the Scenes part again. It said "The latest measurement peg the craft...." Note I've emphasised on 'measurement'? And read the line following it. It mentions the length of the model version of the SSD. Unless my reading skills are failing, the line is to explain where they got the 'measurement' from.

Like your intelligence, their method is fucked up. It's very god damned clear watching the movies how LONG the fucking ship is!!! I don't get how the can keep muttling the shit. Everyone knows they're wrong. They had the perfect chance to correct this, and instead, they muttled themselves in more bullshit. Apparently your sliding in with them. Here, let me give you a hand.

*boot*

THE MOVIES, AND ONLY THE MOVIES ARE THE HIGHEST FUCKING ORDER OF GOD DAMNED CANON.

I am aware of this, thank you. Oh,

No your not. Your a fucking idiot, and your posts have proved it.

and watch your throat.

Kiss my ass you pansy.

All that shouting will not do you any good.

Of course not, your stupidity is denser than a Berman and Braga meeting.

I knew someone would point this thing out from my sentences. What I intended to say was, the movies never gave the length, and so, whatever source below the canon hierarchy that states the length should be taken as real

.

Visuals over dialogue numb nuts. Figure it out for your self.

Basing the length on the models shown in the movie (and not the actual models themselves.) is not a reliable method.

Only for stupid twits much like yourself. They have this thing they use in movies, it's called SCALE. Hell, I use it when I fucking draw so people stay in the same SCALE even when they are not on the same plane.

Oh I'm sure he did. I'm sure he's the fucking ILM'er who oversees everything. Hey, what does OFFICIAL say about the size of the Death Stars. According to ILM modelers it was built to scale so it would be 500 miles on screen. Round 2.

Where did you get the quote from? Might be outdated.

I think it's both been on the official site, and in the Insider magazine.

The site already said 160KM, I don't think ILM employees will try to say something different.

They probably don't give a flying fuck really. They got paid to do a job back in 1981. That's enough for them.

But I don't think they care, actually.

I should have included that in the other quote.

Oh, the second death star model was 137cm in diameter, as mentioned in Behind the Scenes. I think the length they got on the site was determined by the scale they make the Death Star, and not just speculation.

Oh, and now they suddenly DON"T use speculation. Piss off you ignorant asshat lackey.

[Baron Scarpia]

How do I attach an image? This can settle this debate easily...

[DPDarkPrimus]

How do I attach an image? This can settle this debate easily...

Just save the picture as a JPG, then rename the file extension to a TXT, then upload it on a Geocities acccount and use the [IMG] tag on it.

[SPOOFE]

As I wrote previously it is the simplest experiment to show that becouse we see that one axis is parallel it does not mean that the orientation is the same.

Except, as I already pointed out, more than one axis is parallel (or close enough to parallel to not make any significant difference).

It was so quick that you missed one of my sentences: "(The line must be lined up with your eye.)"

No, I did not miss that. If you'll notice, the line I drew in my aid is perfectly lined up with the eye.

HOWEVER, you're assuming a perfectly one-dimensional line, which simply does not exist anywhere in the image in contention. EVERY lined structure would appear affected by perspective. What I pointed out with my diagram wasn't simply a measuring of the square, but a measuring of the line as well... to wit: The line, at the point closest to the viewer, will appear larger than the points furthest from the viewer, a fact that you haven't taken into account in your diagram.

[Baron Scarpia]

How do I attach an image? This can settle this debate easily...

Just save the picture as a JPG, then rename the file extension to a TXT, then upload it on a Geocities acccount and use the [IMG] tag on it.

Now that's a pain in the butt. Why can't we just attach them like on a normal board?

[KhyronTheBackstabber]

Go here http://www.roadfly.org They have free image hosting.

edit=fixed link

[Emperor Palpatine]

They don't just slap shit on the screen jackass, or else things would be out of whack from shot to shot.

What? Get a translation here, please... If you can't speak properly, don't.

The site is crap. That suit doesn't support itself. He was there and he fucking burned. It's a symbolic meaning with his body burning.

Can you stop with this 'fucking' thing? If you don't know how to use that word, please, don't embarrass yourself. Let me guess... this kid is going to reply with a dictionary definition. I have forseen this... C'mon, do it.
Let me see... if a show said '10 years later', do you think it really is 10 years later? Such things happen off the camera. Same thing about Vader. Happened off the camera.

For the same reason they wouldn't watch the god damned movie before making a fuckign assumption. They just take WEGs shit without question. hell they've gone so far as to say the Force has no Light or Dark Side. According to the movies it DOES. Official says the Death Star II is only 160km in lenght. According to ILM modelmakers. hmm, the ones on the official site btw, state they made it to scale to come out as 500miles or 900kms on screen. Get some.

That my, dear simpleton, is not an assumption. They don't assume the length.
Well, I'll trust you, since the starwars.com site wouldn't work on this computer. But people here don't ask why. They go on with their rattles and rantings and never once question the starwars.com site developers.

Anyway, there's this Visual Guide or something to the crafts of Star Wars. I'm sure they got some ILM designers to tell them (or even draw it themselves) the parts of each ship. The Star Destroyer is 1600KM. The SSD is said to be more than eight times bigger. I'm sure this info might be provided by the guys at ILM, but it might've been gotten from the site. But why the word 'MORE than...'? Why 'more'? They don't trust the site? Or did they get the 'more than' from the staff of ILM themselves? If it isn't, then I'll let the matter rest, because this is a book... and can't compare to the movies.

Like your intelligence, their method is fucked up. It's very god damned clear watching the movies how LONG the fucking ship is!!! I don't get how the can keep muttling the shit. Everyone knows they're wrong. They had the perfect chance to correct this, and instead, they muttled themselves in more bullshit. Apparently your sliding in with them. Here, let me give you a hand.

If my intelligence were, ahem, fucked up, what about yours? Let me see... oh wait. I forgot. You hardly have any trace of it. Ah, words can't define your 'intelligence'.
Watching the movie? Just watching the movie? Ah dah! You expect to just watch and the lengths would come up. What are you typing?
Of course, if you meant 'take the lengths of one ISD and then duplicate it." in your poorly constructed sentence, then you would be more on the mark.

No your not. Your a fucking idiot, and your posts have proved it.

And my post 'I'm perfectly aware of this' has proven I'm aware of it.

Kiss my ass you pansy.

What ass?

Of course not, your stupidity is denser than a Berman and Braga meeting.

Well, sure, I'm stupid. But the First Prize for that 'stupid' award still goes to you. Congrats.

Only for stupid twits much like yourself. They have this thing they use in movies, it's called SCALE. Hell, I use it when I fucking draw so people stay in the same SCALE even when they are not on the same plane.

I know. Of course they need some scale. But is the scaling accurate? That's what I'm saying! Of course I need a plane to be bigger than a human. But is it accurately sized? That is the question for your limited grey cells (if any.).

Oh, and now they suddenly DON"T use speculation. Piss off you ignorant asshat lackey.

When have they ever used speculation? They (according to the words...) clearly based it on the length of the model, since they KNEW the length of the model. Only now, at the end, do you understand???

Emperor D. C. Palpatine

[Darth Fanboy]

The Star Destroyer is 1600KM. The SSD is said to be more than eight times bigger.

1600km? and the SSD is 12800km then?

[vakundok]

Originally you wrote:

The longer line is at an angle of 102.8°. The shorter line is at an angle of 102.4°, for a difference of .4° in terms of orientation. This results in a statistically negligible angle of orientation for the two ships. Ergo, the two ships do appear to be of the proper lengths relative to each other.To make it quite clear... a .4° difference in orientation would not explain the many hundreds of meters of differential in apparent length that you would have us accept.

NOTE: Upon further review, a .4° differential would also be explained away by a hasty line drawing. Looking at it again, it looks like the further end of the longer line is a tad too low. But the point remains the same... the perspective of the two vessels proves, conclusively, that the two ships are lined up properly

And sent me to a drawing class when I said that 3D orientation canot be decided from the picture showing only one axis.
Now you say:

Except, as I already pointed out, more than one axis is parallel (or close enough to parallel to not make any significant difference).

I missed to read from you this: " Basicly, you are right but (while I didn't draw them) more than one axes seem to be near parallel to each other." (Or something similar.) Since now you are using more than one axis, you resolved my problem with your original reasoning.

Unimportant side note:

HOWEVER, you're assuming a perfectly one-dimensional line, which simply does not exist anywhere in the image in contention. EVERY lined structure would appear affected by perspective. What I pointed out with my diagram wasn't simply a measuring of the square, but a measuring of the line as well... to wit: The line, at the point closest to the viewer, will appear larger than the points furthest from the viewer, a fact that you haven't taken into account in your diagram.

Yes, I use one dimensional lines. Mainly because I canot see from any picture if a line which seems to be one pixel wide at a given point is actually 0.50 or 1.49 or exactly 1 pixel wide. And this would be important if I would use lines with more dimensions.
One dimensional lines do not exist in that image? You must be kidding. Any drawn line has a perfectly one dimensional centerline doesn't it?

[Boba Fett]

Really large pic of a SSD. Actually the SSD.

First of all I'd like to clear that I'm not saying that the SSD is smaller than 17.6km.

I think it's quite bigger. At least on this photo.

Is it a real shot from the movie?
It seems to me a crappy montage or just bad work from ILM. Or we have to reconsider our thoughts on the length.

Let's say this pic is real since many of us presented it as a proof.

First let's take a look at those lights...

The port side of the SSD is illuminated just like the ISDs below.
The funny thing is that the ISDs are heading in the opposite direction.
Also the color of the light is totally different. The ISDs are illuminated in "yellow" color while the SSD seems to be illuminated in "colorless", white light.

The upper ISD is illuminated with the same "yellow" light but on the starboard side and it's heading the same direction as the SSD.

If I base my opinion on the fact that all 3 ISDs are illuminated with the same light and it's not the same light that illuminates the SSD then I must say the lights coming from separate sources.
That means, both the upper and the lower ISDs are closer to the camera then the SSD itself and even the lower and smaller ISD is far away from the SSD.

On the other hand -if those above are all true- then the SSD doesn't have standard KDY superstructure (command tower).
Watch the picture. The farest ISD -the tiny one below- has almost as big tower as the SSD but since it's closer the SSD must have a huge tower.
That contradicts the scene when the fighters attack the Executor's sensor dome...or whatever it is! (Please DON'T POST IT'S SHIELD GLOBES!, this topic is not for this.)

Now take a measure. The measurable part of the SSD is approx.: 44.3cm

Let's say the total length is 46cm and I'M VERY GENEROUS NOW!

Now measure the smaller ISD below, it's approx.: 2cm with the engine glow.

Assuming all, according to my theory the SSD seems to me approximately 36.8 km long ON THIS PICTURE!

Since it's TOOO big and this size contradicts several other scenes I rather say this shot is useless or I'm totally wrong.

That's all.

Feel free to criticize, correct or analyze my theory.

Any thoughts?

PS: Sorry about the huge picture...

EDIT:: Fixed the picture as a url, otherwise it screws up formatting. ~ Crown

[Baron Scarpia]

With the remastering of ESB, the light differentiation is not so dramatic:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/tesb/fleet03.jpg

[SPOOFE]

Vakundok...

I missed to read from you this: " Basicly, you are right but (while I didn't draw them) more than one axes seem to be near parallel to each other." (Or something similar.) Since now you are using more than one axis, you resolved my problem with your original reasoning.

Then the fault was mine for failing to make myself clear, and I apologize. I'm glad that we were able to get that resolved.

Boba Fett...

The port side of the SSD is illuminated just like the ISDs below.

It doesn't look like that to me. Remember, ISD's are almost white (as witnessed in ANH)... the color in the picture looks a ruddy tan. And the SSD is a dark grey-ish blue. The two faces pointed towards the audience seem to be appropriately shadowed... the problem, it seems, comes from the fact that the underside of an ISD is more steeply angled than an SSD, allowing us to see the far surface of the SSD (which appears very bright) but not the ISD (so we can't tell how bright it would appear).

[Baron Scarpia]

Tastefully dressed link

Okay the above pic should settle any arguments. This is perhaps the clearest indication we have of the true dimensions of the Exector. The ISD I have duplicated in the orginal shot is clearly in front of the Executor, and its bridge tower is of such near-identical size that we have to conclude it is right alongside the SSD.

Now, as this makes obvious, the main section of the Executor's hull alone, minus the indented tail section, is as long as NINE ISDs. If an ISD is 1.6 km, as is generally accepted, then this main section is already 14.4 km long. We can make a conservative estimate based on observation in the films that the rear section is at least as long as two ISDs (it is unfortunately obscured here, and the Executor is receding into the distance, making a side-by-side comparison impossible). That gives the Executor a minimal length of 17.6 km, and assures there is NO way it could ever be 12.8 km.

Watch it with those big pics- not everyone has broadband- Vympel

[Darth Fanboy]

thats a pretty good shot there, but I sort of like the 1600km idea mentioned earlier.

[Kintaro]

Baron Scarpia, I know you're trying to help (thank you, BTW), but those people still won't get it; they're just too dense. I suppose if a math book said if 2+2=3, they would just accept it.