TF.net Morons To "Disprove" Scaling in Space

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-25 05:25pm

Idiot expects me to disprove his claims and implications that movie scaling is not accurate.

http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=2

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-25 05:38pm

If he made the claim he's the one who has to back it up. I dont see why you aste your time there however.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-25 05:44pm

Kier Nimmion wrote:I think it's laughable and absurd that anyone would think they could take accurate measurements of anything off a TV/movie screen. It's exactly like showing someone a picture of two asteroids in space and asking how long or wide each one is. Since the camera lens is subjective, one has no idea the factors involved are- like how far away the camera is from the objects, whether or not both objects are same distance from the camera.

And he expects me to disprove all of that by independently doing all the scaling Saxton did over again. He's accusing Saxton's methods of being flawed but won't specify exactly how. I pointed this out and he said this.

Kier Nimmion wrote:Hey Bob, put your money where your mouth is. You've shot it off enough on scaling from pictures and how you know how to do it, well, show us all how to scale. Show us your big scaling brain in action, show all required equations and explain them in small words for us dummies who skipped Scaling 102 in university for more relavent topics, like basket weaving and cheese making.

Idiots.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-25 11:07pm

http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=3

They're going to "prove" scaling in space is impossible.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-03-25 11:30pm

Always fun to watch the mediocre try to tear down the elite.

The scaling of the ESSD is partly based upon the size of the command tower, which we know to be the same as on the ISD. THerefor it woudl not be changed by distances relative to the screen with other ships. Game, set, match, they loose, anyone feel like going to Baker's Square for pie to celebrate?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-25 11:39pm

Ender wrote:Always fun to watch the mediocre try to tear down the elite.

You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?

Even better is his concession without saying it.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-03-25 11:41pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=3

They're going to "prove" scaling in space is impossible.

How do they put their shoes on if they're that stupid...

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-03-25 11:42pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Ender wrote:Always fun to watch the mediocre try to tear down the elite.
You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?

Of course. I hold Darkstar in higher regard then I do those fuckwits.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-03-26 12:53am

Ender wrote:Of course. I hold Darkstar in higher regard then I do those fuckwits.

Thats pretty damn low.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 01:56am

Oh yes, Darkstar is superior to all those ... 'lifeforms' on TFN. They're just a bunch of rabid official is better than canon fanboyz.

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-26 03:20am

I cannot fathom why you even bother opening the page to that place. I was going to try once, and luckily ran into Sueprshadow on the opening salvo and knew it's depths were further than even Hell itself. There is absolutely NO point. Unless your like one of this sicko stalker type people, just a different breed who gets kicks out of squashing roaches, I just don't see it. Besides, everyone knows you take a rusty ruler you've chewed on, and measure on 13" black white televisions for scaling.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-03-26 04:26pm

What we need to do it get them to "accidently" go to war with ASVS like SB and Wes Hutchings once did.

Now THAT would be entertainment.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-03-26 04:31pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You mean Kier and company, who are totally used to absurd "debating" trying to break down Saxton's calcs?

Kier? From SB?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-26 04:59pm

Kier Nimmion.

Anti-Zahn, pro-Anderson rabid "spirit of story over things making fucking sense" idiot.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-26 05:05pm

Chocobo wrote:Well, the site talks about how it would be easier to measure distances and size based off of if you knew the size of both objects. But it also discusses without atmosphere, parallax effects objects and distorts the distance in images as well.

This is an even a worse problem, if you look at the depth of perception information with monocular images(2-d image; 1 eye) where one isn't given the alternate view of the picture(second eye). two monucular images, the way eyes see images when looking at something that is physically 3-d, would compose a 3-d image where one could tell actual distances between objects. Without that key information one is only getting partial information, and not enough to make actual judgements, but rather working with just perceptional optical illusions. Also note that parallax is stated to be an issue in depth of perception on that page as well.

Also notice that lack of haze in an atmosphere makes an object appear closer than it actually is;

"Mountains are perceived to be closer when the atmosphere is clear."

So with no atmosphere may make objects appear closer to other objects than they actually are.

So there are a variety of things that could cause optical illusions as to what the actual size may be. It could be larger than it looks in the movie, or other factors make it appear to be larger than it actually is.

Anyone want to tear this apart?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-03-26 05:50pm

Kier "fuckwit" Nimmion wrote:I already have a letter into NASA for this topic and a request for information and reference sources, plus I'll read what Chocobo has provided. I may hit JPL and some imaging companies as well.

Why does it seem that morons often drag NASA in to every arqument? Is there some special "Debating for Retards" book out there claiming that mentioning NASA will give credibility to an arqument?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-03-26 06:10pm

Why don't these mentally impaired people just go back to eating from a trough...

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-03-26 10:51pm

I don't care if he digs up his ass with his thumb to come up with an answer, just because NASA snuffs at him, doesn't mean jack shit. Hell, I live in a town that not only depends and thrives on engineering and science, but is practically dominated by the professions and NASA is a chief reason. Does that give me credibillity. However, KJA's spirit is fucking horriable. There is no true spirit. There is no adventure, or excitement, it's just a bunch non sense. If there's actually going to be rebuttals the crap being churned out over there, we need to make a concerted effort.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-27 10:51am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Kier Nimmion.

Anti-Zahn, pro-Anderson rabid "spirit of story over things making fucking sense" idiot.

WTF? I can see being anti-Zahn and anti-KJA (and not neccessarily a purist, either), but anti-Zahn and pro-KJA??

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-27 03:02pm

There's a large contingent of pro-KJA, anti-Zahn whackos at TF.net.

They're pretty much led by Kier Nimmion and Genghis12 (or Jackass12 as he is sometime colloquially known

). They praise KJA as "better understanding and expanding" on Lucas' style SW, and draw comparisons between it and KJA SW. They hate Zahn for one-upping Marvel and trying to suppress DE and for not writing "Lucas-style SW" which they say KJA produced.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-27 03:34pm

Kier Nimmion wrote:I think it's laughable and absurd that anyone would think they could take accurate measurements of anything off a TV/movie screen. It's exactly like showing someone a picture of two asteroids in space and asking how long or wide each one is. Since the camera lens is subjective, one has no idea the factors involved are- like how far away the camera is from the objects, whether or not both objects are same distance from the camera.

The fields of astrophysics and astronomy are based on extrapolating 3-dimensional data from 2-dimensional photographs. Curtis Saxton is (get ready for this) an astrophysicist.

Hey Bob, put your money where your mouth is. You've shot it off enough on scaling from pictures and how you know how to do it, well, show us all how to scale. Show us your big scaling brain in action, show all required equations and explain them in small words for us dummies who skipped Scaling 102 in university for more relavent topics, like basket weaving and cheese making.

Tell this asshole to take an observational astronomy course sometime.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, scaling isn't a university-level concept; it's middle-school mathematics. If 1 cm on this graph represents 1 km, how many centimeters represent 2 kilometers? All you have to do is determine a coordinate transformation and you can get a good approximation of the object's actual length.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-03-27 04:18pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11007000&page=3

They're going to "prove" scaling in space is impossible.
How do they put their shoes on if they're that stupid...

Actually, they wear booties, and the attendants help put them on... what's more shocking is that they are able to type at all.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-27 04:22pm

Durandal wrote:EDIT: Oh, and by the way, scaling isn't a university-level concept; it's middle-school mathematics. If 1 cm on this graph represents 1 km, how many centimeters represent 2 kilometers? All you have to do is determine a coordinate transformation and you can get a good approximation of the object's actual length.

Yes I know. I could do a mediocre job scaling but a) I don't need to be wasting my spring break on these morons, and b) I wasn't going to let them get away with putting the burden of proof on me.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-03-27 04:26pm

So with no atmosphere may make objects appear closer to other objects than they actually are.

So there are a variety of things that could cause optical illusions as to what the actual size may be. It could be larger than it looks in the movie, or other factors make it appear to be larger than it actually is.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#illustrations

Look at the last two pictures that have this caption: "At the gathering of Lord Vader's fleet at the start of The Empire Strikes Back, a comparatively tiny destroyer moves into the shadow of the awesome Executor."

We see an ISD in front of the Executor. This means that a comparison between the two will show the Executor as smaller than it actually is. There is no room to say that the Executor looks larger than it is in this scene, because we know the ISD is in front, and thus appears slightly larger than it would if placed right beside the larger ship.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-27 06:58pm

The http://www. theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/at/anoat2-at.jpg picture may be useful also, as it has one ISD closer than the SSD (it obscures part of the SSD, proving it's closer to the camera), and another ISD closer to the SSD, though it cannot be "proven" whether it's closer, same distance, or farther from the lens than the SSD. Logically, it would be farther, given that they appear to be in a screening formation. Thus, we could definitely measure pixels on the first ISD and find the multiplier on it; that's the MINIMUM multiplier to use on the SSD, while the other ISD is useless unless we assume equidistance. If we make that assumption, than we measure its pixels also, find the multiplier, and average them, using that number to multiply the SSDs size.

http://www. theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/at/needa-at.jpg : this picture shows a shadow being cast on the Executor by the further ISD. Unfortunately, we don't see the entire ship.