King Daniel wrote:
Camera tricks don't hold up to analysis, but these large interiors and scaled exteriors have, as I've shown throughout this thread.
All you've shown throughout this thread is the RESULT of lenses making things look bigger than they are. Why can't you understand that? Your "evidence" is completely biased by what you call "camera tricks." Have you ever shopped for a house or apartment online? Have you ever noticed the rooms in the pictures look HUGE compared to how big they are in real life?
In the end, your "analysis" is no different than the one I did, which you subsequently shat all over and mocked. You measure pixels on one object, and compare it to something else to make your point. And, just as you accused me, I shall return the favour: you fail to consider the perspective! At least I was using orthographic projections for my measurements. You're using 2D projections of "3D" scenes and pretending you can correctly guess the depth.
There's some validity to this observation. One of the difficulties on 2010 was determining the actual size of 2001's DISCOVERY sets, due in large part to the use of very wide angle lenses on the 65mm camera. Even with a lot of study by the art department, it seems pretty clear that 2010 messed some of that up pretty badly. For this TREK stuff, if you knew the lens used, you could then extract the distortion from the image and THEN do 2d projections to get an accurate size, but you'd need to know the lens AND be able to extract the distortion, which doesn't seem likely for anybody here.