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.
. Establishing deck height, which matches the bridge, the rest of the windows, the torpedo launcher, the shuttlebay etc etc etc. While I respect that wide-angle lenses can make things look bigger than they are, these are not camera tricks. You yourself admitted earlier that the shuttlebay and bridge at the very least would have to be ignored in order to fit what we've seen into a ship less than 725m in length.
You're also again ignoring the shuttle size, and that it would be physically impossible to fit the rows of 12m shuttles in a shuttlebay thay would be just 17m wide.