The only reason I split up the posts into five is it wouldn't let me post all those images in one post....We know your point of view on everything. You believe your figures and no matter what evidence I show you, you will find flaw in it. I'm posting for people that want to be open minded on the possibility that the stated figures are wrong. Your points are noted.
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
The only reason I split up the posts into five is it wouldn't let me post all those images in one post....We know your point of view on everything. You believe your figures and no matter what evidence I show you, you will find flaw in it. I'm posting for people that want to be open minded on the possibility that the stated figures are wrong. Your points are noted.
You want to be open minded? Try this:
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7041/image3zlz.jpg
[Image converted to link to alleviate horizontal stretching. - M']
Which fits in nicely with this article: http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dir...91&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F
I DO have an open mind, but it's ludicrous to think that the ship is smaller than 700 metres, if anything it's LONGER as shown above.
Next time try and make sure your characters are the right size and not 1.5 times taller than the viewscreen. Little details like that will tend to throw the whole calculation way off.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7041/image3zlz.jpg
[Image converted to link to alleviate horizontal stretching. - M']
Which fits in nicely with this article: http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dir...91&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F
I DO have an open mind, but it's ludicrous to think that the ship is smaller than 700 metres, if anything it's LONGER as shown above.
Next time try and make sure your characters are the right size and not 1.5 times taller than the viewscreen. Little details like that will tend to throw the whole calculation way off.
Last edited by a moderator:
My scaling was initially based on this picture for fun. I scaled the figures based on this picture fully expecting the figures to not match up at all with other parts of the ship. To my surprise they matched up much better than I thought they would. I have diagrams for all the different sizes (including scaling it with the viewscreen) and interestingly they dont match up with what we see in this picture and with others. I'll tell you what, why don't you scale figures against the viewscreen and then compare it with all these other screenshots and show me that they match up.
That's a PERSPECTIVE shot!!!!!
It's impossible to know how far that circled person is away from the hull, or what part of the hull he is standing next to. There's no way he's touching the hull because that would make him roughtly half the size of the entire bridge, which of course is ludicrous.
The ONLY way you can judge, compare and estimate lengths is via a 2D representation of the ship, as above.
It's impossible to know how far that circled person is away from the hull, or what part of the hull he is standing next to. There's no way he's touching the hull because that would make him roughtly half the size of the entire bridge, which of course is ludicrous.
The ONLY way you can judge, compare and estimate lengths is via a 2D representation of the ship, as above.
I scaled it against the two figures standing behind the deflector dish, in front of the torpedo tube, NOT the circled figure. I used this photo because it was the only photo (that was posted by another member) that showed a closer view of the construction scene.
They are located in the same place i put them on this diagram...that is not perspective..
Congratulations, your calculations and scalings are so accurate those people are almost twice the height of the viewscreen.
Well done
Congratulations, your calculations and scalings are so accurate those people are almost twice the height of the viewscreen.
Well done
Nice, Trekbbs, where lifelong friendships are formed. I love you Kpnuts, I mean that
Omega_Glory
Commodore
A 700-something meter or 900-something meter length doesn't match the viewscreen width.
Please explain why you think it doesn't match
Being "open-minded" does not mean accepting flawed data or specious assumptions.
He is right, if you scale up the height of the viewscreen then the aspect ratio gets thrown off. I am of the opinion the ship could be any number of lengths and its possible they showed us different scales in the movie. Every estimate that anybody has put forth on here that used screencaps to make an estimation on the size of the ship could be flawed in any number of ways. But they are what they are, best guesses. I personally dont care what size the ship is. Its all part of the fun trying to gather evidence and make diagrams. If you dont like the diagrams you are entitled to not like them, I dont care
Just because you believe one thing though, does not make your assumptions any more valid than any other piece of evidence presented on this forum. The only way it would is if your name was JJ Abrams.
There is no offense taken, honestly. You are right about the height of the viewscreen. I am not convinced the ship is smaller, I'm just saying it could be, and there's enough evidence to suggest that. There is also evidence to suggest the ship is much larger as well. In all honesty I think its entirely possible that the ship was presented in different scales during the movie. In fact, I'm pretty sure there was an interview with one of the ILM guys in which he said they scaled the ship from 1300 to 2000 feet in the movie.
ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Reinventing-Star-Treks-VFX_10905.html
"Although it stayed true to form, the Enterprise grew from 1300 feet to 2000 feet in length for this film."
Well, at least that confirms the notion that the sizing didn't stay consistent, as we've suspected all along.
Unless he means he thinks the original Enterprise was 1300 feet long...
LOL, that is a possibility! I hope not though, since the original was something like 947 feet!
Well, at least that confirms the notion that the sizing didn't stay consistent, as we've suspected all along.
Unless he means he thinks the original Enterprise was 1300 feet long...
That is how I read his statement. And whether the TOS/TMP ship is 947 or 1000 or 1200 feet or more is a matter of great debate too. And again one of the core problems is the shuttlebay as shown in TOS (although this was fixed in TOS Remastered).
i did. That's how I can tell it's a hook, not a person. The light that pops on is attached to the hook, it's not a welding torch.
So basically we are working against a 40 year history of continuity and sizing errors and we are still attempting to nail down one solid figure for the ship...No offense to anyone that really wants this resolved, but I think in the end we will all have to agree to disagree, because until the manual is written, there really is no solid basis for the size imho.
So, 762 m Enterprise and 450 m Kelvin, you say?
Would anyone care to theorize on whether the Kelvin was the same size in the Prime timeline, and if so, why Starfleet might've shrank their ships by the time the Constitution class was launched?
If they shrank them...
*ominous music*
Two speculations.
First scenario: Despite Kirk's efforts, the Narada DID slip back through the wormhole and ended up in the outskirts of Sol during the Earth Romulan War, just in time to have some opportunistic Romulan general pick up a handful of scraps of useful technology and setting off a chain of events that lead to the eventual redesign of whatever class the Kelvin was (working on a fanfic to this effect).
Second Scenario: It's a reboot, so the original Kelvin never existed in the first place.
I think a very likely scenario is that the makers of the movie designed really cool looking ships that looked about the same size as the old ones and really didn't expect the majority of viewers to notice the difference or even care. I guarantee the average viewer has no idea how big the original Enterprise was. This does seem to be the case among just about everyone, except for us of course
- Status
Similar threads
