Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[buzzknox]

Who's butthole is that? Certainly not mine, for it is safely secured in my bottom.

The butthole changes sizes in different scenes. Clearly a VFX error.

If you use the same methodology used throughout this thread (evaluating size based on other objects, debating interior versus exterior dimensions, etc), this won't end well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I can't help that I'm so anal about size comparisons.

Now all I need is to find that screencap that shows 24 shuttlecraft parked in JuanBolio's butthole.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Perhaps we should pull the buttplug on that discussion.

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

Who's butthole is that? Certainly not mine, for it is safely secured in my bottom.

The butthole changes sizes in different scenes. Clearly a VFX error.

Or possibly a continence problem. Or would that be an incontinence problem?

 

[Omega_Glory]

Is there any backstage info on the measurements of the viewscreen? I know there is a website that estimates them, but solid measurements would allowone to figure out the ships size pretty much exactly.

Well, based on an estimate of the window size at 6 to 8 feet high, I came up with a measurement of 710 to 760 meters. But that was 40 pages ago, when anybody still cared about that sort of thing.

Yea I know there are a lot of estimates, but I was wondering about measurements taken directly from the bridge set. Also, the width of the screen across the surface would be longer than the width of the frame seen from in front of the ship..due to the curvature of the surface.

Set measurements would put this dog to bed.

 

[buzzknox]

Nothing will put this to bed. If the powers that be declared tomorrow that the NuEnt was X feet long and not an inch shorter (or longer), the battle would continue as one side said that was stupid, and the other side said it was canon. There's more personality and bias involved than actual discussion by this point.

 

[aristotle9]

The perspective is skewing your scaling. The shuttle is far behind the Enterprise in the first shot.

Its hard to tell where the shuttles are located but you may be totally correct. So I redid it using an image with less perspective issues.
The image of the shuttle entering the bay provides something much more comperable.

As you can see, when the shuttle gets close, the top of the bay disappears so I had to take a guess, but it appears the bay is about 12 times the height of the shuttle.

That puts the ship at 492 times the hieght of the shuttle, which makes it larger than my original calculations. Even if you assume I got the curve of the bay wrong and the bay is only 11 times the height of the shuttle, that still makes the ship 451 times the shuttle, again bigger than my original estimate. Or 10 times the height of the shuttle gets you 410. I dont see how we get around this being at least 700 meters and more likely greater than 1000 meters since one would assume the shuttle to be just over 2 meters high. I can see someone making the argument that 800 meters is too small, but saying it is way too large, or trying to say the ship is TOS sized, is silly. This ship is massive. Considering some of the other scale up or scale down factors in other scenes, I am thinking the 700-800 meter range is what is intended, as stated in other posts.

 

[SonicRanger]

That side view is some fan creation that is all wrong -- it really can't be used reliably.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Indeed. This interview with Church has a few renders, that seem to be supplied by Church himself. Perhaps those are a better way of determining things, though they are not ortographic:

 

[JuanBolio]

How about the fact that, in the REAL WORLD, aerospace engineers don't build new aircraft out of kitbashes? Things look similar because they are designed for a similar purpose, not because someone literally took parts from another design, slightly tinkered with them and then stuck em on a new design.

What we DO have in aerospace is upgrades (the various knockoffs of the Mig-21 produced by China) upscales (the Mitsubishi F-2, which is pretty much a giant F-16) and modifications (the difference between the Hornet and the Superhornet). You can't estimate the size of any of these aircraft by comparing their parts to similar aircraft, and the same is probably true of starships.

We're not dealing with the REAL WORLD, we're dealing with the Star Trek universe as created by a special effects company. Every ship I saw leaving spacedock other than the Enterprise was clearly a Kelvin kitbash. No doubt about it whatsoever. And in the Trek 'verse, kitbashes ARE indicative of relative size.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

And in the Trek 'verse, kitbashes ARE indicative of relative size.

Nah, that's the old trek 'verse. In the new one, there are no kitbashes.

 

[JuanBolio]

And in the Trek 'verse, kitbashes ARE indicative of relative size.

Nah, that's the old trek 'verse. In the new one, there are no kitbashes.

I can pull things out of my ass, too. Look! A piece of corn!

 

[SonicRanger]

...And in the Trek 'verse, kitbashes ARE indicative of relative size.

Actually, no. Traditionally "kitbashes" in the Trek 'verse really are just that, and the modelmakers combined, for instance, Excelsior saucers and Connie nacelles that, based on the original starships, have the wrong scale relative to one another.

Examples here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ds9tm.htm

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We're not dealing with the REAL WORLD

We're dealing with something that is SUPPOSED TO BE the real world. Enterprise and Kelvin were modeled as starships, not children's toys.

Every ship I saw leaving spacedock other than the Enterprise was clearly a Kelvin kitbash.

I saw nothing of the sort, especially considering the twin facts that none of the parts on those ships were visible in other ships, AND the fact that "kitbashing" is something done with models, not CGI.

 

[JuanBolio]

We're not dealing with the REAL WORLD

We're dealing with something that is SUPPOSED TO BE the real world. Enterprise and Kelvin were modeled as starships, not children's toys.

Every ship I saw leaving spacedock other than the Enterprise was clearly a Kelvin kitbash.

I saw nothing of the sort, especially considering the twin facts that none of the parts on those ships were visible in other ships, AND the fact that "kitbashing" is something done with models, not CGI.

Very well - what, specifically, differentiates the classes of ships from each other to such a degree that they cannot be Kelvin kitbashes?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

And in the Trek 'verse, kitbashes ARE indicative of relative size.

Nah, that's the old trek 'verse. In the new one, there are no kitbashes.

I can pull things out of my ass, too. Look! A piece of corn!

I never put stuff in there, but if you enjoy it, why not? It's a free world. Have fun with your corn!

 

[JuanBolio]

Nah, that's the old trek 'verse. In the new one, there are no kitbashes.

I can pull things out of my ass, too. Look! A piece of corn!

I never put stuff in there, but if you enjoy it, why not? It's a free world. Have fun with your corn!

I have a magic anus. I put things in my mouth and they come out down there!

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I can pull things out of my ass, too. Look! A piece of corn!

I never put stuff in there, but if you enjoy it, why not? It's a free world. Have fun with your corn!

I have a magic anus. I put things in my mouth and they come out down there!

In whole pieces? You should have your digestion system looked at; it's supposed to actually digest the stuff.

 

[M'Sharak]

Christ, we're back to buttholes again. I wonder about you guys...

 

[JuanBolio]

I never put stuff in there, but if you enjoy it, why not? It's a free world. Have fun with your corn!

I have a magic anus. I put things in my mouth and they come out down there!

In whole pieces? You should have your digestion system looked at; it's supposed to actually digest the stuff.

No, no. Corn is well known for going through intact.