Revised Death Star I Scaling

[Jedi Master Spock]

I think a much more important point here is that it quite effectively casts serious doubt on the Saxtonian estimates for a 160 and 900 km DS1 and 2 respectively, if the upper limit for a DS1 can only be around 140 km.
-Mike

Well, the evidence Saxton presents casts doubt on his suggested figures, frankly, but yes, that scaling does as well. However, I think his scalings can be useful, even if they are less precise:

Let's go through his scalings, shall we?

Polar trench (Rebel diagram, onscreen numbers without units):

Highest distance indicator seen on a Rebel screen: 32600. This, he concludes, is less than 2/3 of the length of the Rebel's trip, which he claims must be 1/12th to 1/8th the circumference of the Death Star. His conclusion: 157.5 +/-27.5 km.

Reasons for doubt: That latter claim is not necessarily that well founded from what I see; it could easily be off somewhat. It is also not quite certain that the apparent "32600" figure is a measure in meters - or that the trench is a perfectly longitudinal shot up the Death Star, or that the Rebel diagram is exactly to scale.

Trench diameter (Rebel diagram)

On the basis of magnification sequences, Saxton concludes that the ratio of trench width is "at least" 1:2207. He takes the trench diameter to be 59 +/- 17 m based on the proportions seen in the Rebel diagram. His conclusion: 131 +/- 38 km.

Reasons for doubt: Again, the Rebel diagram may not be precisely to scale. Additionally, the magnification process is not assigned a margin of error (which is probably large enough to make a difference, even with the trench being so poorly measured).

Blueprints: 67.375 km, which he suggests really mean 222 km.

ICS: 160 km, which he suggests is low.

Bantha Tracks (interview with SFX): 164 km.

Now, there are two potential conundrums as far as how we should treat all these scalings. First, what's the appropriate margin of error to assign to the Rebel diagram in relation to the finished product - i.e., how accurate are its proportions expected to be? Second - if we are to consider the assorted EU and backstage figures - what margin of error should be assigned to stated "exact" figures?

Well, we actually do have a method - although I'll tell you bluntly this would be greatly improved through the use of higher resolution figures: Compare the dish size to the overall diameter.

So far as I can tell from the 800 px wide shots on SWTC, the portions of Dodonna's briefing leading up to all the information Saxton uses show a dish 10-15% too large so far as I can tell. (Pixel rounding and JPEG compression play heavily in the width of this margin, and a much more secure figure could be gotten by using high-resolution DVD screencaps.)

It is therefore reasonable to assume, that the transition from the Rebel briefing diagram to the actual Death Star gives us the features to only within a 15% MOE, that our four measurements from the film are, appropriately speaking (reporting too many significant figures for the sake of calculation, as usual for this sort of thing):

157.5 +/- 36.25 km (23% MOE)
131 +/- 42.75 km (33% MOE)
124.4 +/- 25.3 km (20% MOE)
135 +/- 21.3 km (16% MOE)

When we have figures with MOEs that vary this widely, it's appropriate to perform a weighted average. Traditionally, the weight chosen is proportional to the inverse square of the MOEs - which tell us that, considering all sources of errors, Saxton's measurements don't contribute

Taking all four measurements into account, the best guess is 134 km diameter (124 km height, 131 average dimension if we're approximating it as a sphere for whatever reason); the first pair alone would give 139 km, while the second pair gives 131 km.

Given the sort of MOEs we're talking about, this would strongly suggest the best value to report for the overall diameter of the Death Star is 130 km. Claiming anything more precise is silly, and we'd be pushing it if we claimed the measurements didn't allow for a possible (if less likely) 140 km or 120 km diameter.

[Mike DiCenso]

The 900 km wide DS2... that needs its own thread.

I have a few things to say there. Anyone feeling like opening a new thread?

Maybe it already exists in fact.

I think that was also addressed on the old Strek forum as well, but if you think you have any insights into the second Death Star, then by all means share them. :-)
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

I figured, since I already got involved into the "Comments on Vaporizing a small town" thread, I might as well post some thoughts here since the thread already mentioned me.

IIRC, back when I pointed out the math error, I also pointed out that the scene in which Falcon enters the hangar, and which Darkstar uses to obtain hangar height, is not at all reliable.

There is no way to determine here just where, in relation to hangar doors, the Falcon is. Is it still outside hangar? Has it entered the hangar? What is the distance between the camera and Falcon as opposed to camera and hangar doors? This will have great impacts on scaling as you can easily find out by walking to a window, holding a fist in front of you and then slowly moving your fist towards your head. You'll notice that fist becomes much larger until it ultimately fills the entire window.


Now notice the following image also provided by Darkstar on the page:

Now in this image Falcon is flying straight to the hangar on a trajectory parallel to the camera. Hangar and Falcon are equally distant from the camera (Falcon might be a little closer) and we know that there won't be any large perspective distortion.
Measuring this image I found that hangar height (the farthest edge) is 54px while Falcon's cockpit is no more than 6px in height. Internal shots of crew in cockpit dictate that it must be no less than 3m tall owing to significant headroom the crew enjoyed as well as floor padding.
Thus we can determine that hangar doors are actually 27m tall thus bumping up Darkstar's measured Death Star diameter to 178km.

[Kazeite]

There is no way to determine here just where, in relation to hangar doors, the Falcon is.

There is, if you actually watch the movie :)

[l33telboi]

Since i haven't really given much effort on the whole ST vs SW thing on this forum yet, i might as well try my hand at it, just to see if i'm rusty.

There is no way to determine here just where, in relation to hangar doors, the Falcon is.

Sure you can. There are even quite a few different ways to determine whether your shot or the other one is more accurate.

You can start by just looking at the scene as the Falcon enters the hangar, notice how as it crosses a certain point it gets illuminated quite a bit (with a definite border in the darker and lighter light)? Where could that light have come from you suppose? The lights surrounding the hangar bay on the inside, perhaps?

Second, you could look at the scene where they depart the hangar, the same size as in the original picture is show there. And given the close proximity the Falcon is parked in relation to the hangar bay door, and the speed at which Han is backing up, it would have to crossing the threshold when we get a fron view of it.

Third, you could look at the falcon sitting inside the hangar and realize that the size there has it nearly as wide at the hangar opening itself. If your picture was accurate, then it would indeed be a lot smaller.

But if you want to use an outside view as reference, why not use the scene just previous to the other screencap of an outside view, showing the hangar bay doors in the same size category as in the other incidents?

Darkstar's

It quite interesting to note how you keep refering to him as Darkstar, although he hasn't used that name in a long long time, and most certainly not on this board.

[Mr. Oragahn]

We know the ship's already penetrated the hangar, as the brightness of the hull definitively changes.

On the second shot, you see that the neon threshold is almost invisible from the outside, it shows that the MF was already partially or near totally inside the hangar.

Looking at the video is better, because it's hard to see it from stills, but you clearly see on the video the white glow washing over the hull as the ship advances.

You see the mandibles getting significantly whiter, and by the time the camera cuts, the cockipit already is inside the hangar.

EDIT: ah, just l33telboi's point. :)

[Kane Starkiller]

You can start by just looking at the scene as the Falcon enters the hangar, notice how as it crosses a certain point it gets illuminated quite a bit (with a definite border in the darker and lighter light)? Where could that light have come from you suppose? The lights surrounding the hangar bay on the inside, perhaps?

Second, you could look at the scene where they depart the hangar, the same size as in the original picture is show there. And given the close proximity the Falcon is parked in relation to the hangar bay door, and the speed at which Han is backing up, it would have to crossing the threshold when we get a fron view of it.

How does this prove it was outside the hangar? The Falcon could've easily be inside the hangar and then pass under stronger set of lights within the hangar itself. The very fact that hangar bay doors in my scaling looks bigger (even with Falcon being slightly closer to camera) certainly points to perspective distortion in Darkstar's scaling wouldn't you say?
So either one of the scenes is contradictory or there is a perspective issue with scene Darkstar used. Under Suspension of disbelief it is clear which is the preferred option.

Third, you could look at the falcon sitting inside the hangar and realize that the size there has it nearly as wide at the hangar opening itself. If your picture was accurate, then it would indeed be a lot smaller.

Not only are great perspective issues in the internal scenes due to hard angles but the scale itself is off since Stormtroopers appear much bigger next to the Falcon making it look much smaller than what internal cockpit shots dictate.

But if you want to use an outside view as reference, why not use the scene just previous to the other screencap of an outside view, showing the hangar bay doors in the same size category as in the other incidents?

Because in that shot Falcon is still much closer to the camera than the hangar bay thus Falcon will appear much larger.

It quite interesting to note how you keep refering to him as Darkstar, although he hasn't used that name in a long long time, and most certainly not on this board.

Darkstar, 2046, Guardian2000 who cares? They were all handles of the same person.

[l33telboi]

The Falcon could've easily be inside the hangar and then pass under stronger set of lights within the hangar itself.

We see a view of it sitting inside the hangar bay, there's almost no room behind it and the exit of the hangar bay, ergo it couldn't have been travelling all that far after it entered the hangar bay. It moves a full ship length after it crosses the light/dark barrier. If those were other lights (which you've given no evidence for) then they would have to be very close to the exit. In other words, that unfounded assumption wouldn't change anything.

And as it is, we know there's a frame of extremely bright lights just on the inside of the hangar. Logically they'd light up anything within their LOS, and as it is, we do see something lighting up the Falcon. The picture is quite clear for those who don't want to get the highest possible figure through any means necessary.

Also, you might want to adress the other point. The one you just tried to skip. The Falcon is also seen exiting the hangar bay. Given the close proximity of the Falcon to the edge and Han backing up, it would be just on the border of the Hangar opening when it cuts to a forward view. And lo, for it's once again the same size.

The very fact that hangar bay doors in my scaling looks bigger (even with Falcon being slightly closer to camera) certainly points to perspective distortion in Darkstar's scaling wouldn't you say?

Sorry, if there are two contradicting scenes, then you can't arbitrarily choose one to override another. Even less so when there are more scenes showing 'Darkstar's' figures are the correct ones rather then yours.

So either one of the scenes is contradictory or there is a perspective issue with scene Darkstar used. Under Suspension of disbelief it is clear which is the preferred option.

And we know the scene you used is contradicted on four accounts, and not all of them (none actually), can be chalked up to perspective issue, unless you assume completly rediculous things (Like the Falcon scaling being 'off' when it sits in the hangar, which would also break SoD).

Not only are great perspective issues in the internal scenes due to hard angles

Not for those people posessing eyes and not trying to get a figure as high as possible. I'm afraid just looking at that scene tells us everything we need to know.

Let me give you some free advice.

Basically, i can see how these kinds of things fly on sites where the majority are ready to toss out a few bits of canon here and there in favor of bigger numbers. But i'm afraid this isn't one of those sites, so it's not going to pass.

...Of course, you already know that, and we both know what's happening here, right? You will run back to SDN, claim that the 'Trekkies' on SFJ couldn't be reasoned with and then say people claimed stuff they didn't to make things appear worse then they are (basically one giant strawman rant). Mee-tooters will join in and then you'll have another jolly thread that talks about stuff that only exists in your head.

But ack, for i'm getting off topic.

but the scale itself is off since Stormtroopers appear much bigger next to the Falcon making it look much smaller than what internal cockpit shots dictate.

Scaling can't be off unless you want to break SoD. And i do believe you were just trying to say we aren't supposed to do this. We see the Falcon, we see the exit of the hangar bay. The size of the Falcon in that shot is the same as the shot when it enters.

One plus one equals...?

Because in that shot Falcon is still much closer to the camera than the hangar bay thus Falcon will appear much larger.

The falcon seems to be moving directly towards the right as it doesn't shrink, change size, or... well, anything... which would indicate both the opening and Falcon are on the same 'plain'.

Darkstar, 2046, Guardian2000 who cares?

Apparently you do. Which is what i find quite funny. Can you figure out why?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Look what happens when Vader's TIE wing exits a hangar bay. They instantly become darker within two frames.

Really, looking at the video would settle this fast. Nothing strictly outside of the hangar can be lit by the neon located inside, as simple as that.

By the time the camera cuts, the Millenium Falcon's cockpit is largely inside the hangar.

[Kane Starkiller]

We see a view of it sitting inside the hangar bay, there's almost no room behind it and the exit of the hangar bay, ergo it couldn't have been travelling all that far after it entered the hangar bay. It moves a full ship length after it crosses the light/dark barrier. If those were other lights (which you've given no evidence for) then they would have to be very close to the exit. In other words, that unfounded assumption wouldn't change anything.

Who said it needed to travel "far"? It is enough that falcon be closer to the camera than the edge of the hangar bay to lead to perspective distortion of making Falcon appear bigger.

And as it is, we know there's a frame of extremely bright lights just on the inside of the hangar. Logically they'd light up anything within their LOS, and as it is, we do see something lighting up the Falcon. The picture is quite clear for those who don't want to get the highest possible figure through any means necessary.

Already trying to poison the well by assigning nefarious motives on my part eh? I could just as easily claim you wish to use the other scaling to obtain lowest possible scaling.
You still haven't explain why couldn't there be a set of even brighter lights within the hangar. This explanation is obviously superior than declaring certain scenes contradictory isn't it?

Also, you might want to adress the other point. The one you just tried to skip. The Falcon is also seen exiting the hangar bay. Given the close proximity of the Falcon to the edge and Han backing up, it would be just on the border of the Hangar opening when it cuts to a forward view. And lo, for it's once again the same size.

I will address the point as soon as you post images of Falcon leaving Death Star complete with proof of the relative distances between camera, ship and hangar doors.

Sorry, if there are two contradicting scenes, then you can't arbitrarily choose one to override another. Even less so when there are more scenes showing 'Darkstar's' figures are the correct ones rather then yours.

There is nothing arbitrary about it: the internal shots of cockpit dictate certain minimum size of Falcon. From that scene Stormotroopers wouldn't fit the cockpit.
And you showed no scenes supporting Darkstar's scaling other than your claim that the other approaching scene supports it even though Falcon is much closer to the camera.

And we know the scene you used is contradicted on four accounts, and not all of them (none actually), can be chalked up to perspective issue, unless you assume completly rediculous things (Like the Falcon scaling being 'off' when it sits in the hangar, which would also break SoD).

The scene breaks SoD since Stormtroopers wouldn't fit the cockpit based on that scene. How can you claim there is no perspective issues? Could you please post that scene and demonstrate how you scaled hangar against Falcon so that there are no perspective issues?

Scaling can't be off unless you want to break SoD. And i do believe you were just trying to say we aren't supposed to do this. We see the Falcon, we see the exit of the hangar bay. The size of the Falcon in that shot is the same as the shot when it enters.

One plus one equals...?

We don't break SoD if there is another choice. If wee see that Stormtroopers are too big next to the Falcon then there is a problem with the scene. Either there are perspective issues at hand or the scene is wrong. Either way it is unreliable for scaling.

The falcon seems to be moving directly towards the right as it doesn't shrink, change size, or... well, anything... which would indicate both the opening and Falcon are on the same 'plain'.

How does this change the fact that Falcon is closer to the camera than the hangar and will appear bigger?

It is interesting that instead of picking the most clear cut scene, in which Falcon and hangar are about the same distance from the camera and both the height of Falcon's cockpit and hangar can be represented by straight lines, you choose head on scene where we don't know how much closer the Falcon is to the camera and shots with dubious scaling and hard angles and then accuse me of "trying to do anything to bump the figures".

[Mr. Oragahn]

What MF model are we talkin about? The one that's been largely too small, like the 1:1 real set model used for TESB, in Echo Base? Could we have screencaps please?

At least, do you see that the MF was largely inside the hangar on the second cap?

[l33telboi]

Who said it needed to travel "far"?

No one.

It is enough that falcon be closer to the camera than the edge of the hangar bay to lead to perspective distortion of making Falcon appear bigger.

Damn good thing that's not possible then, due to the length the ship travels in that scene and the close proximity of the ship to the entrence and the camera.

Already trying to poison the well by assigning nefarious motives on my part eh? I could just as easily claim you wish to use the other scaling to obtain lowest possible scaling.

Other incidents, as in plural. There are many points that contradict your assumptions, not one. No need to try to shrug away points as if they didn't exist and downplay things. As for the poisoning the well part, i do assume there has to be some motive when you try to argue for a higher figure that contradicts several points in canon and is less plausible then the lower figure. It's only logical.

But i wouldn't know about 'nefarious', as that would imply something wicked. I'd hardly consider someone like you capable of such things. I'd rather peg you and the things you say as rabid fanboy wank that seems to compensate a lacking penis size with 200GT turbolasers.

You still haven't explain why couldn't there be a set of even brighter lights within the hangar.

I don't need to, as there's nothing to suggest it. You are suggesting something exists which there is no evidence for. I don't have to adress that when the existing explanation is both logical and highly probable and the opposite is true for your baseless claim.

This explanation is obviously superior than declaring certain scenes contradictory isn't it?

Do you think we would be having this discussion if i thought so?

I will address the point as soon as you post images of Falcon leaving Death Star complete with proof of the relative distances between camera, ship and hangar doors.

Ah yes. I love this tactic, it's actually one of my favorite because it gives good insight into the person you're debating.

We see something happening on the screen and we know what all that entails. But one side of the debate doesn't like the obvious truth, so they basically demand excessive scalings, calculations and the like.

No, Kane. Watching the movie is all the evidence anyone in their right mind needs to realize the Falcon would be right on the edge at that point. If it backed up at all from where it was parked it would be very close to the hangar entrance, it's impossible for it not to be.

There is nothing arbitrary about it: the internal shots of cockpit dictate certain minimum size of Falcon. From that scene Stormotroopers wouldn't fit the cockpit.

Basically, you're arguing for breaking SoD in this instance to dismiss the size of the Falcon? Sure, fire away, show me what you say is true. Because looking at that scene, i don't see a contradicition anywhere near what you're suggesting.

And you showed no scenes supporting Darkstar's scaling other than your claim that the other approaching scene supports it even though Falcon is much closer to the camera.

I didn't? I could've sworn i brought up at least these points:

1. The Falcon exits the Death Star.
2. The Falcon enters the Death Star.
3. The Falcon a bit further away from the Death Star when compared to size of hangar.
4. The Falcon sitting inside the Death Star hangar.

Oh yeah, and the Falcon being closer to the camera is an unproven assumption. Although at this point you seem to be operating on this being fact for some strange reason.

As it is, it's easily proven wrong. Given the speed the camera is pulling back, and the Falcon is flying forward, you do get a rough idea about when it's on the edge of the hangar entrence. And surprise surprise, the light coincides with that.

Putting your fingers in your ears and going "nananana" won't help you.

How can you claim there is no perspective issues?

Because there's no evidence for any. And the evidence speaking for Darkstars figures outweighs your scaling in sheer numbers of ways to gauge the size of the Falcon relative to the hangar.

We don't break SoD if there is another choice. If wee see that Stormtroopers are too big next to the Falcon then there is a problem with the scene. Either there are perspective issues at hand or the scene is wrong. Either way it is unreliable for scaling.

I'm still looking at the scene and indeed i can't really see where you're getting your "stormtroopers too big" thing from.

How does this change the fact that Falcon is closer to the camera than the hangar and will appear bigger?

Since the falcon doesn't noticeably shrink when it's moving to the right, it will be pretty much the same size (visual indicate the same size since no shrinking occurs) as when it enters the hangar bay.

It is interesting that instead of picking the most clear cut scene,

The other scenes are only less clear because you deem them to be so, with nothing concrete backing you up. Indeed you will have to assume a few illogical things to actually get there.

you choose head on scene where we don't know how much closer the Falcon is to the camera

Indeed you have to actually proceed and assume the Falcon is much closer to the camera then the hangar. Given the movement involved as well as the light, there's nothing suggesting this and everything suggesting the opposite.

and shots with dubious scaling

I still doubt this oh so very much.

and then accuse me of "trying to do anything to bump the figures".

You also forgot to adress some of the other points i made. You keep doing that. You say there's only one thing contradicting what you're saying, yet there are four that i could come up with at the top of my head.