I recently e-mailed Gary Hutzel, who designed the Defiant along with Jim Martin and Tony Meininger (as you can read in the DS9 Companion, he and Meininger developed the final shape based on Lamborghinis and a few other cars, using a sketch of Martin's for reference). Even before the Defiant as we know it was developed, Hutzel established its size at 171m or 560 feet (1.5 times the size of a BoP = 540 plus 20 feet to make the number look good). I suppose that's why we see two rows of windows where Drexler has only one deck -- Meininger added these.
This shouldn't have anything to do with a serious argument, and I had argued against the accepted MSD layout before. Here is the problem. If we look at the data from an intention-based POV, then yes, 120m looks good, feels right as compromise and satisfies the average viewer who doesn't look too closely. However, looking at it scientifically, as is usually done in these forums, it no longer makes sense.
We cannot simply assume that the average of comparisons is correct -- we need more reliable ways of scaling the ship. The best possible way is to use the escape pod sequence in "Valiant", where we actually see the exact relationship between the rear pods and their hatches that are painted on the actual studio model. Assuming the reused Intrepid pods are 3.5m wide as designed by Rick Sternbach, the Defiant scales out to 150 +/- 10m.
Then we look at the two rows of windows. Ok, we've seen exactly one window inside the Defiant, but what reason is there to suppose they're not windows? Drexler has about 1.2 decks (Deck 4 and the crawlspace) where the two rows are -- if his layout scales out to 110m, we get roughly 180m for ours; consistent with the evidence above, and more reliable than the VFX. (And it's two rows, not three -- the recent DS9 calendar picture by Hutzel clearly distinguishes between rows of windows and other lights in the area.)
Then we come to the MSD. Does it make sense to prefer that layout over the characters' lines in "Starship Down" that clearly indicate that Deck 2 is not where the Engineering is, and that the entire ship must henceforth have at least four decks in the middle instead of three (with the Engineering being on Deck 3 at least, at least one more deck is required for the lower portion of the warp core). The three instances of "Deck 5" dialogue support this notion. If even the deck count in the MSD is incorrect, do we have any reason to trust the 110m scale derived from it?
We need to look for other evidence to determine the layout. There is a turbolift plaque that indicates the presence of six decks where Drexler has three. Surprisingly, it fits quite nicely, and was probably drawn up based on the 171m size some time before the MSD. The directory on the plaque is still a bit problematic, but the deck count is consistent with the dialogue. Deck 6 would also be the first row of windows, with a possible Deck 7 in the second row. However, since the rest of the schematic is not quite accurate, we really can prove only five decks. Still, it fits the other important evidence, and must be preferred over the MSD.
In conclusion: there are definitely at least five decks on the ship, and the ship is 150m long if the pods are 3.5m wide. Since 150m is so close to 171m, the design size, what reason is there not to accept 171m? The majority of VFX shots that suggest 60-120m? How do we know that the majority is correct? The MSD that suggests 110m? The MSD is incorrect.
[ February 25, 2002, 09:29: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
1) Given the varying size of the Defiant in known pre-production materials, and general unreliability/bad memory of the people involved with the show, I don't think we should put much emphasis on whatever they're saying these days.
2) How do you know the escape pods are Intrepid sized? Why do they have to be windows? Why are the characters considered infallible in what they say? Etc.
3) Turbolift plaque?
4) Science is based on analysis of data. If the majority of data suggests something, then the majority is in fact correct.
I'd be more impressed if you found scenes where the Defiant is undeniably 170m based on objects in the scene whose lengths are extremely well-known. At this point, I'll hint that such scenes have a non-zero probability of existing.
In the meantime, I'm back to writing x86 assembly programs. nop, nop, nop!
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
1) Gary Hutzel not only was involved in design stages and model construction, but he also supervised the effects in just about every other episode of the entire DS9 show. This would be similar to questioning Andrew Probert about the revised Enterprise. Like Hutzel and Meininger, Probert finished the revised Enterprise design.
2) The pods are Intrepid sized because they're the Intrepid pods. No other pods were available in LightWave. If they're furthermore roughly consistent with the 560' size that Stipes, who supervised the show, claims to have used, no reason to make them smaller.
4) Science is based on critical interpretations of data. The Defiant is roughly 200m long in every shot with the Nebula, Excelsior and Yeager docked at DS9. Since we cannot average things or make arbitrary judgements on which shots are correct, the way to find out is to make structural measurements.
As for the dialogue, it's downright impossible that both Dax and Sisko have flubbed on three occassions by mentioning a Deck 5, and that Crewman Stevens would mention hull generators "compensating for the hull breach on Deck 2" while standing on the same deck, or that O'Brien wouldn't check up on the Deck 1 people right after the bridge was hit by climbing up the ladder, or that Worf would take the Jefferies Tube instead of the ladder from Deck 1 to Deck 2. You only need to rewatch "Starship Down."
[ February 25, 2002, 10:23: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I'm keeping the Defiant at 120m. This is mostly because, after so many discussions in which a clear image of the 120m Defiant formed, the argument that 171m was intended doesn't change that much (or at least that is what I keep telling myself).
I think that Hutzel intentionally did not include any external details that could help determine the size. The size may still have been subject to debates, and maybe it should have been left to the writers and/or VFX people (a bad objective, of course).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The argument is not that it was intended -- I merely suggest the traditional recourse of using the design size if it fits other evidence, especially since there is a small uncertainty in the escape pod measurements.
Part of the problem is that this clearest, structural escape pod evidence came up after everyone became tired discussing the ship based on just the VFX and the MSD, without realizing the uncertainty range in the VFX or the inaccuracies in the MSD. Another issue is that of approach -- one can argue for a more commonsense approach based on what the average viewer would see -- after all, you're not supposed to look closely at a TV show and accept certain errors; that's the nature of the medium. However, given that the tendency here is to go beyond the obvious into Okudagrams, distant ships and such, it also makes sense to go beyond the VFX and the MSD into other areas such as dialogue and indirect scaling evidence.
I'm not trying to explain these uncertainties and errors -- the idea is to focus on that which is fairly certain, namely the 5+ deck count and the size of the Intrepid pods, while leaving out the unexplained dramatic variations that occur with a lot of ships with or without reliable scale indicators.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Wow. I'm impressed. Someone posted something that made Frank post.
Wow.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
One word, Aethelwer: update! Just joking... Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Update?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
There is also the Defiant shuttlebay to consider. It only clicked recently that the shuttle launch scene in "The Sound of Her Voice" is showing an internal deck structure, from the outside of the ship! Going by Drexlers design of the shuttlebay (as seen as a pic in DS9TM, and a CGI render in Magazine issue 22), the shallow dome on the bottom of the Defiant is the base of the shuttlebay. It also shows that the dome is a unique deck (which just happens to line up with the first row of windows). We can see that the railing of the shuttlebay upperdeck is roughly level with the normal Defiant centreline. So, using the traditional MSD layout, the shuttlebay is on deck 4 and the upper bay level is on deck 3. Of course, all this really shows is that the ship is much bigger than what the MSD indicates - more likely >5 decks at the intended 560'. And lets not forget the size of the Chaffee itself.
[ February 26, 2002, 05:27: Message edited by: Dax ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Your website, Frank.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
My Website will probably not be updated again, unfortunately.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Hopefully, this will show that the size varies over such a wide range that it will no longer be possible to think that the average will do one any good. I merely need to find as many 170m and 70m numbers as 120-130m figures.
[ February 26, 2002, 18:35: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
It doesn't impact the measuremeant but the Defiant is above a Galor, not a Keldon, in "Defiant". In the episode the Galor is protecting the Defiant from the Keldons.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Corrected (BTW, the schematics are from your site, some of the pictures are from Maximum Defiant, etc.) I'll add credits and links to individual pages tomorrow. This thing is nowhere near public yet, just working on the most important stuff first.
[ February 26, 2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Cool.
This is perhaps the best Defiant docked to DS9 reference. This cap is also originally from Maximum Defiant.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Thanks. Right now, I'm just doing comparisons with ships of certain size. The Galor is uncertain, but it can't be more than 481m long, otherwise the decks would be huge.
[ February 27, 2002, 10:12: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Major update. Just need to add the escape pod analysis, which is a bit more complex.
[ February 28, 2002, 13:16: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I had another look at your page. A few things:
You mention that the turbo schematic places deck 6 as the base of the round dome on the Defiant bottom. How did you come to that conclusion?
How are you interpreting which of the lights are windows or not? I have this years DS9 calendar and I still feel the "windows" are ambiguous.
I'm not too sure about your Runabout comparison. The runabout looks a lot smaller (or the Defiant bigger) in the cap than what you listed. Perspective is certainly something that can't be ignored here.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
It mentioned the lower sensor module, which according to Drexler's plans is on the round dome. It definitely doesn't put decks five and six in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no mention of antimatter pods. On the other hand, it seems more consistent if the six decks would extend down to the actual underside.
The runabout seems to be 3/4ths of a nacelle here, probably less if we account for foreshortening. I really should make it 1/2 the size of a nacelle. In any case, it does not change the basic thrust of the argument.
As for the windows, I actually thought they were easy to distinguish on the new calendar -- their lights are much smaller. That's how I decided on two rows, not three, especially since two rows make sense at the intended scale. The only problem is that the lowest row isn't placed high enough, indicating that the windows are somewhere on the base of the deck -- however, such things have happened before, with the two rim-rows of the refit Constitution, for example, where the upper row seems to be placed too low on the upper deck.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
A question for a really old and probably tired topic? I know for a while, some folks from here were regularly getting replies from Drexler and Sternbach types on the startrek.com boards, but did anybody some-what official ever chime in on the Defiant's problems AFTER the DS9TM came out?
I was just wondering if someone like Drexler ever said "yeah these are/aren't the numbers for the Defiant"
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
If the door tag stickers mean anything and the '01' on the bridge tags still mean deck 1, then the '02-0601' on the Engineering doors should probably indicate that Engineering is on deck 2.
I don't know if that affects the analysis any...
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The DS9TM basically ended the flow of "apocryphal" (invented by people who do the show) information, barring the few datapoints in "Starship Spotter" which do not exactly fall into this category.
Basically, everybody I've talked to (Okuda, Sternbach, Hutzel, Stipes) agrees that the ship is 171m long, including Drexler who, according to Rick Sternbach, said that the MSD and the plans shouldn't be treated as a scale drawing. Officially, we're supposed to assume that the Defiant has four decks and looks roughly like the MSD and the plans, except that it's bigger.
While there is some canonical evidence for 171m, we can't rely on the visuals because they merely tell us that the ship is somewhere between 60-170m long and looks like the studio model (most of the time.)
That's why we must look into the ship's interior for evidence. I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from "Shattered Mirror". That's why a 110m size is canonically inevitable, and that's my final conclusion on the subject. Fortunately, the VFX average to roughly the same value.
As for the decks, I think that, from a strictly analytic perspective, it is inevitable that Deck numbers in some cases are different from level numbers. It would explain every time a writer misses the deck count (i.e. Deck 26 or Deck 78) or misplaces a location, not to mention a bunch of incorrect door signs.
So, the Defiant most likely has four levels containing at least six, possibly ten decks (justifying the '0' at the beginning of the door signs, 02 05, 03 04, etc.), which are the technobabbly-complicated equivalent of today's "quarterdeck" or "poop deck". The section numbers might actually indicate discrete areas serving the same function, so you could technically have several Decks 2 all over the ship.
This explains how Engineering can be on Deck 2, Section 5 (02 05) but not on Deck 2, Section 01 (which I theorize is sometimes abbreviated to "Deck 2", and corresponds to the area sealed off in "Starship Down"). It explains how "03 05" can be on the bridge level turbolift doors. It explains the three references to Deck 5 without the need to modify the MSD.
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from 'Shattered Mirror'."
The "inaccurate" MSD seems a lot more useful than a 100% accurate one in which everything is so small that you can't see what it is.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
If it were that, wouldn't it make sense to clearly indicate that the areas are neither to scale nor positioned correctly by showing them as rough patches separated by a yellow flood-fill? Who'd want to confuse a viewer by putting them together into a nearly perfect cross-section?
Whatever its overblown name, it's obviously just a map.
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
How do you know there wasn't some very small print on a nearby console that said "Objects on MSD may be smaller than they appear."?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
A little known corridor aboard the Defiant.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hey, where's that from?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Basically, everybody I've talked to (Okuda, Sternbach, Hutzel, Stipes) agrees that the ship is 171m long, including Drexler who, according to Rick Sternbach, said that the MSD and the plans shouldn't be treated as a scale drawing.
It's difficult to ignore the above facts and for that reason, as well as others, I currently accept the Defiant as 560'.
quote:That's why we must look into the ship's interior for evidence. I'm sure Sisko wouldn't want an inaccurate MSD on his bridge and in the engineering drawings from "Shattered Mirror". That's why a 110m size is canonically inevitable, and that's my final conclusion on the subject.
But it's impossible to consider the canon MSD as truely accurate anyway. Explain to me how the warp core can extend into outer space or how the nose's photon torpedo conveyor belt system makes sense? The damn MSD just doesn't make sense in too many ways. The DS9TM cutaway and deck plans are in some ways worse too.
[ December 04, 2002, 19:12: Message edited by: Dax ]
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Here's another angle you can take. Look at the size of a galaxy. 642 meters. Nobody disputes that (generally).
Now take the stock footage shot of a GCS docked at DS9. Scale them to get a length (diameter/whatever) for DS9.
You then have a size for the station. We know that the Defiants nose fits just inside the width of one of the main docking ports on the outer ring. Use the size of the station which you determined in step 1, to figure out the size of the Defiant.
My days of spending a good deal of time doing these things are way past, but if anyone can be bothered, go for it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Nothing on the show is 100% blooper-less -- it's a question of whether the MSD is accurate enough to portray a definite size and layout?
If we take into account the fact that it gives us a consistent size -- something the VFX don't -- as well as the number of times it was seen in the background and the lack of any subspace distortions or holographic diversions that could influence shots in space, plus the Deck 4 blueprint seen behind Ezri before the ship explodes, we can see that the canon evidence is far more solid than that for 171m.
Boris
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Or it could be our mind mis-interpreting what we see? I was reading a fascinating article in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday on how the mind can create an illusion with what we see, and how scientists are probing the reasons for this. Very amazing stuff.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ...we can see that the canon evidence is far more solid than that for 171m.
That's a matter of opinion rather than emperical fact, Boris. You and I both know that there's many areas where the 110/120m Defiant falls down. For example, the Chaffee shuttle and the escape pods come to mind. A Defiant at 110m would have shuttles that are too small to crew and escape pods that are too small to hold enough crew -- fact.
As for the Defiant docked at DS9 VFX, the 560' Defiant matches the original 3600' intended DS9 diameter. The 120m length would only work if the station is as small as SciPubTech's 800m diameter. That's how my eyes see it anyway.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The following is a footnote in the Making of Deep Space Nine Book:
"DS9's diameter is approximately 1350 meters, which is 2.1 times the Enterprise's length of 642 meters. In old-fashioned measurements, that makes it a little over four-fifths of a mile. The station's mass is 10.12 million metric tonnes. These figures were calculated by Sternbach and Okuda, who, as we have learned, don't want anyone to think that they just make this stuff up."
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
At Trek BBS Sternbach gave his intended diameter for DS9 as 3660'.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Dax: That's assuming that the size relationships you mention are correct. Given the fact that the Defiant can even change shape, how do I know that even the structural details have been portrayed correctly?
I could just as well assume that the Ent-E/Defiant, Runabout/Defiant or the Galor/Defiant size comparisons are correct likewise, yielding a 60m-90m Defiant. Is there anything to swing me over to the other end other than the intentions?
The range of uncertainty in the visuals is simply too great for any definite conclusions. The interior graphics, on the other hand, are fairly definite on the subject AND a source that has to be accurate within the portrayed reality of the story. We really don't know what goes on between the camera and the various fields surrounding the ship.
Of course, we'll never know 100% sure -- I'm just trying to find out what's most likely to be correct based on what an observant viewer lacking any behind-the-scenes info would know.
Boris
[ December 03, 2002, 14:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Dax: That's assuming that the size relationships you mention are correct. Given the fact that the Defiant can even change shape, how do I know that even the structural details have been portrayed correctly?
But surely we can accept the structure of the physical studio miniature as the baseline.
quote:I could just as well assume that the Ent-E/Defiant, Runabout/Defiant or the Galor/Defiant size comparisons are correct likewise, yielding a 60m-90m Defiant. Is there anything to swing me over to the other end other than the intentions?
Agreed. No argument here.
quote:The range of uncertainty in the visuals is simply too great for any definite conclusions. The interior graphics, on the other hand, are fairly definite on the subject AND a source that has to be accurate within the portrayed reality of the story. We really don't know what goes on between the camera and the various fields surrounding the ship.
But the interior detail isn't consistent either. We still have anomalies such as the turbolift Okudagram, Sisko firing down a long vertical Jefferies tube in "Adversary", the three separate accounts of Deck 5, and your own suggestion that engineering is lower than deck 2.
quote:Of course, we'll never know 100% sure -- I'm just trying to find out what's most likely to be correct based on what an observant viewer lacking any behind-the-scenes info would know.
The problem is that we're too close to the subject and know too much to be objective (IMO). I honestly don't think the Defiant size argument will ever be satisfactorily resolved unless a future movie specifically mentions the length (like the "nearly 700m long" of FC).
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dax: But surely we can accept the structure of the physical studio miniature as the baseline
Yes, in and of itself. However, the Defiant is a 3-foot long model. The DS9 station is a 6-foot diameter model. They have to be resized on screen to get them to look their appropriate scales. Of all the measurements we could take to figure out ship sizes, the one that inherently is the most error prone, is where you have two ships in a shot where neither was physically filmed together nor exist at the same scale to begin with. It's a good approximation, but it's not the final word.
Look at the shot of the ships at the station on Boris' site. From that shot alone, the Nebula Class is too small to be closer to us than the station is. The saucer width of the Nebula is identical to the length of the Excelsior: 467m. If you could rotate the excelsior about it would be too long to fit under the saucer exactly. So the Nebula Class isn't properly scaled to the station in that shot; it should appear bigger.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: Of all the measurements we could take to figure out ship sizes, the one that inherently is the most error prone, is where you have two ships in a shot where neither was physically filmed together nor exist at the same scale to begin with.
So what you're saying is that motion controlled VFX is insufficient for determining ship sizes. I already agreed to that in my prior post.
So ignoring VFX, what are we left with? Dialogue, internal graphic displays (MSD etc), the usage of the sets, known external structure, and the producers intentions.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Dax:
It's desirable to know as much as possible, but we must keep the precedence of sources in mind.
The tube shot might be a mistake if we see the lines as deck separations, but a whole bunch of other deck inconsistencies can be explained by proposing that the Defiant, and possibly a few other ships, uses a functional method of labeling areas, where decks stand for specific categories of areas, and sections for individual rooms within that category. If the sealed-off "Deck 2" is actually a two-level area, it would explain why the people from the engine room couldn't easily get to it.
For one thing, we see people entering the turbolift and calling out "Deck 5, Section 1" or "Deck 2, Section 5". Why not simply call out "engine room" and let the turbolift calculate the location? Even if the 'lift doesn't go there, it can still take you to the nearest point.
Since even the unfamiliar Jem'Hadar called out the numbers, it does seem that the computer requires knowledge of specific numbers for some areas, possibly as a security precaution. Now, if you already need to memorize this, AND are usually travelling by turbolift, why not reorganize the Defiant into the abovementioned functional system?
Starfleet seems to rely a lot on memorization to maintain security, and possibly increase speed (even today, it's faster to press F1 than to select Help from a menu). So many of its consoles are labeled with numbers -- you can't use the navigation console, for instance, without knowing all the codes.
Boris
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
That's all a bit too convoluted for my liking, Boris. When something like "deck 5" is mentioned, the natural assumption by the audience is that the ship has at least 5 unique levels, like a 5 story building. Even most hardcore Trek fans treat decks in this manner.
I would personally either accept that the Defiant is taller than the MSD would have us believe, or completely ignore the Deck 5 dialogue.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Ok, I'll concede that it's a bit convoluted. I guess the only other option is to leave out deck numbers on door signs and make them refer to section numbers and room numbers only. I'm still trying to find the best possible fit given the data we have.
In that case, the only way to make the MSD as correct as possible is to suppose that the Defiant really is 171m long and has four major structural frames with about two decks each, giving us a total of seven or eight decks. Either the details of the MSD are in error or they're blown up as TSN suggests, and we'll have to disregard the fact that the thing looks like a perfect crosssection in a closeup.
You could technically say the ship has only five decks since the turbolift schematic isn't that legible, but if you're already disregarding the MSD, why not make it bigger and account for all of the interior problems (long Jefferies tubes, long vertical turbolift rides)?
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...we'll have to disregard the fact that the thing looks like a perfect crosssection in a closeup."
It looks like nothing of the sort. As someone already mentioned, if it were a perfect cross-section, it would be indicating that the warp core sticks out of the bottom of the ship and dangles out in empty space.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Various comments and observations:
1. I like the 120 meter Defiant. It makes little sense for the tough little ship to be just a few hairs shy of a Miranda in size.
2. Captain Mike's pic of a double-windowed corridor is hysterical.
3. Much as I'm loathe to admit it, the scaling against the tractored runabout is going to end up problematic at best. Without knowing the distance to the Defiant, we cannot know her size. And we cannot know her distance without first knowing her size.
4. The scaling against the escape pods has been performed against the hull plate which covers them. However, given the variability of Defiant models and the apparent discrepancy of the length of those plates on the screencap vs. the model shot, I do not see how one can accept that scaling. Note, if you will, that the plates on the Valiant have a forward point occurring well in front of the round glowy-thingy, and end at a point approximately midway along the second. The same is not seen in the model, whether you assume that the Valiant's forwardmost glowy-thingy is the first or the second.
5. In the Nebula pic, the station is approximately three (2.961) times the width of the Nebula saucer, including accounting for Pythagoras, but not accounting for the multiple-hundred-meter distance difference. The station would thus be 1382 meters wide at absolute minimum, and significantly more (1450-1500m) if we account for the additional distance from the camera to the station's centerline from the station's edge (i.e. at least 650 meters). A 1350 meter station, on the other hand, would suggest a smaller Nebula (or trick of the angles), in the neighborhood of 425 meters of width as observed.
A solution is to scale against the Excelsior, which is nearer the station centerline and also a better-known quantity than the station itself. If an Excelsior saucer is 186 meters wide, then the station (which is 5.57 times wider in the image) would be 1036 meters in width.
The Nebula is misscaled. This fits well within my opinion that Stipes is a crack-smoker, but that's not important right now.
If we attempt to scale the Defiant against the station or Excelsior (notwithstanding the distance issue regarding centerlines), we arrive at a figure of roughly 147 meters. Accounting for the distance issue would lessen that figure considerably, suggesting that 147 meters is a high-end value in that scene.
6. In regards to the other Excelsior comparison, I shall remain silent since it has been far too long since I saw the scene in motion, and thus cannot reliably comment on the positions involved.
If one were to adjust the figures in the table accordingly, throwing out the First Contact gaffe, the runabout comparison, and adjusting the Nebula comparison to the high-end 147 meters, the average of what remains would work out to:
126.1 meters.
EDIT: If one includes the escape pods (which were not in the table), the figure is 131 meters average . . . but I'm not fond of the escape pod scaling. At any rate, we're within a relatively comfortable margin of error which would leave the Defiant as 120 meters.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It makes little sense for the tough little ship to be just a few hairs shy of a Miranda in size."
Seventy-some meters is "a few hairs"?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
why does it matter what size it is compared to the Miranda? (as i recall, Defiants and Mirandae always scaled similarly during the large battle scenes.. not worth their salt for getting a scale comparison, but worth mentioning. Defiants also always dock the same place as Mirandae and look to be only a little different in size.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
It takes a while to get back to the perspective of the regular viewer for whom the show was intended, as opposed to a close model analyst (i.e. let's keep in mind who the show was made for, and use our knowledge to expand on that, not the other way around).
We cannot analyze the VFX in such a way, because we forget the simple fact that the most important size relationship is that of DS9 's docking port and the Defiant. Just as a blooper is corrected with respect to the entirety of an episode, a size relationship is corrected with respect to the entire DS9 series and Star Trek shows in general. If you don't match that, you're going to have a bunch of angry casual viewers who see this thing over and over again in the opening credits and stock footage.
Hence, the exact size of the Defiant depends on the size of DS9. Aside from "big", what is the most obvious reference for DS9? The shot with the Nebula in the opening credits and the humans in spacesuits, followed by stock footage of ships docked to the station, followed by stock footage of runabouts launching and specific ships docked at DS9. These important extremes (700m to 2300m) happen to average out to about 1600m. The viewer won't notice the fact that the model was scaled up because it's far more difficult to perceive the relationship between window spacing and the overall model than between the station and the ships. The Nebula-station relationship is also more obvious than the human-station relationship.
It's easy to see why the VFX sizes in this case are the most important determinant of the viewer's perception of size. Even Rick Sternbach seems to have correctly realized this in the DS9TM. Naturally, if DS9 had a narration saying that the station is 1200m wide, it would be 1200m wide no matter what.
We must not make the mistake of identifying with the model designers and their intentions just because we're into starships. If necessary, we ought to modify the details on the models to match what was seen on the show in the order of frequencies. The casual viewer doesn't see the models up-close -- their sizes are the sizes the VFX people determine, and if they vary, the most important of them is the most frequent one.
Of course, had the VFX people known who'd be watching, they would've made things more consistent. The way it is, we just need to make sure that the most obvious and frequent shots are accounted for, and use that as a baseline for interpreting the rest.
Boris
[ December 05, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I just realized now that the DS9TM does actually give the dimensions of the station: 1451.82m. I missed that the whole way through the thread!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
to paraphrase someone, i believe the 1451 but i think he's fudging the .82
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
*screams the scream of terrible, horrible things*
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
:::looks up::: Did you hear a Shadow ship?
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
You know, nobody took my bait in February about finding the Defiant-class as being portrayed as 170m on-screen. Someone could look into that...
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
There is plenty of VFX evidence of a 560' Defiant but it's just not as obvious as the early 120m stuff. For example, the Klingon Bird of Prey to Defiant size relationship is of interest. The Defiant is always portayed to be noticeably longer than the BoP. In particular, shots in "Way of the Warrior", "Shattered Mirror", and "Tears of the Prophets" come to mind. If we assume the BoP is 360', the Defiant must be longer than 120m. Scaling the Defiant at 120m would mean the BoP would need to be around 80m.
And needless to say, all Defiant docked at DS9 shots support a >120m length.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And, of course, there's never been any scaling problems with the Bird of Prey at all, has there?
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Or DS9, for that matter. Dax, your reasoning is 1998-era. I challenge you to come up with something more concrete. Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I remember reading an article that had some interview with one of the effects guys. He said something about how, when they had shots with the IKS Rotarran, they would scale it up to "show it as a more important ship."
That might put a dent (among all the other dents) in the idea of trusting VFX shots.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Ah, Frank!
Happy New Year (first). Second, I'm afraid your reasoning is from the 1998 era. We have since learned that
a) the intended size of the finalized Defiant model is 171m, as established by VFX Supervisor Gary Hutzel who was instrumental in designing the final shape (see the DS9 Companion).
b) Hutzel stuck to this size and according to him, another supervisor, Glenn Neufeld, also supported it while he was on the show. Others liked to vary the scale a bit, but we know that even Stipes basically adhered to 170m.
c) Every size matters equally to the VFX people (DS9's 1609m and BoP's 110m included) -- but every size can vary depending on the importance placed by an individual supervisor on scale issues, limitations imposed by miniature sizes, as well as individual story points.
Your hypothesis about a correct 120m size adhered to by animators in the trenches and forgotten by a VFX supervisor sitting in his office unfortunately has no support. Given these theoretically random VFX variations, you would need to examine every single VFX shot to arrive at a proper size, while also taking into account the interior layout of the ship which often conflicts with the MSD.
While there is no doubt that some people among the production crew thought it was smaller, ultimately, Hutzel's size prevailed among the producers according to the evidence we have.
I'm not yet sure which size would be the result of a detailed examination of every single episode, but it will not necessarily be 120m.
Boris
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS ARGUMENT! I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS ARGUMENT! I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS ARGUMENT!
...at least that's what I keep telling myself, but I'm a very unrestrained monkey at times when I get excited. Though I may forever burn in hell, (or wherever "bad" atheists go) I agree with Boris. VFX shots be damned. VFX shots are worthless.
Sorry, Frank...
-MMoM Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Boris:
a) Bah! b) Prove it! c) Prove it!
Regarding the epsiodes, there has been a page on my site for a long time with lots of ~120m scenes. Feel free to dig up the 170m ones, which I have been encouraging people to do for nearly a year.
MMoM: Star Trek is worthless!
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Frank, the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that everything the VFX supervisors have been telling us is wrong, and examining a few shots isn't going to do that because they will see the few shots as the occassional variations. To them, the most important relationship is probably that of DS9 and the Defiant, because that's the one that is being repeated over and over again for the casual viewer.
Similarily, the casual viewer is supposed to believe that DS9 is roughly a mile wide, because the docked-ship shots that are going to influence that perception are scaled accordingly. They realize that their intended audience doesn't know that the sets do not match the model, or that the decks are a bit too high at that scale.
It's fine to analyze in detail, but as Curtis Saxton said, you have to match both the spirit and the fact of the show.
Boris
[ January 01, 2003, 06:08: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Or we could just stop here, since none of us want to go looking for stuff in the episodes again.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)