Topic: New info: Defiant designed at 171m and another perspective
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
And, of course, there's never been any scaling problems with the Bird of Prey at all, has there?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or DS9, for that matter. Dax, your reasoning is 1998-era. I challenge you to come up with something more concrete.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
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!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
