Ship Scaling Sprites

[Mister Oragahn]

Could you post your work please?

Please, be more specific. I essentially used pictures already posted there.
Is there something you're looking for in particular?

[boberth2o]

Spoiler:

The pier's edge is 31.81(093...) meters high. Boberth uses a height of 104.4', 31.82(112...) m from the first image.
I put the picture under scrutiny, and saw that the plateau is not 10 pixels high but 11 pixels high (since using the middle of opposed horizontal segments defining the boundaries of the vertical one gave me 47 pixels, I used the same method for the pier). The fin is 47 pixels high (starting from the pier's surface at "street level").

This gives me a height of 135.91(545...) meters for the fin, instead of Oberth's 490.7' (more than 149 meters).
That's almost a difference of 15 meters already!
On the third pic, by using same pixel counts, I get a height of 836.402 meters, instead of 918.362 m. Which ends with a width of 4,413.693 meters.

In this you are stipulating one pixel, I found that there is actually ten pixels, Where is the image of it being 11?

[Mister Oragahn]

Spoiler:

The pier's edge is 31.81(093...) meters high. Boberth uses a height of 104.4', 31.82(112...) m from the first image.
I put the picture under scrutiny, and saw that the plateau is not 10 pixels high but 11 pixels high (since using the middle of opposed horizontal segments defining the boundaries of the vertical one gave me 47 pixels, I used the same method for the pier). The fin is 47 pixels high (starting from the pier's surface at "street level").

This gives me a height of 135.91(545...) meters for the fin, instead of Oberth's 490.7' (more than 149 meters).
That's almost a difference of 15 meters already!
On the third pic, by using same pixel counts, I get a height of 836.402 meters, instead of 918.362 m. Which ends with a width of 4,413.693 meters.

In this you are stipulating one pixel, I found that there is actually ten pixels, Where is the image of it being 11?

I see. Well, yes. I find 47 pixels for the fin by picking the middle of each line above and below the vertical segment, but if I do so, I get 11 pixels for the pier.
But the worst problem comes from the different city models, truly.
For example, using the 31.81 meters thickness for the pier's plateau, on one of the CGI models, I don't even reach 3 km.

[tjoflojt]

couldn't shots from "The Daedalus variations", when the jumper enters the hangar, be used to scale 304s? there are a few scales, but they are all different it seemes. the more there are, the easier it is to figure out whats standard.

[boberth2o]

I see. Well, yes. I find 47 pixels for the fin by picking the middle of each line above and below the vertical segment, but if I do so, I get 11 pixels for the pier.
But the worst problem comes from the different city models, truly.
For example, using the 31.81 meters thickness for the pier's plateau, on one of the CGI models, I don't even reach 3 km.

The middle line doesn't represent the middle of the line, it's the outside edge of the smaller portion, which makes it inside for the larger.

[Mister Oragahn]

The middle line doesn't represent the middle of the line, it's the outside edge of the smaller portion, which makes it inside for the larger.

Simply put, your lines were one pixel wide, but on my software, lines overlapped two pixels, making them, if you want, 2 x 0.5 pixel. So my ruler snaps on the middle of the line, at mid distance from either edges of the line.

This applies to all lines when I used your pictures. Mind you, a difference of one pixel is not the biggest problem here. The problem is that one of the models, I think the one used for the final intro theme shot, is screwed beyond repair. There's something plain wrong about it. It may be the piers' fins or something.
As I said, some models don't show fins there, although the group of four fins is always present on all models.

[Col. Shadow Quinn]

Here are two scalings of Atlantis I found on Spacebattles.

Scaling Number 1

Spoiler:

Alright, like last week, I thought it'd be nice to have a thread dedicated to what we saw in the latest Atlantis episode, because both have had a ton of useful information in them.

I'm going to start this thread with a scaling of Atlantis. It's a good episode for a scaling, because it gives us a very simple way of doing the scaling. There aren't a lot of different steps involved (as you know each step increases the margin of error) and there are no funky camera angles or distance to camera problems either.

I will re-do these scalings once I get my hands on the HDTV version of the episode.



Here, you can see the top of the central spire of Atlantis, in relation to the puddle jumper. The jumper has just exited the tower, so both the city and the jumper are at an equal distance from the camera. You probably see that I used the figure of 10m for the jumper, this is based on a scaling on Gateworld. Like I said in the last thread, I once did a really rough scaling to get just the minimum length of the jumper and it seems to suggest 10m as well. The scaling is way too rough to be used as anything solid though. I can post it if someone really wants too, of course.

In any case, I got the length of the jumper and from that calculated the height of the fat part of the central spire.



Here I’ve used the height of the fat part of the central tower to get the entire width of the city and the final figure comes out as a little above 8km wide.

However.

I feel I need to mention that I did this scaling off of pictures from the leaked version of the episode and got a figure of ~6km then. So something doesn't add up. I checked the figures and the lines in this scaling and it all seems to add up. But obviously, something's wrong. The brightness in the leaked copy is hellish though, so the problem could stem from the jumper looking much bigger then it really was due to the glow in that copy of the episode.

But still, I wish someone would go through all of this to check if I didn't really miss something.

Scaling Number 2

Spoiler:

I re-did the scalings now that i got my hands on HR HDTV rip. The problem was indeed in the brightness of the pictures, in the first rip i had, it was too bright, in the second, too dark. In this one however, you can make out the outlines of the jumper just fine.

I used the same method to scale here as in the last pic.





Final verdict, Atlantis is 6.8km wide. At least in this scaling. But Stargate is usually neither here nor there when it comes to starhip lengths.

[tjoflojt]

that size seemes so support the "manhattan-size" better than the usual 3km scalings.

[Mister Oragahn]

that size seemes so support the "manhattan-size" better than the usual 3km scalings.

Manhattan is considerably narrower than it's long. It may be several tens of km long, but it's only a few km wide, between 3 and 4 km, roughly.
Check it out.

So a +3 km wide Atlantis fits with Manhattan, as long as we speak of both's widths.

[Quadhelix]

Manhattan is considerably narrower than it's long.

Far, far too much is made of that "as big as Manhattan line." The exact quote is:

"Before I Sleep" (SGA 1x15)

SHEPPARD: We were just wondering whether there were any other frozen bodies out there in Atlantis that we haven't discovered.

McKAY: And I was just saying there's no way of knowing in the short term. It'd be like searching every room in every building in Manhattan. It'll, uh, take a while. God knows what other kinds of surprises are out there not showing on the sensors.

In other words, it's not an exact statement of size, but an indicator of scale: with only a few hundred people, it would take effectively forever, even if Atlantis were only a tenth of the size of Mahattan. Furthermore, there is the issue that they are talking about room space, so what Atlantis lacks in total base area, it can make up in vertical development.

[Mister Oragahn]

In other words, hyperbole.

[Michael Jansky]

To the original post of Battera:

Thanks a million! I have been looking for something like the scale chart you put here for a very long time. Hope you don't mind if I save it on my computer? (No distribution, personal use only, credit given.)

It looks like a work well done. I have made some measurements myself, using similar methods you did, and arrived mostly at very similar numbers. So, I for one think your chart is about the best scale reference available.

Thank you again!

[thekillman]

why exactly?

and please remove the humongous quote

[Empress Vajnraa]

when i'm waching this i know you don't know anything about stargate ships

haha you think you could do better

[thekillman]

he is mistaken.

in annother ship scale thread, he though the ridiculous measures were from here.