Subject:
|
Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:39:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
714 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Jonathan Castellino writes:
> > 1st rule: NEVER go by what you see in the movie!! In one scene, the AT-AT's
> > could easily be 100 M tall, wheras in the scene when the foot steps on
> > luke's snowspeeder, it is significantly smaller (to scale w/ the foot, maybe
> > 10 M tall at the most....)
>
> <fanatic level=almost_there>
> Very true. There's a lot to consider :)
>
> There are a couple key scenes to derive the AT-AT's actual height.
> 1. Luke ascending to the underbelly (there's a shot available on
> www.starwars.com)
> 2. The foot trampling the snowspeeder
> 3. The interior shots of the AT-AT's head.
>
> Looking at #1, The smallest result I can get, assuming Luke is about 6 feet
> tall (no, I don't know how tall he actually is) is that the AT-AT's 70 feet
> tall. That's assuming he's as crunched as possible when ascending and being
> a little generous on looking at the image. Assuming his arms are stretched
> upwards (taking away from his height in the photo) I get that the AT-AT is
> upwards of 100 feet tall. Suffice to say, it's very hard to tell.
>
> On to #2. I don't have an image of the snowspeeder being crushed on hand,
> but if memory serves, the foot just about covers it (toes included)... I
> could be off base here. I also don't have a snowspeeder length on hand. As
> another off-handed guess, I think they're between 12 and 20 feet long. Now,
> an AT-AT foot (going by the blueprints in the Essential Guide to Vehicles),
> is just under 1/4th the height of the AT-AT. So that translates to between
> 48 and 80 feet tall (a little over in each case). (the 20 foot measurement
> sounds a bit long, but I derived that based off of the scale model used with
> the included pilots, wherein the pilots are significantly smaller than I
> think they 'should' be.)
>
> As for #3, we've got to look at both blueprints of the head's height and at
> the general amount of space shown in the cockpit. As seen, there's plenty of
> room to stand up in there, and some overhead space for the 'periscope' the
> commander uses. Again, assuming the commander's height at 6 feet, and
> checking against the blueprints, I get reasonable values between 60 and 93 feet.
>
> Assuming that all these ranges are plausible, the only range they agree on
> is between 70 and 80 feet. Very loose, and I'm sure the actual numbers
> disagree a lot, but certainly I think between 70 and 80 feet would 'fit'
> into each case pretty reasonably.
>
> > .....anyhow, according to the "vehicles and
> > vessels" book, it is approx. 15 M tall (20 M long).
>
> Ok, I've got to leave work in a minute, so I'm not gonna go into as big a
> deliberation, but a big problem here is with the blueprints. If an AT-AT's
> 15M tall (almost 50 feet) (actually the Essential guide says the AT-AT is
> 'over 15 meters tall'), a person 6' tall just barely is able to stand in the
> head of the AT-AT, leaving none of the head room seen in the movie in the
> cockpit. Also, comparing such a measurement to the shot of Luke ascending
> the AT-AT (putting it on the blueprint image) it's WAY off scale. It DOES,
> however, just barely fit when thinking about a snowspeeder's relative size
> in such a scale... But basically, what it says to me is that the AT-AT's bigger.
>
> > Anyhow, I usually go by
> > lego man height rather than width (lego men ought to look ata a strict
> > diet...lol...) to determine scale.
>
> Again, true. I usually go by 7mm = 1 minifig scale foot (1 stud = 8mm).
> That's based on an average height of 6 feet and a minifig actual height
> being around 42mm (depending on any neck gear and hair style/hat-- also
> girls with 2x2x2 slope dresses are a bit taller).
>
> > A lot of the AT-At MOC's out there appear
> > to me way too large. it gives them more character, but they always seem way
> > to big according to the "vehicels and vessels".......
>
> Actually, most that I've seen DO look bigger than 50 feet, but then again, I
> don't usually jive with the 50-foot measurement... :) So I'm usually OK with
> the AT-AT minifig-scale MOC's I've seen (6 total, plus 2 others I've just
> heard about) Actually, I think all of them have been pretty on par with the
> 70-80 foot range...
>
> Ok. I'm done.
> </fanatic>
>
> DaveE
Hey All,
I don't want to sound rude but why not avoid the "argument" and
confusion. I haven't read all of this conversation but according to my
blueprints the AT-AT is 15.5 meters equaling 50.8524 feet. Why not just go
with 50 feet?
Joe
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| (...) Forgive me if I sound like I'm ranting about the size of the AT-AT... It's really not all THAT important-- and I'm SURE if we actually measured the models used in the movies, got the distance to camera of the filming of the little luke (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who else wants an AT-AT?
|
| (...) <fanatic level=almost_there> Very true. There's a lot to consider :) There are a couple key scenes to derive the AT-AT's actual height. 1. Luke ascending to the underbelly (there's a shot available on www.starwars.com) 2. The foot trampling (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
