Hate Mail
Mughi/Matt Matherly
    This guy e-mailed me a while back boldly proclaiming that all of my scaling work on Babylon 5 was faulty.  That is a bold statement to tell someone who has been doing this sort of thing for several years.  In fact, this is comparable to saying that I've been treating my patients the wrong way for 5 years at my real job.  I've heard this type of thing so many times before from rabid fanatics that I almost deleted it.  After all, the best way to dismiss something you can't comprehend is to simply say that it is wrong, right?

    But I decided to read it, because this person seemed different than the regular troll.  He wasn't simply saying that he thought my sizes were too small for his liking, or that he had heard from someone who has a friend who is related to someone who makes CGI models for the television show, you know, the regular stuff.  This guy was actually making some attempt to make a real debate about the methods I use to study Babylon 5 technology.  This intrigued me.  Someone may actually be sending a worthwhile argument.

    However, it quickly became apparent that this particular fan was a bit misinformed.  When I sent some correct information, the flame wars began.  I soon found out that my first impression was not only wrong, but bad wrong.  This person fit the perfect description of a troll, one of the most irritating I have encountered.

    From the first byte of information, he was using the "appeal to authority" fallacy.  He supposedly contacted an expert in the field of broadcast TV, who claims that pixel scaling is the most inaccurate way of determining the size of fictional starships.  Myself being competent in this area, I immediately noticed that this "expert" didn't even understand the fundamentals of NTSC video!  There were more problems with this source:

    I decided that this person doesn't even exist, and if he does, he has no clue what he is talking about.  Maybe he exists, but has been fed misinformation, and is being misquoted?

I don't have the entire exchange, and I'm not sure that everything is in perfect chronological order.  For that I apologize.  It has been a couple weeks or so, and I just decided to create a Hate Mail section.  But as far as I can tell, the high points are here.


this is directed at sean, HBMC, his divine shadow,  and anybody else using babtech or measuring pixles from the show as reference for scaling.
 

1.babtech is a fan site and has no canon authority
 

True.
 

, while i do respect the amount of effort on the site. the fact that they refuse to accept canon, -such as tim earls being the visual effects art director (which is un-refutable)
 
 

Oh dear, another Tim Earls fanatic...
I have yet to see a quote about this from JMS.  And where did he publish these charts?  All I've ever heard was that he communicates through that site across the web - very suspicious in itself.

Tim Earls was not the "art director."  According to the show's credits, he made concept drawings.  This is like what Doug Chiang does for Star Wars.  He makes drawings of different ship designs, and the producer decides what to use.  Supervising Animators (who make the CGI clips which I capture and scale) were Shant Jordan and Patrick Perez.  This applies to season 5.  I've never seen Mr. Earls' name in the credits before then.


Credits from season 5


Credits from season 4.  Note that Tim Earls did not have a job with Babylon 5 at that time.  Click on the image to see a Divx video of all of the season 4 credits.

or his authority to scale ships he created and/or sized for JMS no matter the  revision which he had the right to make.-simply because of "measuring pixles" or so called "on screen" evidence

And these "charts" are published where?  I've heard that the Whitestar is nearly 500 meters long in those "charts."  Why was it considered so neat because it was so small and could still open a hyperspace vortex?  I have heard that the Excalibur is 2-3 miles long on these "charts," despite the direct quote by Captain Gideon that it is "a mile and a quarter long."
Sounds like these "charts" are either fabricated, or Mr. Earls has little knowledge of the show.
The fact that these "charts" have not been published to my knowledge, and whatever is online cannot be verified by the man, it is hearsay.  I make my own observations and measurements and ignore hearsay whenever possible.  Hearsay is not admissible in court.  Photographic, video, and audio evidence is.

2.they are wrong and have no credibility. now that i have made that statement i of course must back it up.
 

You betcha!
 

i therefore contacted a friend who is a broadcast engineer about the method of pixle measument and accuracy
 

Appeal to authority.
No doubt that you will not give this person's name, because it is a "secret."
No doubt there is no way for any of us to contact this person directly.
No doubt this person was made up.
I've seen this 1000 times.
 

A.he said it is one of the most inaccurate forms of scaling
 

Is he also a SciFi analyst???
 

he could immagine for the following reasons -a television screen cotains 2 inter-lacing fields at 60 fields per second creating the 30 frames per second.
 

Right.
Digitizers either deinterlace or grab one field only.  In the case where they grab one field only, you are digitizing an image 240 lines or less.  Fields are essentially identical, only that one is played on every odd line, and the other on every even line.  You could digitize the even field and then the odd field from any given frame (Virtualdub can do this), place them side by side on your screen, and you will be unable to tell any difference.  In the case where both fields are grabbed and deinterlaced, you are digitizing above 240 lines.  It takes the information from both fields and puts them together to double the information, and thus the size, without interpolation (i.e. making up) the extra space.

So, when I want an image that is 320x240 (VHS is 240 lines of resolution), I can grab only one field.  It contains exactly half of the frame's information, and thus is in perfect perspective.  If I digitize a 640x480 image (VHS is 240 lines of resolution!), I have to grab both fields from this frame, and combine the information.  It now contains 100% of the frame's information, and is in perfect perspective.  No one claims that an image resized to 50% is no longer in perspective.  Why?  Because it is exactly 1/2 the size.  All parts of the image are 1/2 the size, not this part or that part.
 

brian and anybody else measuring pixles. it is an actual scientific method (which i will describe below) that must be followed which from their comments they are not following.  also the best software mike suggested- metamorph imaging system-beksoft image mesurement selling for $399 retail.

So, you feel that counting pixels is an inaccurate way to measuring objects in an image?  And you feel that a certain program, which you choose, is the only one that is valid for this task?  And you feel that I must purchase your $400 program, so that you will be happy with my scaling work?

You feel that counting pixels is "one of the most inaccurate forms of scaling," but now you say that using a certain method and program, it is okay?  You contradict yourself.

If you don't like the work done here, go do your own and put it online for the world to poke fun at.

and he is the one who is silent when the facts of the technique as well as the level of his inexperience are brought to light by a proffesional in the field. it's not a grudge against any one person anyway(including brian). it's an issue with a scaling technique being improperly done(see the scientific method required) by a fan and then being touted as being more accurate than the guy who's job it was on the show to scale the said ships.

You feel that my scaling techniques are inaccurate?  Why?  Because "a professional in the field" told you so?  A professional in the field of scaling Babylon 5 ships by pixel scaling?  Interesting, I thought I started that field!  Or do you mean an astronomer, being that measuring 2D images to derive 3D sizes is what the entire field of astronomy is based on?  No, wait!  You mean the "broadcast engineer!"  The one that said pixel scaling is "one of the most inaccurate forms of scaling," but if you use a certain program it is okay, and if you follow HIS method.  How consistent!

now to the haevy debate i contacted mike today and he explaned for nearly 30 minutes what was wrong with the methodes used on babtech and every other site using the pixle scaling.....here goes.

What is a "pixle?"  How do you know how long someone spent typing an e-mail to you?

.he says he gernerally does not get into discussions like this because it's like trying to tell an evangilist there is no god, and since you refuse to accept the word of the guy who actually worked on the show he doubts you would belive him. but his credentials are as follows

What does religious preference have to do with scaling fictional starships in Babylon 5?  And what do you mean about not accepting the word of a guy who worked on the show?  Are you talking about Tim Earls?  I've never been contacts by him.  I've never seen these infamous "charts" he supposedly put together.  All I've ever heard of are rumors that he contacted that website across the web and gave the author a bunch of information.  I've never seen anything to validate this.  These so-called "charts" directly contradict information in Crusade.  For example, from online rumors, he supposedly stated that the Excalibur is something like 2-3 miles long.  However, Captain Gideon stated in the series' first episode that the ship is 1 1/4 miles long.

-associates degree-broadcast engineering
-associates degree-corporate media; specializing in computer graphics
 

What does broadcast engineering (works at the TV station?) have to do with computer graphics?  What does it have to do with scaling of Babylon 5 ships?  And who is this person?  You've been ranting on for days, but I have yet to hear from this so-called "expert."

he gave me the following information
 

 quote:
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 most CCDs used in imaging systems consist of silicon
 chip with tiny, SQUARE parts called pixels arranged in
 rows and columns on it's surface. as light falls on a
 pixle, an electric charge builds up in the pixle. the
 amount of charge depends on the amount of light-the
 more light, the greater the charge. the CCD thus
 translates the light from a scene striking the pixle
 array into an "electronic picture" consisting of the
 charges in all the pixles.-AOL encyclopedia
 on-line/research/science/pixle

Hmmm.  If you are getting this information from some "expert," why did you have to use an AOL search engine???  Does he work for AOL now too?  Writing their encyclopedia?  This guy is getting smarter and smarter all the time!  And very busy!

he also suggested brian [...] getting a degree like he did so brian will know what he is talking about...more to come on that

Hmmm.  This sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy to me.
What does his degree have to do with scaling of fictional starships?  I have heard from countless "CGI experts" that didn't even know what a pixel is!  And what does "broadcast engineering" have to do with anything?  What exactly is that anyway?
This sounds like the typical spacebattles fanatic that doesn't think Michael Wong is a good source, because he only has a certain degree, and not a Ph.D..  I strongly suspect that this "expert" does not exist.  After all, I've yet to hear from him, and you have quoted AOL where you were supposedly getting information from him (another appeal to authority).

{Quote}VHS is 240 lines of resolution, and DVD is about 480
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 totally incorrect

VHS generally is 420 lines with 80 of them being used for the "hammerhead" data strip (if you play with the V hold and see that black bar-thats the hammerhead) which is a cross reference signal for the engineer.

Wrong.
VHS is 240 and DVD is somewhere around 480.

Here is a quote from a website (like you did): "For the very best recording quality, go with Super VHS. With resolution of 400+ lines (compared to 240 lines for standard VHS), S-VHS preserves the detail in high-quality sources like digital satellite TV and Digital8 and Mini DV tapes."
http://www.crutchfield.com/infocenter/home/S-aQVn2IKQ3z3/vcr.html

This information is freely available to the public all over the internet, catalogues, etc.  I am totally surprised that this "expert" TV guy, B5 guy, CGI guy, and scaling guy didn't know a fundamental statistic of NTSC video.

Interesting, everyone else in the NTSC region uses 240 lines.  Where does this dude live?  Oh, wait, I forgot - he probably doesn't.  If he does, he needs [...] to go *back* to school with.  He doesn't even know how NTSC VHS video works.
500-525 lines is the max capacity of NTSC video.  So, if VHS uses 420 lines, with 80 more being used too, VHS looks nearly as good as DVD!!!  In fact, since DVD is around 480 lines, if VHS were 420, then it would have 87.5% of DVD resolution!  It is a wonder DVD ever sold, at least in this guy's mind.

 [Quote]I don't use my TV for pixel scaling.
 And what does the color have to do with it?
 If I change an image from color to grayscale
 (black and white), does it change the perspective?
 Of what part of the image?[End Quote]
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 color muddies the signal, black and white is far more accurate.
 

So, if I capture an image in color, then change it to black&white, the ships in the image will move around???
ROTFL!
 

each frame has both fields in it.
 
 

Wrong.  Shows what this nonexistent "expert" knows about image capture.
"NTSC video is composed of alternating fields of 240 scanlines, and PAL/SECAM of 288. If you specify a height equal to or lower than that, the capture driver only snags one field. If you specify a taller image, both fields are grabbed. In either case when you specify a size smaller than the height of the field(s) captured, the result is then scaled down."
http://www.virtualdub.org/docs_capture
Hey, that is what I said before!  And there is that 240 number again!
Note that the above was written by the guy who actually wrote that particular video capture software.

If I capture an image at 240 scanlines (like a 320x240 video) or less, only one field is grabbed, and the other is used as the display on my monitor.  Each filed has half of the image's information, and is in perfect perspective if I use the correct aspect ratio.  The difference between grabbing one field and grabbing both is similar to taking a very large scanned photograph and applying a "resize" filter in an image editing application.  All parts of the image are resized in the same proportions.  If object X is 79% as large as object Y, it will still be 79% no matter how much you resize the image.  Aspect ratio is the important issue here.

If I capture at 640x480, the capture device grabs both fields.  I now have all of the image information.  The image is 4 times as large (2x width, 2x height), but everything is in the exact same size proportion as in the other image or video.

It is more common to use 320x240 resolution for several reasons:
*Some hardware will not support higher resolution - not fast enough.
*Some hardware that will support higher resolution isn't fast enough to keep up, and ends up dropping frames.  This makes a choppy video, and impossible to perform timing measurements for SciFi analysis.
*Interlaced video looks terrible on a PC monitor.  Software compression works on frames, not fields.  And monitors don't require alternating scanlines like TVs do.  Monitors have higher refresh rates and higher resolution.  This allows you to see the alternating fields.  Thus, when using high resolution, you have to apply a deinterlace filter.
*Deinterlace filters can be applied either during capture or after.  My computer is fast enough to do it on the fly (2.4gigahertz), but not many are.  Thus, after capturing the file, you have to use the deinterlace filter in a video editor (which many programs don't have), which requires some time.
*Some computers aren't fast enough to play high resolution videos smoothly.
*Lower resolution videos or images take up less drive space, and are thus easier to download.

I only use 320x240 or 640x480 resolution because these are exact multiples of VGA resolution (1/4 and 1 respectively) and are in perfect 4:3 aspect ratio.  This means that images I digitize (capture) are in perfect perspective to the original TV image.  Images may then be cropped, resized, etc., as long as you don't distort the image (stretch, warp, etc.).

For example, here are frames from an interlaced video, a deinterlaced video, and one that has been cropped, sharpened, and resized.


A frame from an interlaced video.  It has not been filtered in any way, the only modification is to save as a jpg image.

The same exact frame, deinterlaced.  No more fields, only an image.  The scanlines are no longer visible.  Note a slight blur around the dancer's legs.  This is because she is moving.  This is not unlike the blur you get with a photograph when the target is moving.  Note that everything is in perfect perspective to the image above, only no scanlines.

And here is the same image, which I have cropped off the black bars (this is from the widescreen DVD), resized, and sharpened.  It looks clearer because of the sharpen filter.  The sharpen filter does not change perspective in any way.  It simply increases the contrast between a pixel and its neighbors.  Note that this image has the same detail as the two above, it is simply smaller.  If you don't believe it is in perfect perspective, save these images and test it out yourself in your favorite image editor.  It should tell you exactly what pixel your cursor is on, making it easy to count.  Go to this side of her waist and note the pixel, go to that side of her waist and note the pixel, then subtract.  Go ahead, I dare you.

Another interlaced frame from a 640x480 video.

Same frame deinterlaced.

Same frame from a 320x240 video.  This is the one I mentioned where only one field is captured.  Interesting how it actually looks sharper than either of the above images, even though no filtering has been done on it.  All three of these images are in perfect perspective.  Go ahead and measure them.  I dare you.  Anything in the small image will be exactly half as wide or tall as in the large images.



The same frame saved into three different formats.  There is a jpg, png, and gif.  Your browser may or may not show them all.  Can you tell which is which?  Can you see any differences in perspective?  Can you measure any differences?  Would you also like to see a tif? Here you go.

Same frame in color and black&white.  Does it look distorted?  Can you measure any differences?  I can't.

[Quote] If I digitize a 640x480 image[Ene Quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

incredibly low end resolution. the minimum acceptible
in his field is 1000X1200
 

This is totally made up.

Check out this quote: "The NTSC standard has 525 total scan lines, but only 480 to 483 or so are visible. (The extra lines are black. They contain sync pulses and other information, such as the Closed Captions that are encoded into line # 21)."
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#3.4.1
How does he get 1000x1200 (1:1.2 aspect ratio) out of a 4:3 aspect ratio with a maximum of 525 lines (not 1200)???

depending on what program you use which also has a compression ratio, how the file is stored (jpeg, gif, jif, etc..) adds another compression ratio
 

Okay, how about I use each of my capture programs to grab the same thing:

 I have used four separate digitizers at some point in time.  All of these use different software and hardware, but produce interestingly similar images. Hmmm...

So, changing the image from .bmp to .jpg changes the perspective?  Of what part of the image?  Is that why things appear bigger, faster, and more powerful on your TV than mine?  :)
See the images above.
Images are made up of pixels.  The signal tells the TV what each pixel does.  It does the same thing on my TV, your TV, and every other TV in the NTSC region.  If I digitize an image, my computer takes this information and puts those pixels on my monitor.  It makes no difference if I save into bmp, jpg, gif, png, or whatever.  That is just a compression algorithm that has
instructions telling the computer how to arrange these pixels the next time the image is opened.  The next time the image is opened, it will arrange the pixels the exact same way every time.  This information is digital - it is the same every time.
 

he also said your programs are incredibly low end. he suggested for a starter reasonably priced program if you want to keep doing digitized measurments 'microsoft imaging pro'
 

Never heard of it.  I guess this guy is now an expert on all of the software I own too???
Why would one program count pixels differently than another?
Why does he ignore the point about all those different hardware/software combinations doing the same thing?
This sounds like an image editor, not a capture device.
This guy is either stupid, or he doesn't exist.  Probably the latter, since I still haven't heard from him.
Does he know anything about the technology I mentioned?  Snappy is used by the friggin FBI!

Check this out: http://www.divx.com/support/guides/guide.php?gid=11
In this page, it says "Professional video editors are told to capture at 640x 480 pixels for highest quality."  Interesting, that is the resolution that the "expert" said is too low-end.  Interestingly, this is the resolution I use a lot too, along with those professionals.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#2.7
"In numerical terms DVD has 345,600 pixels (720x480), which is 1.3 times LD's approximately 272,160 pixels (567x480)."

There is that pesky 480 line thing again.  :)
 

I bet he can't explain how a ship in front of another ship of known size can't be beyond X percent of the known's size.  This stands regardless of the exact count.  Even if our methods were faulty, this is still fact.  The VPK is stated to be 3-4 miles across.  If a battleship is between the camera and the VPK, and appears very small, it is a small fraction of 4 miles across.  Pixel scaling is just a precise way of making this upper limit.  Period.  The end.  Thank you.

he said anybody trying to "measure pixles" would never get a correct scale comparison. and would be foolish to try.
 

Interesting how this person is a "broadcast engineer," CGI artist, Sci-Fi analyst, expert on software, expert on hardware video digitizers; yet his name is not given and there is no way to contact him.  :)
I have done this for a long time.  I know what I am talking about.  :)
 
 

 scaling B5 ships and canon source material-

 this is in reguard to your flawed attempt to scale B5 ships via pixle/on screen measurments.
 first i present the basic question and response from george johnson who as given canon authority by JMS. the following information can be found on he lurkers guide to B5 "JMS speaks" section.

 [quote]Wrom: ZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCX
 Date: 25 Apr 1997 14:11:12 -0400
 Lines: 38
<snip your long post that I've already seen>

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=
> Wrom: LYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJ
> Date: 25 Apr 1997 17:53:36 -0400
> Lines: 17
>
> Boris-
>
> Actually, we never change the size of the ships. (Okay, before you start
> furiously typing...) The lenses that we use change often, and
> depending on the style of lens selected, the ships may appear closer or
> farther away from another object. This makes things confusing for
> sure. Add to that that the relative distance between two objects may be
> compressed to allow for better screen composition, and we may start to
> explain what you are realizing. The hardware of B5 is a bit "undefined"
> from a tech point of view. This will be remedied in upcoming
> publications.
>
> George Johnsen
> CoProducer, B5[/quote]
 
 

Basically, he is saying that you didn't know that objects farther away will appear smaller, and objects closer to the screen will appear larger.  Note his direct quote "Actually, we never change the size of the ships."
This one sentence invalidates YOUR flawed attempt to use Tim Earls' changing sizes.  Note his Whitestar drawing that scales to ~250 meters, then his "charts" (which only appear on fanatical fans' websites for some strange reason...) which show 476 meters, both of these being different from the OFFICIAL size released in the B5 magazine.
His Excalibur size directly contradicts the script of "War Zone."
George Johnsen has now debunked the whole Tim Earls thing.  Thanks, I'll use this.

He said that they NEVER change sizes, which is what makes my method the best until the actual "upcoming publications" are released.
Hold your hand in front of the moon.  Gasp!  Your hand is larger than the moon!  Quick, call Tim Earls!
Or, could it be that your hand is closer to your face, making it APPEAR larger than the moon, as Mr. Johnsen describes???
We now have a lower limit on the size of the moon.

Ever seen a solar eclipse?  I have.  The moon is as big as the sun!  Call Tim Earls! Oh wait, the moon is closer than the sun...  Maybe it appears larger than the sun, because of that...  We now have an upper limit on the size of the moon.
We now know that the moon is at least as large as your hand, but no larger than the moon.  If we keep doing things like this, we will get closer and closer to the actual size.
 

note: due to lens effects, differeing compression and force persepctives ships will APPEAR to be many different sizes.
 
 

Right.  See above.
I am so surprised that a TV engineer, or whatever you called yourself, who knows everything there is to know about Babylon 5, NTSC video, VHS, DVD, pixels, cameras, sex, or whatever else you claimed, doesn't understand this.
::sarcasm::
 
 

 now as i know you have pointed to the fact tim earls name dows not appear in the tv series breif end credits as your basis for dismissing his work. i invite you to look at a COMPLETE cast list from warner brothers for an episode from the tv series. notice who the conceptual designer is-
 
 

Luc Mayrand up until the 5th season.  Thus, he designed all of the ships we know and love, not Tim Earls.  Does Tim Earls have the right to change what the other guy designed?
Does Doug Chiang have the right to go about resizing Star Destroyers that were designed by someone else, and approved by George Lucas?
You forget that the ships were approved by JMS long before Tim Earls had ANYTHING to do with Babylon 5. You also forget that the official sizes were released in the B5 magazine.  Interesting that Tim Earls' charts only appear on fanatical fans' websites, and never in any official publication.
 

his position on the show is quite clear.
 

He came in at the bottom of the ninth and didn't strike out.
 
 

we also have this statement from tim earls-
Go to the Warlock Project <http://warlock.isnnews.net/>
 
 

Hmmm, a fan's website.
Wow!  I bet this is the real thing is is 99.765% official (in the spirit of Tigreclaw's old "official" claims).
And that site is only a few years old.  Mine is older and larger, but Tim Earls has never contacted me.  I wonder if he really ever contacted these fans.
 

Edit:- Also an extract

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=33687&messageid=986348475
 from the messege boards at the above site:
 quote:
 
 

Ah!  A fan's web board, where anyone can use any name he wishes, and we can't confirm his identity.  And it is also one of the things that no other person in any official capacity ever uses.  I bet this is the real thing though, because it says some nice things that we want to hear!
I have a very large (even in incomplete form) B5 technical website that takes up hundreds of megabytes of space (180-something at last count, and still growing) and is visited by hundreds of people per day (302 distinct hosts accessed Babtech the day after the Vorlon section went online - haven't checked since then), and Tim Earls has never contacted me.  I
started my B5 commentaries when the series was in the 4th season.  I wonder why he would contact a fan with a brand new website (back then) and not me.
IIRC, the Warlock page started with Crusade's brief run, some 2-3 years after mine started.

I was writing Star Wars commentaries some time before that.  In fact, Turbolaser Commentaries started in 1997, IIRC.
 
 

 here I am..
 by Tim Earls
 and I'm working on Warlock schematics and I'm planning to release the size comparison charts that were approved by JMS and John Copeland.
 
 

Into what official publication?  A fan's message board?
 
 

 Posted on Apr 3, 2001, 3:41 PM[/quote]

 the question of course is weather or not his work has canon standings.
 please see JMS's comments as follows-
 
 
 
 

 [quote]costume designs, sets, CGI, prosthetics...I generally deal with all of that, with John Copeland. John handles a fair amount of this stuff as well, but if there's any kind of decision that needs to be made, to finalize stuff, it comes to me. -jms[/quote]
 
 

And where is Tim Earls' name in that quote?
Did you not realize that he approved the official sizes that were released in the B5 magazine?  Did you not realize that he approved all of the ships that were on the show before Tim Earls had anything to do with it?
Did you not realize that I perform scaling on any episode that has the object in question, and I have never seen a huge Whitestar or a 3 mile long Excalibur?
Tim Earls drew things to show JMS and hope they meet his approval.  The CGI artists animated them.  The concept designer does not determine the size of something either.  For example, we can see this process over at Lucasfilm in the bonus features
of the AOTC DVD.  Chiang presents a bunch of drawings to Lucas, who approves or rejects them.  Lucas was onscreen sizing the object to his specifications.  This sounds a lot like what JMS said above.
 
 

the ships fall under the perview of CGI and as such JMS makes quite clear he has the final say.
 

Right.  What does this have to do with Tim Earls?  He doesn't make CGI.  He makes drawings.
 

so rather you like it or not, tim earls final scalings
 

JMS was talking about CGI, which Tim Earls was not involved in.
He made concept drawings, which were then approved or rejected by JMS, or changed to his specifications.  Then the CGI artists went to work.  The "CG Design and Animation Team" consisted of Phillip Giles, Andrew Hofman, Rich Jeffreys III, Geoffrey Mark, and Jeff Montray.
 
 

(founder here http://warlock.isnnews.net/resources/sizecharts/index.html ) are the correct canon size including the 475.6m long whitestar.
 

Gasp!  A fan's website now has the official sizes of Babylon 5 starships that directly contradict the ones in official publications and were themselves never published anywhere else???!!!
 
 

 please feel free to share this information with anyone you know such as mike wong etc...
 

I'll put it on my website for hundreds of people per day to see.
BTW, I still haven't heard from your TV expert who doesn't even know the max resolution of NTSC video, correct aspect ratio of a TV set, or what a pixel is.


    This debate eventually moved to Spacebattles.com, where I "called him out."  The debate was very heated, and was quickly closed by the moderators.  In that debate, he claimed that this "expert" didn't contact me directly because he "doesn't suffer fools."  He also claimed to have received an e-mail from Joe Michael Straczynski himself, stating that he looked at the warlock site and that the sizes are correct.  There are a few problems with this:     Mughi's debate tactics are apparent.  He uses the appeal to authority, hearsay from those authorities whose participation is not even verifiable, ignoring the opponents points, ignoring the hierarchy of evidence, etc.

    To sum up my stance here, max resolution of a video source is not the important thing.  The important number is the aspect ratio.  It doesn't matter if you capture at 80x60 or 640x480 (resolution I use frequently, along with professionals).  As long as you use the proper aspect ratio, the images will be in good perspective for scaling.  The methods we use at Babtech are the most precise and consistent available.

Back