What scale is the 5 foot Millennium Falcon?

I love you guys... I really do.

But lets face facts here. The ANH Falcon was not built to a specific Scale. The guys that built it went for "roughly" 1/24 to be in the "rough" scale of the fighters. But they were not in any way slavish to their devotion to exact scale. Trying to reconcile the live action sets to the models is a path to a migraine and an unsatisfactory answer any way you cut it. So the answer to this discussion depends on whether you're a glass half empty or glass half full kind of person. Either everybody is right, or everybody is wrong. Arguments - valid ones - can and have been made for a plethora of answers.

My advice pick the theory that you agree most with and have at it. NOBODY can prove you're wrong - even though they may take the argument to the grave.

My personal theory is that its "roughly" its 1/24 since that's "roughly" what the crew made the other models at... and its "close" to a lot of the theories. Good enough for me.


Peace,
Jedi Dade
 
I agree they were shooting for a "roughly" 1:24 scale, but the numbers suggest it's closer to 1:21 scale... but that is alright. Back when they were building it all they really wanted was for it to look cool, and that's exactly what they got! If you were to put 1/24th scale figurines in the cockpit they would look a bit small but would probably pass on film! :)
 
So, in summary: take a big swig from the creativity jug and go with makes you happy (or if doing a commission, that which makes the customer happy!)

BTW, I thought someone here had done a full-on analysis of the 5 footer and created the base form in 3D? Dang, where is that thread?
R/ Robert
 
Here's my take. Studio Scale is not a " Scale" . Even though "scale" is in the phrase. "Dog" is in the phrase hot dog, but there's no dog in it, LOL. Studio scale is the size of the actual filming miniature, period. It may work out to be a particular scale, but that would be just be blind luck. Maybe in the case of the fighters in Star Wars or other films, they used a pilot figure of a particular scale. Then maybe you could say it was the same scale. When someone builds a duplicate of a studio scale model, they want to build it the exact size, as much as possible, as the SS Model. With similar techniques and the exact kit parts. It doesn't really matter what " scale " it is, if you get the size right. It's a category error , Imho, to ask what "scale" a particular studio scale model is. When someone asks I say it's studio scale, LOL. Unless there was a real Mel Falcon, the actual size it was supposed to be, then there can't be a " Scale". An F16 has an actual size, so there can be scale models of it. Is there a real Mel Falcon. Even the " full sized" Mel Falcon was under sized. So what scale is the 5 foot falcon, 20 percent of a 75 percent full sized falcon. Too much math for me. I think people should keep Studio Scale separate from actual real world modeling. Unless you just like to play mind games for the sheer fun of it. Some people like to think of theoretical stuff to stretch their cranium. Nothing wrong with that, but unproductive, if you hope to come to an actual consensus. Studio Scale is Studio Scale. The End. :)
 
Last edited:
LrdSatyr8 said:
That's what I thought... I knew that DeAgo (Steve Dymszo) had exclusive access to the 32" incher and was the first to have ever used a scanner to get exact measurements. The Fine Molds team on the other hand had access to the 5' Footer and even thou they did accurate measurements of the 5' footer ended up doing a 32" incher instead using the 5' footer measurements as a base, which kinda threw all of the measurements out of whack and caused the famous Fine Molds Mandible "toe-in" problem. But regardless that original measurement of 64.539625 inches for the length (which included the greeblies on the front and back) is probably the best measurement for discovering scale. I wasn't trying to berate ya Darth... just find it silly that here it is almost 40 years later, it took people 20 years to figure out the math for the actual size and to agree on that measurement, and yet there are still alot of people that are debating and trying to come up with different numbers. I believe however that the scale of 1/20th (or more precisely 1:21.19628057897664) for the 5' footer is probably the most accepted. It would be nice if we could just have some hard numbers that everyone agrees on and move on!

As far as the Fine Molds Falcon... I was completely on board getting one until I learned that it was actually smaller then the AMT/Ertl... I think they really should have done it a few inches bigger then that one and I would have snatched one up ASAP! I understand they were trying to come up with a standardize scale for them... but 1:76 was a bit on the small side. Would have been nicer if they did a 1:64 scale and used taht as the basis for all the other models they came out with. They would have been bigger, had more detail and would have been easier to handle and assemble.
Click to expand...

Thanks, LS8. That’s good poop…strange how it turned out, but good to know. Not to worry about the post. I usually read & write to the boards stupidly late when I am half asleep. My post was more like Luke saying “I care” in response to Leia’s comment, or perhaps “amen, brother!”. Indeed, Brown’s work should be known by all who is interested, and many who do know it are believing converts…like me.

Turns out I did get that Fine Molds Falcon, mainly out of curiosity, and for reference. I doubt I will ever build it, though. I tend to get publications and differing models of the Falcon as I can afford them for the sake of comparison and triangulation. I have discovered there is a little truth in each (sometimes damn little), and as long as I have the patience to seek out and extract that truth, then ultimately, it is a plus. So far, the FM Falcon yields a 3D sculpture of the engines’ semi-innards, which is based on sketches in the Lucas archives, another version (other than the MPC Falcon) of the landing legs/feet, and an interpretation of the forward hull boxes. Not sure what to do with them just yet, but at least I have them.

Mark
 
Jaitea said:
& theres Maruska,....http://www.therpf.com/f11/millenium-falcon-parts-3d-printing-168520/

falcon.maruskadesign.com

& Andre......(vfxsup64)........#447,......this image has the dimensions you could be looking for

attachment.php

J
Click to expand...

I am very grateful to Markusa for his effort to make the parts of the “5-Footer” available to folks. Even still, these days I have to watch my spending, so I have yet to partake of the bounty.

My hat is off to Andre. He has tools I do not, and the desire to solve the beast. Personally, I do not think he is quite there yet, though with each iteration, he has been getting closer to my numbers. I think he might believe he has solved it at this point and is done, and maybe he has and is…again because I have never been up close and personal with the bird. His total base length is a little longer than mine; I have independent confirmation by others for mine, and his radius of saucer curvature is a little bigger than mine; I also have independent confirmation by others for mine. But he has done more in a shorter amount of time than I ever could. Mind you, I have not thoroughly solved it myself, but I believe I have a large portion of the fundamentals solved. The biggest sticking point for me has been the hull boxes. The underside images I have access to are usually very oblique, or far too close-up with the attending perspective problems to obtain accurate orthos from.

Mark
 
bwayne64 said:
Here's my take. Studio Scale is not a " Scale" . Even though "scale" is in the phrase. "Dog" is in the phrase hot dog, but there's no dog in it, LOL. Studio scale is the size of the actual filming miniature, period. It may work out to be a particular scale, but that would be just be blind luck. Maybe in the case of the fighters in Star Wars or other films, they used a pilot figure of a particular scale. Then maybe you could say it was the same scale. When someone builds a duplicate of a studio scale model, they want to build it the exact size, as much as possible, as the SS Model. With similar techniques and the exact kit parts. It doesn't really matter what " scale " it is, if you get the size right. It's a category error , Imho, to ask what "scale" a particular studio scale model is. When someone asks I say it's studio scale, LOL. Unless there was a real Mel Falcon, the actual size it was supposed to be, then there can't be a " Scale". An F16 has an actual size, so there can be scale models of it. Is there a real Mel Falcon. Even the " full sized" Mel Falcon was under sized. So what scale is the 5 foot falcon, 20 percent of a 75 percent full sized falcon. Too much math for me. I think people should keep Studio Scale separate from actual real world modeling. Unless you just like to play mind games for the sheer fun of it. Some people like to think of theoretical stuff to stretch their cranium. Nothing wrong with that, but unproductive, if you hope to come to an actual consensus. Studio Scale is Studio Scale. The End. :)
Click to expand...

This would be a great post if we were arguing what is studio scale... save it for the inevetiable thread on that - it will be around every 6 months or so :D.

Jedi Dade
 
Yes, Studio Scale is obviously a rather unfortunate choice of terminology. It implies there is a 'scale' to a filming prop model when there can only be an 'inferred scale' based on elements that have real world counterparts such as doors, seats or crew. So perhaps the correct question that is being asked is what is the inferred scale of the 5-foot MF filming model? So as this is a question which has been answered quite well at this point, depending on which of the several primary assumptions to which you wish to subscribe, namely:

1) The MF matches the "scale" of other models in the ANH production
2) The MF model should have a good level of 'agreement' with the movie 'interior' sets
3) The MF model should match the 'full size' MF filming exterior sets (but which one?)

it appears we are done (ha!)?

The thorough analysis attributed to Rob Brown followed the general precept of 'option #2', his conclusions being summarized on his website (now defunct but archived on the Wayback Machine archive: HERE.) RE: the actual size of the filming prop, the thread I was thinking of is indeed Maruska's very thorough 3D analysis, as Jatiea already noted : Maruska's Millennium Falcon thread

For me, I am happy to say that the Hasbro MF 'toy' is a 1:48 scale model of the Millennium Falcon because that fits with the rest of my model collection & also fits Mr. Brown's analysis.

Regards, Robert
 
Totally agree... so basically to reiterate to all those that don't follow the thread and are just now reading this... here's the skinny:

Studio Scale means the size at which the original filming model was created at. This is the model that appears on screen in the movie.

For Example: A studio built model could be built to any size or scale they desire or see fit to build it at. Sometimes, they are built around pre-existing model kit parts and the build progresses toward the goal of a certain size or scale, but doesn't happen often. Many are scratch built and have no set scale to which to refer to.

Actual Scale means the size of the model compared to the full size of the ship or model (if it were to exist in real life).

For Example: If a 747 plane is built at 1:25th scale, it would mean that it would take 25 of those models lined up end to end to equal the length of the original size of the Full Size airplane.

Full Scale means the full 1:1 human interactive size ship.

If ever you see the words Studio Scale referring to the size of a model kit, it most likely means that the kit was built to the size (or approximate size) of the filming model. Many of the X-Wings in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were actually the AMT/Ertl model kits... so since they appeared on screen they can be called Studio Scale. However, since there can be several different sizes of the same ship (there were at least 4 different Falcon sizes) this could get tricky.

Most studio models had different versions for different types of shots. The most detailed and best looking model was known as the "HERO" because it allowed for close-up shots to be taken and all the beautiful detail was shown off in all it's glory. The 5' Footer can be considered a HERO Studio model. Then there are the smaller scales. The 32" wasn't as detailed, and to an untrained eye looked identical to the 5' footer, however, it lacked some of the detail and was used primarily for action shots. Meaning when you saw it on screen, it was usually moving by the camera quickly and all the detail was blurred out, which also makes it difficult to recreate the detail.

Now many of the ships that appeared to be made Full Scale weren't actually Full Scale... Due to size limits of the sound stages where much of the filming took place, the ships had to be made smaller to fit in the building. So the Falcon for example wasn't actually Full Scale, but actually 3/4 the size of the Full Scale ship. And much of the time, the entire ship was never made... only the sides that were facing the cameras were built. In the original hanger scene on ANH, they actually just had large cardboard cutouts painted to look like Y-Wings and X-Wings in the background. Only one Full Scale X-Wing was built and you never noticed it.

Now... the biggest problem of scale when dealing with many of the Star Wars movie props is the fact that they never really had one. They were just eyeballing it most of the time. If it looked good, they didn't care. These were after all ficticuos ships that don't exist. Heck, not many of the crew actually believed that this movie was going to be any good so to them it really didn't matter much. It wasn't until the fans themselves attempted to quantify the sizes that all the scaling issues came up. If you go back and buy one of the models from the 70's and 80's they never had a scale on them whatsoever. As long as they looked close to it, we were happy. But it wasn't until fans like Robert Brown actually sat down and began drawing together other fans together to come up with actual size numbers for these ships that scale began to matter. So... pre-Robert Brown there really wasn't any scale of the studio models. Post-Robert Brown, now we can agree that the scale of the 5' footer Falcon was approximately 1:21 scale.

If I am wrong in any of the above, please feel free to correct me!
 
Last edited:
rbeach84 said:
For me, I am happy to say that the Hasbro MF 'toy' is a 1:48 scale model of the Millennium Falcon because that fits with the rest of my model collection & also fits Mr. Brown's analysis.
Click to expand...

I totally agree... and the DeAgostini Falcon (as well as the 32" inch Falcon) are 1:43 scale.
 
I mostly agree.

But I don't see why the MF's interior sets should totally define the scale rather than the exterior sets at all. Hollywood builds over-sized interiors of things just as often as they build under-sized exteriors. The OT featured a lot of close-up footage of the MF's exteriors too.



Is Bart & Lisa Simpson's treehouse really the size of a 2-car garage?

That's what a lot of the interior footage "proves" if we say "the exterior was undersized to fit in the tree" and dismiss all the exterior shots.



IMO the Falcon's true size (which seems to be settled now at 114' even in Lucasfilm's eyes) should have been at least a bit smaller than the OT interior sets.
 
Last edited:
Interesting tread....
As far I know of, ILM called the 5-footer, "THE 4-FOOT FALCON" and the 32 inch bird, "THE 2 FOOT FALCON" both referring to the diameter of the disc. 32" and 5 footer is more or less fan based names.
 
batguy said:
I mostly agree.

But I don't see why the MF's interior sets should totally define the scale rather than the exterior sets at all. Hollywood builds over-sized interiors of things just as often as they build under-sized exteriors. The OT featured a lot of close-up footage of the MF's exteriors too.
Is Bart & Lisa Simpson's treehouse really the size of a 2-car garage?
That's what a lot of the interior footage "proves" if we say "the exterior was undersized to fit in the tree" and dismiss all the exterior shots.
IMO the Falcon's true size (which seems to be settled now at 114' even in Lucasfilm's eyes) should have been at least a bit smaller than the OT interior sets.
Click to expand...

Cartoons aside, the 'why' for the model builder is because the interior sets define the interior space and constitute the practical minimums for the exterior - because the basic assumption is it all fits inside (unless we're talking Time Lord technology!) Exterior sets have no such constraint since they don't have to 'fit inside' anything*. Any exterior discrepancies can be put down to perspective, but if you don't make the model's "scale" big enough to hold the filmed interiors (or nearly so) then you lose any practical integrity. Even if an interior isn't depicted in the model, things should still be reasonably in agreement.

Of course, this is all nonsense in reality, since there was never a "real" spaceship. In the end, the modeler takes whatever stance they wish & carries on with being happy....sort of like model railroaders often do! ;^)
R/ Robert

* Noted that there were sound stage constraints...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if docking bay #94 was a known place and it was only 100' long inside? I don't think you could build a real-life copy of that room large enough to hold the 114' Falcon without the difference being pretty obvious. Same with the Hoth base to a lesser extent.


On the other hand the rooms & hallways inside the Falcon could probably all be shrunken down at least 25%, maybe more, before it threatens the story events. Luke's lightsaber practice in the main hold being one of the exceptions. (With a full-length saber blade, I wonder if it really even clears the ceiling inside a 114' Falcon.)


It's all fictional BS, yeah. I just don't see why the soundstage interiors are given 100% canon and the exterior shells are 0%.

Having grown up watching the OT, I do wonder if the 114' Falcon exterior shell is going to look visibly too big in the new movie.
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Flyscriber
Millennium Falcon Five foot gun turret scratch build.
Replies
4
Views
610
Flyscriber
Flyscriber
G
One More 5 Footer Falcon
Replies
18
Views
1,766
joberg
joberg
manugu
5-foot Millennium Falcon - parts lists & complementary Info
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8,172
manugu
manugu
RealDaveWinter
5' Falcon base hull building
11 12 13
Replies
243
Views
15,033
RealDaveWinter
RealDaveWinter
JSchneider
ILM Painted - Gifted Millennium Falcon - on Display at Oshkosh EAA Museum
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5,659
Hyde35
Hyde35
Back
Top