A question of scale
- Thread starter buzz1941
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
Guy
A Fixture
That is supposed to be the way of measurement. Some of the 54mm classified figures by the manufacturer are now actually 63 - 65 mm to the eyes. The general rule is from the feet to the eyes. Some of the 120mm manufactures will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
btavis
A Fixture
54mm is not a scale. 1/32 is a scale. If one inch equals thirty two inches then a six foot man would be (72/32) 2.25 inches from head to toe. If you convert inches to millimeters you get 57.15mm.
buzz1941
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 46
Also....
There is also the question of proportion. Artists know that the "average" human proportion is 7.5 heads tall, the "ideal" proportion is 8 heads tall, the "heroic" proportion is 8.5 heads tall. Which means that if the figure is sculpted to classical proportions it will be tall WITHIN its scale.
There is also the question of proportion. Artists know that the "average" human proportion is 7.5 heads tall, the "ideal" proportion is 8 heads tall, the "heroic" proportion is 8.5 heads tall. Which means that if the figure is sculpted to classical proportions it will be tall WITHIN its scale.
Einion
A Fixture
buzz1941
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 46
No. Depends on the manufacturer. Here's a pretty good explanation from Colorado Miniatures:
http://www.coloradominiatures.com/index.asp?ID=4&PageAction=Custom
and another from The Miniatures page:
http://theminiaturespage.com/lib/def.mv?id=scale
Einion
A Fixture
buzz1941
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 46
Heh. What you're actually saying is, it SHOULD be the top of the head. The from-the-eyes measurement is, alas, quite common. It is actually a bit more exact to measure.
I'm in the midst of figuring out proper scales and proportions of existing Series 77 figures. There is a conception that some are short in the leg. I notice also that among the "90mms," Pat Bird sculpted them of varying heights and body mass.
Interestingly, I just measured the head of Series 77 Carribbean Buccaneer figure:
http://www.series77.com/400.html
and from crown to jaw it's about 26mm. Multiply by "average" head/body proportions of 7.5 and we get a figure that should have an overall height of roughly 195mm. And yet it's supposedly sculpted to 154mm.
PJ Deluhery
A Fixture
Manufactureres differ, but the measurement should be from the eyes, in my opinion. That way any high head gear does not throw off the proportions of the figures. If you look at some toy soldiers, the actual figure is more like 45mm due to high hats, etc. A distortion, in my opinion.
je_touche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 128
The most common distortion is the other way round. What sense is in naming a figure '54 mm' if it is actually 60-65 mm, regardless if measured to the eyes or to the top of the head?
I find it very annoying that manufacturers do not keep to a given scale. There are things that would not vary in a scale such as length of a musket or bayonet, width of a waterbottle or whatever. If technical or mass produced items were kept in scale slight variations in the height of a figure would not matter as long as proportions are maintained. A smallish, say 50 mm figurine with a 6,5 head-to-body index would make for a small man and still be in 1/32nd scale, as well as a big figure of 58 mm with a 1:7,5-8 index. Actually, their heads would be of more or less the same size, and that is what proportions are about.
So, as figure painters and collectors, we should stop discussing figure heights, and start insisting on correct scale and proportions.
bonehead
A Fixture
Ah, the age old arguments!!
Back in the prehistoric era, when all "lead soldiers" were considered to be toys, the measurments were to the eyes. This was done for the above stated reason that once the figure had head gear, the top of the head was only a theoretical point somwhere in the depths of the figure. So, the eyes had it.
But, when you measure your kid or somebody else, you don't measure them to the eye! That is ridiculous. We measure people to the top of the head because that is how tall they are! Duh.
So, that is the beauty of being a sculptor. I can ignore all of the silly confusion that this simple question can engender and just get down to the business of making models. I started out as a model builder. So, I tend to think in scales and equate them with relative sizes.
As Bob said, 54mm is a size, not a scale. But it is a mean average (to the top of the head, not the eye!) for a guy in 1/32 scale too. Every scale has its mean averages: 1/24 scale - 75mm; 1/18 scale - 100mm; 1/16 scale - 110mm; 1/12 scale - 150mm; 1/9 scale - 200mm; 1/6 scale - 300mm etc.
Some of these "averages are closer to 6 feet tall and some are closer to 5' 10", which is closer to a reasonable average height for a figure. The REALLY important thing is when it comes to scaling weponry and equipment. These things have a very specific size in reality. And that is why it is MORE important to work in a SCALE rather than skewing to some arbitrary size.
But many of the European manufacturers still adhere to the "traditional" standards, which turn out not to be standards at all! This is bogus. It is arbitrary, confusing, unhelpful and results in figures that have no true standard. They come in sizes and scales that are all over the map. Balderdash!
I work to a scale. I rough guesstimate the height of a given figure, sometimes add a few millimeters if I want to "idealize" the proportions and run with that. But all of my rifles and swords and such are made to a specific scale, usually those quoted above. No muss, no fuss.
But don't expect my figures to agree with European "standards" or those of anybody else. That is because those "standards" are a huge steaming pile of B.S. There are no standards. I think that figure producers should think of their figures as scale models and get rid of the arbitrary confusion their "traditional standards" create.
But hey, that's just me......
Bonehead
Back in the prehistoric era, when all "lead soldiers" were considered to be toys, the measurments were to the eyes. This was done for the above stated reason that once the figure had head gear, the top of the head was only a theoretical point somwhere in the depths of the figure. So, the eyes had it.
But, when you measure your kid or somebody else, you don't measure them to the eye! That is ridiculous. We measure people to the top of the head because that is how tall they are! Duh.
So, that is the beauty of being a sculptor. I can ignore all of the silly confusion that this simple question can engender and just get down to the business of making models. I started out as a model builder. So, I tend to think in scales and equate them with relative sizes.
As Bob said, 54mm is a size, not a scale. But it is a mean average (to the top of the head, not the eye!) for a guy in 1/32 scale too. Every scale has its mean averages: 1/24 scale - 75mm; 1/18 scale - 100mm; 1/16 scale - 110mm; 1/12 scale - 150mm; 1/9 scale - 200mm; 1/6 scale - 300mm etc.
Some of these "averages are closer to 6 feet tall and some are closer to 5' 10", which is closer to a reasonable average height for a figure. The REALLY important thing is when it comes to scaling weponry and equipment. These things have a very specific size in reality. And that is why it is MORE important to work in a SCALE rather than skewing to some arbitrary size.
But many of the European manufacturers still adhere to the "traditional" standards, which turn out not to be standards at all! This is bogus. It is arbitrary, confusing, unhelpful and results in figures that have no true standard. They come in sizes and scales that are all over the map. Balderdash!
I work to a scale. I rough guesstimate the height of a given figure, sometimes add a few millimeters if I want to "idealize" the proportions and run with that. But all of my rifles and swords and such are made to a specific scale, usually those quoted above. No muss, no fuss.
But don't expect my figures to agree with European "standards" or those of anybody else. That is because those "standards" are a huge steaming pile of B.S. There are no standards. I think that figure producers should think of their figures as scale models and get rid of the arbitrary confusion their "traditional standards" create.
But hey, that's just me......
Bonehead
je_touche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 128
Mike,
I can only subscribe to what you are saying. If every figure manufacturer/ figure modeller worked to scale as you say you do we would stop talking silly measurements and start talking scale. The beauty of that would be we could combine figurines for collections and/ or dioramas, and they would complement each other. Btw I disagree that it's the European manufacturers only who seem to disregard this, but there certainly is a big confusion about figure scales.
The only 'true' scale seems to be 1/35th for the WWII collectors. In 1/35th scale, figure manufacturers have to adhere to scale because there are all the technical models, and figurines in 1/35th scale are more often than not regarded as mere ad-ons to afvs, aircraft, or whatever. But hey, a napoleonic cannon or a Brown Bess is a technical model too, with exact measurements. So where's the difference if we are still talking about SCALE modelling?
I can only subscribe to what you are saying. If every figure manufacturer/ figure modeller worked to scale as you say you do we would stop talking silly measurements and start talking scale. The beauty of that would be we could combine figurines for collections and/ or dioramas, and they would complement each other. Btw I disagree that it's the European manufacturers only who seem to disregard this, but there certainly is a big confusion about figure scales.
The only 'true' scale seems to be 1/35th for the WWII collectors. In 1/35th scale, figure manufacturers have to adhere to scale because there are all the technical models, and figurines in 1/35th scale are more often than not regarded as mere ad-ons to afvs, aircraft, or whatever. But hey, a napoleonic cannon or a Brown Bess is a technical model too, with exact measurements. So where's the difference if we are still talking about SCALE modelling?
bonehead
A Fixture
Well, I disagree here. This scale applies only to armor models. 1/35 scale is just another arbitrary model size which has no real rhyme or reason. In fact, the origins of it are obscure. Some seem to think it started with the early Monogram military vehicle kits from the 1960s. These were actually 1/34 scale, a completely arbitrary, "fit the box" size! When the Japanese decided to follow suit, they rounded it off to a metric measure: 1/35 scale. Given modeling precedent, 1/32 scale, or even 1/36 would have been better choices. But, once the cascade of kits began, it was too late to change an established standard.
But numerically, 1/35 scale has no validity other than it's dubious precedents. On the other hand, scales such as 1/72, 1/48, 1/32, 1/24 and 1/16 have long time precedents that go back through models of all types. They also have numerical validity being "natural" scales that have divisible relationships to each other. For instance, each of these scales is 150% of the former scale and 76.666% (preciesly 2/3rds) of the latter.
And, because I have been doing figures for model aircraft, which utilize these natural scales, I use them regularly in my modeling. But again, that seems to be just me.......
Mike
tonydawe
A Fixture
Hi guys
Another issue (which is semi-related to this one) is that human beings have grown considerably in height and weight over the past centuries as the quality and quantity of food supplies have improved and better medicines and hygene has increased the average longevity and general health of people.
(Obviously these comments are general. There are still some countries today where food, health and hygene are as scarce as they were in Europe during the Dark Ages!!)
Therefore a 1/32nd scale figure, depicting a Greek, Roman or a Celt for example, should still be considerably smaller in height and weight, than a 1/32 scale figure of a modern soldier.
And yet, when I see figures depicting soldiers from Ancient cultures, they seem to reflect modern physical proportions and "heroic" body sizes, rather than the actual average sizes typical of the historical period they belong to.
Anyone who has walked through the doorway of a house built before the 19th Century will understand that these changes in body height and weight have occurred relatively recently in human evolution.
Average height for a mature male today is somewhere between (5ft 8' - 5ft 10'), but less than 200 years ago average height for a male of equal age was (5ft 4' - 5ft 6'). The same relative increase in body height and weight are also evident in females.
For most of history a man taller than six foot tall would have been considered a giant! Its only in the 20th Century that men have been consistently reaching and exceeding 6ft in height.
I don't really have a point here, just wanted to share my observations.
Cheers
Another issue (which is semi-related to this one) is that human beings have grown considerably in height and weight over the past centuries as the quality and quantity of food supplies have improved and better medicines and hygene has increased the average longevity and general health of people.
(Obviously these comments are general. There are still some countries today where food, health and hygene are as scarce as they were in Europe during the Dark Ages!!)
Therefore a 1/32nd scale figure, depicting a Greek, Roman or a Celt for example, should still be considerably smaller in height and weight, than a 1/32 scale figure of a modern soldier.
And yet, when I see figures depicting soldiers from Ancient cultures, they seem to reflect modern physical proportions and "heroic" body sizes, rather than the actual average sizes typical of the historical period they belong to.
Anyone who has walked through the doorway of a house built before the 19th Century will understand that these changes in body height and weight have occurred relatively recently in human evolution.
Average height for a mature male today is somewhere between (5ft 8' - 5ft 10'), but less than 200 years ago average height for a male of equal age was (5ft 4' - 5ft 6'). The same relative increase in body height and weight are also evident in females.
For most of history a man taller than six foot tall would have been considered a giant! Its only in the 20th Century that men have been consistently reaching and exceeding 6ft in height.
I don't really have a point here, just wanted to share my observations.
Cheers
je_touche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 128
Mike, I completely agree with you, but my point was a bit different (maybe I did not make it clear since English is not my first language). What you are telling is true as to the establishing of ever new scales - I could never figure out the sense of using scales as closely related as 1/32nd and 1/35th, or 1/72nd and 1/76th. My guess is that this was done for competitive reasons. When the Tamiya et al. started marketing WWII models in 1/35th scale 1/32nd scale was a long established scale for figurines, and indeed some manufacturers such as Airfix were producing AFVs and stuff in that scale too. Within a couple of years 1/35th was established as THE scale for WWII modelling, making 1/32nd scale figurines practically incompatible and pushing 1/32nd technical models to the margin.
What I am trying to say is that presently, if a manufacturer wants to make his figurines compatible with the established scales of technical models because he wishes to sell his product to the AFV buff he has to adhere to scale size. On the other side so called 'historical' or 'collector's' figures that are nominally in 1/32nd scale are actually made to no specific scale at all, tending to grow to scales of 1/30th or bigger.
The same holds true for the smaller scales, which I am especially fond of. In 1/72nd, figurines lately show a tendency to grow more to scales like 1/65th or even 1/60th, coming close to 28 mm wargaming sizes. My question is if this might be done intentionally - manufacturers WANT to make their figurines incompatible with the product of their competitors. Again, the exception ist stuff produced for combining with technical models in 1/72nd scale.
For me, this is one - if not the only - reason for having switched to mainly scratchbuilding my figures because I want them to be in scale and to be compatible with each other. The other reason is rising retail prices but that has been tackled in another thread.
Similar threads
