Some ramblings on size versus scale.

[Barke02]

As promised a few images to help illustrate the scale (1/16th, 1/32nd, etc) versus size (90mm, 120mm, etc) debate. For my part I'm firmly in the 'scale' camp, and I'm sure most of you are too. So why do we still use archaic nomenclature such as '90mm' and '75mm'?

There is no such thing as a '120mm rifle', or a 'rifle for 120mm figures'. There can only be a 'scale' rifle. And what scale rifle should a 120mm figure have anyway, 1/15th or 1/16th? The answer is that scale comes FIRST. Anything else is meaningless!

Have a look at this photo taken from 'Uniforms and Insignia of the Luftwaffe' by Brian L. Davis. I love this photo, as it illustrates well the odd shapes and sizes we all come in! Now if you tried to recreate the middle one of these guys in '120mm', what would his height be?........120mm? What about if you modelled the guy on the left.............120mm?

Look at the difference in size between the left guy's boots and the middle guy's shoes!

Now if you start with a scale, then everything is relative. We know the size of a Luftwaffe buckle, and can therefore scale it accordingly. In 1/16th it would be 3x4mm. No need to guesstimate! We could scale correctly the size 12 boots or the size 7 shoes!

Also of interest is is their 'heads height'. It seems popular on many forums to have a blanket quote of '8 heads high' when planning the correct proportions of the human figure. If only we were! '8 heads' is generally use by artists to create a 'heroic' look of tall, thin supermen with small heads and dainty feet! The guy on the left looks a very tall chap, and measures out at 7.6 heads high. The guy in the middle, probably more representative of many people (short!), measures out at 6.3 heads high. Remember this is only a guesstimate, so don't shoot me down for eye level, lens distortion etc! (Anyone here an expert on photogrammetry?)

I'm not saying '8 heads' is wrong , people's proportions vary enormously, just that using '8 heads' as set in stone like some kind of anatomical law is flawed.

 

[Barke02]

Here is an illustration by Maurice Toussaint reproduced from an article by Jean-François Catteau in 'Armes Militaria Magazine No.197'. The artist has depicted the Tambour section and Tambour-major of the 2e Regiment de Zouaves. And guess what? The figures (all the same height) are all '8 heads' high.

But there you go.....artistic license! It looked good in the periodicals of the day to have tall, good looking clones to reassure readers that their army was the best, most handsome, and that no one else stood a chance! End of!

 

[Barke02]

Reality! Here's a photo of some real Zouaves (In this case from the 9e, reproduced from the same article as above). Definitely not 8 heads high! Actual heights are (l-r) 7, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6. Have we become blinded by seeing too many military illustrations?

Again the figures can be scaled by the man-made objects around them. The Berthier 07/15 has a know length of 131cm. That can now be scaled to what ever we want. In 1/16th a Berthier would be 8.18cm long.

 

[Barke02]

Here's another photo, from the same source, showing men from the 9e Zouaves. Look at the variation in head sizes!

This again shows the importance of scale. The carbines are of a known, fixed length and can be recreated to any scale. But look at how far up the carbine comes on the guy on the left compared to the guy on the right. Head height sizes are (l-r) 6.75, 6.7, 6.3, 6.3.

I hope this all makes sense (I did say it would be ramblings!).

Cheers,
Jon.

 

[Revliss]

ok so do we go with the scale or stick with artistic license keeping things at it maximum size for the scale it in .. (for easy painting) ?
that subject still confuse me.

 

[bonehead]

ok so do we go with the scale or stick with artistic license keeping things at it maximum size for the scale it in .. (for easy painting) ?
that subject still confuse me.

You do whatever the hell you want!

That is how it is at present and that is why figure sizes/scales are in such chaotic disarray. But if you are sculpting a 1/16 scale figure, you generally do not make him 120mm tall. That would make your figure nearly 6foot, 5inches tall! Not like most of us, I am afraid........

Mike

 

[Revliss]

ok got it, i wos trying to sculpt a girl that 5ft in 1/16 well she is small

 

[Steve]

Good on ye, Bonehead. This is much to do about little; the millimeter designation is tradition with figures as opposed to tanks, cars, and aircraft. As such it is under fire from people who do not go for tradition, I guess. I strongly suspect that if every figure producing company in the world went to "1/35 1/50 1/16" the discrepancies that exist now would still be there, as everyone interprets the size of a figure to whatever standard their own products represent. Among the miniature hobbies I think perhaps figures have the strongest tradition due to the origins among traditional toy soldiers going back to the 19th century and earlier, thus the use of the millimeter system. Call it what ya want, it ain't gonna change.

 

[Jamie Stokes]

Right on!

The use of a scale has helped me with a future project.

First I wanted to do it in 60mm scale.

Then watched as all my calculations disintegrated as I tried to work out what 60mm broke down, 8 heads, 7 heads, so forth.

Screw up notes, have a cup of tea and a sulk.

Read Jonathon's (& others) take on the sniper figure which inspired this thread.

Back to the board.
The subject is 150cm tall (a bit under 5 feet - quite short) and in 1/16 works out to 9.38 cm tall. But makes her a shade over 90mm - not a handy reference. (I come in at 191 cm, so in 16th, I would be 11.9cm, or a bit under 120mm...hmmm)

But now I have a scale, I can work out clothing, dimensions, any accessories, etc.....where as if I tried to squeeze it in at 90mm, well, somethings would require multiple reworks till they looked right. Or just look a bit 'off'

A scale just takes out a lot of 'eyeball' work, shortcuts a lot of frustration of either the figure or the accessory looking off...but which one?

I think a lot of us have had our experience thrown out of whack by common size moulds. A WW2 G.I. towers over a IJA infantryman, and both are dwarfed by a contemporary gridiron player.

Jonathon, you may be in the minority, but thanks for sharing your insight; has helped me!!

Cheers & thanks for sharing

 

[Einion]

Couple of previous threads:
Bust scale 200mm = 1/9 ?
New member today!! Lots of questions (links on to 2004 post about scales v. nominal heights)

Einion

 

[thegoodsgt]

I don't mind figures being the same height. But one of my biggest pet peeves of the figure hobby is that most of the faces we see on figures all look alike. They tend to be "perfect" characterizations of caucasian men. I see a great deal of variation among the white men that I know, yet the figures of the figures I paint generally look the same.

To be fair, maybe there's a good reason for that. Again, artistic license is at play, and I'm a big supporter of doing what you want...manufacturers included.

 

[marc]

Good points regarding figure scales.
Standard scales do need consistency as figures are often used in groups and with scale vehicles etc.
AS long as standard issue equipment[scale] and anatomy are right then all is fine.
Just got to remember that average heights vary around the world.

As for busts or very much larger pieces I am not sure how much 'scale' really matters.[unless you need specific scale piece for an existing very large model ]
I then think the main size issue is how much space you have for a collection.
But i can understand that those coming form a scale modeling background find scale uniformity more 'right'.
but when you really look at it there are no 'real' human busts, it just an abstraction of how you look at someone.
You don't find scale uniformity in an art gallery.

But coming back to small figs, it's those unique variations and imperfections that make a multi fig piece come alive.


mark

 

[garyjd]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. ~Gary

 

[marc]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. ~Gary

Think the horse is the wrong size..

 

[Einion]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. ~Gary

Well in all fairness we don't get threads on it that often and many people new to the site, or infrequent visitors, might not be aware of the issue and might want to weigh in.

There's always the risk with a forum that's been going a while that you get a lot of threads on the same old topics but this hasn't been done to death far as I can see. Dare I say it, even with the deathly Show judging!, while some of us are sick of the subject it is worth talking about again periodically.

Think the horse is the wrong size..

Einion

 

[Einion]

I don't mind figures being the same height. But one of my biggest pet peeves of the figure hobby is that most of the faces we see on figures all look alike. They tend to be "perfect" characterizations of caucasian men. I see a great deal of variation among the white men that I know, yet the figures of the figures I paint generally look the same.

I think that's a subject worth a thread of its own

Einion

 

[dinovision79]

I don't mind which measure they use untill it has some consistency and are mesured upon sculpting, I have an Alpha Images figure which mesures 131mm in 1/16 = 210cm / 6f 5in, which'd be possible, but if scale the guy back to the M16, he'd be a rather small guy. The weapon and equipment is around 20% off the size!
While using mm or scale, majority (incl. weapons) aren't that bad (this at mainly 120mm / 1/16).

Denes

 

[1969]

Good point to bring up Jonathon,i myself sculpt a figure to 120mm but all equipment,weapons etc are scaled at 1/16,this is a personal choice.
The one advantage i see about stating 120mm is the fact that the person buying the figure can gaurantee what size the figure will be when he/she buys it.If it is stated at 1/16 you have to rely on the sculpters decision as to what the original height might be that they decided to sculpt the figure on,in some cases you could recieve a figure that stands at 90mm or even less leaving you feeling that you have been ripped off as you payed for a 1/16 figure.
Just my thoughts on the matter but im no expert.

Steve

 

[je_touche]

Steve, I have to disagree. I seem to remember one manufacturer (Thistle Miniatures?, don't know if they are still in business) that announced their figures being in 'true' 1/32nd scale, implying that the actual height of figures may vary. I found that a convincing production policy. If people know beforehand that figure sizes may vary they would accept that I think. After all people do not pay for a particular metal or resin weight but for the model as such.

What matters for me is not consistence in height or bulk of the figure but scale consistence of weapons and equipment. If a figure is given as 1/16th scale I expect weapons and equipment to be in that scale. The height of the figure may vary as long as it keeps within natural limits. Scale consistence is important when it comes to the interchangeability of parts. If a rifle looks too short but is correct scalewise that means the figure is too big.

Most figures being produced nowadays tend to be oversized IMO. Even by today's standards a male scaled up to 1.95 m + is much above average size. Let alone that in the past people tended to be considerably smaller, e.g. 167-168 cm was about average around 1800. Sculptors seem to forget that too.

 

[T50]

Gary,
I swear I saw that horse moved a bit! Are you sure it's dead?

I agree with most here. But you can not talk about these 2 different
systems in one sentence. 1/48, 1/35, and 1/16 scale figures are usually
to be displayed with vehicles and aircrafts. One of the fundamental reasons
to have figures in these scales is to give the viewers a sense of scale in
comparison to the vehicles. This is why you hear many AFV modelers go
mad when they see a over-scaled tank crew figure. It would make a Tiger
tank look like a Honda Civic. Yes, you can have a little variation in heights.
For instance, you could have 1/35 figures 48mm to 52mm tall. But the key is
to give them the gears and weapons in correct 1/35 scale. The problem is that
the over-scaled figures usually come with over-scaled gears and weapons.

As for the mm system, you generally don't end up diplaying
a 200mm figure next to a vehicle. So why worry about the size?