Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Sorry but as someone who has both worked in the visual arts and lectured in them I must take exception to this comment.

 

Perspective is exactly how the eye sees things. If you stand in the middle of railway tracks (apart from the recommendation that you don't for safety reasons) the tracks appear to converge in the distance, this is perceptive and specifically a vanishing point. This is caused by the curvature of the lenses in the eye and how they refract the rays of light that come to them from different distances (I believe).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

 

As regards backscenes, these are also used in the film industry, painted around the edge of sets. They are generally designed to be out of focus, so the camera helps match them in, a luxury that modellers do not have. One thing they do is avoid specific edges to buildings as seen in the Leicester layout, they tend to deal in rough silhouettes and a sense of haze or smoke to hide specific details that would give away the angle of the viewer. or the perspective. In this respect the terraced houses on the Leicester layout work very well.

 

Film backscenes also tend to look very much like impressionist paintings, but work all the better for that. When viewed closely they appear unbelievably rough. The last big ones I saw were on the 'Sleepy Hollow' set and looked superb. They are to some extent being superseded by the use of green screen, which is good for keeping me in work.

 

A couple of months ago I worked on a film where we used an interesting backscene called a translight. This was a photograph printed on to the material that is used for cinema screens, which is translucent and can be back lit.  The light coming through the screen gives a great deal of life to the images that a solid front lit print would not have. Here is one from a big Hollywood movie I suspect.

 

 

Probably way too expensive for railway modellers to use, or maybe not.

 

As with the painted backscenes the gap to the translight allows for focus to fall off and disguise the falsehood of the image, again not an easy option for many modellers.

 

Personally I am not a fan of backscenes which is why my incredibly slow to develop layout is based on a valley station, so that buildings rise up to obscure where you would see beyond. No doubt there will be places where this doesn't work. I am somewhat influenced by the fantastic layouts of Wibble on this forum, such as Wibdenshaw and Hornsey Broadway.

 

This has been an interesting discussion to follow and has made me realise that some backscenes are very good indeed..

 

Jamie

 

Appologies for my current typing, and can only use my left hand at the moment due to an accident.

 

That's all very well if you could freeze frame the human eye for a millionth of a second so that it is locked, it doesn't work like that. In reality we experience the world in an ever changing landscape of perspectives. The eye is constantly processing information to provide a composite image, some of which is created from memory. The great Artist of the late 19th and early 20th Century century realised this and ditched the  set of rules with regard to perspective in order to describe the world they were seeing. And that's the point in this conversation, it is a one of many constructs to describe a 3 dimensional experience in a 2 dimensional space. If this was not the case then the use of perspective would be part of Art from the start of human experience, this is not the case as perspective as a tool of 3d representation in a 2d medium was invented later.

[Headstock]

Clive referred to it as northlight, as I, and I suspect others, would have done, you posted a somewhat pedantic reply regarding the lack of windows.

If I have misinterpreted your reply, then I apologise.

 

Mike.

 

Mike,

 

thanks for the reply. No need to apologise, your explanation makes things clear.

[Jamiel]

That's all very well if you could freeze frame the human eye for a millionth of a second so that it is locked, it doesn't work like that. In reality we experience the world in an ever changing landscape of perspectives. The eye is constantly processing information to provide a composite image, some of which is created from memory. The great Artist of the late 19th and early 20th Century century realised this and ditched the  set of rules with regard to perspective in order to describe the world they were seeing. And that's the point in this conversation, it is a one of many constructs to describe a 3 dimensional experience in a 2 dimensional space. If this was not the case then the use of perspective would be part of Art from the start of human experience, this is not the case as perspective as a tool of 3d representation in a 2d medium was invented later.

Yes I agree about much of 20th Century art, but I have yet to see anyone attempt a cubist model railway!

 

The problem with a backscene is that it must be a single point of view, a fraction of a second in the movement of an individual, and so for that split second the rules of perspective do apply.

 

To achieve the realistic kind of depth verses movement you are hinting at you would need a 3D model of the world beyond the layout, a screen of some sort and a sensor of where the viewer is. This would go way beyond what most people consider to be railway modelling.

 

Avoiding very specific lines of perspective is certainly an advantage in backscenes, so allowing the scene to work from different viewing locations. Another option is to only allow the backscene to be viewed from specific points of view through the layout.

 

I suspect we are arguing for similar things in a backscene, but from different perspectives (sorry), and that a more general, or impressionistic style view works better than a photorealistic snapshot of one viewing point.

 

Jamie

Edited January 2, 2018 by Jamiel

[Clive Mortimore]

It's not a North light.

What ever it is, it looks wrong in both photos. Now I am sure if I was to view it with the light on the layout at the same angle as the shadows seem to represent on the buildings and at the right  angle they might work. They look twisted compared to everything else.

 

Jamie mentioned that for film sets the backscene is out of focus, maybe many model backscenes would work better if the distant objects were not so sharp.

 

As I say I cannot do a decent backscene so I will continue either not have one or just a plain blue or grey piece of painted wood.

 

When out showing Hanging Hill I was persuaded to make a backscene, so I did with the very low relief industrial buildings that backed on to the loco depot.

 

I personally think the low wall marking the railway boundary worked better.

 

Neither photo was taken by me but are in my collection donated by friends.

[Headstock]

What ever it is, it looks wrong in both photos. Now I am sure if I was to view it with the light on the layout at the same angle as the shadows seem to represent on the buildings and at the right  angle they might work. They look twisted compared to everything else.

 

Jamie mentioned that for film sets the backscene is out of focus, maybe many model backscenes would work better if the distant objects were not so sharp.

 

As I say I cannot do a decent backscene so I will continue either not have one or just a plain blue or grey piece of painted wood.

 

When out showing Hanging Hill I was persuaded to make a backscene, so I did with the very low relief industrial buildings that backed on to the loco depot.

DEMU_Showcase_2006_f.JPG

 

I personally think the low wall marking the railway boundary worked better.

hh11.jpg

 

Neither photo was taken by me but are in my collection donated by friends.

 

Clive,

 

thanks for the reply. All this attention to backscenes makes me think that the most successful don't draw any attention to themselves. With regard to Northlights. I see were you are coming from (a case of look, look and look again) There are so many genuine northlight factories on the layout that I thought it was this to which you where referring. As a side point, its the chopped off front of layouts that I find the most jarring

 

 

Yes I agree about much of 20th Century art, but I have yet to see anyone attempt a cubist model railway!

 

 

 

Thanks Jamie,

 

You should check out that building on LSGC again.

[St Enodoc]

Hi Tony

 

That was my point many post ago. Most are not well done, so if you cannot paint a landscape that you could sell to hang on someone's living room wall then leave alone and just have a plain light blue or grey sky.

Or get someone else to do it...

[CF MRC]

Those north light buildings on LGSC look pretty good to me.

 

One of the best tricks with backscenes is to use the same paint palate on the last modelled section of the layout that you are using for the foreground of the backscene. Then diminish colour saturation and brightness in the 2D painted sections thereafter; scenic flats help as well. CF uses diminishing scale down to 1:450 on the modelled sections. There is very little detail in anything towards the back and the viewer’s imagination is used to fill in the missing bits.

 

Tim

[asmay2002]

Taking these 'favourites' into account, I consider that your point, that "the eye is not sure exactly where the 3D work ends and the backscene begins" is critical,

That is the most common approach people are attempting.  There is an alternative (not often seen in railway modelling) and that is to force the eye to look at only the modelling by using a black backscene.

[Lecorbusier]

Yes I agree about much of 20th Century art, but I have yet to see anyone attempt a cubist model railway!

 

The problem with a backscene is that it must be a single point of view, a fraction of a second in the movement of an individual, and so for that split second the rules of perspective do apply.

 

To achieve the realistic kind of depth verses movement you are hinting at you would need a 3D model of the world beyond the layout, a screen of some sort and a sensor of where the viewer is. This would go way beyond what most people consider to be railway modelling.

 

Avoiding very specific lines of perspective is certainly an advantage in backscenes, so allowing the scene to work from different viewing locations. Another option is to only allow the backscene to be viewed from specific points of view through the layout.

 

I suspect we are arguing for similar things in a backscene, but from different perspectives (sorry), and that a more general, or impressionistic style view works better than a photorealistic snapshot of one viewing point.

 

Jamie

This I think is a useful quote from Martin Goodall on the subject of perspective and back scenes ..... it again gives an interesting 'perspective' on the subject. For me the results are quite effective ....

 

 

 

What I used in painting my backscene was not "multiple vanishing points". As explained in my articles in MRJ 220 and 221, what I used was "parallel" perspective. This means that all horizontal lines are parallel with the horizon. So there are no vanishing points. (As someone who has drawn and painted in perspective since about the age of 7, I find that it requires enormous self-discipline not to draw in perspective!)

 

I included a drawing in the article contrasting the two types of perspective ("proper" perspective on the one hand, and "parallel" perspective on the other). Unfortunately the captions got transposed when the article was printed, but I trust that no-one was confused by this.

 

There wouldn't be any point in taking a video of the backscene as Jim suggests, because you would see no change in the perspective as the camera moves (whereas the perspective does change as you move in real life). I think if Jim and anyone else who is interested were to re-read the two article in MRJ, all would become clear.

 

The point is that if you paint the backscene using 'proper' perspective, it will only look right (possibly) from one viewpoint, when it coincides with the perspective of the three-dimensional models on the layout as seen from that point of view; but as soon as you move, the perspective of the backscene will clash with the changed perspective of the 3D models. As I mentioned in the article, this is why cutting out photos from calendars and sticking them on the backscene rarely, if ever, works. The multiplicity of perspectives will clash horribly with each other and with the 3D models.

 

some of the back scene under discussion can be seen here

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1846&start=100

 

It seems to me that what Martin is describing is an elevational approach but with receding scale as it relates to distance, a tool we have used in the architectural profession for many years where it is the shadows which give form and depth.

 

for example..

Edited January 3, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[APOLLO]

Sometimes as far as back scenes are concerned, less is more (and easier to do). I'm not a great fan of the near perfect photo print diorama type - but I have seen some excellent ones. I suppose it's horses for courses and personal opinion.

 

This one off this site 

 

 

And this off the web - an interesting City scene, winter as no leaves on the trees. I like the winter sky.

 

 

Brit15

[Compound2632]

It seems to me that what Martin is describing is an elevational approach but with receding scale as it relates to distance, a tool we have used in the architectural profession for many years where it is the shadows which give form and depth.

 

for example..

58895d21a9b6694a4ded4b638c320e44.jpg

 

Is that from your office, then? It doesn't quite square with your nom-de-web...

 

Photo backscenes fall down on two counts, the chief of which is that they are generally to sharp, lacking in the haze of distance. The other point is that unless they are being used on a layout with a contemporary setting, they inevitably introduce anachronisms - even for the most pastoral scenes.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Compound2632

[Corbs]

Oly Turner's layout 'Six Quarters' adds something a bit unusual in terms of backscenes - a misty morning type of look. I think it's effective.

 

[Compound2632]

For the mistier mornings, tending to fog, hang a sheet of gauze between the layout and the viewer...

[jrg1]

I am surprised that the posts regarding backscenes have not mentioned Jack Nelson and his LNWR dioramas. 

His drawing skills in LNWR Portrayed-including architectural perspective are unsurpassed. 

[Tony Teague]

Tony

 

You have not mentioned Geoff Taylor's Penmaenpool / Barmouth Junction layout, which I feel displays two great backscene characteristics; first, it is minimalistic in so far as the scenery does more of the job than the backscene:

 

 

(I added the sky, but the hills / mountains are on the backscene)

 

Secondly, it complements the scene in front of it in that it is understated and there is nothing in the backscene that pulls your eye away from the model:

 

 

(no sky this time!)

 

Tony

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

I am surprised that the posts regarding backscenes have not mentioned Jack Nelson and his LNWR dioramas. 

His drawing skills in LNWR Portrayed-including architectural perspective are unsurpassed. 

His models were also dioramas, in which I believe he used perspective to create a sense of distance. Given the period in which they were built, I think that they were quite remarkable.

 

Edited to add that the JN dioramas are in the Conwy Valley Railway Museum. They were restored by members of the LNWR Society. There may be another one elsewhere. When I was a Trustee on the LNWR Committee, there was some concern over their future as the "title" to them was rather confused. The Society believed they had been gifted to it, but could find no documentation to support that, so became involved in restoring them for public viewing.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Jol Wilkinson

[Killybegs]

On the subject of photographic back scenes, I think they can work but they need to be understated and will always look at their best when viewed head on. On Worseter, the backscene visible above the embankment is toned down more than that section which is visible under the bridge (as it is closer to the viewpoint). The lock gates and trees help conceal the junction between layout and backscene.

 

(This photo was taken before the Brit was finished, hence no draught curtains, crew, lamps or weathering)

 

[Lecorbusier]

Is that from your office, then? No (just found it on the web - no stylistic statement intended) It doesn't quite square with your nom-de-web... ..... and  no again!  

 

 

 

 

 

..... Corb of course was fascinated by the classical, and sketched many examples. One could argue that a back scene is a sketch of what potentially or actually exists (and so would include such sketches)? ... it is the model that is the design.

 

To take this tongue in cheek analogy further ... my own choice of location and period - ie the 'little Switzerland' of the Peak line .....

Matlock Bath Station circa 1903

 

Chimes rather well with Corb's output of the same period?

Le Corbusier, Villa Fallet, 1905

Edited January 3, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[PMP]

 

 

Photo backscenes fall down on two counts, the chief of which is that they are generally to sharp, lacking in the haze of distance. The other point is that unless they are being used on a layout with a contemporary setting, they inevitably introduce anachronisms - even for the most pastoral scenes.

 

That's way too much of a generalisation, but I can recall seeing examples as you describe.

 

https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/b6o4472-cr2-001.jpg

This is a color balanced (to the layout and lighting) digital print and has no links to the 'contemporary' scene, Chris Nevard took the backscene image to specifically avoid such links.

The print is approx. 16ft long x 18inches high on a matt display vinyl. It encloses the rear and ends of the layout giving a seamless backscene with recession included with a gentle coloring in the blue spectrum and diffusion of the subject matter to reduce 'sharpness'.

[The Stationmaster]

Or get someone else to do it...

 

Mrs Stationmaster kindly obliged for this one on the module -

 

[Clive Mortimore]

That's way too much of a generalisation, but I can recall seeing examples as you describe.

 

https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/b6o4472-cr2-001.jpg

This is a color balanced (to the layout and lighting) digital print and has no links to the 'contemporary' scene, Chris Nevard took the backscene image to specifically avoid such links.

The print is approx. 16ft long x 18inches high on a matt display vinyl. It encloses the rear and ends of the layout giving a seamless backscene with recession included with a gentle coloring in the blue spectrum and diffusion of the subject matter to reduce 'sharpness'.

To me that looks like it is a model in front of a photo.

 

It must be me but my brain identifies the model and becomes confused when the backscene does not blend with what is in front. A fat belly and a can of cola behind the model is less distracting because my brain sorts out the reality of the space I am viewing, a model railway and someone with a similar physique as me.

[Lecorbusier]

That's way too much of a generalisation, but I can recall seeing examples as you describe.

 

https://albionyard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/b6o4472-cr2-001.jpg

This is a color balanced (to the layout and lighting) digital print and has no links to the 'contemporary' scene, Chris Nevard took the backscene image to specifically avoid such links.

The print is approx. 16ft long x 18inches high on a matt display vinyl. It encloses the rear and ends of the layout giving a seamless backscene with recession included with a gentle coloring in the blue spectrum and diffusion of the subject matter to reduce 'sharpness'.

That's the one I was talking about ... though looking again the foreground trees do seem to be from a different season to the back scene?

[Lecorbusier]

To me that looks like it is a model in front of a photo.

 

It must be me but my brain identifies the model and becomes confused when the backscene does not blend with what is in front. A fat belly and a can of cola behind the model is less distracting because my brain sorts out the reality of the space I am viewing, a model railway and someone with a similar physique as me.

Interestingly that's why I prefer painted back scenes .... the model is manufactured and to match, the back scene should really be the same, with the same colour palette.

 

I understand what you mean about the 'belly and can' but with this approach I find I struggle when the model depicts a line running through a landscape made to be viewed from a distance such as Little Bytham. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Clive Mortimore]

I don't agree Clive (although I agree about Leicester South's backscene being one of the better ones - indeed, one of the best). 

 

Problems always arise when representing buildings in 2D. From one point of view, they look fine, with the perspective correct. Move to a different point, and the perspective can look weird. Andrew has done that in the second picture, but I still think it works. 

 

Just a few more layouts with backscenes of one kind or another...................

 

Loch Tat 001.jpg

 

Loch Tat is always worth further views. The distant Grampians have been caught very well. 

 

Portchullin 04.jpg

 

Another Highland depiction, this time in P4, Porthchullin. I can't remember if this one has a plain backscene or not, so I just added a real sky, making the scenery provide the horizon (the stage at the Alban Arena isn't particularly photogenic). I think it 'works', though the Highland and Mountains are rather synonymous. Quite what's happened to the locos windscreen, I don't know. 

 

Dollgelley 16.jpg

 

Dollgelley in O Gauge, with a hand-painted backscene beyond the immediate station environs. 

 

Llawrgyln 15.jpg

 

A line of trees provides the horizon on Llawrgyln in EM. What to do about the hole in the sky.......................

 

Tucking Mill 02 B&W.jpg

 

For some reason I messed up the colours in taking a picture of the 2mm FS Tucking Mill. I still think it works in B&W. 

 

Stirling Single 02.jpg

 

Posed on the Gresley Beat at York last year, this is the pre-production Stirling Single. The line between 3D trees and the 2D backscene is nicely blurred. I think Roger Daltrey had something to do with this.

 

B.A.jpg

 

B.A.Bodil 02jpg.jpg

 

Forced perspective can be seen on B.A. Bodil, from the Netherlands. There are four scales at work here, each one becoming smaller the further it gets from the viewer, though the same railcar is represented. 

 

 

 

I've been asked to write a piece on creating backscenes for BRM. 

The one with the hole in the sky for the train to go through ....ahhhhhh!!!!!. We all know there is a fiddle yard the other side, so if you are not using a scenic break like a bus with a bridge under it just let the scenics peter out as the fiddle yard starts. Most of us look over the screens to see what stock the layout owner has anyhow.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Compound2632]

..... Corb of course was fascinated by the classical, and sketched many examples. One could argue that a back scene is a sketch of what potentially or actually exists (and so would include such sketches)? ... it is the model that is the design.

 

To take this tongue in cheek analogy further ... my own choice of location and period - ie the 'little Switzerland' of the Peak line .....

Matlock Bath Station.jpg

Matlock Bath Station circa 1903

 

Chimes rather well with Corb's output of the same period?

Le Corbusier, Villa Fallet, 1905.jpg

Le Corbusier, Villa Fallet, 1905

 

Off Topic: ... but the Swiss chalet buildings at Matlock Bath date from the line's opening, do they not? - i.e. fifty years before Le Corbusier. That's not quite what springs to mind when his name is mentioned but I suppose he had to start somewhere and that somewhere being his native tradition makes sense.