Tim Hale Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Hi, Am I the only person who intentionally ignores the dimensions of trees and uses smaller items for the layout? We all realise that mature trees should be in the region of 12-15" in 4mm but when I recently placed a 13" 'specimen' tree amidst the pasture on the layout the effect was simply awful. Despite the fact that it was absolutely correct in terms of scale height, it look wrong as it dominated everything there all I can assume is that my brain seems to prefer smaller trees - is it all about perception? Maybe I can explain in these terms: When I look at a full-size tree, I have to be an appreciable distance away (50-100m) from it in order to see all of the tree - thus it almost becomes a background feature. My perception on the layout is further conditioned by the fact that I am always a scale 150m away from the trees on the layout. As a result it seems that my perception of trees requires me to use those in the 7-9" range whilst I will use a 10-12" specimen that is isolated in a pasture in order to emphasise its presence. The only explanation for this is similar to the anomaly of a scale length 12 coach train looks wrong whilst 7 coaches looks right. Or am I barking? Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 No, not barking, its all (to me anyway) about selective compression and forced perspective. Scale height trees just dont look right (to me) and they are far to 'spindly'. Something else is that the foliage tends to be to thin.............even from 30' away tree foliage becomes or appears to become more 'dense' which is enhanced the further away you are. When you are back 100' or more even 'thin' trees and hedges 'dense' up. 200' or more and you almost get a dense mass of vegetation. Have a look and you can see it. Snipers have long used this as a method of judging distance American modelers tend to use the phenomenon well, with a solid mass of 'vegetation' forming their 'woodlands' (often using Woodlands!! especially the clump foliage, foliage clusters and poly fiber). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 A quick look around my 14-year old 'hood indicates that some of the not yet mature trees are already as tall as the houses and when mature will be twice as tall in many cases. In model terms about 1.5 times the height would look more normal to my eyes. While this is not specifically correct, Tim's assessment is bob-on and the train length comparison is a valid one. For my own purposes, my 'Waverley' formations are 2-3 vehicles less than their actual length. It just looks more natural in the confined boundaries of a domestic layout! This even manifests itself in the finish of some items; this week I've been working on some 4mm road vehicles. Now, cars can be pretty shiny objects but at our viewing distances that just doesn't manifest itself in any meaningful way so a squirt of satin varnish makes these models look a lot more natural when placed into the broader scenic context. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold melmoth Posted August 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 11, 2012 I think it's also because in real life we tend to view trees from ground level or thereabouts, rather than the towerblock/helicopter view that we usually have of our models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Its probably because we tend to do x scale models and one half to two thirds scale layouts. Everything is hugely compromised so anything to scale is going to look odd if the rest isnt also to scale. There are very few (perhaps next to none) layouts where the layout itself is 'scale' and we are so conditioned to seeing it that scale is kind of wierd. The other effect of this is that when you start to think in terms of actual sizes of stuff even great layouts do start to look very, very toylike. Perhaps ignorance is bliss? Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Another classic example of the phenomenon is the common or garden electricity pylon. A 100 or 150 footer would look ridiculously overscale on your average 4mm layout. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I think it has to do with the already distorted mind. The layout not only is viewed from an unrealistic height where in reality we just do not view the real world and the enormous compression that we generally place on the layout. Add to that the IMO generally unrealistic trees that are available and the usual budgetary limitation on plonking enough of them to be realistic and is it any wonder our view on models is somewhat warped. It is not only trees. I also have a similar perspective on buildings. The real perspective effects of distance is lost or set aside on a model. This can be offet a little by the use of 3mm:ft models in the backscene area. But hey, it is a model, there is a limit to everything smoke, steam, movement, mass, colour, ... It all plays put in our mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 There are very few (perhaps next to none) layouts where the layout itself is 'scale' and we are so conditioned to seeing it that scale is kind of wierd. The other effect of this is that when you start to think in terms of actual sizes of stuff even great layouts do start to look very, very toylike. Perhaps ignorance is bliss? Probably the nearest I have ever seen or got to it, (tho not a layout in the true sense) was on an Artillery 'Puff range' at the Citadel in Plymouth. http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Puff_Range This was a huge model which we could 'observe' with bino's and learn to call in artillery fire. Far more fun than the modern equivalent! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Something not mentioned yet is that we are used to seeing sub scale trees on layout, so we have come think of them as 'right' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Invisible ink strikes again Tim! Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Sorry Jim, did read your post, but it didn't sink in that you meant the same as me. Rereading I see that you did. Sorry Jim, did read your post, but it didn't sink in that you meant the same as me. Rereading I see that you did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I wonder how much we are affected by parallax as well, when you work out the normal viewing height and distance. It certainly has an affect when viewing from a 14 story roof or tower crane and no doubt plays a part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 No worries Tim I pondered this a while ago but modelling where I am I dont get to do a lot of trees. Has anyone thought of not modelling the whole tree? I mean we cut of the sky at a convenient height and many of us chop bits off buildings so that they fit but why not a tree? Would it have the same domineering effect if it was only the same height as everything else? If a layout is to be viewed at track level do we actually need 2 foot tall trees when just the bottom half gives the same view? Just a thought really. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I think it would work, particularly if the whole layout is 'enclosed' as per Ian Rice, so the whole layout becomes a 'theatrical presentation'. What you dont see, ie the tree top, is constructed in your imagination. Works for me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted August 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 11, 2012 There's at least one US narrow gauge logging line layout that does exactly that, in 1/48. The tree trunks look suitably massive but stop at the top of the viewing space. I can't remember the name though. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 Invisible ink strikes again Tim! Jim Actually trees were the subject under discussion in the OP Tim (the OP author) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Yes Tim but the other Tim and I were discussing what we are conditioned to see. The tree was an example not the point. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 Something not mentioned yet is that we are used to seeing sub scale trees on layout, so we have come think of them as 'right' Jim, I refer to the above post and its relevancy to the OP, unfortunately confusion arises when mis-identification takes place. Thanks Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 There are very few (perhaps next to none) layouts where the layout itself is 'scale' and we are so conditioned to seeing it that scale is kind of wierd. For completeness Tim. a 13" tree in 4mm scale is still a little un in real terms. Not all layouts are viewed from over 6 feet away - about half that is considered the norm and if things are not compressed then a 12 coach train looks very right. It simply comes down to 2 types of people. Those who mostly look at the real world and those who mostly look at models. if you are the former then 7" trees and three quarter length express trains look very wrong indeed, almost trainset like. if you are the latter then 2 ft trees, 12 coach trains and pointwork thats 4ft long+ looks just bizzare. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 Thanks Jim, However I believe that this is an over simplification and categorising people in such a fashion is rather subjective. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 http://www.jstottphotography.com/2004/2004-10-25_-_bodiam_castle,_east_sussex/slides_l/dsc_0604.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 those are the 2 ends of the scale - people will sit between where they feel comfortable. theres no doubt that people will model other models - you see it all the time just as theres no doubt people draw no inspiration from other models at all. the majority do a bit of both with a bias one way or the other. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 If a layout is to be viewed at track level do we actually need 2 foot tall trees when just the bottom half gives the same view? I think it would work, particularly if the whole layout is 'enclosed' as per Ian Rice, so the whole layout becomes a 'theatrical presentation'. There's at least one US narrow gauge logging line layout that does exactly that, in 1/48. The tree trunks look suitably massive but stop at the top of the viewing space. I can't remember the name though. Richard Turner's "Camp 93 - Parsons Lumber Company"? ( see: http://www.cmra.org....xhib11/h26.html) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 those are the 2 ends of the scale - people will sit between where they feel comfortable. theres no doubt that people will model other models - you see it all the time just as theres no doubt people draw no inspiration from other models at all. the majority do a bit of both with a bias one way or the other. Cheers Jim In other words, not a black and white issue but shades of grey - that is perfectly reasonable. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Cheltenham_racecourse.JPG/640px-Cheltenham_racecourse.JPG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.