Height of 1/30 Scale WW2 Figures compared to a Tiger Tank (1 Viewer)

Excellent explanation of camera angle and perspective in relation to photography and the size of subjects in a photograph. When I first saw the posted photo of the "tall" German, I knew that he was not as tall as he appears due to the angle/perspective and you've explained it in detail. Using camera angle is how I sometimes get different figures and AFV's etc. of different scales to look compatible in dios.
 
fmethorst said:
Not so fast. When we eliminate the perspective distortion by placing me the same distance from the camera things make more sense

DSC_0475.jpg


So basically there are two ways to reduce perspective distortion. The camera must be the same distance from the objects being measured and/or the camera must be in the plane formed by the top of the object.

Frank
Click to expand...

Frank, thank you for your input on this subject which is of special interest to me as it combines two of my hobbies being military vehicles and photography. I am of the opinion that in the front-on photo of the Tiger you would have provided a more accurate example if you stood level with the front of the hull rather than further back with the camera placed mid way between you and the tank rather than at the oblique angle above.
 
Why Why Why do we bother about this. It takes the fun out of toy soldier collecting. Big dick little dick who cares. Simmo.
 
Simpson & his donkey. said:
Why Why Why do we bother about this. It takes the fun out of toy soldier collecting. Big dick little dick who cares. Simmo.
Click to expand...

Why Why Why bother to comment on a thread that involves a subject in which you have no interest, takes the fun out of it for those that are interested.
 
I'm standing directly beside the front hull plate so the distance and the angle are pretty close. Considering my height I think the image captures the comparison quite well. The front hull plate extends slightly above the actual top of the hull and tapers down at the sides so only the corners are representive of the height being discussed.

On the subject of height of a 1:30 figure vs. the Tiger I think height is only one of the factors. More important to me is overall bulk and this can't be easily measured. This leaves it to the collector to assess based on what they think "looks right". Obviously the 1800mm height of the Tiger hull provides a convenient benchmark to work from but ultimately the assessment is more subjective.

Frank
 
fmethorst said:
I'm standing directly beside the front hull plate so the distance and the angle are pretty close. Considering my height I think the image captures the comparison quite well. The front hull plate extends slightly above the actual top of the hull and tapers down at the sides so only the corners are representive of the height being discussed.

On the subject of height of a 1:30 figure vs. the Tiger I think height is only one of the factors. More important to me is overall bulk and this can't be easily measured. This leaves it to the collector to assess based on what they think "looks right". Obviously the 1800mm height of the Tiger hull provides a convenient benchmark to work from but ultimately the assessment is more subjective.

Frank
Click to expand...

The conclusion I can draw from all this discussion and supported by photos of actual people standing next to actual tanks, is that there is a fairly wide range of people sizes. This range of people sizes can look even greater depending on camera angle - or angle of view in a diorama. So for me, talking about measurements of an AFV is fine as there is only one correct number. But when measuing people, there are many correct answers before bulk of the figure is even taken into account.

Terry
 
I would think post #24 with Frank standing right next to the front hull vertical plate is a good example of man versus tank scale. I hope across the board all companies producing 1/30 scale get their products as accurate as possible scale wise.
 
PanzerAce1944 said:
I would think post #24 with Frank standing right next to the front hull vertical plate is a good example of man versus tank scale. I hope across the board all companies producing 1/30 scale get their products as accurate as possible scale wise.
Click to expand...

It would only be accurate if Frank had a helmet on and was standing on a base like most toy soldiers.

Terry
 
Phantom Warrior said:
It would only be accurate if Frank had a helmet on and was standing on a base like most toy soldiers.

Terry
Click to expand...

OK, lets try this. As collectors when we buy a $200.00 plus dollar armored vehicle and the box says .... 1/30 scale then that's what it should be. Accurate product description and representation. Fair enough. ?
 
Phantom Warrior said:
It would only be accurate if Frank had a helmet on and was standing on a base like most toy soldiers.

Terry
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to mislead.... ^&grin

2012_9_24_DSC_0475a_small.jpg


In regards to boxes containing vehicles in the scale stated. That would be a good start.

Frank
 
fmethorst said:
Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to mislead.... ^&grin

2012_9_24_DSC_0475a_small.jpg


In regards to boxes containing vehicles in the scale stated. That would be a good start.

Frank
Click to expand...


Should have worn a German helmet instead Frank:) must have correct measurements even with helmets, also love your base:)...Sammy
 
fmethorst said:
Wouldn't want to be accused of trying to mislead.... ^&grin

2012_9_24_DSC_0475a_small.jpg


In regards to boxes containing vehicles in the scale stated. That would be a good start.

Frank
Click to expand...

Now any comparison of a figure to a tiger tank can easily be made. Just place the figure next to your tiger model. There is no longer any need to adjust for a helmet or figure base. If the figure is as tall as Frank is next to the Tiger, it is in proportion. If the figure is a little taller or shorter than where Frank's height puts him against the Tiger, It's probably within the range of average heights. If the figure is much taller or much shorter than how Frank looks next to the Tiger, then your figure and Tiger model are not the same scale. This works for 1:32, 1:30 and 1:28 scales. And no need to measure.

The second measure is bulk. In the photo, the Tiger is 7 Franks wide. Comparing your figure to the model Tiger, if it is 7 figures wide, give or take, the figure's bulk is the same scale as the Tiger. If the Tiger is much more or much less than 7 figures wide, the figure is not the same scale as the model Tiger.

We will be sending Frank to Armour collections around the world so he can stand next to AFVs allowing us collectors to easily see if our figures and AFVs are the same scale. This should end the debate on scale issues once and for all.

Thank you Frank.

Terry
 
Jack said:
When did a 'Frank' become a unit of measurement?{sm4}
Click to expand...

There is a long tradition of using body parts as a measurement going back thousands of years. An example is the foot. Human measurements have equally been applied to other objects, such as this horse is 12 hands high. There were no tiger tanks in ancient times, so in order to measure the tank in a human scale, Frank was selected from a large group of candidates.

Terry
 
Phantom Warrior said:
There is a long tradition of using body parts as a measurement going back thousands of years. An example is the foot. Human measurements have equally been applied to other objects, such as this horse is 12 hands high. There were no tiger tanks in ancient times, so in order to measure the tank in a human scale, Frank was selected from a large group of candidates.

Terry
Click to expand...

I'm confused - did you take my question seriously or do you have a very, very dry wit?{sm4}
 
Just to throw something else into the mix, when working out human proportions you may notice that however tall a person is the head measurments remain almost the same. Therefore a tall person "appears" to have a smaller head and a short person "appears" to have a larger head. What cannot be disputed though is that 1 inch is equal to 2.55 centemeters divide that by 30 and an inch is 0.085 cm and a foot is 30.45cm in 1/30th that equals 1.015cm
By the way a hand is 4 inches or 10cm so a horse that is only 12 H high isn't a horse it's a pony^&grin

Martin
 
Jack said:
I'm confused - did you take my question seriously or do you have a very, very dry wit?{sm4}
Click to expand...

Very seriously. Having a frank measurement was long overdue. For our European friends, we will soon have a metric equivalent to the frank.

Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top