Scale Reference Pictures (2 Viewers)

[fmethorst]

Brad's thread discussing using First Legion figures with Figarti vehicles http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22788 got me thinking about scale again. I realize this can be a contentious issue and my intent is not to promote one manufacturer over another. My intent is to observe and to share my observations with fellow collectors.

Quite some time ago I created the following composition which mixed one of my HB Gold Tigers with First Legion figures. There was such a stylistic difference between the HB and FL figures that I wasn't happy with it and never posted it.

I figured if the presence of the HB figures was the only problem then I should be able to crop the picture removing the HB figures and it should look OK if the figures and vehicle are close to the same scale. I added some lines to assist with the perspective.

The Tiger is a very useful reference frame since the top of the hull is 1800 mm (5' 11") above the ground. The key to scale comparisons is to use an object of known size and to take all the pictures from the same perspective. The reference Tiger should be 60 mm to the top of the hull (1800/30=60mm). The HB Tiger is 59 mm (1.6% undersize).

Here are a number of manufacturers compared to the HB Tiger reference. I have raised the Tiger to attempt to remove the figure base as a factor. I have attempted to feature figures that are standing relatively straight up.

First Legion:

King & Country

 

[fmethorst]

Figarti

Collectors Showcase

Honour Bound

Patriot

 

[OzDigger]

Thanks Frank, I have saved this photo for my computer background/wall paper

 

[Mitch]

Frank....

A very interesting and useful resource Thanks for posting
Mitch

 

[Vezzolf]

Frank, Very interesting post... Thank you....Can you do some more pictures with CS soldiers and the Honour Bound Tiger....to me they seem to be the best match...

 

[Louis Badolato]

Frankly, I think they all looked in the range for the right size alongside the tank, depending on the height of the individual (some people are 5'5, some are 6'5). The one question I would have is how much height would a helmet or peaked cap add to a person? If a 6 foot tall person wearing a helmet were standing next to that 5'11 inch Tiger Tank, how many inches above the deck woult the top of his helmet be? Would it be 2 inches above the deck (i.e. adding an inch to his height)?

Or would the helmet add 2 or even 3 inches to his height? If this is the case then the Honour Bound, Collectors Chowcase, K&C and Figarti figures are all right in the correct height range, so maybe we should stop giving the manufacturers such a hard time about scale.

 

[Mitch]

Loius...
I think your right about senseless bashing of manufacturers should not really go on however, when collectors etc are paying a lot of money for these releases its a valid issue to discuss issues such as this and, for a good few much has been gleaned from collectors and, input from manufacturers. I hope this type of sensible debate continues
Mitch

Frankly, I think they all looked in the range for the right size alongside the tank, depending on the height of the individual (some people are 5'5, some are 6'5). The one question I would have is how much height would a helmet or peaked cap add to a person? If a 6 foot tall person wearing a helmet were standing next to that 5'11 inch Tiger Tank, how many inches above the deck woult the top of his helmet be? Would it be 2 inches above the deck (i.e. adding an inch to his height)?

Or would the helmet add 2 or even 3 inches to his height? If this is the case then the Honour Bound, Collectors Chowcase, K&C and Figarti figures are all right in the correct height range, so maybe we should stop giving the manufacturers such a hard time about scale.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Frankly, I think they all looked in the range for the right size alongside the tank, depending on the height of the individual (some people are 5'5, some are 6'5). The one question I would have is how much height would a helmet or peaked cap add to a person? If a 6 foot tall person wearing a helmet were standing next to that 5'11 inch Tiger Tank, how many inches above the deck would the top of his helmet be? Would it be 2 inches above the deck (i.e. adding an inch to his height)?

Or would the helmet add 2 or even 3 inches to his height? If this is the case then the Honour Bound, Collectors Showcase, K&C and Figarti figures are all right in the correct height range, so maybe we should stop giving the manufacturers such a hard time about scale.

No question the real height you are trying to represent is a factor for figures. That is why in one of my old scale threads I went through the conversions of the figures I was comparing to their various real person heights using different assumed scales. Of course you can invert that and derive scale based on an assumed real person height. Then there is the question of whether you are using average or extreme real person heights.

The addition of a helmet or other headcover can be determined empirically and is more of a factor for less modern periods, like Napoleonics. For helmets, having worn a few, I think 1-2 inches is a fair guess. However, since that factor can be difficult to accurately gauge for all head covers, in another of my scale threads I noted the need to use the sum of a sole to eyes measurement and a chin to eye measurement for figure height. That is quite accurate since the eyes are just about dead on in the middle of the head. So if you measure from the bottom of chin to eyes you will know the size of the head or for additive purposes, the 1/2 the size of the head to add to the sole to eyes value.

I don't think it is a question of giving anyone a hard time, just trying to know what you have and how it fits with other things. Perhaps that is my modeling bias.

 

[jazzeum]

Never thanked Framk for taking and posting the photos so a belated thanks. What seems evident to me is that scale seems to be interpreted or applied differently.

 

[Mitch]

A bit like Baseball lol
Mitch

QUOTE=jazzeum;319186]Never thanked Framk for taking and posting the photos so a belated thanks. What seems evident to me is that scale seems to be interpreted or applied differently.[/QUOTE]

 

[jazzeum]

A bit like Baseball lol
Mitch

I think you mean rounders

 

[Spitfrnd]

Never thanked Framk for taking and posting the photos so a belated thanks. What seems evident to me is that scale seems to be interpreted or applied differently.

I simply don't know why you say that. Scale is scale. It is what it is applied to that frequently needs more clarification and more so for figures since you need a defined real reference point. That is not interpretation, only a question of different results with different reference points.

 

[jazzeum]

"Scale is scale." Is that like Black is Black by Los Bravos ("Black is black, I want my baby back, if gray is gray... etc" -- I'll bet you remember Bill )

Yes, scale is scale but results do vary. Why is that? Different applications or different interpretations are yielding varying results. Don't ask me why. As I said elsewhere I don't find this the most scintillating of subjects to discuss so this will probably be my las post on the subject

 

[Spitfrnd]

"Scale is scale." Is that like Black is Black by Los Bravos ("Black is black, I want my baby back, if gray is gray... etc" -- I'll bet you remember Bill )

Yes, scale is scale but results do vary. Why is that? Different applications or different interpretations are yielding varying results. Don't ask me why. As I said elsewhere I don't find this the most scintillating of subjects to discuss so this will probably be my las post on the subject

Well mate, the fact that results vary does not mean there are different interpretations in this case. It may mean there are different scales being produced or, as I said, in the case of figures, that a different real person size is intended. In either case, it is subject to determination.

It also may not be scintillating but when you are intending to create displays with realistic appearances, it is useful to know what is in the same scale or not. That is not a value judgement on anyone's efforts, just an observation on why it is useful to some to understand the parameters and the relevant measurements. FWIW, for someone who finds it so uninteresting you sure do comment on it enough.

Yes I do remember the Los Bravos though but they were not talking about something that can be measured and determined by simple math.

 

[Mitch]

I know lots of people who used FOV vehicles with K&C figures and, now as more manufacturers are bringing out 1/30 scale stuff its really interesting and important to know what will be compaible with what.

As for uninteresting I don't know is it not a vital facet off the hobby? especially, when collectors want buildings,figures, etc all to match in as realistic a fashion as possible
Mitch

 

[fmethorst]

For the purposes of the comparison pictures I attempted to select figures standing relatively upright. That said none of the figures are standing the way you would be to get your height measured. Most of the figures have some degree of knee bending, spread feet, leaning, hunching etc. That means if we could get them to stand up straight with their back to the Tiger they would all be slightly taller (variance dependant on pose).

With this in mind I think that figures with eye levels at or above the the height of the Tiger hull it is pushing the limits of what can be explained via normal human size variation. Lets assume a figure has their eyes at the level of the reference Tiger. Since the model is 1mm short we will say this height is 177cm (69.7"). If we use a measurement of 12cm from the center of the eyes to the top of the head then the figure would be 189cm (74.4"). If we factor in the height lost to pose then this number will likely be in 190-195cm range (74.8"-76.8"). These are all possible heights for humans although I would argue that statistically they are about 20-25cm (7.8"-9.8") above average. That might be fine for a figure here or there but when all the figures are this tall I think it stretches credibility. Also, some of these figures have there eyes set above the top of the Tiger hull so they would actualy be even taller.

 

[Spitfrnd]

For the purposes of the comparison pictures I attempted to select figures standing relatively upright. That said none of the figures are standing the way you would be to get your height measured. Most of the figures have some degree of knee bending, spread feet, leaning, hunching etc. That means if we could get them to stand up straight with their back to the Tiger they would all be slightly taller (variance dependant on pose).

With this in mind I think that figures with eye levels at or above the the height of the Tiger hull it is pushing the limits of what can be explained via normal human size variation. Lets assume a figure has their eyes at the level of the reference Tiger. Since the model is 1mm short we will say this height is 177cm (69.7"). If we use a measurement of 12cm from the center of the eyes to the top of the head then the figure would be 189cm (74.4"). If we factor in the height lost to pose then this number will likely be in 190-195cm range (74.8"-76.8"). These are all possible heights for humans although I would argue that statistically they are about 20-25cm (7.8"-9.8") above average. That might be fine for a figure here or there but when all the figures are this tall I think it stretches credibility. Also, some of these figures have there eyes set above the top of the Tiger hull so they would actualy be even taller.

If I followed your eye measurements Frank, I would concur with your analysis. For my Napoleonic figures the range is 4.23 to 4.75 mm, bottom of chin to eye and conversely eye to head with FL and Britains at the low end and K&C and CS at the top. For myself, I measure 123.5 mm for the same 1/1 or real figure scale. I am about 2.5% below average height so that would raise the average eye to head measurement to 126.6 mm, which corresponds to a tad over a 1/30 measurement at 4.23 mm. So if anything, I think your 12 cm allowance is about 0.5 cm low and thus pretty conservative and it would seem those figures with an eye above the fender are on the tall side.

 

[Mitch]

Guys...

Thanks for the information two very interesting posts
Mitch

 

[Phantom Warrior]

It isn't just the height that makes some figures look big and some small when compared to each other. The volume (girth) of the figure has IMO more to do with size than the height. What I am trying to say is that the larger figures are only a little taller than the small figures, but they are a lot bigger overall.

Terry

 

[Alex]

Terry,

Completely true. K&C are way beefier, like patriot ones. But then again that's why all my K&C figures are regrouped in some shelves, while the others are in separate sections.

Cheers,

Alex