Scale Reference Pictures (1 Viewer)

[Mitch]

I have noticed such things especially with some of the kneeling firing K&C poses. In the WSS defenders set the kneeling rifleman is huge as are the BBA kneeling rifleman. But, its good that some are bigger than others as this happened for real in units. Some of the SS troops from LAH were nearly seven foot tall and went into battle
Mitch

 

[fmethorst]

I agree that figure volume plays a large part in how large any given piece appears, however, figure volume isn't as easily demonstrated in pictures.

Here is a pic I didn't originally include that I think is the most overscale figure in my collection.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I agree that figure volume plays a large part in how large any given piece appears, however, figure volume isn't as easily demonstrated in pictures.

Here is a pic I didn't originally include that I think is the most overscale figure in my collection.

(Here is what I did) I measured your figure from the knee down which was 5cm (on my monitor)add that to the top of the helmet and it would bring it to the level of the open hatch. I noticed that some of your other figures stand this tall.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree that figure volume plays a large part in how large any given piece appears, however, figure volume isn't as easily demonstrated in pictures.

Here is a pic I didn't originally include that I think is the most overscale figure in my collection.

True enough. That is one reason why in one of my scale threads I simply concluded that what works together for figures is whatever the eye tells you. That said, there may be some way to demonstrate or determine volumetric differences by application of Phi or Golden Ratio analysis.
http://www.goldennumber.net/body.htm
Essentially, I understand that it has been recognized that a number of human (and other) body proportions can be derived using the constant phi (0.618). For example,
the distance from the tip of head to finger tips (B) is 0.618 times the height (A);
the distance from the head to navel (C) is 0.618 times the distance B;
the distance from the head to underarm (D) is 0.618 times the distance C; the distance from the tip to bottom of head and width of abdomen (E) is 0.618 times the distance D and
the width of the head and 1/2 the width of chest and hips (F) is 0.618 times the distance E.

Mathematically (to 4 decimal points) this means that if you have the height of a person or figure, the distances for each of these would be a fraction of that height defined as follows:

B = 0.6180 of Height
C = 0.3819 of Height
D = 0.2360 of Height
E = 0.1458 of Height
F = 0.0901 of Height

I tested these on myself and they were quite accurate, within a few percent here and there. It might be interesting to measure such of these distances as you can on some figures to see how they compare with these proportions.

 

[OzDigger]

I don't carry a calculator with me when buying figures. I base my buying decisions on known tank/vehicle sizes. For example the chassis/engine deck of the Panther and Tiger is about 6' high. If a figure looks significantly smaller than that, I don't buy it.

 

[fmethorst]

While not scientific by any stretch I had some fun inserting a few figures into a historical picture taken from a perspective close to level with the top of the hull. I used the pictures I posted earlier as a guide.

 

[OzDigger]

LOL Frank, I guess desperate times call for desperate measures

 

[Spitfrnd]

While not scientific by any stretch I had some fun inserting a few figures into a historical picture taken from a perspective close to level with the top of the hull. I used the pictures I posted earlier as a guide.

Your photoshop skills never cease to impress me Frank. The eye is in the end the best guide.

 

[fmethorst]

LOL Frank, I guess desperate times call for desperate measures

Not desperate times, just observation.

Are you asserting that the figures whose eyes are at or above the top of the Tiger hull, 1.8 m (5' 11") are accurately scaled representations of mid-twentieth century Europeans?

I have numerous K&C and HB figures that I enjoy but I still think they are above 1/30 scale.

 

[OzDigger]

My assertions are:

1) Photos of small sized young soldiers are not likely to convince anyone, especially when the tank is obviously on a higher section of ground.

2) Photoshopped images of toy soldiers against a photo are useless and some members would consider them dishonest if not meant in obvious jest.

3) Germans are on average taller than Americans, this was a fact in WWII and remains so. The average Russian of WWII was even shorter as many had oriental blood. Waffen SS soldiers were taller than the average Heer soldier.

 

[Mitch]

I would think only the initial LAH soldiers were taller than almost everyone in the SS and Heer due to the initial requirements for service. Once war began the height would not have been an issue even in the SS

Whats certain is we, as a hobby, are moving in the right direction for scale its just a long road. Still has been interesting discussion about scale and had me measuring quite a few figures and AFV's
Mitch

 

[OzDigger]

I would think only the initial LAH soldiers were taller than almost everyone in the SS and Heer due to the initial requirements for service. Once war began the height would not have been an issue even in the SS

Whats certain is we, as a hobby, are moving in the right direction for scale its just a long road. Still has been interesting discussion about scale and had me measuring quite a few figures and AFV's
Mitch

The minimum height requirement for an SS Officer was 5' 10", the LAH minimum wasn't much different at 5' 11".

 

[Mitch]

OZDigger...
I was not quoting minimum height requirements I was stating that the original LAH 1st Kompanie was the tallest SS unit and regardless of the imposition of acceptable requirements the vast majority were well over six feet tall and, these troops went into battle and would in the thread regarding scale stand well above the hull of the tiger.

Height requirements were all over the place for SS units and, thats a discussion in its own right.
Mitch

The minimum height requirement for an SS Officer was 5' 10", the LAH minimum wasn't much different at 5' 11".

 

[OzDigger]

OZDigger...
I was not quoting minimum height requirements I was stating that the original LAH 1st Kompanie was the tallest SS unit and regardless of the imposition of acceptable requirements the vast majority were well over six feet tall and, these troops went into battle and would in the thread regarding scale stand well above the hull of the tiger.

Height requirements were all over the place for SS units and, thats a discussion in its own right.
Mitch

Mitch you said "Once war began the height would not have been an issue even in the SS". This is incorrect based on what I have read.

 

[Rob]

Excellent pics as usual Frank, you really are an excellent photographer.

As for the scale issue I often find these discussions quite amusing, I'm afraid I go by good old fashioned instinct, if it looks good and looks like it works I go with it. I don't think I've ever got a ruler out to measure figures etc, I think as a collector you just know when something is right and when it is not.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Excellent pics as usual Frank, you really are an excellent photographer.

As for the scale issue I often find these discussions quite amusing, I'm afraid I go by good old fashioned instinct, if it looks good and looks like it works I go with it. I don't think I've ever got a ruler out to measure figures etc, I think as a collector you just know when something is right and when it is not.

Rob

Exactly. Although I find the pictures interesting (and thank you Frank for taking the time to do so), if it looks good, "just do it" and buy the figure.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Excellent pics as usual Frank, you really are an excellent photographer.

As for the scale issue I often find these discussions quite amusing, I'm afraid I go by good old fashioned instinct, if it looks good and looks like it works I go with it. I don't think I've ever got a ruler out to measure figures etc, I think as a collector you just know when something is right and when it is not.

Rob

Nothing wrong with buying what you like Rob but how does that make a serious conversation among fellow enthusiasts "amusing" any more than it would make your own choice to rely on "your instinct knows" amusing. No one is suggesting you change your collecting habits mate. Brad, I am confused as to why that you are even here again posting on a subject in which you have no interest? As to the disparaging remarks from a usual source, that are indeed what they are.

 

[fmethorst]

My assertions are:

1) Photos of small sized young soldiers are not likely to convince anyone, especially when the tank is obviously on a higher section of ground.

2) Photoshopped images of toy soldiers against a photo are useless and some members would consider them dishonest if not meant in obvious jest.

3) Germans are on average taller than Americans, this was a fact in WWII and remains so. The average Russian of WWII was even shorter as many had oriental blood. Waffen SS soldiers were taller than the average Heer soldier.

You didn't answer my question which was "Are you asserting that the figures whose eyes are at or above the top of the Tiger hull, 1.8 m (5' 11") are accurately scaled representations of mid-twentieth century Europeans?"

In resposnse to your points:

1) Photos can help affirm or refute assertions but they have obvious limitations. One of these is perspective. Take a look at the following picture that was taken from a crouched position with people at varying distance from the tank. Since the angles to objects in the foreground and background vary considerably a distorted view is created. I don't think even you would argue the Germans were this tall. Conversely if a picture is taken from above the opposite applies and the people would look shorter than expected. I made an effort in the pictures I selected to ensure the camera was at head height close to the top of the Tiger hull thus reducing the perspective problem. Ideally the picture should be on level ground as well.

2) I already acknowledged the Photoshopped photos were not scientific in any way. They rely on my eye to place the feet and since the placement of the head is fixed based on the original photos this can affect the final result, Foreshortening also comes into play as objects further away appear smaller. This was a fun experiment that I thought I would share.

3) Even if their average was 1.8 m (which is tall) they would still not account for what we are seeing in the original photoset. The height restrictions for the Waffen SS were relaxed as the war progressed due to lack of manpower.

 

[Rob]

Nothing wrong with buying what you like Rob but how that makes a serious conversation among fellow enthusiasts "amusing" any more than it would make your own choice to rely on "your instinct knows" amusing. No one is suggesting you change your collecting habits mate. Brad, I am confused as to why that you are even here again posting on a subject in which you have no interest? As to the disparaging remarks from a usual source, that are indeed what they are.

It was only a throw away remark Bill, not meant to be taken too seriously, I merely meant its one of those conversations that comes round time and again and never seems to be resolved, it gets pretty heated sometimes and I just put in the way I go about things, but never mind.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

It was only a throw away remark Bill, not meant to be taken too seriously, I merely meant its one of those conversations that comes round time and again and never seems to be resolved, it gets pretty heated sometimes and I just put in the way I go about things, but never mind.

Rob

No problem Rob, I know you intend no offense; just didn't want the amusing comment to be taken the wrong way. It does come up but I wouldn't say it is never resolved. If you look back at this and related threads you will find I think that the facts and the tools to use them are there for any one with an interest. How you use the information is up to each person but that does not make it any less valid. As to the heated part, well that goes back to my observation about some people. There is no more need to find this topic inflammatory than what the PM had for breakfast. I am sure you and I could discuss that without rancor.