"TMP Scale / Size" Topic

Today see´s the close of a poll where I asked if we need a common miniatures scale (size).

TMP link

This was not talking about forcing manufacturers to sculpt in a given scale (size), but to have a common standart by which to measure their minis when they post or advertise on TMP.

So far one manufacturer has measured from point A to point B on a mini while another has measured from point C to point D. Therefore while both advertised their minis being (lets say) 28mm one might have been substancially larger then the other.

So what do you say… frm where to here should a mini be measured? (Suggestions please!)

My suggestion would be to bring back the old barret scale. Measuring from the soles (thus eliminating the tab or integral base from the total) to the eyes (thus making sure that headgear would not blow you off when measuring to the top of the head).

The barret scale also took into account how wide / thick / braod (/ chuncky) a mini is. so the addition of "slim", "normal" or "heroic / large" would be nice, too. Makes sense since height is not the only thing making minis incompatible with each other.

Cheers,

Burkhard

Ah but one man's slim is another man's normal and two chunky ranges can differ considerably.
I suppose you could add more categories to cover the gamut skeletal/anorexic/very slim/slim/a bit slim/normal/body builder/chunky/Rambo/obese and pass me a harpoon.
Anatomical proportions would also play a part in compatibility, Adonis/Joe average/Quasimodo/Good God Mabel, look at that!
I've seen different people measure the same figure from foot to eye and come up with different answers. However hard you try, it's always going to be subjective.

Can it be any worse then today, where every manufacturer and fanboy says that his minis are X mm, but where we do not even know from where to where he measures??? I do not think so!

Cheers,

Burkhard

A declared scale(i.e.1/60, 1/93, etc), an overall height gaming size measured from bottom of feet to top of head (if the fig were actually standing upright)with a range of 5 degrees of heftiness (based on an anthropometric study yet to be chosen and stated by percentile, I'm thinking 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 100th) and three degrees of fineness of detail (yet to be defined, but based on some percentage of error such as within 25% error, 50%, more than 50%).

Thus you could have a 1/56 scale, 30mm tall, 75th percentile build, with up to 25% oversizing on detail figure.

Well you will need a panel of appointed judges to measure the figures consistently. Then they will each need to measure a sample batch of figures from each range by each sculptor for every company. You can't just say company A's figures are 27.5mm because they often differ from range to range and sculptor to sculptor
You will also need to implement an appeal system for companies that feel their figures have been misrepresented and wish to have them remeasured.
At the moment even when people say they are measuring from sole of foot to eye, the measurements vary all over place because the figure either isn't standing to attention so they try and compensate for the pose by guessing the difference or that some people round up or round down to the nearest mm. And just how do you measure bulk except by your own individual standards?
How many threads do we get each day with a load of people saying range A is perfectly compatible with B, while another bunch say that A couldn't possibly be used with B because they are thinner/bulkier.

An example of the system you propose already exists at Mainly 28s link

At the moment it works because one man is doing the measuring, but I bet if someone else measured those same figures independently you'd get a different set of answers.

If you wanted to do this on TMP, you'd either have to have one person do all the reviews or have an appointed panel that would each give their own review that could be cross referenced. Anything else would give such a wide variety of differing answers as to be next to useless.

However why not try this to see how well your idea works. Pick a figure that a lot of TMPers are likely to have in their collection, then start a thread asking them to measure it using your chosen system and see if the answers agree

And just how do you measure bulk except by your own individual standards?

By the volume? Drop the model into a narrow container of water, and measure how many milliliters the water surface level rises. This should give the absolute bulkiness for a model of certain height. Ideally, this should be conducted with the base removed.

To obtain a relative bulkiness, you could divide the absolute bulkiness by the cube (third power) of the height of the model, measured in a consistent fashion (whether that be to the eye level or top of head should not matter, as long as it is done consistently).

Notice that would work best for comparing similar models – a WWII German Africa Korps infantryman in shorts should probably have a lower volume than his eastern front colleague in the greatcoat and felt boots.

Griefbringer

"the old barret scale"

Barrett. Toby Barrett. This feller:

link

"(thus making sure that headgear would not blow you off when measuring to the top of the head)"

I really should save this so I can just paste it in every time this myth/misunderstanding raises it's gruesome head.

There is no appreciable value to measuring a figure to the eyes, none, nada, zip, zero. It only adds a point of confusion.

Here are the most cogent reasons:

The distance from the eyes to the top of the head does not vary significantly. The spread from highest to lowest set eyes for 98% of the population is an inch, that's .24mm for a 30mm figure.

The posture of a figure causes the overall height to vary significantly. You can demonstrate this to yourself in a mirror, stand ‘straight up' at attention, then shift weight to one leg, now take a step forward, now adopt a running stance, note how your overall height varies. It is obvious any measuring of a posed figure involves an estimation and the accuracy of this estimation is dependent on the estimator's understanding of anatomy.

The variations caused by differences in ‘style' of proportions are far more significant than the .24mm variation of forehead height. A 1/7.5 (realistic proportions) head is about 9" high, a 1/5.5 head (common gaming figure proportions) is over 12" so the distance from the eyes to the feet is 1.5" less for two figures of the same height.

Then there is the fact that the difference in the position of the eyes relative to overall height can vary more from the angle the head is held than from the possible variation in the height of the forehead.

I repeat; There is no value in measuring a figure to the eyes, none. It adds a point of confusion for an insignificant ‘advantage'.

Here are some pictures:
picture

picture

The best way to solve the problem I can think of is to make a series of naturally proportioned silhouettes on a grid background in a range of poses and scales for photographing next to figures. This will give comparison to a standard height, heft, scale and proportion. The silhouettes could be made available for download to manufacturers and reviewers so they can photograph products next to them.

I really should save this so I can just paste it in every time this myth/misunderstanding raises it's gruesome head.

In theory I would agree with you… except I once asked a scupltor where the top of the head would be since his minis all wore headgear and he said… "well I just add 3mm or 4 mm to the eyes". And that was for 25mm minis… not too scientific and his minis were smaller then other in their size range. Guess why.

Cheers,

Burkhard

I'm sure you could find a ‘plumber' who unclogs toilets with cherry bombs, but that does not make it method worthy of consideration in a reasonable discussion on the subject.

Most figure makers are fan artists who have never studied what they do, just practiced it a lot. They make figures the way they make them for better and worse. This is precisely the reason a standard of comparison is called for, not an argument against it.

I'm not saying sculptors shouldn't make a figure however they like, variety and expression are what makes this hobby so much fun, just that if all figures are compared to a standard (and what standard is better than reality) it will be possible for the buyer to make a better judgment about their compatibility.

T Meier: make a series of naturally proportioned silhouettes on a grid background in a range of poses and scales for photographing next to figures.

This seems like a good option for a visual hobby.

How tall would a 28mm Napoleon be standing next to a 28mm Grenadier (measured to the eyes)?

Let's assume that the Grenadier is our calibration standard.

Oh, wait. That's an insult to the Emperor! Let's make HIM the calibration standard!
How tall is the grenadier, then?

What we need are figures submitted to a federal agency in the US and an EU standard in europe.

The cost of meeting the regulations would put most small producers out of business so only a few would be left to regulate

We could even have a quota system to make sure that minority sizes were made (a verticaly challanged old guard, for instance)

They are sure to come up with some incompatable measure that will keep this subject running for the next few hundred years!

(Yes they were tounge in cheek suggestions!)

How high is the average man of woman – this was a problem with many kits produced in Japan, short stocky figures were common.

Howabout the female figures that seem to wear 8" high heels?

T Meier: make a series of naturally proportioned silhouettes on a grid background in a range of poses and scales for photographing next to figures.

Few figures to start with have natural proportions. (Just look at the bust on most female figures)

>The best way to solve the problem I can think of is to make a series of naturally proportioned silhouettes on a grid background in a range of poses and scales for photographing next to figures. This will give comparison to a standard height, heft, scale and proportion. The silhouettes could be made available for download to manufacturers and reviewers so they can photograph products next to them.<

T Meier: I was thinking roughly the same thing – my idea was to develop a "blank" mini in various scales that was a given size that could then be photographed next to any given figure to give people an idea of its height as well as its "chunkiness."

Of course people would probably then argue about what size this exemplar mini should be.

Somebody, everybody, please listen to Mr Meier.
--
Tim

"Of course people would probably then argue about what size this exemplar mini should be."

That's one problem, the other is making it available to everyone who might want to use it. A 2D silhouette of a pose could be easily downloaded and as long as it was the same distance and angle with respect to the camera it would be just as serviceable.

"Few figures to start with have natural proportions."

I'm not advocating natural or any other proportions in the figures, only a standard for comparison, using natural proportions for that just seems, well, natural. What other proportions could you use? Some sort of contrived heroic figure proportions? How are you going to decide on that? With natural proportions you need only refer to the exhaustive research in ergonomics and by the army.

"What we need are figures submitted to a federal agency"

We're not talking about regulating anything, just producing a yardstick.

"How high is the average man of woman"

It does vary with ethnicity and over time, use the standard modern American (we're pretty diverse) as a rule (the army has documented it pretty well) and then deviate from it however you like. If you want to make your Ancient Romans an authentic 5'6" and stocky great, they'll be slightly shorter and thicker than the silhouette. Explain to your customers why you made them this way and I'm sure they'll understand.

picture

Scale card as requested. So you folks who sell figures, photograph your wares with this in the background and everything will be solved.

:-)

LLC aka Ron

"Scale card as requested"

That's a start, what I had in mind was more like something done on a 3-D drawing program in various common poses with millimeter grid backgrounds for common scales, to be printed, cut out and photographed alongside the figure in approximately the same pose.

The picture must be taken with the silhouette alongside (not in front) and at the same distance or the photo will mislead, rather like the forced perspective shots in the LOTR movies making actors look like they were three feet tall.

Scale card as requested. So you folks who sell figures, photograph your wares with this in the background and everything will be solved.

That's a start,

Er, no. The 30mm figure on that card is 110mm on my monitor at 1024x768 resolution. It's 150mm at 800x600 and 106mm at 1280x720

It prints at 63.5mm in portrait and 88mm in landscape on my printer

So, now we need to define a standard for screen displays and printers…

No, you just need to print it out so that the millimeter grid comes out to a millimeter. I don't know about other programs but in Photoshop this is a simple thing.

Honestly it's not difficult and it would be useful. The idea takes advantage of several new technologies to help with an old problem.

Now I know how Oddball felt in 'Kelly's Heroes', "Stop with the negative waves Moriarity."

It would also be nice if the grid aligned with the tops of the heads instead of the eyes.

I agree with everything T Meier says above and sympathize with his position. Measuring to the top of a figure's head is natural, logical, and straightforward. "A standing bare-headed miniature from this line would measure 28mm from the bottom of its feet to the top of its head." What could be simpler?

However, as silly a scale as it may seem to be, the Barrett scale has a foothold already and is just as understandable to the average miniature buyer: "these figures measure 27mm from bottom of foot to the eye and are of medium heft".

If every manufacturer described their figures using the Barrett scale, would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I think overall, more good than bad.

But who are we kidding? This is an industry where giants and small fry alike routinely take photos of their figures for sales purposes, and don't include a ruler.