
"Size/Scale Comparisons" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Scale Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article Thanks to the generosity of TMP readers, there has been much progress in building a new home for our staff editor and her family, evicted from their home.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
| Last Hussar | 04 Nov 2009 7:13 p.m. PST |
Height of Man Figure 5'3 5'6" 5'9" 6ft mm 1m60 1m67 1m75 1m82 6 1:267 1:278 1:292 1:303 10 1:160 1:167 1:175 1:182 15 1:107 1:111 1:117 1:121 20 1:80 1:84 1:88 1:91 25 1:64 1:67 1:70 1:73 28 1:57 1:60 1:63 1:65 32 1:50 1:52 1:55 1:57
Measurements 'to eyes' shift one column left |
| Cacique Caribe | 04 Nov 2009 11:14 p.m. PST |
LH, That is awesome. I must save this table. You rock! Thanks. Dan |
| pigbear | 05 Nov 2009 4:53 a.m. PST |
I agree. The thing that gets me is that even though I know this stuff, I still have that 15mm = 1:100 idea stuck in my head. I think I got that from Peter Pig and it's a simple, if inaccurate, rule of thumb. The idea being that your average man is (or was depending on the period) about 1.5m from soles of feet to the eyeballs. This is probably just a tad on the short side. For me, the best thing about your chart is that it makes clear that using a range of of "28mm" miniatures that will bleed into 32mm depending on the manufacturer is not a bad thing. It's a nice way of representing human size variation in 1:57 scale. |
| Last Hussar | 05 Nov 2009 1:52 p.m. PST |
pigbear- I assume you mean that some 28s are actually 30mm etc. True 28 and 25 next to each other (ignoring the equipment) will show a 6 footer next to a shortarse of 5'3" (see also the same for 25/28) |
| pigbear | 05 Nov 2009 6:11 p.m. PST |
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The top and bottom of neighboring "sizes" do a nice job of representing height variation in a single scale. This point of view lends credence to 28mm = 1:56. I have been leaning towards this scale in my plans for obtaining vehicles. |
| Last Hussar | 05 Nov 2009 7:00 p.m. PST |
It would only be 1:56 recently. Even one-two generations back 5'6", 5'8" would be an average size. Personally I wish manufactures would go scale, not size, using a known piece of equipment- we know the length of a rifle. Then there would be no heretics who measure to the eyes |
| Martin Rapier | 06 Nov 2009 9:30 a.m. PST |
With the table above, don't make the error of assuming a figure labelled as '15mm' is actually 15mm high, whether to the eyes or top of the head. The table is a very precise calculation of ratios, but it isn't the same thing as the labels manufacturers put on their figures. 20mm figs are typically 23, 24 or even 25mm high. Useful discussion of heights, scales and labels on Plastic Soldier Review. link |
| Last Hussar | 06 Nov 2009 7:35 p.m. PST |
Martin- I know, and that is much of the problem. Manufactures should really use true scale- to describe the kit we can measure, then say what range of heights the figures cover. It's annoying buying X mm from a different company to the ones you have, then finding half your army looks like freaks. I've just found where my Airfix so called 1:72 are, and they are 1-2mm taller than the 20mm (which are in fact 20mm to the top of head!) |
| Plastic Hussar | 10 Nov 2009 9:09 p.m. PST |
Nice work, Last Hussar (and nice name too). I am one of those heretics, measuring to the eyes on my comparison-focused blog: plasticpelisse.blogspot.com I like your idea of showing what those nominal scales really mean as ratios. |
|