"How do you measure a figure when you can't see its eyes?" Topic

Since it is supposed to be so impossible to measure to the top of a figure's head, how do you measure the "scale" of a hooded wraith, or a Ranger with his face hidden?
How about a knight with a visored helmet?

Surely, even you can figure out the last one John, if you really try.

;-)

Clue – it has something to do with those two small, horizontal slits near the top of the helm.

For the former items, perhaps 2/3rd's – 3/4th's of the way up the hood, measure from the bottom.

No, I was thinking of vertical slits.

For the former items, perhaps 2/3rd's – 3/4th's of the way up the hood, measure from the bottom.

Ah! You are making an informed decision about the location of the eyes! Which we are, as all the experts say, unable to do for the top of the head…
Interesting.

I measure it with a ruler, eyes or no.

The only time I measure is when its time to move figures on the table.
If a bunch of figures have weapons and equipment that are all the same size or thereabouts, it really doesnt matter how tall they are when compared to one another. People come in sizes, so should miniatures.

What scale is this guy measured to the eyes:

link

"Which we are, as all the experts say, unable to do for the top of the head…"

Not all the experts, actually…

Macro- and microcephalic cases would be exceptions.

Allen

Okay, I'll play your game.

How do you even know it/they have eyes if you can't see them?

As an alternative, perhaps measuring the overall height of the figure would be a good idea.

Nah, that's crazy talk, since that's too simple, and logical.

;-)

Top Gun Ace wrote:

As an alternative, perhaps measuring the overall height of the figure would be a good idea.

Nah, that's crazy talk, since that's too simple, and logical.

I must admit that I have some sympathy with the idea that the height of a figure should be considered to be how tall it is.

But, as you say, we are both quite plainly crazy on acid for thinking such fruitloopery.

Next thing, you'll be wanting figures that have vaguely human-like proportions.

All the best,

John.

Just measure the entire surface area of the figure, then divide by the square root of a cubit.

Steve:

That dude would be something like 33-36mm tall in 28mm.

What about this guy:
picture

Crazy talk indeed.

I measure to the crotch and multiply by two.

I have to say, this is one of the funniest topics I've seen posted here.

In the same way that a Gentleman's Taylor does: ask it politely to hold the tape measure in the correct place for you, simple!!

Jo:)

They can't be shot at either! Always wait til you see the whites of their eyes as my old sarge said.

"For the former items, perhaps 2/3rd's – 3/4th's of the way up the hood, measure from the bottom."

picture

Only if it's a Gungun from 'Star Wars'.

It always infuriates me that sculptors continually refuse to produce figures posed bolt-upright. How on earth do I measure the height of a figure that is crouched over or riding a horse. There are whole swathes of my collection of miniatures that I currently don't have an accurate height for due to this issue.

It seems John's looking for a fight. He must have caught hell from the missus and on the "kicking the dog" premise he comes here to vent. It's OK John. You're still a good person. Now let's deconstruct this puppy.

"Since it is supposed to be so impossible to measure to the top of a figure's head?"

Your first error was using the word "impossible." Impossible is like those women-used words "always" and "never." It is seldom accurate. Let's go for a more user-friendly word such as "less accurate." Now we can say: "Measuring to the top of the head is less accurate than measuring to the eyes." See how easy that was?

"How do you measure the "scale" of a hooded wraith, or a Ranger with his face hidden?"

Simple, do what I do. I don't buy those kinds of figures. However, if you must then you walk by the light of faith. If the manufacturer says its 28mm you accept it as an act of faith. After all, who are you to say the manufacturer is wrong? There are no eyes.

"How about a knight with a visored helmet?" "No, I was thinking of vertical slits."

Are you freaking out of your gourd? Helmets don't come with only vertical slits. You see John, you are simply refusing to be reasonable. This is symptomatic of a much deeper issue. You need to look deeply within yourself. From reading responses to other posts from you, I suspect Dangerfieldian trauma. This can be overcome but it will take a lot effort. Oops, I see by the clock our time is up. Same time next week good for you?

"Measuring to the top of the head is less accurate than measuring to the eyes."

I guess I've got to post this again:

picture

I am always thankful for the effort T Meier takes to educate us on human anatomy -- you'd think a bunch of sculpture appreciators would know something so elementary, but we never seem to get it.

Me, I use a shorthand.

"This figure measures 28mm to the eyes" -- I know that really means "This is a 30mm figure, plus or minus 1mm".

Thank you Mister Tom for that contribution. This is why I wrote "less accurate" rather than "accurate." The point being, measuring something you can see is more accurate than something you cannot see.

"measuring something you can see is more accurate than something you cannot see."

But not necessarily when you use that measurement as a proxy for something else. The object is to determine overall height, measuring to the eyes potentially introduces much greater error than it solves because of the way the head is attached to the body. Add to that the vagaries of proportion in small figures and you have a potential error triple any possible variation in forehead height.

Try an experiment: stand before a mirror with your head slightly raised, now hold a finger to the level of your eye, then lower your head slightly, note that your 'eye height' has changed a couple of inches while your overall height remains the same.

It is more accurate to simply estimate where the top of the head is.

My momma didn't raise any idiots. If a master says it's more accurate to estimate where the top of the head is, then it's more accurate to estimate where the top of the head is. And, I stand corrected.

But tell me this Tom, we both experienced the late 70s, early 80s when Minifig, Hinchliffe, Ral Partha, RAFM, Garrison, etc al were producing "25mm" figures, and very few of the different figures looked good on the table together. If we tried to put your figures from Ral Partha on the same table with Hinchliffe it looked ridiculous. And yet they were all marketed as 25mm.

Today I can put Old Glory landsknecht arquebusiers next to Foundry pikemen and they look fine. Artizan's landsknechts figures can even be put into the same unit as the Foundry pikemen. TAG Spanish are a bit smaller but not so much that they look out of place with the other mfgs. There seems to be more standardization today than earlier. What standard exists today that didn't exist in the 70s and 80s?

"it's more accurate to estimate where the top of the head"

In my experience, for the average person, the best thing is just to hold the figure next to a ruler and imagine it standing up straight. Of course some people don't have the knack for it at all but most do.

"What standard exists today that didn't exist in the 70s and 80s?"

Standards in this hobby tend to follow the biggest manufacturer. In the past there has never been a manufacturer as dominant as GW and it's offshoots.

Then too there are the characteristics of this particular style. GW adopted 'chunky caricature' deliberately for a number of reasons, it appealed to younger gamers who were not so price sensitive, it is easy to manufacture and sculpt allowing for less skilled, more interchangeable employees as well as lower costs and it's easier to paint to a reasonable level again appealing to the new younger customers they were trying to attract. The only drawback from a business perspective was the bulkiness used a lot of metal.

Tom, thank you for your responses. Another question, I measured the Foundry landsknecht and the Artizan landsknecht and both are 28mm based on measuring to the eye. Is this now a de facto method for sculptors for designing historical figures? What is the marketed size of your own beautiful Byzantines and how did you determine that size?

"What is the marketed size of your own beautiful Byzantines and how did you determine that size?"

They are 30mm to the top of the head so I call them 30mm. With a 1/7.5 head they are about 28mm to the eye.

I was foolish enough to match the size of the initial release of the GW 'Lord of the Rings' range which were much closer to true proportions than their usual stuff. Of course in subsequent releases from GW there was no scale discipline and the later figures in that line were much larger and chunkier.