Notes on Scaling

[drusselmeyer]

I noticed that there is sometimes confusion as to scaling of models, props and costumes.

Scale is often a matter of perspective. Architects insist that they are the only ones to determine scale while cartographers laugh at the clumsy system.

In drafting and architecture; a scale is set to a specific metric, i.e. 1" = 3' etc. This is clumsy and awkward since it requires the original drawing to be in hand to measure from as well as the specific ratio to be known.

In modelling (non-architectural) and cartography a simple ratio is used. All that is required from there is a set of the actual dimensions. 1:3500 means that 1 unit equals 3500 units of the same measurement.

This allows for faster calculation and less confusion. For an architect; 1/4 scale is usually 1/48 the size of the original. This is awkward.

For general modelling purposes; 1/4 scale is 1/4 of 100% size. Simpler and easier. The metric used is irrelevant since any standardized system works for scaling. 1/4 in Metric is the same size in English Imperial or French Imperial or whatever.

I hope this helps.

 

[3Dsf]

The big problem with “scale” is the problem of applying it to fantasy stuff.

When modelling real world things, scale is simple and makes sense. We know how long a given steam engine is or was, and we know the width of a given car or airplane.

But movie spaceships? There people use “scale”, but the whole idea breaks down since there is nothing to start from except handwaving and guessing.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

I am confused. 1:100 scale is 1/100 scale is 1 measuring unit in a drawing or a model equals 100 units in reality, especially in architecture. Okay, there are differences between how things are done in Europe and the U.S., but scale without a specific unit applied should be globally the same.

 

[joberg]

The big problem with “scale” is the problem of applying it to fantasy stuff.

When modelling real world things, scale is simple and makes sense. We know how long a given steam engine is or was, and we know the width of a given car or airplane.

But movie spaceships? There people use “scale”, but the whole idea breaks down since there is nothing to start from except handwaving and guessing.

Absolutely; I'll even propose that, when building Sci-Fi models, we refer to a SFX scale. Unless, pilots or other figures, of certain scales, are seated/standing in a cockpit or other area of your model...

 

[Astyanax]

All I ask is for there to occasionally be a "common" scale, so that my Millennium Falcon is not as big as my Enterprise!

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Absolutely; I'll even propose that, when building Sci-Fi models, we refer to a SFX scale. Unless, pilots or other figures, of certain scales, are seated/standing in a cockpit or other area of your model...

Then you have things like Babylon 5 where they kind of scaled them to whatever looked best in the scene. I mean I don't think they blew a fighter up to capital ship sides, but the capital ship scale apparently fluctuated.

 

[Rogviler]

Seems like a good place to dump this, something I've referred to quite often over the years:

List of Scale Model Sizes

 

[Searun]

Seems like a good place to dump this, something I've referred to quite often over the years:

List of Scale Model Sizes

Very interesting reading this list with all the background reference detail. Have never seen this in many years of modeling. Thanks.

 

[joberg]

All I ask is for there to occasionally be a "common" scale, so that my Millennium Falcon is not as big as my Enterprise!

If you scratch build your models yourself, then you can decide on the scale of various vehicles/spaceships, etc...I'm on a 2001 A Space Odyssey bend and, if I really wanted to make everything in a 1:6th scale (my EVA Pod, for example), then my Moonbus would be enormous
Same if I would build a 1:6th scale Orion! Technically, I could do it...but I'd need to buy more real estate

 

[Duncanator]

You also have to watch out for what the scale is for.
For architectural scales it is often inches to feet (example: 1/8 of an inch equals one foot), whereas in miniature scales it can be inches to inches (example: 1 inch equals 12 inches).

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Yes! I took mechanical engineering classes in high school (93-96) and we still were doing hand drawn drawings. There was a kid who took that class, which was more engineering focused, and then the next semester took the architecture class. He was having trouble switching his brain to the different scaling. I'm not sure why because you would always write in what the scale was on those drawings.

 

[rbeach84]

Interesting discussion! Focusing on what 'scale' means intrinsically, not what a specific scale is vehicle might be, etc...
Community conventions aside since that requires a specific context (as in an R/C modeler referring to "quarter scale" meaning something scaled at 1:4 ratio, whereas "one-fourth" scale might refer elsewhere to 'one fourth an inch equals one foot'), it is often clearer to give the scale ratio being used. So 1:48 (or alternatively '1/48' as in '1 over 48' fraction) would clearly be 1 measured scale (drawing) unit gives 48 "full size" units.

Obviously, scale is just a way to communicate "size" such as the size of the prototype, aka, full sized object. When a model is displayed with an adjacent figure of 'same scale', this is also a way to communicate the size of the "real" object. Real is in quotes because as we noted already, many of the SciFi subjects never actually existed as real, full size objects (or they existed as non-full size mockups to whit the Millennium Falcon which wasn't even a full mock-up in 'A New Hope', only roughly one-half.) Hence, the variable interpretations of scale or size of these objects.

Sometimes, we have the opportunity to utilize a 'proxy yardstick' other than the human figure for scaling purposes. The diameter of the Astromech droid 'dome' is a perfect example. R2-D2 is an exposed component on several of the Star Wars spaceships. Since R2-D2 existed as an actual object for which the diameter of the dome has been determined, any model depiction of the dome can be used to 'scale' the model quite exactly.

Another example for scaling from a actual, full size object is the Buck Rogers 'Thunderfighter'. If a base assumption is that the starfighter set prop is 'full size' and not undersized for some reason (ie, cost), then there is an image available where a helmet is laying on the craft next to the canopy. Using the known size of the helmet (based on a military 'bone dome' apparently), the height of the canopy can be determined and further, the size of the entire craft. Following this process seems to agree with the model sizes, if you look at the pilot figures used in the filming model.

This points to how much of what is done in this arena relies on second-hand analysis of set images, resulting in various opinions & discussion when less than ideal reference objects are available.

All part of the fun!

Regards, Robert

 

[JediMichael]

I've always had a hard time really understanding scale and how it works.
I've learned at least the basics from this group. Like, 1:1 would be the real size of whatever it is.
1:4 and 1:6 are pretty big and close to that full size. I learned 1:6 with seeing someone work on the BTTF DeLorean in 1:6 and realizing how big it was. Speaking of that, I have the 1:18th DeLoreans which are a nice size. I had seen the 1:24 and how much smaller they were, so that all helped me get at least the basics down.
With much bigger sized ships that are fantasy anyways, its more tricky for me to figure out.

 

[Pyramidrep]

"……………

In drafting and architecture; a scale is set to a specific metric, i.e. 1" = 3' etc. This is clumsy and awkward since it requires the original drawing to be in hand to measure from as well as the specific ratio to be known.

In modelling (non-architectural) and cartography a simple ratio is used. All that is required from there is a set of the actual dimensions. 1:3500 means that 1 unit equals 3500 units of the same measurement.

This allows for faster calculation and less confusion……

Great discussion. Scale is one of the first lessons taught in architecture schools - always relates to physical- real world size of objects - denoted as scale: 1/1. With digital /computer draughting, everything is drawn at that scale.
Project/ productions drawings at various scales are then produced/ printed from the 1/1 original.
There are a number of industry standard scales particularly for building projects ( European)
1/1000, 1/500 for location / ordnance survey maps
1/200, 1/100, - general building plans/ proposals
1/50/ 1/20 - cross-sections
1/10, 1/5 - specific/ technical detail.
The scales are chosen primarily for ease of allowing drawings/ technical information to be brought to site. Even if you have to amend or do additional drawing by hand ( often the case), those scales allow to quickly and mentally do the arithmetic with pen and ruler.
In modelling here on the RPF , the confusion of scale seems to arise from the use of the word Studio -scale ( the actual real size the model was built ) and what fantasy scale the filmmakers intend that model to represent.

 

[rbeach84]

I've always had a hard time really understanding scale and how it works.
I've learned at least the basics from this group. Like, 1:1 would be the real size of whatever it is.
1:4 and 1:6 are pretty big and close to that full size. I learned 1:6 with seeing someone work on the BTTF DeLorean in 1:6 and realizing how big it was. Speaking of that, I have the 1:18th DeLoreans which are a nice size. I had seen the 1:24 and how much smaller they were, so that all helped me get at least the basics down.
With much bigger sized ships that are fantasy anyways, its more tricky for me to figure out.

Jedi Michael, one way to visualize 'scale size', consider this method:

Take ye scale in the form of "1 over X", such as 1/X. Now visualize the 1 is the real object, setting in your virtual "garage" (sometimes, your garage can be rather large, uh-humm! -cuz it can hold *anything*) with the front end handing out the door into the virtual "driveway". Wow.
Now take your scaled representation of the real deal and set it alongside the real deal, oriented the same way, aligned with the front edge, you know, out in the driveway. Then take another copy of the scale 'model', and put it behind the first one. Repeat until you have 'X' number of copies lined up end to end alongside your real deal. The last one, the Xth copy, should end right at the end of the full sized object.

This would apply regardless of what X happens to be. So if you had 18 copies of that 1/18th scale DeLorean model, you could line 'em up to see just how long the real one was, or side by side to see how wide the full size automobile was... fun, ain't it!

Funny 'scale' story for you, or at least mildly entertaining... I had gotten into building one of Bandai's beautiful 1/2,7000,000 scale 'Death Star' V.2 (Endor) models - which is a little smaller than a rubber hand ball ball - and thought that it would be cool to add several scale Star Destroyers parked on the interior 'platform' of the model, to go with all the neat (and very tiny) structural detailing I'd added... Well, I did my research, actually measured the companion, but differently scaled, Star Destroyer model and then applied the Death Star scale to what I figured was the SD length... and found in-scale SD's would be smaller than I could see to make them! Specks of sand would be bigger! Oh well... perhaps I can find triangular shaped grains of sand?

Cheers!
Robert

 

[drusselmeyer]

If you scratch build your models yourself, then you can decide on the scale of various vehicles/spaceships, etc...I'm on a 2001 A Space Odyssey bend and, if I really wanted to make everything in a 1:6th scale (my EVA Pod, for example), then my Moonbus would be enormous
Same if I would build a 1:6th scale Orion! Technically, I could do it...but I'd need to buy more real estate

I dare you to build that moonbus.

 

[drusselmeyer]

I still see scales of models being sold set at something like 1/4 scale but meaning: 1/4" =1'.

 

[3Dsf]

Here's a comment that I wrote on my "studio scale is a meaningless term" rant:

As a side note, as bad as “studio scale” is as a term, it's not as absurd as the nonsense in the toy collecting community.

The most egregious misuse of the word “scale” is probably the idiotic terms “six inch scale” for many toy figurines, and “3.75" scale” for Star Wars action figures. These appear to be common terms even though they make no sense.

So-called “six inch scale” apparently derives from the idea that a 6 inch figurine represents a 6 foot tall human. Aside from cultural goofiness – the racist and sexist underlying assumption that 6 feet tall is the standard ruler for human height, and the embedded use of imperial measures only widely used in one country on the planet – the term isn’t even a ratio.​

​

Making the term even more stupid is that a simple actual scale exists for the same basic concept. Because 6 feet = 72 inches, which means an actual scale of 1:12! Simple, short, and meaningful.​

​

“3.75 inch scale” is even more bizarre and random. Supposedly it’s popular in the Star Wars toy world because the original Kenner Luke Skywalker action figure was 3.75" tall. And Mark Hamill is apparently 5'9" in height. So people started referring to these Star Wars figurines as 3.75 inch scale, even though eg: Darth Vader is taller and R2-D2 is shorter. Rather than something remotely meaningful, like 1:18 scale or whatever.​

​

So much for basic mathematical literacy/numeracy. Math teachers of the world, despair!​

 

[joberg]

Here's a comment that I wrote on my "studio scale is a meaningless term" rant:

As a side note, as bad as “studio scale” is as a term, it's not as absurd as the nonsense in the toy collecting community.​

​

The most egregious misuse of the word “scale” is probably the idiotic terms “six inch scale” for many toy figurines, and “3.75" scale” for Star Wars action figures. These appear to be common terms even though they make no sense.​

​

So-called “six inch scale” apparently derives from the idea that a 6 inch figurine represents a 6 foot tall human. Aside from cultural goofiness – the racist and sexist underlying assumption that 6 feet tall is the standard ruler for human height, and the embedded use of imperial measures only widely used in one country on the planet – the term isn’t even a ratio.​

​

Making the term even more stupid is that a simple actual scale exists for the same basic concept. Because 6 feet = 72 inches, which means an actual scale of 1:12! Simple, short, and meaningful.​

​

“3.75 inch scale” is even more bizarre and random. Supposedly it’s popular in the Star Wars toy world because the original Kenner Luke Skywalker action figure was 3.75" tall. And Mark Hamill is apparently 5'9" in height. So people started referring to these Star Wars figurines as 3.75 inch scale, even though eg: Darth Vader is taller and R2-D2 is shorter. Rather than something remotely meaningful, like 1:18 scale or whatever.​

​

So much for basic mathematical literacy/numeracy. Math teachers of the world, despair!​

5'6 is the standard scale to design furniture. As you said, an average of a 6' human around the world is quite impossible

 

[joberg]

I dare you to build that moonbus.

I did the average measurements already: 60" X 24" X 20" (not exact, of course...ball park figure)