Notes on Scaling

[drusselmeyer]

Believe it or not, Studio Scale actually does make sense.

Models must fit within a scene. The amount that the model must be visible and the frame determine how big a model must be. Generally speaking, it is how big the model must look on the screen.

While there can be many factors involved, the model will usually have to be the same size to get the camera shot in every production that will use the same shot.

If I were to use the same shots for a new Firefly series, I could use the same model with the same lighting to get identical shots for my new episode.

Conversely, if I wanted the same shots, I would need an original-scaled model to get exactly the same look. Yes, I could get close to the same with different sizes, but without radically departing from the original lighting etc, I would need a similarly sized Serenity for my shot.

No matter what it was, any practical model has to fit within the visual context of the shot and within the frame to get the right look. This, along with budget, limits what size a model can be.

Also, many models require a certain level of detail that is, until recently, only acquired from source model kits. With the advent of 3D printing, this is becoming a moot element.

To replicate a studio model exactly, the same source elements must be used to properly detail said model.

 

[3Dsf]

Believe it or not, Studio Scale actually does make sense.

The concept of studio scale model making is totally fine. I have no issues with that. I do, however, have issues with the term, because it's deeply misleading. In particular it misleads the public, who aren't into the minutiae of this kind of model making.

This is a bit off-topic, but this is my rant into the night as to why "studio scale" is a really bad term:

Studio Scale

Somewhere along the line, various model builders settled on the term “studio scale” to refer to replica models of objects, typically space vehicles, that were originally made for movies and TV. And, predictably, over the years many furious keyboard battles have been waged over the term, usually in

sites.google.com

 

[joberg]

When you think of it, the miniature AT-AT made for background shots (the size of a penny), are actually Studio Size

 

[rbeach84]

All the dust-up apparently comes from the use of 'scale' instead of 'size' as a label... another not uncommon instance of technical terminology 'appropriated' by non-technical users who, uh-hem, lack appreciation for the technical aspects for which they are 'hijacking'.

Drusselmeyer's discussion is valid and highlights a different definition of 'scale' in the filming production context. And, (same as Kleenex has now come into common usage the term for 'facial tissues', etc.) 'studio scale' is widely understood within modeling circles as referring to a model that aims to 'exactly' replicate a filming miniature. Hence it would be more accurate to label a model as 'studio model replica' or 'studio size', where 'studio' refers to a model created for the purpose of filming practical special effects. I prefer 'replica' myself and for the reason there are often multiple sizes for a miniature subject (such as the AT-AT's...) such as support perspective work, this would necessarily need to include a modifier to accurately identify exactly *which* studio model is being represented. I like exact when possible!

Perhaps that is why... we, being human and looking for easier methods of communication (aka, we're 'lazy'), will follow such shortcuts enthusiastically! It isn't mathematics after all...ha!

Cheers!
Regards, Robert

 

[Pyramidrep]

That’s just an awesome, epic line “ over the years many furious keyboard battles have been waged over the term…”.

 

[3Dsf]

Perhaps that is why... we, being human and looking for easier methods of communication (aka, we're 'lazy'), will follow such shortcuts enthusiastically! It isn't mathematics after all...ha!

I dunno - mathematicians are pretty good at being concise!

And anyway, "studio size" would be a more accurate term than "studio scale" - plus it's one letter shorter to boot, and therefore even better for truly lazy people.

 

[Pyramidrep]

I dunno - mathematicians are pretty good at being concise!

And anyway, "studio size" would be a more accurate term than "studio scale" - plus it's one letter shorter to boot, and therefore even better for truly lazy people.

Well said. The arguments on scale are never-ending. In the end only a small minority of folks will really care and generally you will get a muddled reaction from casual viewers ( “ oh really, that’s very intersesting” while looking slightly bemused.)
A few months ago, the subject of scale came up in a conversation with a friend. The abridged version of it was this;

In architecture/ design industry we originally had this for scale…..

Then we had this from the self styled “Le Corbusier”( which btw I always thought looked like an Alien and good for designing & scaling fantasy spaceships.

Th
Then we had Mr. Neufert….

And nowadays they want to use something like this…..

 

[flimzy]

I remember chocolate bars being much bigger when I was a kid. Time must alter scale too.

 

[joberg]

I remember chocolate bars being much bigger when I was a kid. Time must alter scale too.

It's because you were of "Small Size" that the chocolate bar looked "Over scaled"

 

[flimzy]

 

[drusselmeyer]

The truth of shrinkage is scarier than you might think.