Notes on Scaling

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.
 
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:

 
Last edited:
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
 
F80C6C14-E887-4004-94A2-A03F925353B6.jpeg
That’s just an awesome, epic line “ over the years many furious keyboard battles have been waged over the term…”.
 
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. :)
 
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…..
D989A7EB-F25E-467B-8D19-18CB2DC92C3E.jpeg




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.

8DC1D40F-DA13-44C5-A773-DED24C54823C.jpeg
Th
Then we had Mr. Neufert….
966165A0-10BD-46F6-99C8-27A62B50E787.jpeg

And nowadays they want to use something like this…..
DA5B31AF-2345-47BC-BD44-79480B9DE768.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I came across something that is even a worse abuse of the term. It is using scale to measure items based on an arbitrary metric.

This is done in the art world where a statue may be "full scale", but not have any relationship to a real object except acceptable size for a sculpture. i.e. a sculpture may be quarter "statue" scale, but 1:8 the scale of a real object/person.

This gets described as 1/4 scale! A 3' human figure statue can be described as full scale!

I am still trying to identify the standard for this scale.

Maddening!!
 
Last edited:
Wargaming scales bug me - what does 54mm (or other) readily relate to in the real world ?

Also, drawings that state the scale but have no simple scale ruler drawn on them.
Unless you have a 1:1 reproduction of the original drawing you have no idea what actual "scale" you are dealing with.
You would have to search out some known measurement on the drawing and do the math to know what scale you are actually dealing with in front of you, if you catch my meaning.
 
This is probably as good a place as any to point out a couple of common issues with 'scale plans', aka 'general arrangement drawings', et al.

First, even the most obviously carefully crafted and detailed "scale" drawings can be corrupted by various reproduction mechanisms. Famously, the wonderfully accurate and meticulously researched drawings by A.L. Bentley, widely published at one time in Scale Models and made available via the MAP plans service were found to be corrupted by Xerox processing which tended to have subtle distortion introduced with each generation of copy away from the originals. I have found many a published 'plan' that had basic dimensional inconsistencies between views, likely introduced in the layout for publication, but even in plans found in "plans packs" and such artifacts. For while, near every plan I found in Scale Aircraft Modelling magazine didn't actually match the 'scale' with which they were labeled. Thank goodness for my scanner to turn them into image files so I can 'normalize' the various views to make them consistent and hence useful for actually building models! Best practice is to measure consistent features between views to ensure consistency.

Second, it may be stating the obvious for my gentle Forum-mates, but just because it is 'drawn' don't make it right! A wonderful, on the nose example is the volume sold under the title of "Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels". The "plans" are not actually claimed to be 'scale drawings' but referred to as 'schematics' & are presented in such a way to give the impression they are 'scaled views'. But pretty obvious that the drawings are actually more generic and 'impressions' than faithful plans (example: the Millennium Falcon lacks the "toe in" on the 'jaws'.) Yet sometimes they will be used as an authoritative resource. Grain o' salt, eh?

Goes to the *essential* modeler's skill which is to interpret and validate reference drawings against multiple sources and the actual prototypes, just as needs be done with the '3D drawing' that a model kit actually is.

Third, a basic tenant: in general, the more views, the better! Isometric, plan (top & bottom), side(s), front and rear are all desirable when attempting to accurately 'map' an object. Subtle shapes and asymmetries are all a part of real things and hence need multiple 'projections' to show it all. In this world of CAD, assumptions of asymmetry are usually wrong which is why study of images of the 'real thing' are so important. In effect, those images give additional 'views' to further the understanding of the spatial relationships and shapes that is so key to a successful replica. Witness my avatar; I flew that helicopter once upon a time and it was rife with non-symmetrical elements (you even see how the radome is offset to starboard in the little image...part of its charm!) If a designer assumed to 'draw' one side then mirror it for a whole, they'd be way off...

Last point - structure is important! Just as our skeleton shapes how we look on the outside, so does the internal details matter to the appearance of your favorite vehicle. In the case of the sci-fi subjects we love to model, it doesn't hurt to try and 'imagineer' what is under the skin. Lacking a referential reality (recall the Falcon - ship of incongruities!), we tend to do the best we can but in the end it becomes an exercise of creativity. Not so with "real" vehicles, vessels, etc. Battlestar's RAM (from the original TV series), being based on a real vehicle chassis, a fact that can guide understanding of what they came up when they built the filming prop and then help with making an accurate model. (Sometimes we get lucky!) Having drawings that show internal structural details (even the classic "cutaway") will further aid understanding of the subject being modeled. But cutaways are often more 'artistic' than 'engineering' in nature, depending on the source. And as always, the real deal can be different than anything that is on "paper".

Hope you enjoyed this little journey off the beaten path... fortunately, I'd didn't even bring up 'ratios'!
Regards, Robert
 
54mm is approximately 2". Which translates to a ratio of 3' per 1". This is roughly 1/34 scale.
-Yes, it should be 50.4mm or 1/36 scale.

25mm (25.4 really) is a ratio of 1" to 6' or 72" which is 1/72 scale.

The problem is that back in the 1980s, many sculptors could not control their scale. They fell into the problem of what I call: "scale drift". This is the result of working with a piece so long that the material tends to expand.

If for example, you work on a tiny face for a long period without checking your work the face can end up being much larger than planned. The amount of effort to refine details has to be balanced with maintaining the correct size.

The result was, that due to deadlines etc, manufacturers were pretty lenient with sculptors as far as size of their masters.

There was no strict demand for exact scale in fantasy miniatures, so the new standard measurement went from "top-of-the-head" to eye height.

With this dubious standard unchallenged, here we are today.
 
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.

There is something that is called a "universal standard". A unit of measure that is followed by the industry to avoid confusion. You cannot go out in the field where the contractor is using a different unit of measure than what was designed. Which is why no Architects use scales such as 1:3500 on an actual set of plans. The basic understanding that the unit of 1 is not equal to another unit of 1. 1mm is not equal to 1inch. You're opening yourself to a HUGE lawsuit if you do not define the units of measurement. 1/4" =1'-0" is LESS awkward and LESS confusing.
Since in the US we use Feet and inches when measuring everything, that's what's reflected on the plans. when the contractor has the plans in hand, he uses a ruler (referred to as an Architectural Scale) that has the units of conversion already converted and can measure the plans without the need to scale up/down anything or question which units to use. There's nothing clumsy about this system. Its about understanding the math behind it.

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.

As a Drafter myself, this metric of measurement again, isn't clumsy (ignoring that 1"=3' isn't a standard scale used) or awkward. It doesn't require the original drawing anymore than any other scale. The ratio is known as it is 1" = 3' (or 1:36). Not to mention anything that you are scaling requires it to exist in one form or another, whether its the actual plans in hand or the object in question itself.

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.

Actual dimensions are always required (and always provided). In modeling, or miniatures, the ratio 1:48 (for example) is used because we are dealing with customers world wide. it is a universal scale that doesn't apply a specific unit of measurement to it because, the conversion has already been done. What it means is, if you scale up the model 48 times it will be full scale, weather it be in mm or ft, it doesn't matter. Because when you take out your measuring tape and measure the length of the object the distance is constant. Ill measure 1", where as you may measure 25.4 mm.
But how do you scale something down to 1:48 that is full scale (or 1:1)?

For an architect; 1/4 scale is usually 1/48 the size of the original. This is awkward.

When You scale your 1:1 (full scale) item DOWN by 0.25 (ie 1/4) it is 1/4 the size of the original, not 1/48. What you mean is 1/4 scale of the original is equal to 1:48 ratio. Nothing Awkward about this, because if I want to scale it down to 1/4 scale I have to divide it by 0.25. If I want to scale it up I multiply it by 48 (ie 1:48). This is why one says that 1/4 scale is equal to 1:48.

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 ize in English Imperial or French Imperial or whatever.
I hope this helps.

Exactly. Since architects work in feet, that's where 1/4" = 1'-0" comes in. it's exactly the same as saying quarter scale or 1:48 scale. it means the plans (or model) is 1/4 the size of 1 (1 foot representing full scale in this case).
That said, it's the difference between scaling something UP and scaling something down. If I had Architectural Plan set that was drawn in 1/4 scale (1/4" = 1'0") I would have to increase the scale 48 times to be full scale. But how would someone know to multiply it up 48 times?

Simple: since we are working in units of inches we convert the foot into inches (1 foot = 12 inches or 1/12) then we multiply the fractions together: 1/4 x 1/12 = 1/48 or 1:48 scale
other examples:
1/2" = 1'-0" is the same as 1:24 (1/2 x 1/12 = 1/24 & reverse is 1/24 divide 1/12=1/2)
1" = 1'-0" is the same as 1:12 (12/12 x 1/12 = 1/12 & reverse is 1/12 divide 1/12 = 1)
and so on.

In the end, the scales used are identical. they are just written out differently. There is a mathematical conversion that is applied for this conversion. The "insistence" from Architects/Engineers in using one form over another is to avoid lawsuits, confusion, and to ensure its built correctly the first time. Those who laugh or mock this "system" are focused more on the precision of using inches vs mm. When you need something with a 0.0001 micron of precision, no you don't want to use feet or inches as your scale.

Understanding scale is understanding fractions, ratios, mathematics and units of measure. Applying scale to a model that may not have one is using a universal metric, IE Humans. In modeling scales the standard human male is 6 feet. when you scale down a human and fit them into your diorama, ship, tank, etc. this is the approximate scale of your model. This is how the X-Wings and TIE Fighters where given a scale. The pilots were a known scale of 1/25. Thus concluding the ships themselves must also be 1/25.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that simplifies everything.

You restated just about everything I said and demonstrated that my original statement about awkwardness is correct.

Thank you?

A. Most people do not want to perform extraneous math

and

B. It really is not necessary to do when a simple ratio answers the problem.

Given number (x) times 48. 48x = y (your 1:1 result)

How else would you multiply up by 48?

You do this with scale models and drawings all the time. Until very recently, not every design has been made in 1:1 scale.
 
Last edited:
you 100% missed the point if that's your conclusion.

Both are required. You cannot scale something DOWN to 1:48 ratio without knowing its 1/4 scale of 1:1. Using the 1:48 ratio only answers half the problem (ie scaling something up)
Nevermind, all models on the market come in ratios as you describe, so I am not sure where this struggle is coming from when it applies to miniatures.
However since you were the one to compare modeling ratios to Architectural Plans as if Mechanical, Architectural or Civil Engineers should conform to this ratio method as if its the answer to, say a contractors inability to do basic math, is not factoring the real world problems this creates.

No, using a ratio scale for Architectural/Civil scaled plans is not a good idea. which is literally why its not used.
 
I'm bad at math, but, in case of confusion I always use the "Coke Can Measurement Scale (CCMS) that some of us, RPFers, are using daily:lol::lol:
 
Back
Top