Studio scale definition

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


nkg

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
So I think it's pretty well understood that the term "studio scale" basically means "a model built to the size of a miniature built for a film or other production". Which is admittedly kind of confusing - I really think it should be "studio size" to avoid confusion.

But anyway. I was thinking about this definition, and was wondering whether the definition also always means, in peoples' minds, "and is intended to look as close as possible to that miniature".

So, for example, let's say you make a replica of a screen-used model that's pretty well identical in terms of physical size, in terms of detailing and proportion and exact greeblies used, and so on. But you decide to add a cockpit interior where the original model did not. Are people going to have conniptions over this? :)
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

swgeek

Sr Member
It's different for everybody apparently. I think a studio scale model is built as close as possible to the original filming miniature. Including size, nurnies and detail, including cockpit. I personally don't like ss models with a copy of the full size cockpit but I know some people don't mind and others prefer it. It's like the methods used to make the model. Some prefer to make the model from scratch with the real model parts, some will use castings, some will print the parts or the whole model, while some will build kits. I don't think you're ever going to get everybody to agree on a standard.
 

swgeek

Sr Member
Since when?
If I build an X-Wing the exact size as the production made models but I make it out of macaroni that's not a studio scale model.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

dtssyst

Sr Member
My interpretation on this topic is...

Terms used:
-Studio Scale
-Studio Scale accurate (in short: Studio Accurate)

Scale:
The relation between the real size of something and its size on a map, model, or diagram.

Accurate:
Correct in all details; exact.

Hence,
Sculpting a potato in any size as that of the original subject is in a scale of that subject.
Sculpting a potato to have the same details as that of the original subject is accurate.

Conclusion.
Making a model to be the same size as the filming model is Studio Scale
Making a model to be the same size and identical in detail as the filming model is Studio Accurate.
Note: This is regardless of the materials used.
 
Last edited:

Flyscriber

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Studio scale (to me anyhow) has always meant accurate as possible, greebs, paint etc. Studio scale could be split into "scale" without the accurate greebs and paint which gives you a great size ship and a relaxing paint job, or studio "replica" which is definitely a much more complex and specific rabbit hole to jump into.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

joberg

Master Member
My interpretation on this topic is...

Terms used:
-Studio Scale
-Studio Scale accurate (in short: Studio Accurate)

Scale:
The relation between the real size of something and its size on a map, model, or diagram.

Accurate:
Correct in all details; exact.

Hence,
Sculpting a potato in any size as that of the original subject is in a scale of that subject.
Sculpting a potato to have the same details as that of the original subject is accurate.

Conclusion.
Making a model to be the same size as the filming model is Studio Scale
Making a model to be the same size and identical in detail as the filming model is Studio Accurate.
Note: This is regardless of the materials used.
Love this^^ Same as my 2001 Space Station V: it's Studio Scale (7 feet) not Studio Accurate since I took a lot of artistic liberties with the details and greeblies. ;)
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
OK - Studio scale Definition is:

A model built to the same size as the original filming miniature.

When the term was originally coined gosh - sometime late 1990's early 2000's (I'm feeling old now) it also referred to using the same parts (as much as could be accomplished) as the original subject... these parts were often used to determine the "studio scale" as the size of the known objects were interpolated from pictures to get the dimensions of other parts that were scratch-built/hand created.

The Term was created in reference to people trying to create a studio accurate replica of the subject.

Since then the term has been adopted by other to simply mean the same size - but in its original use it was same size and detailing as the original subject.

And has been noted - its not a Specific scale - it was whatever size the original filming miniature happened to be.

I was on these boards then and involved in the threads where it was coined. This was the meaning and context of the term "studio scale" as it was originally used.

Jedi Dade
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
No there is one standard. Studio scale and accurate.

Everything else is deviation from the original intent and context of the phrase when it was originally created. That being said people will continue to use it as they see fit so forewarned is fore-armed. Check with the person you're speaking to to see if they are using the term correctly - or if they are just co-opting it.

Jedi Dade
 

TazMan2000

Master Member
No there is one standard. Studio scale and accurate.

Everything else is deviation from the original intent and context of the phrase when it was originally created. That being said people will continue to use it as they see fit so forewarned is fore-armed. Check with the person you're speaking to to see if they are using the term correctly - or if they are just co-opting it.

Jedi Dade

Perhaps the original intent of that phrase was meant to imply accurate, as there were only a few builders who could afford to get the original models for kitbashing long ago (and even now), along with having the patience in doing everything as perfect as possible, including matching the paint and weathering. However, a lot more people can get access to those models now, either through resin castings or 3D creations. I've seen many resin castings that say they are studio scale, but right away you can see errors, shortcuts, or the wrong scratch part used.

Then there are some who muck up the paint job, or modify the scheme, or even add parts. I made a studio scale Death Star Turret a while back. Most of the parts are accurate, and I tried to match the weathering as close as I could to the filming prop through online photos. But I do not consider it 100 accurate, but it is "in scale" with the studio model.

In addition, there are members who post pics of models in the Studio Scale section of this forum, that CLEARLY are not exact, and NOT studio scale. Are we to get the mods to clear out all those posts?

There are many words or phrases in the English language which have had their meanings changed over time.

Perhaps "Filming Replica" would be a better name for those models whose builders take painstaking care in making things as perfect as possible.

TazMan2000
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
At the time the term was created it had a specific meaning... which I conveyed. Even at that time there were unknown parts, scratchbuilt parts to replicate fuzzy images etc. etc. Those models by "todays" standard are not accurate because we have 20 years more research, access to the original models in some cases - laser scans in some. etc. etc. But the intent is to make a replica of the filming miniature. If that is not your intent then I would say that its not Studio scale. If your intent is to build a model roughly the same scale with detailing that looks the part - its a fantastic model but not studio scale... Most of Alfred Wongs and Randy Coopers kits fall into this category - and that TAKES NOTHING AWAY FROM THEM OR THEIR WORK (or anyone elses). I have many of those kits and love them - displayed with my "studio scale" kits :)

And Yes perhaps "Filming Replica" might be a better name - but that ship has sailed about 20+ years ago... However that was the meaning at the time it was first used... a replica of filming miniature the same size and built with the same detailing (as close as can be done at the time of construction).

As to affordability etc. that's a pretty interesting discussion. "back in the day" the kits used in the late 70's and 80's were still available in shops and the "new" thing called eBay. It was not an incredible expense "then" to pick up what are now extremely rare kits. Some of them were still expensive but not unattainable. But what happened was after a part/Kit was ID'd suddenly people started buying them for their SW kitbashes - and sellers found out... and Jacked the prices through the roof. That's about the time builders started being secretive and selective with who they shared their discoveries with. Its also when people started casting runs of parts for others (typically to recoup the cost of an expensive kit purchase). 20 years later 99.9% of those 70's kits have been scavenged, and the remaining ones are in the hands of a collector of whatever subject it is - and don't want to part with it for someone to take bits off for a sci-Fi model... The result is stupid high prices for the requisite kits.

Then came the advent of 3D modeling and printing - opening the door to the possibility of getting parts that were "as good" as the originals. But the quality of those parts is directly proportional to the anal retentiveness of the person scanning/modeling it. Some are truly indistinguishable from the originals others "kinda look right". I'd propose that a model built with 3D printed parts counts as studio scale if the intention was to build a "filming replica" - with all the requisite care that comes with such an endeavor. By that I mean the builder is not really happy with "close enough" they really want the real deal and will tear out detail on a finished model to replace it with better parts if they become available (or build a new one model). "Studio Scale" implies a kind of insanity really - in the attempt to recreate the original model. As was pointed out sometimes (often) it was an impossible task in the beginning of this hobby. Today we have a wealth of reference on just about everything... Which makes someone claiming to have a "studio scale"/filming replica have to reach a higher standard than back in the day... because we all can check against reference pretty easily.

As an example - the Captain Cardboard X-wing was/is a "studio scale" kit. the master was sold to Mike Salzo who has gone through 5 (is he on 6) iterations of that kit correcting things (some often extremely minor) so that today his v5 is darn close to the originals. All of Mikes versions are "studio scale" as the intent was to recreate the filming miniature. But a rebuild of the Hasbro toy (that is darn close in size but not exact) isn't - unless the builder corrects almost the entire thing... which might as well be a new "scrtatchbuild" that that point. I hope that makes it clear. :D

Peace,
Jedi Dade
 

TazMan2000

Master Member
I guess people's opinions run deep. Unfortunately, this may be an item that everyone will not agree on. That's perfectly fine. What's important is that most of us are here to build models in scale, out of scale and our own designs.

Hopefully the popcorn eaters were entertained. Let's talk about the MF and the mandibles toe-in. :lol:

TazMan2000
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
I was just trying to give the history of things... for all the youngin's. I'm trying to explaining why I have the opinion I do - not just say your wrong I'm right :).

I also hope that you are finding my response respectful... its not my intent to argue with anyone :)

Jedi Dade
 

nkg

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
OK - Studio scale Definition is:

A model built to the same size as the original filming miniature.

When the term was originally coined gosh - sometime late 1990's early 2000's (I'm feeling old now) it also referred to using the same parts (as much as could be accomplished) as the original subject... these parts were often used to determine the "studio scale" as the size of the known objects were interpolated from pictures to get the dimensions of other parts that were scratch-built/hand created.

The Term was created in reference to people trying to create a studio accurate replica of the subject.
Thanks for that info! Do you know what discussion boards that came from? Or who might have coined it?

- nkg
 

TazMan2000

Master Member
I'm just having an issue with what to call a model that is in scale with a studio model, even though it isn't accurate.

I get that there are some who want to make an exact copy of the studio model. The original model makers had a schedule, and what they accomplished to get it done for the filming deadline was truly incredible. Some errors and short cuts were bound to happen, and in any case, those errors would hardly be noticed on screen. Getting those "errors" replicated perfectly is important to them.

However, there are others who would say that sags, molding marks, misglued parts were not what was envisioned, so they improve on their models by detailing the cockpit, or other parts making it a bit more realistic, even though it lessens the accuracy to the actual filming model.

TazMan2000
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top