Studio scale definition

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


Jedi Dade

Sr Member
So what do you do in the case when multiple scales of a studio model were produced...? Look at the various Falcons that were made for ESB...?

I always took studio scale to mean larger than commercially available kits, akin to the size of studio models, but as we’ve seen, that doesn’t always hold water.

Sean
In that case there are multiple studio scale models... one for each screen used model.

Jedi Dade
 

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

masterjedi322

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
You pick one and model it. There are several examples of the 3’ and 5’ Falcon out there, for example. Each is detailed differently...

In that case there are multiple studio scale models... one for each screen used model.

Jedi Dade

Agreed on all counts. Just interesting that “studio scale” more often than not means “big.”

So what about the tiny Falcon that went on the back of the Star Destroyer. Studio scale...?

Sean
 

Jkirkon

Sr Member
That’s probably because the original studio miniature was big.

One can always choose to model, say, the 5’ Falcon in a smaller scale (I’m not a Falcon expert, but look at the Bandai PG Falcon), but you couldn’t really technically CALL it a ‘studio scale 5’ Falcon’. You could call it a model of the 5’ ESB Falcon done in a smaller scale if your choice.

I think the point, which has been beaten to death, is that studio scale to the purist, is an exact reproduction of an original filming miniature done in the same scale.
 

CactusKnight

Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I think the whole studio "scale" is a confusing term, being as scale is usually reserved for size. Like in model railroading or dioramas for example. I think studio accurate makes more sense for the ones that are just like the screen used models, but that's just from an outside looking in kind of perspective. If I were to make a very large model of a ship that has no studio model, like Moldy crow or a TIE phantom, just because I were to fancy doing so, would it be appropriate to call it "studio scale size" or something along those lines?
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
It would not... It would be appropriate to call it a super cool 1/24 scale (or whatever) model of "X"... and it would not be any less cool. But calling it studio scale - based on the definition of the term would be incorrect.

I don't relish being the "studio scale police" - I'm just trying to let people know how the term was coined - hoping the "get" why something is (or isn't) studio scale as the term was first used.

Jedi Dade
 

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

CactusKnight

Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I don't think you have to worry about being the studio scale police or anything of the sort. I simply ask because being new to modeling, I wasn't sure what it would be appropriate to call something as that as I've never done it. Although the term scale in this instance doesn't make a lick of sense to me, I at least understand that when it's used for models like this it describes a recreation of a studio used model, so I appreciate the info. (On a side note though, a 1/24th scale Moldy crow would be just over 26 inches long, and sounds like an awesome project!)
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
I don't think you have to worry about being the studio scale police or anything of the sort. I simply ask because being new to modeling, I wasn't sure what it would be appropriate to call something as that as I've never done it. Although the term scale in this instance doesn't make a lick of sense to me, I at least understand that when it's used for models like this it describes a recreation of a studio used model, so I appreciate the info. (On a side note though, a 1/24th scale Moldy crow would be just over 26 inches long, and sounds like an awesome project!)
Totally! A great ship from one of the very best Star Wars games ever. Great story, and game play.

Make it!
Jedi Dade
 

Duncanator

Sr Member
I don't think you have to worry about being the studio scale police or anything of the sort. I simply ask because being new to modeling, I wasn't sure what it would be appropriate to call something as that as I've never done it. Although the term scale in this instance doesn't make a lick of sense to me, I at least understand that when it's used for models like this it describes a recreation of a studio used model, so I appreciate the info. (On a side note though, a 1/24th scale Moldy crow would be just over 26 inches long, and sounds like an awesome project!)

JediDade is right that the term Studio Scale is meant to define a specific sub-set of models that have been built to the same size and details as the original shooting models.
In retrospect, maybe a different descriptive phrase would be chosen, but the term has become established enough that trying to change it would be an uphill battle.

I agree that since it is not really a "scale" (a ratio of size) it is a bit confusing. It technically is a 1:1 scale model of another model that likely has no scale - or at best a mushy scale. Early in my career, I had to struggle with the difference between "model scale" (inches: inches) and "architectural scale" (inches: feet).

When I was in the model shop at ILM, we often built models based on physical size for shooting. This was determined by how close the camera had to get to the model, and whether the detail would hold up when the camera was that close. We'd decide to build a "3 foot model" or an "8 foot model" - and then we'd make one that was about that size. In those cases we would guess-timate that a human was about (squint) this big? and then we'd put in details that would imply that size range on the model like ladders, handles, doors, etc..
We weren't trying to make it a particular scale; only to imply approximately how big it might be relative to a person. The term "close enough" got used a lot.

Now, some models DID have a specific scale - like the Black Pearl, the tunnel cars in Men in Black or anything that was a real-world object.
Since people know what those things are, it created a natural ratio. A "scale" if you will. We had to build those to a particular scale or they would look wrong, because people knew how big they really were.

And to further stir the pot, the term Studio Scale can be applied to models of different sizes IF there were shooting models made in different sizes, like the 2 foot and 4 foot Falcons for instance.
On Episode 1 we built the MTT in 4 different sizes: 6 foot long, 2 foot long, 8 inches long and 2 inches long. We needed them for close-up shots, or scenes in which they were interacting with other models and needed to fit. The 6ft was the most detailed and was used for crashing through the forest, the 2ft unloaded from the bi-winged drop ship, the 8inch ones were in a landing bay scene, and the 2inch were for a different landing bay scene. All different sizes, but all "Studio Scale".

And ultimately, one can't build a Studio Scale model if there never was a physical studio model. 'Cuz there's nothing to match. And I guess that's what it comes down to for me.
 
Last edited:

CactusKnight

Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That helps quite a bit with my understanding, but man, this gets complicated real fast. Especially seeing as the studio itself has different sizes for all kinds of scenes. It really is quite amazing how much thought has to go into setting up for different scenarios like that and determining what size the models need to be. I appreciate all the info! This stuff is super cool to learn about.
 

TazMan2000

Master Member
Whichever way the phrase was coined, it has become bastardized by time and interest in the hobby. If anyone builds something the same size as the studio model, even if the proportions are off and the wrong greeblies are used, they will call it studio scale. There are also, those who think studio scale is 1:24, even though there are only a few models which are that scale in Star Wars...we think (sized to the pilot figure?).

In addition, there are those who model ships, that Duncanator stated, that were totally digital (perhaps not completely, there could have been a mockup or concept model created) and call them studio scale because they designed them in 1:24.

You can't police this, except perhaps, the moderators, in the Studio Scale forum.

Because the term has become bastardized, it probably does a disservice to the original creators of actual studio scale models who initially took the time to research and build their creations. But if you say "It's a studio scale replica", it hold that to a higher standard. Not everyone can claim that.

TazMan2000
 
Last edited:

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

Duncanator

Sr Member
Whichever way the phrase was coined, it has become bastardized by time and interest in the hobby. If anyone builds something the same size as the studio model, even if the proportions are off and the wrong greeblies are used, they will call it studio scale. There are also, those who think studio scale is 1:24, even though there are only a few models which are that scale in Star Wars...we think (sized to the pilot figure?).

In addition, there are those who model ships who as Duncanator stated, who were totally digital (perhaps not completely, there could have been a mockup or concept model created) and call them studio scale because they designed them in 1:24.

You can't police this, except perhaps, the moderators, in the Studio Scale forum.

Because the term has become bastardized, it probably does a disservice to the original creators of actual studio scale models who initially took the time to research and build their creations. But if you say "It's a studio scale replica", it hold that to a higher standard. Not everyone can claim that.

TazMan2000

Terms and titles get bastardized all the time, and we just have to deal with it because it's almost impossible to police (like you said).
Language evolves, and there's only so much we can do about it.

Early in the digital revolution, we model makers would to get our feathers ruffled when digital artists started usurping our title as modelers.

"They're just drawing on the computer! They aren't BUILDING anything!"
(We were pretty full of ourselves back then.)

The credit creators (and unions) settled on the hair-splitting definitions that a Model Maker built physical models, and a Modeler created digital assets. - Admittedly a fine line in the sand, kinda like Studio Scale is.

I don't mean to take away anything from the skill required to create realistic digital models. A good artist is good, no matter what the medium.
There is some digital effects work I've seen that blows me away!
And I have had some CG artist friends tell me that they always felt like they were drawing things they wanted to build. They were inspired by the physical models to get in to the industry.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that definitions will continue to evolve, and we can either "die on that hill" fighting it, or roll with it and try to guide it. There will always be folks who misunderstand even the most clear (we think) definition or innocently misuse it. That's language!
 

Duncanator

Sr Member
Also, I'm certainly not proposing that models be kicked to the curb for not "measuring up" to the Studio Scale definition.
If the attempt was to build as close as someone was able to a Studio Scale model, then it should be recognized for that and encouraged.
I want every model maker to feel like their work is just a valid, no matter what their skill level. If their only reference material is poor, or their ability level is just getting going, or they only have access to cardboard and macaroni - but are still trying to make something as accurate as they can, Then they should be applauded.

When I was a kid, I made a set of Star Trek phaser, communicator and tricorder from corrugated cardboard as accurate as I could from the plans that were in the official Star Trek Manual. They were "charming" by my current standards, but at the time I was doing the best I could with what I had access to. My first shot at Studio Scale!

If we are honest with ourselves, no one can make a 100% accurate duplicate of a studio model, because we can always keep digging down the rabbit hole on accuracy. Paint chips, glue globs, part misalignment, asymmetry - they can't all be duplicated perfectly.

I want to support and encourage people's attempts to achieve the impossible; recognizing that we will inevitably fall short, but the challenge is worth trying.
 

joberg

Master Member
Duncanator is raising a valid, if not an important, statement: each XWing for example is different from the other in that each paint effects (airbrushing, chips, etc..,.) on them make it different every time. It re-create "real life" wear and tear that you could find on a real plane/machine.
That's why an perfect accurate reproduction of these are impossible at best. I think that "Studio Scale" should always be written in quotes.
 

TazMan2000

Master Member
Duncanator , you're absolutely right. No replica will ever be 100%, but its the challenge to make it as close to 100% as possible. I'm not speaking for myself, though. Every model I make, whether is is physical or digital is better than my last one. But there comes a time, where close enough is good enough. That line between good enough and perfect should always get thinner, but it will never dissappear. What's important for everyone here whether they are new or old at the hobby, is that you should always improve...not to impress anyone...except yourself.

TazMan2000
 

CactusKnight

Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
You guys definitely have given me a lot to think about when it comes to making models in a studio scale format. I do a lot of 3d modeling myself, as that is what I went to college for, but I have always had more respect for those of you who have made physical models. I have to agree that the digital 3d models I make, I would love to build, but for some reason 3d printing some of my work just doesn't seem like it would give me the same fulfilment as doing it by hand.
 

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

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
Thank you Duncanator. I have read your posts and agree with everything you said - including not "dying on that hill". But what I do is to every 6 months or so when this topic comes up again put on the professor hat and give the history lesson.. just so people know :). But I ALWAYS encourage people to build - and just because whatever was built might not meet the "studio scale definition" doesn't diminish the coolness/greatness of the creation.

Jedi Dade
 
Last edited:

TazMan2000

Master Member
You guys definitely have given me a lot to think about when it comes to making models in a studio scale format. I do a lot of 3d modeling myself, as that is what I went to college for, but I have always had more respect for those of you who have made physical models. I have to agree that the digital 3d models I make, I would love to build, but for some reason 3d printing some of my work just doesn't seem like it would give me the same fulfilment as doing it by hand.

Physical modelling requires a steady hand and a good eye and it definitely is rewarding to build something totally from scratch since it is so time consuming. Cutting, gluing, sanding, scribing etcetera, does take a lot of time, and that probably adds more to the fulfillment.

3D modelling is just a different skillset but if done properly can be just as rewarding. If you are building an accurate copy, you are still using references from the real prop. Instead of using a steel ruler, you are relying on measurements from your program. Corrections can be done in the program, and when you are satisfied with the appearance, you can print it out.

Back in the day when the studio models were initially created, they didn't have the technology they do now. More often now, props are being created virtually and then printed out, so as not to look like someone glued on a few greeblies onto a known object and trying to pass it off as a futuristic weapon. (Sometimes prop shops do it well, other times, it's like "OMG, I can't believe they did that".)

With the original models that were used to greeblie up the studio models becoming even more scarce, a 3D solution is needed. Hence the importance of having 3d modelling skills.

Perhaps you can try building a prop totally by hand, and then 3D model the same one and print it out. See which one is more accurate, and which one is more fulfilling.

TazMan2000
 

CactusKnight

Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That's a really awesome idea! That's now two project ideas this thread has given me to work on. Ha ha! I should have got on the RPF years ago. :cool:
 

Jedi Dade

Sr Member
I use 3D modeling to print greeblies that are hard to find... or I need a bunch of. And ILM just used a 3D printed model of the Razor crest as the Studio model, for the Mandalorian. It was printed in parts assembled Cut, molded, cast reassembled, and finished with metal foil, lights, detail paint and weathering... There is nothing wrong with 3D printing stuff... At some point in the near future it will be the only way to go as all of the original kits will have been built/scavenged/or lost...

Jedi Dade
 

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

Top