Scale vs looks right

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

Another example is ballast, in N scale your ballast would almost be a powder if done to scale, which wouldn't "look" right.

I've always thought that HO scale ballast looks too big. I ballast my track with N scale ballast because it looks right to me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

Another example is ballast, in N scale your ballast would almost be a powder if done to scale, which wouldn't "look" right.

I've always thought that HO scale ballast looks too big. I ballast my track with N scale ballast because it looks right to me.

[Jetrock]

Ballast is a tricky one--I recently tried ballasting with WS fine ballast instead of medium (I model HO) and did find that the results look better.

One thing to keep in mind is perspective. Especially when one is trying to exaggerate perspective, one can make use of out-scale items to enhance the illusion of depth. As an example, in this photo

http://emrl.com/~jetrock/fubar/quarterview2.jpg

I used trees varying between 1" and 3" tall in the background--which are tiny tiny trees in HO, barely saplings, but my objective was to make the viewer think that these trees were actually much farther away than they actually are--since the only thing on the hill to give a sense of scale are the trees, and our brains "know" that generally in the mountains pine trees are higher than 15-25 feet, our brain assumes that the hill in the background is farther away than it actually is.

This can also be done with equipment that is only slightly out-scale. The example of HO equipment in foreground with N in background is common, but it can also be used with equipment that is both technically in "HO" but not necessarily the same size. For example, I have some HO die-cast vehicles that have nice details but are a bit over-scale, and some German plastic HO vehicles that look nice on the outside but have no interior detail and are a bit small. Since I have several streets on my layout that run from foreground to background, by placing the larger, detailed vehicles closer to the edge of the layout and the smaller vehicles farther back, I enhance the illusion of distance while using two different vehicles that are both technically "HO."

In the above instances, the idea is to work WITH the camera eye--both illusions are destroyed if viewed from the back.

[Jetrock]

Ballast is a tricky one--I recently tried ballasting with WS fine ballast instead of medium (I model HO) and did find that the results look better.

One thing to keep in mind is perspective. Especially when one is trying to exaggerate perspective, one can make use of out-scale items to enhance the illusion of depth. As an example, in this photo

http://emrl.com/~jetrock/fubar/quarterview2.jpg

I used trees varying between 1" and 3" tall in the background--which are tiny tiny trees in HO, barely saplings, but my objective was to make the viewer think that these trees were actually much farther away than they actually are--since the only thing on the hill to give a sense of scale are the trees, and our brains "know" that generally in the mountains pine trees are higher than 15-25 feet, our brain assumes that the hill in the background is farther away than it actually is.

This can also be done with equipment that is only slightly out-scale. The example of HO equipment in foreground with N in background is common, but it can also be used with equipment that is both technically in "HO" but not necessarily the same size. For example, I have some HO die-cast vehicles that have nice details but are a bit over-scale, and some German plastic HO vehicles that look nice on the outside but have no interior detail and are a bit small. Since I have several streets on my layout that run from foreground to background, by placing the larger, detailed vehicles closer to the edge of the layout and the smaller vehicles farther back, I enhance the illusion of distance while using two different vehicles that are both technically "HO."

In the above instances, the idea is to work WITH the camera eye--both illusions are destroyed if viewed from the back.

[cwclark]

I strive to do both because the camera is the tattle tale...I scratch built a lumber mill once and to my eye it looked really good..but when pictures were taken I could find lots of flaws where things in the picture were bigger than life and ended up tearing it down and re-doing a large portion of it to get it into scale...I believe one is as important as the other...Chuck[:D]

[cwclark]

I strive to do both because the camera is the tattle tale...I scratch built a lumber mill once and to my eye it looked really good..but when pictures were taken I could find lots of flaws where things in the picture were bigger than life and ended up tearing it down and re-doing a large portion of it to get it into scale...I believe one is as important as the other...Chuck[:D]

[ham99]

If it "looks right," it is right -- even though not in scale. But it can't be far off scale or it would not look right. Let's see -- in N scale, Colorado's Mount Evans would be 89.7 feet tall. Even 9.6 inch pine trees are out of the question on my layout. Smaller scenery items seem to make the track appear longer. Put a simple loop of track down without scenery and it seems so small -- add a lot of scenery features and it gets longer, because we see the train passing things to give us a scale perspective.

[ham99]

If it "looks right," it is right -- even though not in scale. But it can't be far off scale or it would not look right. Let's see -- in N scale, Colorado's Mount Evans would be 89.7 feet tall. Even 9.6 inch pine trees are out of the question on my layout. Smaller scenery items seem to make the track appear longer. Put a simple loop of track down without scenery and it seems so small -- add a lot of scenery features and it gets longer, because we see the train passing things to give us a scale perspective.

[Anonymous]

That is a good question, Id say it depends on if you want a show me layout or a fun layout. me I would go for the scale and have a good looking layout.

[Anonymous]

That is a good question, Id say it depends on if you want a show me layout or a fun layout. me I would go for the scale and have a good looking layout.

[Anonymous]

I go for the "looks right" approach - my layout has some of the most rampant greenery on the planet if you check it with a scale rule! However, to my eye it looks right, and it covers a few mistakes (like not painting the board before laying track and ballasting...!)

[Anonymous]

I go for the "looks right" approach - my layout has some of the most rampant greenery on the planet if you check it with a scale rule! However, to my eye it looks right, and it covers a few mistakes (like not painting the board before laying track and ballasting...!)