Harry--
AHAH! Well said. No WONDER you guys won at Agincourt, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
jeffers_mz wrote:For those who want to bring their layouts to life with sound, I'll repeat this. The earlier you get a personal computer into the audio chain, the more versatile your sound canvas will become. A computer will generate and play back more sounds than any ten thousand dedicated layout sound devices you can buy or even imagine. In mono or stereo, up to CD quality, even an old 486 will do wonders for your layouts aural aura, and most anything you put into that PC will not be wasted. All of your programming and most of your extra hardware will transfer to a new PC if and when you upgrade. Of course, 7.1 surround or better than CD quality requires more horsepower than the old 486 can deliver, but not by too much. Digital video and 3D simulations are real power drains on a PC, audio, not nearly as much.
For those who want to bring their layouts to life with sound, I'll repeat this. The earlier you get a personal computer into the audio chain, the more versatile your sound canvas will become. A computer will generate and play back more sounds than any ten thousand dedicated layout sound devices you can buy or even imagine. In mono or stereo, up to CD quality, even an old 486 will do wonders for your layouts aural aura, and most anything you put into that PC will not be wasted. All of your programming and most of your extra hardware will transfer to a new PC if and when you upgrade. Of course, 7.1 surround or better than CD quality requires more horsepower than the old 486 can deliver, but not by too much. Digital video and 3D simulations are real power drains on a PC, audio, not nearly as much.
I agree. Any suggestions on how to get started in this area?
- Harry
fwright wrote:The obvious difference that hasn't been mentioned yet in photos of layouts or seeing them in person is movement or animation. Models of running streams or waves on the water can look really great in a photo - especially in the "how-to" articles. But when you see the same scene in person, it's not so great. Why? Because your eye expects the ripples on the water to move. Because the way the light reflects off the water is constantly changing.Cars, figures, and trackside industries are other obvious examples. When I drive by the local concrete plant in Oakland (served by rail and truck), it's a noisy, dusty place with something or somebody always on the move. Very few autos are seen on the streets perpetually standing still. So when we visit a layout, our eye expects this constant movement and senses something is not quite right with a silent, static scene. But it looks great in a photo which is an instant in time. Meanwhile, our brains are trained to make sense of movement brought to us through eyes, nose, ears, etc. Our middle ear detects changes in velocity, not position.These reasons favor photography over in-person visits. Static models and scenes are easier to model, hence the movement to layouts that photograph well.I've dreamed about trying to recreate a total scene at my Oregon dog hole port dock. Using a fog machine with salt-air scented fog so that the train actually does pop out of the scene from the fog. Pulleys squeaking and spars groaning as loads are actually shifted into and out of the schooner's hold. The sound portion is achievable by using under-the-layout speakers driven by programming so that sounds are changing, and changing location. Still haven't got any idea on how to make the waves lap against the rocks - but I can at least add the sound. Nor can I animate the little people yet. But I can add their voices on the sound tracks. And please note that this is all still in the dream stage.For me personally, I'd rather attempt to create the total effect rather than the photogenic layout...but that's me.Fred W
The obvious difference that hasn't been mentioned yet in photos of layouts or seeing them in person is movement or animation. Models of running streams or waves on the water can look really great in a photo - especially in the "how-to" articles. But when you see the same scene in person, it's not so great. Why? Because your eye expects the ripples on the water to move. Because the way the light reflects off the water is constantly changing.
Cars, figures, and trackside industries are other obvious examples. When I drive by the local concrete plant in Oakland (served by rail and truck), it's a noisy, dusty place with something or somebody always on the move. Very few autos are seen on the streets perpetually standing still. So when we visit a layout, our eye expects this constant movement and senses something is not quite right with a silent, static scene. But it looks great in a photo which is an instant in time. Meanwhile, our brains are trained to make sense of movement brought to us through eyes, nose, ears, etc. Our middle ear detects changes in velocity, not position.
These reasons favor photography over in-person visits. Static models and scenes are easier to model, hence the movement to layouts that photograph well.
I've dreamed about trying to recreate a total scene at my Oregon dog hole port dock. Using a fog machine with salt-air scented fog so that the train actually does pop out of the scene from the fog. Pulleys squeaking and spars groaning as loads are actually shifted into and out of the schooner's hold. The sound portion is achievable by using under-the-layout speakers driven by programming so that sounds are changing, and changing location. Still haven't got any idea on how to make the waves lap against the rocks - but I can at least add the sound. Nor can I animate the little people yet. But I can add their voices on the sound tracks. And please note that this is all still in the dream stage.
For me personally, I'd rather attempt to create the total effect rather than the photogenic layout...but that's me.
Fred W
The November 93 MRR write up on The Lone Pine & Tonopah comes to mind right away here. Also the articles that went into an out of print Kalmbach Book...I can't recall the title now... but all about lighting animation, sound, magic wire...fibre optics...etc.
HarryHotspur wrote: jeffers_mz wrote:For those who want to bring their layouts to life with sound, I'll repeat this. The earlier you get a personal computer into the audio chain, the more versatile your sound canvas will become. A computer will generate and play back more sounds than any ten thousand dedicated layout sound devices you can buy or even imagine. In mono or stereo, up to CD quality, even an old 486 will do wonders for your layouts aural aura, and most anything you put into that PC will not be wasted. All of your programming and most of your extra hardware will transfer to a new PC if and when you upgrade. Of course, 7.1 surround or better than CD quality requires more horsepower than the old 486 can deliver, but not by too much. Digital video and 3D simulations are real power drains on a PC, audio, not nearly as much.I agree. Any suggestions on how to get started in this area?
The Airhorn software looks promising. It can address four soundcards in one PC. I tried the demo with one soundcard and it seemed to work ok.
http://www.brinstonsound.com/
Harry Hotspur wrote:
>Having given this topic some thought, the question comes to mind - what could one do to >build for the camera but not the eye? In other words, what would inspire "Ah ha! This will look >good in a photo, even though it will look terrible to the eye?"
>Frankly I can't imagine what that would be, except for the camera's ability to a crop scene >and vary apparent depth.
HH:
That's what we've been discussing in this thread. Cf. above.
Of course the posts tended to be long.
(I am starting to think that 90% of everything below line 5 is missed)
I started this because I, like a lot of us, tend to assume that the camera is the ultimate judge. Assumptions are made to be questioned, are they not? Often we find, in other areas, that a photograph and a firsthand viewing give totally different impressions, particularly a photo taken with some degree of artistry..but we even see this in simple snapshots.
I design and build for both.
But the point no one has brought up is the audience for the photos. Most of us don't have a lot of people coming in and out of our basement and we want to show the work we are proud of. So we post photos here. This is our support community and this is how we show off, get comments, get kudos, and learn how to do better.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.