I am close to completing laying all the track on my HO PRR / NYC two level layout.
The top level is just below eye level and I want to take advantage of that view to use forced perspective in some way. My layout is in the apex of the loft of my house so I have sloping walls that slope away and they are painted to represent the sky. I am considering forcing the perspective beyond the HO structures by using N scale structures and progressively smaller scale buidlings / cars etc. I believe this will work well as the eye line on this level will help it to be effective.
I appreciate there have been articles in MRR but has anyone out there tried to do this? I'd be interested to know if you had any success............ and any photos would be great.
Thanks
Barry
Barry,
I'll post 4 pics of my in-progress forced perspective work. In the first one, the LandCruiser and Land Rover nearest the camera are HO, while the green Chevy '41 Suburban (representing CRRM founder Bob Richardson's truck) way up on the trail coming down is N scale. The zigzags in the trail help the illusion.
The next one shows the top of the pass from a low angle, with the N scale Suburban and a N scale sheepherder and sheep. This represents the surprise I had after my first visit to Animas Forks. We left going east over Cinnamon Pass. Came over the top and there were hundreds of sheep and a very weathereed sheepherder and his dogs. Sorry it's not a good angle. The next one shows my HO Gold Prince Mill at Animas Forks, with N scale Grandt bungalows as housing up the hill to the left of the mill. There is an incomplete photomural behind the houses to even smaller scale which adds more depth. The last is an overall shot of the scene at Animas Forks, so you can see how all this fits together. The scenery rising almost to the ceiling (6'6") helps force the eye up, which helps the illusion. Hope this helps.
The next one shows the top of the pass from a low angle, with the N scale Suburban and a N scale sheepherder and sheep. This represents the surprise I had after my first visit to Animas Forks. We left going east over Cinnamon Pass. Came over the top and there were hundreds of sheep and a very weathereed sheepherder and his dogs. Sorry it's not a good angle.
The next one shows my HO Gold Prince Mill at Animas Forks, with N scale Grandt bungalows as housing up the hill to the left of the mill. There is an incomplete photomural behind the houses to even smaller scale which adds more depth.
The last is an overall shot of the scene at Animas Forks, so you can see how all this fits together. The scenery rising almost to the ceiling (6'6") helps force the eye up, which helps the illusion.
Hope this helps.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I have seen many actual layouts with forced perspective features on them. I've seen N-scale cars and structures on HO layouts, HO stuff on O and G layouts and even Z scale stuff on an N-scale layout. In my opinion only the painting of backdrops have been successful in accomplishing the illusion of depth.
For a forced perspective with a 3D object to work the item has to be far enough away from the viewer such that the vanishing point of eye's natural 3d vision is not violated. All of the situations I mentioned above were so close, my eyes told my brain they were just small items. They did not trick my brain into anything. I think had some of these items been 2 to 4 feet further away they might have worked.
Yes I agree with Tex-Zep, Just about everything I tried to get a good forced perspective directly on the layout itself, seemed to fail. The best results I got was to have structures, cars, trees, anything you wanted to be at a good distance away had to be mounted on the back drop with the correct angle of course. N scale structures & cars, even people on a HO layout, just makes those items look like just what they are. N scale on a HO layout.
Sam
model in O. the Western NY and Ontario Railroad
Dang, the critics here are harsh.
I think that forced perspective doesn't photograph well. It's a much better effect in person. The folks on the trail over the mountain really comes off well, although yes, the housing past the mill doesn't quite have enough depth. But then that's usually why you find a need for forced perspective...right?
The last comment about making colors lighter in the distance helps and there's some of that going on here. Some people say to "add gray" instead, but pretty much the same effect.
That's also a reminder that it's no just matter of the objects in smaller scale. Besides lighter colors, I also used various angles in the trail and landforms, plus positioning, to help the effect. It's really not the models that count so much with this but putting them into surroundings that "force" the eye to see distance when it's not really there. It's also the case where you don't want whatever you do with FP to draw too much attention, as that is supposed to be on the foreground.If you're looking right at the smaller models, then yeah, you're going to lose some of the effect, as FP is not really something that should be drawing your eye's attention.
Sure, if I had another 3 or 4 feet of depth, the effect would be that much better. But then FP probably wouldn't be necessary.
So don't bother with FP if it's not your cup of tea. However, I'd say it's definitely worth a try. I'm happy with the results so far and still have some more work to do on it.
I think that, at eye level, forced perspective works fairly well. One has to use it on scenes that can not be viewed from another angle that destroys the forced perspective (much like the use of mirrors on layouts). I don't go abruptly from one scale to another, and I narrow the roads as they go off into the distance. If I have a line of telephone poles, I gradually shorten them as they go on into the distance. The problem with an eye level layout is that, in order to be able to "reach in" to fix a derailment or manually uncouple a car, the width of the layout is so narrow that it is hard to believably force the perspective. I find that 3 to 4 feet of depth work best for me to achieve the look I want.
Even if I am not deliberately forcing the perspective, I use taller more detailed trees in the foreground and shorter less detailed trees in the background.
It really is an art to do this right, and just as I have seen bad paintings and backdrops with seriously messed up perspective, I have seen some masterful stuff as well. It helps to read some basic landscape art books and see how the artists do it in 2D before you try to do it in 3D.
Little Tommy
The great thing about a model railroad is that it's a mix of engineering, electronics, carpentry, a whole bunch of other skills and also an art form. Forced perspective seems to be OK if you have a fixed view point. Like all perspective 'tricks' it's great in one plane with one point. But I want it to be an overall effect from every point. Everything being at eye level will help, but I agree that having N scale then Z will look just that..... N scale and Z scale on an HO layout.
I have used the 'small tree / large tree' and 'less detail at the back / more detail at the front' in previous layouts. The problem I also have is that the layout top level is only 26" wide. I also have used 'faded' colours (also 'cold colours make distance / warm colours close') But I'm going to work on some way of giving it all a visual depth.
Any other thoughts and opinions would be much appreciated.
.
Little Tommy added an important observation about using LP with respect to eye level. LP definitely works better looking straight ahead or up. That's another reason why cameras don't always convey LP well.
I would be cautious about trying to apply LP as depicted in artist instructionals, since this usually involves paintings, which are 2D versus our 3D layouts. We can't always restrict the viewing point in the way that artists can. But that is an important point, which accounts for why sometimes LP works and sometimes it doesn't on layouts. In the case of my pics, you can see the dead-end aisle that narrows helps restrict the point of view.
BTW, the scene depth from fascia to either backdrop or mountain tops is right around 2 feet in all my pics you see above. Yes, having more depth helps, but the lack of depth is the very reason why LP is often needed. Like many other things in model railroading, it's doing the best you can within the restrictions you face in terms of space.
Hi Mike
Yes, you are absolutely right. All tricks such as perspective and trompe l'oeil are 2D tricks. All 2D tricks require a defined line of sight for them to work. 3D is a whole different bag altogether. I think confining the forced perspective to only certain areas where a fixed line of site can be acheived may work. Well, I'm going to see what I can achieve! Thanks guys!
A few pages from visual art 101:
The horizon is at eye level. If we arbitrarily call the trackwork level in the foreground level -100, then that N scale building on the HO layout has to be at or above level -50. Note that this only works for ONE eye level. Taller visitors will see the scene as toylike. Likewise, if you operate sitting down and stand up to do something the effect goes completely awry.
The illusion of distance can be enhanced by adding oversprays of bluish-grey `humidity,' more as the apparent distance increases. Again, this isn't universal. On a typical Southern Nevada day there isn't any humidity, and even my aged eyeballs can pick out the bigger rocks on the mountain ten miles to the north. In Tennessee, that mountain would have been one of those, "Purple mountain majesties," with no detail whatever. (Fortunately, my modeled area is wet, and September is sticky.)
It's easier to force perspective with foliage and landforms than with man-made objects.
Vision into a forced-perspective scene has to be very close to straight on. If it can be seen at an angle, it loses its realism. (So put the scene between two ridges that go above eye level at or close to the fascia. I can do that, but somebody modeling Kansas might have a problem...)
Done well, forced perspective is a wonderful layout enlarger. Done less than well, it's a candidate for rethinking and rebuilding.
Chuck (Modeling soggy Central Japan in September, 1964 - under a model overcast)