I know pine trees can range from a seedling to over 100 feet in height. In HO scale a 100 foot tree is about one foot in actual height. What would be the maximum tree height you would use on a 16" to 24" shelf layout with mountainous terrain so that the trees would not appear out of perspective? A one foot actual measurement would be taller than some of the lower mountains. I was thinking maybe 30 to 40 feet scale measurement would be about right as a maximum. What are others using as their max?
Not an easy question to answer...
IMHO, nothing looks more awkward than trees populating a later, which are too small. Take a look at your surroundings - the majority of pine trees will be most likely in the 60 to 80 ft. range, equaling 8 to 11 inches in HO scale.
eaglescout ... A one foot actual measurement would be taller than some of the lower mountains. I was thinking maybe 30 to 40 feet scale measurement would be about right as a maximum. What are others using as their max?
... A one foot actual measurement would be taller than some of the lower mountains. I was thinking maybe 30 to 40 feet scale measurement would be about right as a maximum. What are others using as their max?
Doesn't it depend on your viewing/photographic angle? If you place your eyes or lens anywhere near the 'right' level for being the viewing human in the scene, the trees are likely to tower over the more distant mountains. If your backdrop is of such a height and distance from where you are most likely to observe the scene, or to place the camera lens, that the trees do appear to be too large, you will have to modify the scene accordingly. Or make the mountains closer/taller..
Almost none of my trees, hand-made or commercial, are taller than about 8" on my layout, but I have some wooden dowel "Aggro-trees" (you'll have to do a search in 'community search at the right side bar) that are about a foot tall.
In this scene, the large tree near the depot, hand made, is about 7" tall, but planted on the slope behind the structure, so it appears taller...maybe. The far Sitka Spruce near the distant trestle are hand made and are about a foot tall from the surface into which they are planted.
Crandell
Thats right the problem is not making your trees so High that they over shadow the layout. I think most modlers use selective compression here but I could be wrong.
Joe Staten Island West
I would liken it to the my choice of using either the Walther's coaling tower or the Suncoast Models Fairbanks Morse coaling tower on the servicing track of my modest HO 4 x 8 layout. The former would have towered 11" above the layout; the latter less than half that. To keep it from becoming the undisputed central focus of the layout, I chose the smaller coaling tower and I'm glad I did.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I use the selective compression, or forced perspective, as some call it, at least I always have that in mind while doing scenery.
In the above picture, the trees are in the 5" to 8" range, above the ground level they are mounted in. The scene is about 28" deep, to the corner. In this picture, I did about the same, trying to make the fore ground trees a little higher than the back. The trees up on the hillside, and beyond, are down to the size of small "puff ball" type trees. The depth of this scene is about 36" to the corner. My layout is 49" above the floor, so I tried to get the best effect for the viewing height. I did make some pine trees in the 80' to 100' range, but they seemed to overpower everything. Same with deciduous trees, at that same height, like the real ones are, by the time you get the spread of the branches to match the height of the tree, they seem HUGE. They ended up on my grandson's O gauge, and they seem to fit in good with his buildings. EDIT: Something with my camera makes the trees look yellowish, they are a nice summer green in person. As I get closer to the layout, you can see the camera view suddenly change colors. Must be something in the way my camera (Cannon PowerShot SD750) makes light adjustments with the florescent lighting above the layout.
In the above picture, the trees are in the 5" to 8" range, above the ground level they are mounted in. The scene is about 28" deep, to the corner.
In this picture, I did about the same, trying to make the fore ground trees a little higher than the back. The trees up on the hillside, and beyond, are down to the size of small "puff ball" type trees. The depth of this scene is about 36" to the corner. My layout is 49" above the floor, so I tried to get the best effect for the viewing height. I did make some pine trees in the 80' to 100' range, but they seemed to overpower everything. Same with deciduous trees, at that same height, like the real ones are, by the time you get the spread of the branches to match the height of the tree, they seem HUGE. They ended up on my grandson's O gauge, and they seem to fit in good with his buildings. EDIT: Something with my camera makes the trees look yellowish, they are a nice summer green in person. As I get closer to the layout, you can see the camera view suddenly change colors. Must be something in the way my camera (Cannon PowerShot SD750) makes light adjustments with the florescent lighting above the layout.
In this picture, I did about the same, trying to make the fore ground trees a little higher than the back. The trees up on the hillside, and beyond, are down to the size of small "puff ball" type trees. The depth of this scene is about 36" to the corner.
My layout is 49" above the floor, so I tried to get the best effect for the viewing height. I did make some pine trees in the 80' to 100' range, but they seemed to overpower everything. Same with deciduous trees, at that same height, like the real ones are, by the time you get the spread of the branches to match the height of the tree, they seem HUGE. They ended up on my grandson's O gauge, and they seem to fit in good with his buildings.
EDIT: Something with my camera makes the trees look yellowish, they are a nice summer green in person. As I get closer to the layout, you can see the camera view suddenly change colors. Must be something in the way my camera (Cannon PowerShot SD750) makes light adjustments with the florescent lighting above the layout.
My You Tube
Are your trees meant merely as a backdrop for the trains or are you modelling a logging road? Are the mountains in the background or right beside the tracks?
The higher up the mountain the trees are, the smaller they become. You could have background mountains a foot high representing the Rockies, with foot-high trees in the foreground not looking unreasonable, but a cliff at trackside should be considered as being modelled "to-scale" and the trees in that area should also be modelled full-size.
I'm modelling southern Ontario, mostly deciduous trees, and while not a lot of my trees are in place yet, the foreground ones are modelled close to full-size, with the height diminishing towards the backdrop.
These elm trees are about 60' high - a little smaller than full-size for their setting, but they're in the mid-distance from the viewer and between the viewer and the track (the leaning one in the foreground is placed temporarily, until the pasture and surrounding fence can be completed):
These nearby are in the 30'-50' range. While they're closer to the viewer, I didn't want them to overwhelm the river or the bridge towards the rear of the scene. Their main purpose is to create an environment for the bridge and trains:
Here's an on-layout view of the bridge set within the trees:
The trees closest to the tracks are about 25':
...but rapidly diminish to about 10'-12' as they near the backdrop:
The tallest of these background cedars are only 30', with most being considerably shorter. They're meant to simply define the pasture area in the foreground, and the low-relief trees at the backdrop are even shorter:
...and the same area with a train in the foreground:
The trees seen here are meant to represent mixed scrub growth, about 30' at tallest. They're grouped along a small stream which runs from the front of the layout to the backdrop in a corner of the room. Once beyond the tracks, their height diminishes rapidly:
Here's an aerial view:
As you can see, the viewing angle plays an important part in making your trees look right or look silly. In photos, that can be controlled, but less so for those viewing in-person.
Wayne
These are shish-kabob/furnace filter pines about 6-10" high. The layout depth is around a foot:
These range from 3-6", 12" wide here: Not many mountains in northern Wisconsin: Hope that helps! Terry in NW Wisconsin
These range from 3-6", 12" wide here:
Not many mountains in northern Wisconsin: Hope that helps! Terry in NW Wisconsin
Not many mountains in northern Wisconsin:
Hope that helps! Terry in NW Wisconsin
Hope that helps!
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
Terry's photos do a good job of illustrating, in the first photo, trees which overwhelm the trains - trains are big, but there's much in nature which make them seem puny by comparison. The painted-on background trees are smaller, which doesn't draw the viewers' eyes from what's more important, the visual interaction of big trees and train.
In the second photo, the trees are merely background for both the trains and the even-closer-to-the-viewer road. They complete the scene, but are peripheral to the train and vehicles. Any bigger, and they'd draw too much attention.
Suit your tree sizes to what you wish to be the focus of your scenes. In many instances, this is one of those things where you'll "know" when you get it right.
Very nice, Wayne. You also really need to figure tree height when attempting forced perspective, especially in a rather short distance and most of us will have scenery run up against a backdrop. Forground trees should be your "perfect" specimens and as Wayne mentions about 25-30 feet. This will vary due to area modeled and type of tree. Even though pines can be 11-12" scaled, they will always look out of place. There are exceptions, but most times for our scenery smaller is better.
Most of these trees average 4-6" they are only 3-4 inches to gain the depth toward the backdrop
At bare/ rocky areas pines are smaller and other are more scrub. Same is true for clearings/ fields etc
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
NE Minnesota is a lot like NW Wisconsin. Our forests are dominated by aspen trees that run 80 ft tall or so. I tried duplicatging this with painted Yaro on the layout and it just didn't look right. I settled on trees that were about 6 in tall or less for foreground and it looked much better.
Thank you, Wayne! That is high praise coming from a modeler of your caliber.
Thanks for the great input you all. I will try many of your suggestions but, in the end, do what looks right.