The perennial question of how to measure figure for comparison has cropped up again over on the Miniatures Page so I thought I’d give an exhaustive examination here where there is more room.
To start let’s roughly examine ‘normal’ human proportions, by this I mean the rage into which at least 98% of people fall. According to statistics gathered by the U.S. army for the purpose of designing equipment the average modern man is about 5’10" (1.7m) his height is about seven times the height of his head with the ‘normal’ range being 6.5 to 7.5 his hands are about 4" across the palm with a normal range of 3.75 to 4.5" though this can vary with development a surprising amount. The normal range for hand proportions is about 15 to 19 hands equals overall height.
I’d like to make it very clear I am not in any way saying these are the proportions in which small figures SHOULD be made, there are several very good reasons for departing from them but they are useful as a baseline.
Other proportions; ‘normally’ the bones of the thigh and leg are roughly the same length and the bone of the upper arm is about the length of the forearm bones plus half the width of the palm. There is a good bit of variation in proportion of overall leg length to height (though not as much as many people seem to think)but the hip joint is roughly the average mid point for European males (women actually have slightly shorter legs on average).
Now the problems of measurement and comparison. It’s easy enough to say measure this and compare to that but the fact is accurate measurement requires some skill and no little understanding.
The fist problem is where to measure to. It is not very accurate to measure to the middle of joints because of the way joints move, see the illustration ‘elbow’.
This leads to the problem of position, see illustration ‘posture’. The best way to measure is to add up the lengths of the component bones and joints but this requires some understanding of anatomy and frankly, if you can do that you can probably estimate just as accurately. Head position is important as well when considering how a figure’s eye height relates to overall height, another reason why measuring to the eyes makes no sense since it introduces more potential inaccuracy and requires as much estimation as measuring overall height. The eyes are approximately in the middle of the head, it varies about an inch (see illustration ‘proportions’)and depends on what you consider to be a head held ‘level’ ,since the head pivots at the back, and also on the shape of the skull.
As far as compatibility goes it is not the ‘heft’ of the figure, the diameter of the limbs and torso or even within reason the height, which makes two figures look wrong next to each other it is the difference in proportions, particularly the relative size of the head and hands. A figure with thicker limbs will simply look stout but one of similar height with a 1/5 head will look wrong next to a 1/7 head.
Here’s another German as well.
Trackbacks
Comments
-
Ming-Hua Kao
says:
#1 2006-11-07 12:05 (Reply)Thanks for the explanation. I've ran into most of these things before but it's good to see it all together.
By the way. A little off topic. Is 5'10" still the male average in the US? Over here in the Netherlands 6'is the male average and 5'10" the female (which is also my lenght - feel like walking amongst giants).
Bye, Ming-Hua -
Tom
says:
#2 2006-11-07 13:09 (Reply)I don’t know if the U.S. statistics are absolutely up to date. Remember the U.S. has a good proportion of ethnic groups who are shorter than Europeans on average. I know the Dutch are supposed to be the tallest average Europeans but I would be very surprised if the average female was so close to the average male in height, I would expect the difference to be more like 4 - 5".
-
Ming-Hua
says:
#2.1 2006-11-08 02:08 (Reply)I just checked to be sure. Most references I found now quote 1.85m (6'2"m not 6') for a Dutch male and 1.71m (just a little less than 5'9") for a Dutch female. So, that's about 6" difference.
-
JonasD
says:
#3 2006-11-09 15:09 (Reply)Very nice. Especially the Arm-Issue.
Thanks for that!
I really dig that minis. I only think the cloths do have too many folds in them. I think, sculpting in sizes apart from 1:1 need more astraction, aspecially the 30mm ones. Wouldn't less folds (those though in the significant places) do better?
If not so, please explain me why, I seem to have a gap of understanding in that. -
JonasD
says:
#4 2006-11-09 15:11 (Reply)I have to add, that this particular mini does better imo.
The earlier ones are those I've been talking about.
Nevertheless: I couldn't do that work. You're the Master! -
Tom
says:
#5 2006-11-09 17:07 (Reply)It depends, different types of cloth fold differently and what sort of creases they get depend on what’s underneath them, how long they’ve been worn and under what conditions. Then it depends what you are trying to do, what stylistic choices you make.
With these figures the client wanted very high detail so the figures would be attractive both for modelers and gamers. The trousers are medium weight wool and the camouflage smock is thin cotton over a wool jacket, all the clothes are lived-in and rained on. The combination causes many fine wrinkles in the smock, more than I’ve depicted and they tend to be not so deep, so I have simplified and enhanced a bit for clarity but not so much as to lose the effect of different characteristics in the cloth. If you simplify too much you can’t differentiate as well. -
Luke Pitt
says:
#6 2006-12-18 14:18 (Reply)Tom
I love these 48th german Figures!...I might say these are the very best I've seen this far could you contact me please on the above address.
Outstandong work Tom ...outstanding! -
George R. Bradford
says:
#6.1 2006-12-19 12:37 (Reply)Hi Tom;
I would just like to reinforce Luke Pitt's comments and state that your work surpasses ANYTHING I have seen to date. I am a 1:48 armour enthusiast, but your French/Indian Wars figure dug deep into my heart, as a second interest, and 1:48 scale yet. Unbelievable workmanship.
George R. Bradford
AFV NEWS
