Subject:
|
Re: Definition of "micro"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.microscale
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:13:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1629 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.microscale, Phillip Thorne wrote:
| |
“Micro” has two conflicting meanings: figures and size of model. Confusing!
Thinking further from Ashley Glennon’s talk at BrickFest DC 2004...
All models built to accomodate minifigs have a consistent scale (the minifigs
can move between them); and if they’re also replicas of human-sized
structures they have a common scale: say, 1:60. Any models built for
one-brick-tall “microfigs” have a similar consistency -- but “mini-models”
(“Star Wars” or otherwise) clearly *don’t*.
|
I hope minifig scale isn’t quite 1:60. If my math is not way out of whack, I
think that would mean that a minifig represents a ‘real’ person that’s about
seven and a half feet tall. :)
I think, depending on who you talk to, minifig scale is more in the
neighbourhood of 1:42 up to about 1:48. (1)
| |
So, when Ashley speaks of the advantages of micro-scale building (small part
count, speedy assembly, “doodling”, portability) he must be referring to the
size of the model *relative to its human builder.* A three-foot replica of
a cruise ship might be appropriate for microfig vacationers, but it’s hardly
a “mini” model.
|
I think you’ve made an excellent observation. The scale of the model may be
mini (or micro) but the actual size may be rather large in our eyes. Most of
that would likely depend upon the subject matter. A microscale Titantic is still
going to be a big model... much more so than a microscale S.S. Minnow. :)
| |
So, we have two distinct concepts to disentangle in our speech and
terminology:
- Microfig scale: accomodates people from 2/3 to 4/3 bricks tall, regardless of model size.
|
Since there are no LEGO microfigs as such, I’ve always seen this scale as being
much more flexible. I also don’t use the term microfig for that same reason.
In my mind a microscale model of the CN Tower could be 6 inches tall or it could
just as easily be 12 inches tall. Either way it’s still much much too small for
minifigs, so it becomes microscale by default. Again, this is simply my own
interpretation.
| |
- Mini models: Non-minifig-, probably sub-minifig-, -scale models, usually no greater than six inches in size.
|
See above for the flexibility of the word ‘micro’ as applied to building. The
way I look at it there isn’t really much difference between mini and micro. As
you mentioned the Star Wars mini models don’t have a consistent scale, other
than they are all reasonably small models using relatively few pieces. I
don’t see anything wrong with this at all. I think it’s best to build a model
to the size/scale that suits you, your intended results and your brick
collection.
But again, just my feelings.
Best regards,
Allan B.
(1) Depending on how tall you intend the minifig to be if they were to somehow
become real people. The range noted above gives you minifigs ranging in height
from about 5’ 3” up to about 6’.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Definition of "micro"
|
| (...) Oh, good. I always enjoy articulating ripe potential-yet-unvoiced notions. (...) It seems the *convention* (not a standard) espoused by Ashley Glennon and Janey "Red Brick" is that a "microfig" be a 1x1 round cylinder (optionally with a 1x1 (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.microscale, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Definition of "micro"
|
| "Micro" has two conflicting meanings: figures and size of model. Confusing! Thinking further from Ashley Glennon's talk at BrickFest DC 2004... All models built to accomodate minifigs have a consistent scale (the minifigs can move between them); and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.build.microscale, FTX)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
