miniatures shot from above never look any good

[mike s]

its true - it seems relatively easy to shoot from ground level and get a very pleasing/realistic look

however, shoot from above and its tinker-toy time

anyone got any ideas on why this is..?
I'm guessing depth-of-focus but can't quite work out why

Shado moonbase is a perfect example - also the castle in Scarlet 'The Trap' - er and any other model ever ever shot from above

(I made a new thread for this as I feel its a burning issue )

[McTodd]

Essentially it's because the camera is standing in for a human observer, i.e. the audience, and as we humans are generally accustomed to viewing anything in everyday life from ground-level, i.e. with our eyes around five feet or so above the ground, if you shoot a 1/100 scale miniature from five feet above the model set's 'ground' level, the scale height is 500 feet - suddenly, totally unrealistic, unless it's meant to be an aerial shot (and they can be made convincing; the miniature valley being bombed in The Bridges Of Toko-Ri is one of the best miniature aerial sequences ever, as is the miniature of Tokyo in Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo). Obviously other factors come in like depth-of-field, lighting etc., but the most fundamental reason is not so much optical as psychological: we expect to see things from ground level in most situations in real life, therefore we expect to see a model landscape from the model's equivalent of ground-level.

Another example: the miniature battleships in Tora! Tora! Tora! are convincing because they are shot from the perspective of a miniature to-scale person's vantage point above the water (except, of course, the aerial shots - and they are another example of convincing miniature aerial photogrpahy); the ocean liner in the original The Poseidon Adventure, on the other hand, is not convincing because it's shot from above with no horizon or sky in the background (for practical reasons: it transpired that the enormous painted sky backing behind the effects water tank had deteriorated and was falling apart, and there was no time to refurbish it for effects filming).

[matteline]

I agree with everything McTodd says. Excellently stated. I think another key aspect though is that of aerial perspective. Shooting a 'ground level' often means the subject is close to the camera and the clear is desirable, or at least alack of correct aerial density is less apparent. Background scenery is often painted to suit the lighting and scale required. In aerial shots the subject is further away so a model that is 10ft away will not have the same density to the air as a real object that is 1000ft away, and as such the model shot looks too clean. So when time, budget and aesthetic allow the set is fogged up to add the appropriate amount of scale depth.

Another really good example of what you're talking about is in 'Edge of Impact' during the opening sequence showcasing the enemy plane, a down-shot of the freighter at sea from the plane's POV doesn't look too good, but the water level shot that immediately follows it is really impressive!

One quick comment about 'The Poseidon Adventure'. Yes, those opening shots are all a bit modely, but there is one excellent shot in the where the ship is heavily backlit and the ocean is picking up a lot of glints and sparkles. To me this shot is terrific. And the sparkles really give that look when you look at the ocean.

[mike s]

I'm not sure I agree McTodd - I think its more to do with dust/moisture content in the air and also depth of field, otherwise a real view would look like a model but it doesn't

take a look at this link - this is a real view but looks fake - http://www.tiltshiftphotography.net/

I also think that its because you go from 2 point to 3 point perspective so you have an extra dimension which makes it harder to fake ie 33% more margin of error - if you see what I mean..?

[Fun Pod]

While I agree with the majority of what has been said above, ultimately it comes down to film design i.e was the model designed to be seen from above? For example, framing from above an Apollo LM against a moving lunar landscape.

[mike s]

hi - not quite sure what you mean..? can you expand a bit..?

cheers

Originally Posted by Fun Pod

While I agree with the majority of what has been said above, ultimately it comes down to film design i.e was the model designed to be seen from above? For example, framing from above an Apollo LM against a moving lunar landscape.

[Captain Sci-Fi]

What McTodd has said is very true, make the camera's POV the same height as a normal person makes things more believable. This is not the end of the story though.

We live in an atmosphere, we expect to see visual clues about the world around us conform to what we have remembered in similar situations. The images you linked to are effects of depth of field, they have been artificially narrowed and this does not conform to our real world perception so looks fake. The strangeness in the images is after closer examination they are real world, we work it out after some study.

The narrowing of depth of field, how much of the background and sometimes foreground image be in focus, is the exact opposite of what they tried to achieve at all the Anderson Model units. To keep everything in focus you need to make the camera lens aperture small, the draw back is it will be darkened. To compensate for this the scene was over lit most of the time.

Brain Johnson is a genius as he worked out how to do this in camera with multi exposures....

[mike s]

I think its a combination of all the above for sure, but I think the atmospherics/colour density is the biggest factor (presuming the model is very well made in the first place) - its easy to go more blue as you go back in the layers on an eye level shot, but much harder from overhead as the physical depth of the model is limited - unless its a huge 'bigature' that is

as mentioned above you really have to add some kind of particles to the air on set to replicate this effect

also colour density - I've seen a lot of miniatures that look fake cos they are too bright, esp trees and grass

the tilt shift pics are amazing aren't they, and do perfectly show up the brightness and depth-of-field issue - I think the colours have been deliberately brightened actually so possiblty a bit of a cheat but still fascinating

[SteveDix]

The BBC production of "Gormenghast" attempted to get around the issue of atmospherics by actually submerging their miniatures in a tank of water, which would replicate the drop-off of colour density.

[mike s]

did it work..?

Originally Posted by SteveDix

The BBC production of "Gormenghast" attempted to get around the issue of atmospherics by actually submerging their miniatures in a tank of water, which would replicate the drop-off of colour density.

[SteveDix]

Seemed to. Apparently they clouded up the water with Jeyes Fluid, a UK disinfectant.

[Fun Pod]

Originally Posted by Fun Pod

While I agree with the majority of what has been said above, ultimately it comes down to film design i.e was the model designed to be seen from above? For example, framing from above an Apollo LM against a moving lunar landscape.

Originally Posted by mike s

hi - not quite sure what you mean..? can you expand a bit..? cheers

Okay, let's use your example at the top: "the SHADO moonbase seen from above ... looks like tinker-toy time." That's possibly because it was never meant to be seen from above, i.e. it wasn't designed to be filmed from that particular angle, but because it's a three dimensional model, it does offer the film-makers this angle as an option for filming.

Luckily, we have another moonbase(!) we can use to illustrate the opposite: Clavius base from 2001, which is filmed from above (albeit not directly) and which looks completely believable. That's possibly because it was meant to be seen from above i.e. it was designed to be filmed from that particular angle - pre-visualised (storyboarded) and 'built to camera', and even though it's a three dimensional model, it doesn't offer the film-makers many, if any, other angles as options for filming.

[mike s]

hi yeah I see what you mean - thing is though surely SHADO moonbase was designed knowing it would be shot from above..?

I think the moonbase model was pretty big which makes it a real shame it photographed from above looking so model-like - I reckon its the moon surface which probably lets it down, I'll have to check

presumably clavius was a lot bigger model..?

I think the issue occurs because largely its more revealing ie another dimension = 30% bigger error bar y'know..?

I think size is a lot of the answer isn't it: bigatures - then you get tighter detail + some natural atmospherics, although would still ideally need to add further atmospherics ie smoke or whatever

water, sand, grass - very hard to scale down - in fact with water you can't do it

Originally Posted by Fun Pod

Okay, let's use your example at the top: "the SHADO moonbase seen from above ... looks like tinker-toy time." That's possibly because it was never meant to be seen from above, i.e. it wasn't designed to be filmed from that particular angle, but because it's a three dimensional model, it does offer the film-makers this angle as an option for filming.

Luckily, we have another moonbase(!) we can use to illustrate the opposite: Clavius base from 2001, which is filmed from above (albeit not directly) and which looks completely believable. That's possibly because it was meant to be seen from above i.e. it was designed to be filmed from that particular angle - pre-visualised (storyboarded) and 'built to camera', and even though it's a three dimensional model, it doesn't offer the film-makers many, if any, other angles as options for filming.

[McTodd]

Originally Posted by Captain Sci-Fi

...make the camera's POV the same height as a normal person makes things more believable. This is not the end of the story though.

We live in an atmosphere, we expect to see visual clues about the world around us conform to what we have remembered in similar situations.

Yes, you are completely right, I should have mentioned air density/particulate 'pollution' etc. and the falling-off of detail, contrast, colour etc. with distance in real life. Blade Runner famously used incredibly fogged miniature sets. It's why a meticulous miniature set-builder will, for example, paint elements meant to be miles away in a forced-perspective set with paler colours and less detail etc. But you still need to know where to put the camera...

[TV21Dalek]

Look at the giant super-tanker in the Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me"... that is a truly enormous model and looks very realistic when seen from eye-level, but when we get an overhead shot it loses some of that credibility. Is that because the water as seen from above looks out of scale?

[mike s]

I'd say yes mostly - it was a huge miniature from what I remember but water is the hardest thing to scale

Originally Posted by TV21Dalek

Look at the giant super-tanker in the Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me"... that is a truly enormous model and looks very realistic when seen from eye-level, but when we get an overhead shot it loses some of that credibility. Is that because the water as seen from above looks out of scale?

[Fun Pod]

Originally Posted by TV21Dalek

Look at the giant super-tanker in the Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me"... that is a truly enormous model and looks very realistic when seen from eye-level, but when we get an overhead shot it loses some of that credibility. Is that because the water as seen from above looks out of scale?

Possibly. But again, I wonder if the overhead was planned or not, because it's not like the scene demanded the shot. Presumably DM deemed the shot passable, then the editor also deemed it acceptable to include in the cut scene (I don't actually remember the shot you recall).

The flip side are efforts like Tora Tora Tora, whereby the SFX director was well aware the 'bigatures' would definitely be filmed from above and which would have been designed (scaled, detailed) accordingly, because the scene demanded it.

[Dave]

I'm sure I've seen a shot of a studio backlot with the ships from Tora Tora Tora dumped there. I seem to recall they were huge! I believe it's the same backlot that had the full size Icarus from Planet of the apes.

[Dave]

Found it! (well one of the shots):

[mike s]

woah how long is that model - 50/60 foot..? 1/10 scale..?