Layout styles... (N part 9)
As my exploration of N scale continues, I have a few lengths of track and the stock I've bought left out on the dining room table. Interacting with this as I pass I noticed that there is something in Colin's comments about landscape painting on N part 8 that I wanted to explore...
 |
| Farish 31 and OCA fitted with DG 2mm scale couplings, viewed at eye level. |
You see, the birds eye view of N scale feels comfortable, unlike when I work in OO or HO where my natural tendency is to get down low, with N I feel happy looking down on it. That said, I wonder if that's a mix of both it's size (as Colin suggested) and our traditional exposure of the scale. What I was excited about in 'Game Changer' was the opportunity to use N differently, to see it as an equal to OO/H0, and how this might be explored and presented in both a home and exhibition setting.
This sketch goes some way to exploring the concept and idea, and from it I have determined a few things to take further with a physical experimental piece. This will be my usual cameo form, but shrunk. Still viewed at eye level, but in a smaller footprint. I'm thinking around 50cm x 20cm deep, with a viewing window around 18cm tall. The layout will be operational, but pointless (excuse the pun) with just a sliding sector plate off scene. Electromagnets will allow limited operation - the scenic opportunities can also be explored, ahead of taking that experience and learning into a larger joint project with a few like minded modellers. So the next part in this trilogy should be a layout plan, but as experiments continue with stock, coupling and track this journey may be a little less of a linear path, and more a ribbon through the hobby touching on all the elements I love and well understand in the larger scales as an opportunity to learn about their impact in the smaller scale. Until next time, more soon...
EDIT:
Colin's lengthy and interesting comment below is worth reading. Some of what he touches on reminded me that we've had some of this conversation previously. Topics worth digging into are:
There usually is something in the things I say, though I admit it often has to be dug for :-)
ReplyDeleteThe Irish philosopher-priest, Father Ted Crilly, contributed much to the Theory of Small vs Far Away but did not elaborate on the issue as it concerns model railway scales. So allow me.
Essentially, the relationship between a OO model and its prototype is 1:76 but it can also be considered in terms of the distance between the model and the observer. Too close and the eyeball’s limited depth of field at close range impacts on the viewing experience. Too distant and the expensive detail on the model disappears. The optimal range seems to be between 500 and 1000mm. But we could also consider the viewing distance as the scaled down distance been an observer and the prototype where model and the real thing appear to be the same size.
Considering N Gauge, we could simply reduce the viewing distance by half so the N gauge model appears to be the same size as a OO model at optimal viewing distance, but that creates practical problems, not least of which is the eyeball’s ability to focus and maintain depth of field at such a short distance. A more practical approach would be to retain the normal, OO scale viewing distance but now imagine that the N Gauge model represents the real thing at twice the distance from the observer. It’s both smaller and further away.
But being further away creates an issue with the field of view, or how much we can take in of a scene from a single fixed position. (Quick research here) In humans, the average field of view is about 170-180 degrees, though of course the portion that is in focus is much less. That’s why large-screen cinemas and big TVs offer a more absorbing and immersive experience: the viewer is not distracted by visual clutter either side of the ‘action’. It follows that to create a more immersive model it must fill as much as possible of the viewer’s 170-180 degree field of view at the optimal viewing distance. In that respect, I think your small-footprint N Gauge cameo might not work. To be immersive your eye will need to be too close to the model to focus easily and at normal viewing distance the model will only occupy a small part of your field of view.
Your alternate approach is interesting but it feels cautious. Rather than embracing the ‘landscape’ possibilities of N Gauge in one scene it feels like you are creating something akin to the cartoon strip or split-screen approach by arranging scenes separately but in parallel and each small scene will have the same problem I mentioned above: too close and the eye can’t focus; too far away and things outside the scene intrude and distract.
In short, while your attempt to try new approaches to N Gauge modelling is interesting, it feels like you are falling back on what you know works in OO Gauge rather than taking advantage of any untapped possibilities of the smaller scale. In addition, the physical limitations of our eyes’ depth of field and field of view mean that what works in OO scale may not work as well in N Gauge.
As a final musing, looking at your third panel on the drawing, “What about no backscene?” I mused how it would look if the boards were inclined at ten or fifteen degrees towards the viewer. That would increase the impression the viewer is looking down on the model while keeping the boards at a sensible working height and reducing the distance from the viewer’s eye to the farther edge of the scene. Whether the visual advantages offset any unintended operation difficulties is another matter. Perhaps a safer option would be to model high ground towards the rear of the scene so the viewer’s vertical field of view is filled with less horizontal distance needed.
In brief, I’ve studied al this previously if you read my N scale series. I think the theory is not 100% transferable to practice, this muse of a piece is to challenge what is possible. If we don’t experiment we can’t learn, and whatever the outcome I will have discovered more of how scale, scene composition and lighting work in a small space, and as usual, I’ll share it all here!
DeleteYour scenic border concept sounds a lot like that used by Eamonn Sneddon for Totternhoe Mineral, which you can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WLLFxrQ_ZM&ab_channel=RailwayMedia1981
ReplyDeleteI understand it is O9, rather than 009 as the video title states. How nice is that Hunslet??
From the look of things, there is still a backscene in place but as this is an exhibition layout I imagine it is necessary to hide the fiddleyard.
Tim
Tim that is exactly what I had in mind! My thought was that in N, the opportunity to increase the width would have a big impact on this especially with more of a birds eye view.
Delete