"Forcing" The Issue

[eightyeightfan1]

OK, living here in New England, driving on the highway, you always see a small village off in the distance. Usually alls you see is a church steeple, and maybe a couple of roof tops peeking up over the trees.

Since I had a couple of N scale buildings left over(plus a couple Better-Half had stashed away that I found cleaning out the basement), I wanted to duplicate this on my layout. Here's a couple of samples. I'm thinking(thats the burning smell), that I have to place the "village" about eye level to get the illusion, maybe on a hill somewhere.

Constructive critisism and suggestions are welcome.
I know in the second pic I have to work on the background. Its kinda hard to do when you have to deal with roof joists in the way, and I'm thinking these might ruin the illusion.

[Bob C]

I love the first shot, 88...looks very believable - that's a nasty storm coming, though...glad the "Purple Shingle" guy got all the roofs done ! Have seen the idea put forward before, but execution is 90% of the effect - and you've got that part! Bob C.

[e-paw]

It's definitely a good start . If you tone down the roof colors with some weathering it may give you a better sense of distance.

[Ralph]

I like the concept! I agree with toning down the roof colors. Right now they suggest a quaint English or European scene to me. The basic idea of hiding buildings in the trees and getting forced perspective with N scale is brilliant though.
Ralph

[nachoman]

Think of how your brain judges things being farther away - smaller, less details are visible, and the colors are more subdued. But you also need to consider the "optical illusion" In other words, if you look at it from the wrong angle, your brain interprets it for what it is instead of being "fooled". Part of that illusion is having nothing in the scene that can be used for a direct comparison of size. If the trains are too close to the scene, the illusion gets ruined. Also, if there are nearby objects such as wall switches or shelves, one immediately knows the buildings are of a smaller scale. Think of the full moon - it looks larger when it is near the horizon because in your same view are objects of which you know the actual size of. When the moon is at zenith, all you see is the moon and it is difficult to judge how large it is. We interpret this to be that the moon appears larger when it is near the horizon, but in fact it appears the exact same size. The perceived difference is your brain being fooled.

Most of the forced perspective scenes I have seen look much better when photographed than in person. And most look best when placed as far from the layout edge as possible, and as closest to eye level as possible.

[MasonJar]

Would be great to see it "in context". Like most optical illusions it will work to a greater or lesser degree depending on how much you can control sight lines and so on. So the advice to get it up high, and as far away as possible from the viewer, with subdued details and colours is all good stuff.

All in all, it looks very convincing. Reminds me of Enskail, VT...

Andrew

[doctorwayne]

As long as you can control the viewing angle, that should be a very convincing scene.
I did a similar thing in the pasture out near Indian Line, with N scale cattle up on a hill, near the backdrop. In this photo, by my good friend Mister Nutbar, they don't look too bad, although they're a bit blurry (they must've moved while the picture was being taken):


However, this area of the layout is only 3' high, so most viewers see it as if they were riding in Barney Secord's plane:


When I eventually install the second level of the layout, though, the upper deck will block that view, forcing spectators to view the area from "ground" level.

Wayne

[eightyeightfan1]

Looks nice Doc.
The purple roofs are the lighting. I didn't fix the pics before posting.
And I hope it does give that look of distance when taking picture.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Right now its all in the planning stages. But yeah....The roofs do need some toning down. It doesn't look like much now, I'm sure it'll look better when I really get down and start.
I'm thinking(again...smoke), that I'm going to use one or two houses(Pic1) instead of the six(Pic2). I'm also thinking using the stand alone trees up front, near the mainline, tall in the front and progressively shorter til I get to the WS clump foliage, which I used between the buildings.

Something like this
   

Hopefully, it will draw the eye down, using peripheral vision to give the illusion of distance.Maybe a small "mini-scene"(track workers, rail fans) will also help.
This is all experimental right now

[Sumpter250]

In your pics, it appears to be in a corner. If that is the case, couldn't you add the background to the "base", and put the whole module in, in one piece?

I'm also thinking using the stand alone trees up front, near the mainline, tall in the front and progressively shorter til I get to the WS clump foliage, which I used between the buildings.

That sounds like the best way to arrange the "greenage".

I'm thinking(again...smoke), that I'm going to use one or two houses(Pic1) instead of the six(Pic2)

If you decide to use "the six", lay them out on the scene base, looking down on them. You can "selectively compress" the real estate, but having the buildings in a more natural alignment from above, will give them a more natural "look" when viewed side on.
The selective compression, buildings "too close" actually adds to the sense of distance.
My only complaint about the concept?. . . . Why didn't I think of that!

[eightyeightfan1]

Thanks for the suggestions guys.
Since this is still all in the planning stages right now. But I like your suggestion Pete about plopping it right down.
Also, I'm tossing the red house(Pic2). My thinking is that this will draw the viewer into the scene(Red has been shown be be an eye catcher..i.e: Stop signs, red lights, beautiful women wearing red dresses), and the true "distance' might be revealed.

[Sumpter250]

Also, I'm tossing the red house(Pic2).

Or, . . just move it to the back and let just the roof show.

Red has been shown be be an eye catcher..i.e: Stop signs, beautiful women wearing red dresses

Hmmmm, that's not the first time I missed a "red light", because of "beautiful women wearing red"! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[P5se Camelback]

Great idea "88" Fan ... And I agree with Bob, the first photo does it - just enough to suggest "life" up there but not too much that it really commands your attention. You should maybe just notice them "in passing" and not really focus on them at all ... they're "just kinda there," off in the distance. But nice job, "it looks good from my house" ... "that dog'll hunt" as they say down here.

biL

[OBJack]

Hey Ed,
You got my vote with that first pic 88. Looks unobtrusive, but it will register in the brain and therefore give depth.
I have a corner up the back with a few n scale buildings, but don't have the trees which I think finishes the perception off.
So I gotta go plant a few trees now to hide my naked houses on the hill. Might make all the difference ...if you let me steal the idea.

[jim currie]

prospective is not realy forced in a painting(and what is a model ecept a three demensional painting) but achieaved through leading the eye off into a distant point ( rails that become closer together as the distance increases or a winding river going off into the distance)and also the scene becomes dimmer as the atmosphere increases with distance (acheved with the addition of a thin wash or on a model a light dusting of cadium yellow light and lead white) causing the haze effect, a compleat building is not requried for this ,as was pointed out the suggestion is enough a spot of a roof through the trees or a church spire sticking up the side of a building, anything that elude's of somthing there off in the distance.
jim