PDA

View Full Version : How to make small things appear big... opposite of T/S miniaturization



Pages : [1] 2

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 03:26 PM
Hey all,

So I was thinking, if you wanted to make a miniature look life-sized, what could you do to achieve this?

Obviously, everyone is familiar with how to miniaturize a photo using tilt/shift, but how about the opposite?

There's a guy who makes model cars and model city blocks and then uses real-life backgrounds to produce fairly realistic looking scenes. I think it was on NY Times at some point...

I was thinking that focus-stacking would be an option, though difficult (to say the least) with analog means.

Q.G.
06-10-2010, 03:36 PM
Those are two separate questions.

To increase DOF, focal stacks might help, yes.

To make small things look like they are not, you have to miniaturize perspective to the scale of the models.
If, say, you would take a photo of a car from about 3 meters away, holding the camera 1.5 meters above the ground, and use a moderate wide angle, you would have to scale down those parameters too.

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 03:42 PM
They aren't separate questions. DOF is inherently related to how close a lens is focused, and thus how close an object is. DOF is the visual cue that makes a T/S picture appear miniature.

Q.G.
06-10-2010, 04:00 PM
They are separate questions.

Extremely low DoF makes things look, well..., weird.
It's not how close you are, but how big you blow up the thing that is going to fill the frame that determines DoF.

Perspective is the thing that gives away that the camera was used by a giant looking down on the world from far away, using a longish lens to pick out interesting bits.

But yes, when you want to take ful frame pictures of small things, DoF is extremely shallow.

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 04:06 PM
The are separate questions....
But yes, when you want to take ful frame pictures of small things, DoF is extremely shallow.

Thus, they are two considerations of the same problem/question. You can't make a miniature look life-sized if the DOF is shallow.

I don't honestly understand how perspective is relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/06/07/science/space/20100608-space-13.html
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/06/07/science/space/20100608-space-14.html

These two pictures got me thinking about this.

Q.G.
06-10-2010, 04:09 PM
I don't honestly understand how perspective is relevant.

Perspective is the thing that gives away that the camera was used by a giant looking down on the world from far away, using a longish lens to pick out interesting bits.

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 04:24 PM
Ok, but I don't understand your point about perspective. Look at the NY Times pictures; if he used a 50mm lens instead of a 28mm lens (for instance), the effect would still be that of looking at a miniature, only more "zoomed" in.

Unless you can make a claim for an ideal FL to use to reach this effect, then saying "miniaturize perspective" is arbitrary.

What's your point? You're not advancing my aim, which is to make miniatures look life size.

epatsellis
06-10-2010, 04:35 PM
Not just "zoomed in", but the change also affects the appearance of near/far juxtaposition, and depth of field if the camera isn't moved. Balancing the juxtaposition between near and far, depth of field considerations and camera viewpoint are a good part of what it takes to make a miniature appear realistic. There's no one magic lens/distance/aperture that will just make it happen for you. It's hard work, and takes lots of practice, that's why you see so few good examples (and why even today, those who shoot models and miniatures professionally make a very, very good income doing that)

Q.G.
06-10-2010, 04:40 PM
Ok, but I don't understand your point about perspective. Look at the NY Times pictures; if he used a 50mm lens instead of a 28mm lens (for instance), the effect would still be that of looking at a miniature, only more "zoomed" in.

Unless you can make a claim for an ideal FL to use to reach this effect, then saying "miniaturize perspective" is arbitrary.

What's your point? You're not advancing my aim, which is to make miniatures look life size.

I am.
But you're not understanding doesn't. ;)

Especially the first, the pictures don't look like taken by someone of the same scale moving about in the model world.

How often do you see a picture of, say, a car taken from 5 meters up and 12 meters away? When you go out in the street and take a picture of a car, your camera will be at about or just above the level of the roof, and perhaps one car length away.

When you take a picture of a miniature care and want it to look like that car in the street you took in real life, the position of the camera relative to the model (and the focal length of the lens) will have to be the same.
If it's not, you'd take pictures that look like you were indeed 5 meters up and 12 meters away from that car.

To convince viewers that a photograph was taken in amongst the astronauts, the camera needs to be in amongst the astronauts. If you want to take a picture of a model cityscape that is meant to look like as if it was taken at street level in a real cityscape, the camera needs to be in the model where you would be in the real street.

Perspective must be convincing, or else the photos are not!

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 04:43 PM
There's no one magic lens/distance/aperture that will just make it happen for you.

This I believe. I was just getting frustrated because it seemed as though Q.G. had the secret.

However, riddle me this, wouldn't focus-stacking effectively achieve this goal? It seems to me that the only real difference between imaging something that is big and little is the inherent qualities of lenses and the focusing of visible light.

For instance, electron microscopy doesn't appear "small", because DOF is so deep.


update.... ok, sorry for being a bit short with Q.G.

Q.G.
06-10-2010, 04:44 PM
This I believe. I was just getting frustrated because it seemed as though Q.G. had the secret.

However, riddle me this, wouldn't focus-stacking effectively achieve this goal? It seems to me that the only real difference between imaging something that is big and little is the inherent qualities of lenses and the focusing of visible light.

For instance, electron microscopy doesn't appear "small", because DOF is so deep.

Focus stacking will only solve the DoF problem.
Not the i'm floating somewhere above, looking down on reality problem.

They used to use boroscopes with very short focal length lenses, move them along models at the proper level and the proper distance to the model, to create more or less convincing images. That really is something you should pursue, if (!) you're aim is to make the images look like they are of real-life-scale thingies, and not a model.

(Used to use, because now everything that used to be done with models is modelled in computer graphics).

holmburgers
06-10-2010, 04:46 PM
Yeah, but you could certainly be up in a tower, or in a hot air balloon...

This issue of perspective seems self-evident. I guess I am wondering how we can overcome the limitations of lenses. Alas.....

epatsellis
06-10-2010, 05:11 PM
Borescope, Light Pipe, carefully placed first surface mirror, any/all of these effects will help you to realize your goal. Focus stacking, as Q.G. pointed out only helps with the DOF issue, and should be the last consideration after point of view and realization of that point of view.

erikg
06-10-2010, 07:05 PM
Yeah, but you could certainly be up in a tower, or in a hot air balloon...

This issue of perspective seems self-evident. I guess I am wondering how we can overcome the limitations of lenses. Alas.....

Don't use a lens at all, use a pinhole.

John NYC
06-10-2010, 07:28 PM
If you are talking about the guy who does mockups of 1950's Main Street small town scenes and then photos them, he uses nothing more than a compact digital camera.

nick mulder
06-10-2010, 07:44 PM
Perspective can be an issue for sure - people pick up on these clues/cues unconsciously or even consciously if it's bad enough - if you have miniatures then to achieve normality the camera and everything related to it should be miniature also (even the grain). Not possible, so special periscope 'snorkel' lens systems have been made to fit big cameras into small areas...

http://www.camerasystems.com/images/snorklepage/snorkel.jpg

http://www.camerasystems.com/images/snorklepage/snorkminature.jpg

The periodical Cinefex although it deal a heap with CGI nowadays has lots of articles on this kind of carry on - you can order back issues of most of your favourite films

As for what you can do with your equipment is just think the opposite way around - whatever tilt faking requires just flip the thinking on it's head - and yes, one of the aspects that make that tilt faking work is using higher perspectives...

Pretty good example here: http://vimeo.com/9679622

to quote:

"I was lucky to have friends, contacts and a some helpful people I'd never met but asked nicely allow me access to rooftops and balconies" ;)

I know you're after the opposite - but it just serves to prove the point I guess. For examples of what you're after just watch any effects heavy film from the 70's and 80's (they've been doing it since day one almost, but this particular era is the most laden) - and chuck in Kubricks 2001 for sure

lxdude
06-10-2010, 09:56 PM
Many of those T/S pictures that look miniature look that way because of vantage point. That is, a shot from a building down to an intersection looks miniature because in real life, depth of field should be much greater than that portrayed. On those types of shots the perspective is right; that is, the T/S pictures are taken from a naturally occurring perspective. So I think perspective as referred to here is not always part of the answer. It certainly is when realistic shots are wanted from the perspective of someone within the scene. But when an image shows a scene of naturally deep DoF, as would be seen looking down from say, a 12th story balcony, then the T/S effect will give that "model" look by unnaturally portraying DoF as if the object were very close.
So in converse, a miniature taken from that "same" perspective will rely mostly on DoF to eliminate the look of it being a miniature. The angle is realistic for a 12th floor balcony shot. The challenge is to render DoF realistically.

Q.G.
06-11-2010, 01:28 AM
The challenge is to render DoF realistically.

Yes.
And when we assume that DoF has been fixed, the challence is to get perspective right. ;)

The OP's question are two questions.
We do not need to decide which of the two answers to these two questions is the right one (singular). Both are.

lxdude
06-11-2010, 04:03 AM
Hey all,

So I was thinking, if you wanted to make a miniature look life-sized, what could you do to achieve this?

Obviously, everyone is familiar with how to miniaturize a photo using tilt/shift, but how about the opposite?


Use tilt-shift. ;)

Rudeofus
06-11-2010, 06:47 AM
Does anyone remember the movie "Team America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/)"? For this movie they used puppets about 1/3 of normal human size, yet achieved rather realistic looking sceneries ... One could certainly look at the camera angles and perspective used in this flick.