Picture scale

[Temperance]

Hmm, kind of a random and rambling idea here. One common question I have is \"How big is that miniature?\" Another question I often have is what \"magnification\" is best to optimize your score? What I mean my magnification is that you see a lot more detail on a 30mm figure spread over 500 pixels than you do spread over 250.

Here\'s an example. My recent Gnoll Champion is a better painted figure than my recent Sand Elementals. The ratings are currently about the same.

The big difference is the magnification -- the sand elementals are probably 300 pixels/25 mm (12 pixels/mm) while the gnoll is closer to 700 pixels/35 mm (20 pixels/mm) which is close to twice the magnification.

Obviously, having too small a picture hurts -- \"We can\'t see any detail!\" and I think the reverse is also true -- too much detail shows the flaws. Any idea what the best picture scale could be?

Also, it\'s probably too late for this, but perhaps it\'s a good idea to put a field in the database for \"figure height\" which tells exactly how tall a miniature is, from the bottom of the base to the tip of the banner pole. (Perhaps add it for the future and only display the height if data has been entered?)

 

[wightzombie]

pending cameras, scaling would be hard for some, or trying to get a mini at a certain size etc.

having height in the DB sounds cool.

 

[Chrispy]

Scale is weird. Sometimes if it\'s too small you can\'t make out details. Which can make the mini appear to be better blended than it is. But it makes it harder for the veiwer to see it.. Just today, though I had some dwarfs at 400 hieght.. and it looke terribel to me! There were tiny little details like the lens I wanted the viewers to see so I bumped it up to around 800. I guess It depends on the mini size. Smaller things will almost always be in a bigger actual fig to pic size, while big model kits will have smaller pics. Currently, though I like to use 450 hieght as a defualt and see if it needs to be resized again to see details or if it looks too huge. That\'s my story and I\'m sticking to it!!

 

[Flashman14]

I think a scale on the figure data is a good idea. I like the busts and all but they seem to get hyper inflated scores and I wonder if people sometimes think they are 25mm? No?
Inquisitor too - sometimes I think they are 28\'s when I\'m not paying close attention.
Mebbe a new dropdown menu could just have the major things: 25mm, 28mm, 54mm and that 1:8 or whatever it is.
Arguably it\'s a different skill being used on the bigger models - I\'m not prepared to argue it but it seems different somehow, right?
Besides, in terms of filter/sorts it\'s impossible to filter out the busts and statues when I\'m searching for a particular figure.
That\'s worth about 2 cents I reckon, eh?

 

[Chern Ann]

A scale is a good idea in theory, but at the end of the day it won\'t make much of a difference on how people vote, plus it\'d be hard to keep accurate with the number of new minis coming on the site every day; and if it isn\'t accurate, no one will look at it.

 

[Flashman14]

Maybe tie the scale to the manufacturer; ie \"WOTC 25mm\" or \"GW 28mm\" or \"Ral Partha 25MM\"?
That will keep it honest and it wont take any more time for the poster (not the programmer I understand!)
I only persist as I use CMON as a reference source and it\'s just easier to use and track down stuff it it\'s organized into tighter categories. No prob either way ... just throwing out ideas
Also, how many pics need to be posted to break out an \"Other\" manufacturer into it\'s own header?

 

[Chern Ann]

Regarding the \"other\", at least 50 I\'d say.