On my my larger layout, soon to start construction, I have several a street-full of buildings that are going to be one-inch deep buildings with loading docks to increase operations. I had planned to create a large city scape on the backdrop behind to create the illusion of the town going on quite a ways. However, it occurred to me that no matter how I create the perspective, it only works from one viewing point and if you move away from that viewing, the illusion no longer works. I figure I can use mirrors to the height of the buildings to increase illusion down low, but that only works from there down and I still have the problem above the buildings.
What have some of you done to give the illusion of depth in this situation?
This is about as much City of Burbank I could have for this for a 14" wide shelf where a road crossed the tracks and into the backdrop. A few painted buildings painted on the backdrop from a real photo.
Since my layout is ~48" off the floor, I don’t worry too much about people seeing my fake-fronts from the top down. I put in clumps of lichen or green foam to hide the corners from a ground-level perspective.
John Pryke has some good ideas in his city scenery book. Basically layer the backdrop with the fuzzy/hazy distant view at the back and differing size photos layered over that to add the illusion of depth. If possible, backdrop buildings, flats, photos seems to work well. Mirrors, angled/curved streets, tee intersections all work well. [:D]J.R.
My backdrops behind flats and angled background buildings are mostly far enough from the viewer, so that the tops of the angled background buildings give a fairly good perspective. Note the clouds painted above the backdrop buildings. By painting a row of clouds by a dry brush technique, one can hide the transition line between the edge of the blue of the picture, and the blue I painted on the backdrop. I raised the backdrop pictures so that a maximum amount of the buildings are visible. In this photo, the buildings are located behind a raised track section. The loading platforms of the buildings ,(to a lower,rear track), are visible only from an angle.
The problem I’m talking about is very obvious in HH’s picture. The perspective vansihing point in the photo of his buildings is down right. The perspective vanishing point in the backdrop is down left.
The Old Dog would suggest putting view blocks on the FRONT edge of the layout to frame the scene. Set it up like some one was viewing the layout through a window. In other words, restrict the number of viewing angles. Picture the layout as a series of “stages” where the “play” (operating session) occurs.
OK, this new layout is the PRR set in the 1950s, correct?
So, could you get away with the following:
Really tall, multistory factory flats, so that the roofs are above the viewer’s normal top of viewing position - then you can just use ‘edgeless/dimensionless/formless’ clouds above that roof level. Quite a few layouts showcased in MR have done this.
Next, if there are gaps, alleys between the buildings, paste photos/images of buildings - taken face on so there is no Perspective angles (may need photoshop for this to distort/twist the original image, which most likely was taken at somewhat of an angle). You can play with variations of hiding the bottom edges (fencing, hedges, walls, etc - probably not roads), but must make sure the building(s) images do not exceed the roof line. Anything building images sticking up above the roof would probably look goofy viewed at any substantial angle, but any building image below the two buildings roof lines, may not register to the viewer as distorted when viewed at a angle (if, indeed, the backdrop building images at that angle are not hidden by the corner of the building flats in front of it.
As you have already noticed, unless you have a fixed viewing point, due to perspective something in the backdrop is going look wrong, I suppose the trick is to minimize this distortion so as not to be noticible to the viewer.
We really need more research into Trompe-l’œil techniques as applied to Model backdrops… (even then, I think they require a fixed viewing point for maximum effectiveness).
The place I am talking about is behind the yard on the 1880’s layout.
As you can see there really is no way to frame the buildings and control the view angle and not mess up the view of the yard.
I also have the same thing going in the Indiana PRR layout, as I have had to postpone the sliding staging portion of the layout due to an inopportune post. I am adding a 1 x 5 extension onto the 30" x 96" section which will allow me to switch, fiddle, and to place a dock and false front on the grocery distributors. (I’ll be able to add the sliding staging when it reaches its final destination in a couple years.)
I’m not sure that’s a problem, but if it is, I can go from the end of that area.
I’m pretty sure this is a non-issue. About the only switching done here will be change of power. Everything else is within 18" of the edge. That track height will be about 42". There’s not a 3 story building on the layout, except the brewery and foundry.
The wall is the edge of a stair well. Staging breaks through the wall underneath the stairs.
Here is what I would suggest as there is no one right answer.
Take a piece of board (foam, masonite etc) that will be about the size of your planned backdrop.
Download sample pictures ( http://backdropwarehouse.com/SkResidntlGrp.htm#233A - here is a good place for samples) and print them using poster printing software (you can get this on the web for free (I use Posteriza).
Mount these using tape on the backdrop, then place some card board mock ups of your planned flats.
I suspect what you will find is that to maintain the illusion of depth in only about 2" of physical space you will need a picture that is flat - as if viewing from eye level head on. If the picture on the backdrop has indications of building sides, sun angle etc. the illusion will be most predominate from a small viewing angle.
Example: On a long section of my backdrop I only have 2" between the wall and the first track, the mainline in my case - the brick wall is 2" out from the physical wall. I used two backdrops (these are samples printed and temporarily mounted) - one of trees and a bit of roll in the hills and two - a very flat representation of city fronts on top of that.
In this case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so, experimentation is the order.
[edit] It was mentioned to use scenry to disguise the hard edge of the building flats against the backdrop. Another trick is to use color. Try to use some color in the physical foreground that matches or blends in with a color in the backdrop.
The cows above the engine in this picture are against the backdrop wall on a very narrow edge - less than 1". The ground falls off steeply here. Right below that farmhouse is some yellowish grassland. I used as close to that color as possible right below the cows on that steep hill to try to fool
Make the buildings behind the yard one or two story buildings. Paint a treeline behind them and then paint rooflines, smokestcks and steeples poking up out of the trees. The trees are “non-directional” and the isolated buildings don’t create a consistant line of sight to gauge distance or perspective.
Chip, mirrors don’t work except in small, specific locations. Used for large sections/backgrounds of any scene typically results in the viewer seeing his reflection of other similar giveways or distraction. Only when placed at right-angles to the backdrop, as in when extending the apparent length of a yard, etc., will such be reasonably acceptable.
No other arrangement will give a completely believable appearance from all viewing perspectives. The best one can hope for is to provide a believable situation when that portion of the layout is viewed relatively head-on, say within 30 degrees of right-angles to some point on the backdrop. It is especially important, as well, to avoid any shadows falling on the backdrop itself.
The best method to approach this, I feel, in the creation of a major city scene, is to provide AT LEAST three (four or five is better) layers of increasingly thinner structures. Most favorable is to have those structures closest to the viewer near full thickness. The next row 2-3" deep. The one behind that can be down to 1", while the next are photos of buildings mounted on foamcore. Lastly, building images pasted right on the backdrop. As the buildings grow thinner in depth, their spacing, front to back, should also decease, until the rear-most rows are vitirually against one another. In a real pinch (as seems to be your case) using only the rear-most three rows of thin structures might work. An added sense of depth can be created by spraying a general, even, very thin application of blue-grey on the most distant structures, implying atmosphere between the viewer and the buildings. Another strong recommendation is not to run your streets parallel with the layouts edge. Rather, angle them in or out and, or if space allows, curve them.
Creating all the above in just a few inches of depth really doesn’t work very well but if a bit more space is created, something quite affective is
First of all, low relief buildings need something behind them to maintain the illusion. With just sky behind them, it becomes all too obvious they are only an inch or two deep. I’ve used both flats and printed backdrops with good success. If possible do both. It is amazing how much layering several backdrops will do to enhance the illusion of depth. Another trick is to mount he printed backdrops on 1/8 foam board. This little bit of depth also adds to the illusion. Ideally, if space permits, transitioning from full size structures, to low relief, to flats, backdrops mounted on foam board, and then one or layers of printed backdrops will maximize the illusion of depth and the foreground and background structures will blend seemlessly together. Of course, backdrops are best viewed from straight ahead. Strategic use of both structures and landforms to block sight lines from side views is a big help. A well planned scene will funnel the viewers eyes to the proper viewing angles.
Chip, by all means give it a go but I’ll tell you up front right now, it won’t work. I’ve seen just about ever possible arrangement attempted to employ mirrors on a modest to large scale to expand scenes and in every instance where the mirror was parallel with the viewing aisle, it was a failure. The nearest I’ve seen any hobbyist come to succeeding was Earl Smallshaw (look him up in the MR index) but even then, the gain in apparent scene depth was very small and more for novelty purposes than anything else.
My thinking is that if there is a building in front of the mirror so that you can’t see the mirror head on, but you can only see it from above, the reflection would be of the sides of the buildings it was between and ground directly in front of it.
Been there, tried that, long years ago, Chip. When you finally build it, what you are going to find is that with such an extremely narrow space to work with, at best it will give the impression that you’ve knocked out a hole in the bottom of your backdrop and placed some buildings on the other side. A very bizarre appearance and, honestly, it looks as hokey as can be…beside the fact that it’s almost impossible to hide the top edge of the mirror effectively if it is of any real size. But have fun.[;)]
[IMG]
