The Prototype

The 25th Street scene is supposed to look like it's in the vicinity of Ogden, Utah, with the view looking east.   The view here is distinctive and easily recognizable to those familiar with the area.  I used various photos for inspiration, including those below taken from the stands at Lindquist Field, home of the minor league Ogden Raptors.  Shapes on the finished backdrop vary somewhat from these as the panorama used for it used a somewhat different perspective.

This is Mount Ogden, elevation 9501'.  Weber Canyon, where the UP transcontinental main climbs toward the summit at Wahsatch, is at right.

Mount Ben Lomond, elevation 9712', was the source of the logo for Paramount Pictures for many years, starting in 1914  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700257111/Paramounts-logo-has-given-millions-a-peek-at-Ogden-peak.html .

Image from  http://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18628179.html .

The Model

For some time, a placeholder backdrop existed behind the branch,  It allowed me to establish some basic shapes, but wasn't intended to look finished.

Color changes everything.  The scene now looks more complete, although nothing much has changed with regard to the 3-D components.   

And this view looks more toward the north in the direction of Ben Lomond.

A lot remains to be done.  Foreground trees and structures are so far absent.  Much of the lower portion of the backdrops will consist of such elements, and everything up to at least the height of a one-story building will most likely be covered by them, hence the presence either of simple colors for now, or nothing at all.  This stuff remains in the planning stages.

I Am Always

enamored by your fabulous backdrops Rob! Another excellent job as always. Keep the posts coming!

Utah hmmm, I thought everthing was bigger in Texas

If it was anyone other than you I would be tempted to ask how is it a building is right up against a mountain and just how dang high are stories in a four story building that it is as high as a mountain? I sense another magical Spangler illusion of distance moment coming.

View from a helicopter...

Dear Alan,

Suspect that if you get out of the helicopter and look from a scale ground view things will make more sense...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Utah hmmm, I thought

Utah hmmm, I thought everthing was bigger in Texas

Actually it is, I sure got bigger when I moved to Texas.

Nice

Rob..I love it. Perspective seems right when you are at eye level, and your artwork is excellent. Colors are spot on and the detail ( even for a distance perspective ) is perfect. Who would want anything more ?

Michael

No kidding!

How high is the trackwork in

How high is the trackwork in relation to operator eye level back in that corner?

Re: Comments

Thanks for the kind words, all...

Track level is 53".  I have step stools in this area for anyone who needs assistance reaching anything, although most operators don't need them.

Utah

I never spent much time in Ogden when I was in Utah, I was mostly down in Provo area years ago, but your painted mountains bring me right back.  Utah's Wasatch front has a very characteristic look to them (IMO) and you have captured it beautifully.  

Nice work Rob.

-Kevin

Agree

I have to agree with Kevin, I too spent a lot of time in Provo while going to BYU and as soon as I saw those bck drop I said to myself, that's Utah !!!

From where am I seeing?

Rob, is the picture I annotated taken from normal viewing height or is it a helicopter view?

Re: Alan

It is from a higher than normal viewing angle. I'm not sure what you were asking earlier:

From the viewing angle of the prototype photos (taken some distance above ground level at the top of the stands), the three and four story structures are roughly the same height or higher in relationship to the mountains as the model structures.  The backdrop was scaled for this relationship.

This ground level view of the same structure directly to the right of today's right field foul pole was taken only a short distance from my photo, when the site of the current ball park was an interurban terminal.  From this angle, the Ogden Knitting building obscures much more of Mount Ogden (you can make out the sloping rock layers that correspond to the color photos)   http://image.frompo.com/ac3984fc92ccb896f52b3d9bb57c301d .  Note that the current taller structures that appear behind this one did not exist at the time.

Clarification

Thanks for the clarification Rob. Prof's comment stated it was a higher than normal viewing level (helicopter) photograph which you have verified is the case. From the helicopter view the area in the red rectangle looks wrong and not typical of your work. When I first viewed the image I falsely assumed it was from normal viewing height.

I would be interested in seeing the same shot taken from normal viewing should you find yourself with camera in hand.

The View

Out of curiosity, what looks "wrong" about it?  The view in question isn't so much higher than normal viewer eye level as to really distort anything.  There are structures and a wall, and not much else I can do at the interface.

This spot

OK...

I figured it's that particular spot.  What bothers you about it?  The structure has to hit the wall somewhere, and it casts a shadow that partially blends into the space adjacent to some steeply sloping rock layers, thus minimizing it to the extent possible. A backdrop structure will fill the gap between the 3-D buildings, but is planned to be shorter than either of them.  There's not much of an option but to live with it.

The evil spot

The back edge of the building appears to be smack against the mountain which is visually disturbing since mountains aren't straight up and down.

I have no answers, just questions. I am merely your student. In the past your backdrops have very convincingly blended with the foreground so this instance seemed out of character for your work hence why I asked.

Stuck

Skies and trees aren't vertical like that either, but there are basically no options when a structure meets a wall.  I have other places where they come together and it's the same problem.

These are a few examples I could think of right off, and they're all basically the same thing.

Yeah, I see what you are saying

Perhaps it is the darker colors and additional detail of the mountains that call out the issue. Your above examples of sky (can't tell how far away it really is) and low, desaturated skyline (looks distant) help hide the transition. Now that I am looking for it I see it in these also.

The shadows are an artifact of your lighting arrangement. I have always found it odd you chose the lighting you did. It isn't doing you any favors where structures meet backdrop although it works great on the structures themselves.

Corners

Places where buildings meet backdrops can be hidden by poles as in the case of the second photo). The industry needs power anyway. The harsh corner in the 3rd photo can be hidden with more vertical tanks.

I've also seen layouts that utilize buildings or other somewhat tall structures close to the backdrop (including tall trees), and therefore have shadows on the backdrop, use a strip of low intensity LEDs (LEDs with power dropped) at the top pointing straight down. This creates a wash that removes the most harsh shadows while not adding too much to the overall light.

As for the 4 story building against the mountains, a fire escape (full or the hint of one) on either side could pull attention away from the joint.

Everything's a Compromise

It gives me what I want in terms of the room environment, visibility of car reporting marks for operation, overall even-ness, etc.

I'm not actually bothered by any of these structure/backdrop interfaces.  It's all just toy trains.

Compromise

Amen brother.