Calculating an accurate "scale" of LEGO figures

[henrysunset]

I'm working on an article that explores how to better understand and apply the concepts of "scale" to create better LEGO models. This raises a pretty fundamental question which I do not feel has been adequately answered within the LEGO community - what is the "scale" for the common LEGO figures we use in our models.

Minifig / Minidoll

Naturally, we want to start with the classic "minifigure", as well as the newer "minidoll" which has similar width and height.

I calculated a value of 1:42 for the classic minifigure, and a value of 1:38 for the Minidoll. The minidoll has fairly realistic proportions, so I feel pretty good about that value.

What do you think - do you agree with a value of 1:42 for the classic Minifigure? I have heard a scale of 1:48 cited in several places for the classic minifig, but I believe based on my calculations that this is mostly caused by folks rounding to 1:48, since this is a common scaling factor for model trains and architectural modeling. (I showed all my calculations at http://brickarchitect.com/scale/ so feel free to correct any mistakes in my measurements or calculations.)

Miniland

Moving on to the "Miniland" scale, which describes those brick built figures popularized at LEGO theme parks...

Here, I determined a scale of 1:17 is most accurate, although I have also seen 1:20 cited in a few places.

Does 1:17 seem accurate? What do those of you who work in this scale think?

Nanofig / Statue fig

Lastly, we have the newer "Nanofig" and "Statue fig" sizes. We all know that they are very tiny, but how tiny?

By my calculations, they come in at about 1:80 for Nanofig, and 1:125 for Statue Fig.

I'm very curious to hear what your thoughts are - It's pretty tricky to decide which measurements to use to calculate the height, especially on the smallest "statue fig" size. Are these values right?

Thank you!

Again, my detailed calculations and assumptions are clearly called out at http://brickarchitect.com/scale/ and I would really appreciate the help of the community to confirm that these values are as accurate as possible!

Sincerely,

---Tom Alphin

[Eggyslav]

I think you botched calculating the height of nanofig, on your chart it says it's 4,48 cm high, which is the same as minidoll, and it can't be right.

[anothergol]

I mentioned your previous blog page about it (the page is gone?) a few months ago, and I'd say you were right about it.

(http://www.eurobrick...pic=120770&st=0)

The fact that my AT-ST needed to be this wide to fit 2 minifigs, and ended up this tall, makes a minifig scaled around 1:29.

Now you say 1:42, but that seems too much.

If I put a minifig next to Bandai's 1:48 AT-ST, it does not fit at all. It also comes with its own pilot models, with tiny tiny heads compared to Lego's.

Your old page is now gone, but you were at some point suggesting 1:28 or something, I think that was more correct.

And yes, that makes minifigs tall as human midgets, but in order to have details scaled properly, and such big heads, I think that's what they should be considered as, midgets.

Let's also consider that the minifig was also used as a toddler the first year it appeared (but also as adult the same year, I don't know which came first, maybe someone knows the full story).

Now I'd say that 1:42 is probably closer to Lego's own view/own scale of vehicles. But:

-it varies a lot

-they can't go too big to spare parts

-it has changed over time (most cars are now 6 or even 8 studs wide, they all used to be 4)

And here's the comparison. Again, the AT-ST is scaled 1:48 & is recognized as the best kit at the moment, probably all well thought.

So comparing heights only, it would be about right (except that Lego's Chewy isn't much taller than a minifig), but no, it just does not fit. Lego Chewy doesn't look like an overweight one, it looks out of scale.

I think that for this to look "right", the minifigs would have to be nearly twice smaller.

And as for the nanofig scale, it's pretty easy here, because the nanofig is pretty much a 1/3.7 minifig, thus whatever you conclude for the minifig, applies to the nanofig.

Edited May 7, 2016 by anothergol

[Actor Builder]

I don't think there's a truly accurate proportion for Minifigures in relation to actual humans.

If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, really. 1:N sounds nice, but it's more like 1:N x 1:N x 1:N proportions, and you would have to take into account height, width and depth.

The problem there is, if you build vehicles based around the mathed out proportions, then the vehicles would look just as weird compared to actual vehicles as Minifgures do to humans.

I do what anotergol does, act like Minifigures are "Midgets", as he put it. Short, stocky people. I build with that in mind. I imagine the figures being taller (Like Woody from the Toy Story sets, but with C3P0s head) and generally build around that scale, but eyeball it to look good next to normal figs.

[davee123]

... which I do not feel has been adequately answered within the LEGO community ...

Actually, I think this question has been done to death in the LEGO community. My first discussion about minifig scaling came in 2000. The first conversation I can find about minifig scale is in 1998, back on RTL. There are probably earlier ones, too. I wrote an online tool in early 2002 to convert things to minifig scale, hoping that the "default" options would help influence builders and get people on a standard. And I've seen the topic pop up all the time ever since.

The answer is unfortunately: people are going to build their own things at their own scales. There's no consensus. And that's largely because:

(1) LEGO figures aren't proportional to normal humans

(2) LEGO figures are so small that in order to make something like "a coin" or "a fork" or "a frog" for minifigs, LEGO has to make them VERY oversized.

(3) People base their scales on things that are "about right", like the size of an arch piece that they want to use, or the width of LEGO train tracks, or the length of a canopy.

So, there's room to fudge. I've seen "minifig scale" between about 1:30 to about 1:60. It's a huge range.

Mini-dolls are a little better-- they're slightly more human-proportioned. And Technic, Belville and Scala, too. I dunno about DUPLO and Fabuland, though. They're pretty out-of-whack (and DUPLO's done a few different designs, too).

If you're looking to write an article, that's great-- you can even pick some reasonable scales and recommend them. But what's probably better is to pick some ranges, and say "this range is what most people seem to use", rather than picking a specific scale.

DaveE

Edited May 9, 2016 by davee123

[Aanchir]

I think it's a mistake to calculate minifigure scale strictly based on height, due to how disproportionately wide a minifigure is compared to an adult human.

A minifigure (with hair) is about 1.625 inches/4.16 centimeters. Let's suppose an average adult human is about 67 inches/170 centimeters. By height alone, minifigure scale would be around 1:41. But wait! If you multiply the width of a minifigure with arms at their sides(around 1 inch/2.56cm) by 41, that would make a minifigure nearly three and a half feet or a little over a meter wide! A person that size might not even fit through a lot of doors without turning sideways!

Side note: this height/width discrepancy is part of why I roll my eyes when people complain about the mini-doll looking "skinny" or "anorexic". Realistically, scaling the figures by height, it's more like the mini-doll has a healthy thirty-some inch waistline, while the classic minifigure has a seventy to eighty inch waistline!

On the other hand, let's imagine a typical person with their arms at a slight angle from their body is 25 inches/63.5 centimeters wide. This would mean a scale of around 1:25. But at that scale, a scaled-up minifigure would only be as tall as they were wide in the last exercise — a little under three and a half feet or a little over a meter! Vehicles or doors at that scale would tower over them!

Clearly, to get a reasonable scale you need some kind of middle ground — something bigger than it would be scaled by height, but smaller than it would be scaled by width. If we take the average of the scales we previously arrived at, we get 1:33, which would make a minifigure scaled to human height 53.625 inches (nearly 4.5 feet)/137.28 centimeters tall and 33 inches/84.48 centimeters wide.

Now, personally, I have generally favored 1:36 scale, which would make a minifigure around 58.5 inches/149.76 centimeters tall and 36 inches/92.16 centimeters wide. As a bonus, a door for a 4x6 frame at this scale would represent a door 74.25 inches tall and 40.5 inches wide: just slightly wider and slightly shorter than the standard 80x36 inch size for an American exterior door. 1:35 works about as well — I prefer 1:36 because it works better with imperial measurements (which are in increments of 12), while 1:35 would probably work better with metric measurements (which are in increments of 10).

As for nanofigs (I've always just called them microfigs), I tend to just consider them 1/2 minifigure scale. That's about how things work out in terms of height and footprint, if you're comparing them to a minifigure with hair/headgear.

[Captain Green Hair]

Quite an interesting discussion!

According to my calculations, if a minifig would be about 1.7 meters high, the scale would be 1:39.

However I find that things tend to get too big in Lego in a lot of cases. This also has to do with minifigs indeed being a bit short and/or fat.

For my latest model I used a scale of 1:45, as this seems more doable for future larger models I tend to keep. I use the scale just to get the big lines, the rest I do by eye.

If it looks good with the figs, it is good!

[davee123]

I think it's a mistake to calculate minifigure scale strictly based on height, due to how disproportionately wide a minifigure is compared to an adult human.

As if to drive the point home of being done to death...

One of the funniest just-for-the-hell-of-it calculations that I did way-back-when was based on average mass/volume. Your average minifig is something like 3.3-3.5g, and your average human is something like 62 kg. I don't recall what the "volume" of a minifig is (I guesstimated using some odd numbers, assuming that the legs were solid, etc), but if scaled up appropriately, I remember it was surprisingly roughly accurate (as in, not all THAT much worse than using height or width). I recall being amazed that it wasn't TOTALLY out of whack, since I was expecting it to be a completely zany result.

DaveE

[anothergol]

As for nanofigs (I've always just called them microfigs), I tend to just consider them 1/2 minifigure scale. That's about how things work out in terms of height and footprint, if you're comparing them to a minifigure with hair/headgear.

but there's no argument to have about nanofigs, since they are purely scaled-down minifigs (unlike microfigs). Without counting their base which is 1 plate thick, they're around 1/3.7 of a minifig - but certainly not 1/2.

[Aanchir]

but there's no argument to have about nanofigs, since they are purely scaled-down minifigs (unlike microfigs). Without counting their base which is 1 plate thick, they're around 1/3.7 of a minifig - but certainly not 1/2.

I'm referring to the figures from the LEGO Games sets, which henrysunset called nanofigs in the first post. That's why I felt the need to clarify that I've never called them nanofigs myself. The tiny figures used as trophies in the LEGO Minifigures theme are obviously much smaller.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Aanchir

[anothergol]

Ah indeed. What he calls nanofig is indeed the microfig, & the trophee is the nanofig.

[Swan Dutchman]

Interesting discussion! For minifigure-scaled landscapes or big vehicles I only consider the hight of the minifigure. I assume the height that of an adult: about 1.80 meters. Of course, the minifigures are too wide compared to the real thing, but that makes it actually look cute (including their yellow skin). For smaller vehicles I just build whatever feels right. I find LEGO's Reys speeder a good example of that. The speeder is far too big, but somehow it fits.

[sparkart]

I agree with DaveE, that a reasonable range of scales is, ironically, if not precise, the most accurate description. The real world works with tolerances, why not the play world of LEGO?

I've played around with just using minifig headgear to establish scale:

I know the heads are a little undersized, but these turn out to be very close to 3.75" action figure scale, about 1:18 ~ 1:20.

[drclark]

I remember a discussion from a long time ago that minifig proportions are closer to that of a small child than an adult. Hence if you scale them to an adult height, they end up too wide.

I usually use 1 stud = 1 foot. Most true scale models get very large so "selective compression" usually comes into play anyways for a typical builder.

[henrysunset]

@sparkart,

I really like your technique - it results in really convincing figures (and it really showcases how oversized the LEGO head part is!)

[Andrzej777]

I have given up thinking about lego scale and how out of scale everything is, animals, accessoiries, or medieval women and how they are always taller than men (I know they wearing very high heels :) ).

Last thing that made me laugh is the lego wine bottle - if put next to it, it reaches a minifigs belly button ( if it has one that is :) ).

[anothergol]

Last thing that made me laugh is the lego wine bottle - if put next to it, it reaches a minifigs belly button ( if it has one that is :) ).

well, Lego got that one right :)

that size standard is called Melchizedek

Edited May 30, 2016 by anothergol

[Andrzej777]

well, Lego got that one right :)

that size standard is called Melchizedek

lol :):)

and I thought lego wasnt promoting any alcohol :)

so they just picked up the biggest bottle there is :)

just btw, what are the biggest mushrooms in the world? Lego mushrooms are quite sizeable as well I think. ;)

[TheMindGarage]

I don't think you can really scale minifigs. Their proportions are too strange to work. Starting with height, people come in different heights, so I would say that 1:42 is fine (168cm person), but so is anything from about 1:38 (152cm person) up to 1:48 (192cm person).

Then we come to width. A minifig's torso width is 2 studs or 1.6cm. Assuming the 1:42 scale, that gives a minifig a 67cm body width when scaled. The body is 1 stud thick, so the total waist/chest/hip measurement (for minifigs, they're all the same) is 201cm (79in). I hope you don't know many people with those proportions - it's a wonder that I haven't heard of minfigures having coronaries...

Feet are an issue as well. Minifigs have square feet around 0.8cm each side, so scaling up 42x, their feet are 33.6 cm on each side. I can't even FIND shoe-size guidance for these feet - the length would likely be something in the region of 15; the width would be literally off the scale.

You just can't scale these things - it's like scaling an apple to a pear. If you scale by height, you end up with a REALLY fat minifig. And if you scale by width or volume, you end up with a child . Both ways you get the plague of the square feet.