Just take a look at [this picture](https://www.looksmartmodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/lamborghini-huracan-performante-spyder_03.jpg), you can tell immediately that its a model car even though there is nothing in the picture to compare its size to. My guess is that the paint isn’t authentic to our eyes, but are there other reasons as well?
In: 980
It lokks more plasticy than a real car, no real metallic shine as cars do, and things are all together, no real openness like with actual cars (like holes between the doors, or the hood etc)
Check these [actual places and vehicles that have been made to look miniature via the tilt-shift technique.](https://www.awwwards.com/tilt-shift-photography-for-spectacular-miniature-effect.html)
Also, visit r/tiltshift. It’s a rare occasion that I can advert this sub organically.
Is it that easy though? It’s easy to see because in your example, the model is not in a life-like environment at all.
If you do place something in a lifelike environment with a good model, it’s not so easy to see the difference.
[See this example](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Fstoppers_Michael-Paul-SMith-Model-Maker_Gary-W-Martin-5.jpg). Only under very intense scrutiny could you figure out if this is real or not. And even then it would require a trained eye in my opinion.
[Result of above real or not?](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Fstoppers_Michael-Paul-SMith-Model-Maker_Gary-W-Martin-4.jpg)
Everyone saying depth of field is correct, but the f stop and sensor size are also crucial factors here, imagine scaling a motor car object down to the size of a domino and not the camera, you would definitely be inclined to think the object is small, because you would have a greater depth of field, however if you also scale the camera down with it, you would have no visual cues to determine this smaller scale. So essentially the reason we are able to tell the scale of an object is because of the proportions of the camera and the object in relation to one another.
You could make an entire city look like a miniature set if you just scale the camera up to an enormous size so that the proportions fit those of a standard camera and a small city model, however we can’t realistically make a camera the size of a small moon, so we use substitutes like tilt shift lenses which can simulate the same effects.
A lot of answers here about depth of field, etc. but to me, the most obvious indicator is a serious lack of detail in certain elements of the car (e.g. take a look at the steering wheel and dash and it becomes immediately clear that you’re not looking at the real deal).
You learn this as part of 3d graphics
To put off a realistic model you need 3 levels of detail, large , medium and small.
A model car can’t do small easily because it already is small, so without 3 levels of detail which a full size object has, you can see something off
For me it’s the level of detailing. I can see that the green, white and red stripe is sloppily stuck to the door, which suggests that the whole car might me much smaller than in reality, where it would be easier to get a higher level of finishing.
I think it’s details, door handles, tires look plastic plus the whole body looks like it’s cast from the same mould.
In the picture you provided, 1 The details are of there are scratches and indentations that a normal car rarely if ever has. 2The car is dirty in ways a normal car isnt. 3 the reflections are off.
Level of detail also plays a major part in selling scale. People who build miniatures for films are experts in using detail to give the impression of scale. Sometimes the level of detail required means that miniatures end up not being that miniature at all. On the Lord of the Rings trilogy they ended up calling them bigatures because of the scale needed to make the models detailed enough. Of course models for film are also shot in such a way that they avoid the depth of field issues mentioned by others.
Latest Answers