PTJ Verse - Speed Upgrade

[Viott]

It still doesn't change the fact that the angsizing to eye is inconsistent with the angsizing to the face. Your angsizing to the eye is what's inconsistent.

We’ve already seen that using face height with angsize is inconsistent. So stop talking as if it would be consistent when we use face height. Even if the eye is small, since it’s quite close to the screen, it’s not inconsistent. It’s that simple.

Angsizing is also a form of pixel scaling, as you literally use pixels to angsize stuf. What applies to pixel scaling also applies to angsizing.

Angsizing finds the distance. And when the eye is quite close to the screen, this is not inconsistent.

Also, I love how you literally proved my other point about using the face height rather than the bullet diameter in the bolded part. Yes, you don't use eye length to pixel scale distances because it's a small reference and with the same logic, you should be able to figure out which reference to use in the first scan. Larger reference (face height), or the smaller reference (bullet diameter).

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

Just to be clear btw, I was completely wrong here:

I know.

Doing the opposite would get you the exact same distance. Idk what I was thinking when I typed this out.

Then you have no complaint about using the bullet’s diameter as a reference.

I did my own pixel scaling on it btw (also excluding the teeth as that's not a part of his face) and got 13.9 cm, but again, this height isn't reliable as it comes from a small reference rather than the character's full height or the human proportions calculator. I also don't buy that a dude who's between 1.80 and 1.85 meters to have a face shorter than 20 cm, at the very least

Instead of finding the character’s actual face height, you’re only relying on the human proportions calculator. That’s just an average value. The character’s face height could be smaller, and by using the panel we actually found that it is.

(the human proportions calculator also sides with me on this one btw) because a face height of 13.9 cm would mean that this dude is about 1.20m, which also means that he's biologically suffering from dwarfism.

The human proportions calculator is just an average value. It’s more reliable to find the character’s face height from the panels. Saying “the face is small so I don’t believe it” isn’t even a good argument. The character’s face might simply have been drawn small.

Looking at the panel more though, this dude seems to have his face tilted to the side and forward a bit. That's supported by the fact that his shoulders are high (same with the other full body panel you sent).

The tilt of the face doesn’t matter because I drew the pixel in that direction. And it doesn’t look tilted forward at all. It’s only tilted to the left.

 

[Dinozxd]

We’ve already seen that using face height with angsize is inconsistent. So stop talking as if it would be consistent when we use face height. Even if the eye is small, since it’s quite close to the screen, it’s not inconsistent. It’s that simple.

This doesn't really explain why his face is 6 cm away from his eyes. Using face height invalidates the calc, while using the eye invalidates the angsizing to the face which makes the angsizing in the panel inconsistent overall, which invalidates the calc as well.

Angsizing finds the distance.

And pixel scaling doesn't????

And when the eye is quite close to the screen, this is not inconsistent.

Like I said, you're completely off track here. His eye being "quite close to the screen" changes nothing. His face is also quite close to the screen (should logically be like a mm further than his eye to the screen). Why is agnsizing his face inconsistent when using his eye is consistent? You should be the one who needs to be consistent lmao.

This angsizing being invalid/inconsistent can only mean two things: 1. Using the eye length is invalid as it's a small reference, or 2. The face height (in meters) used there is wrong because it's completely inconsistent with the angsizing to the eye.

Both of these outcomes work in my favor for the topics we're discussing, so I'm chillin here.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

I already explained why "this is a small reference" argument works multiple times:

Again, this is just stupid. You have a much larger reference fully visible in the panel but you're using a 7mm object to pixel scale the distance. It's been widely agreed by CGMs that using a decently large object by both pixels and irl size gives you the most accurate reference for a pixel scale. I know that sometimes you gotta use a small reference. I've done that too, but that doesn't mean it's a choice based thing. You do that when you don't have anything elss to pixel scale or angsize from.

It changes because it's a small reference. Artist don't really care about small references so they don't draw them with as much detail and consistency as bigger references. That's why the bullet's diameter changes.

Back to the part when you agreed me on this topic btw:

This is only valid when you use the eye as a reference to measure something. - Viott

Also, I love how you literally proved my other point about using the face height rather than the bullet diameter in the bolded part. Yes, you don't use eye length to pixel scale distances because it's a small reference and with the same logic, you should be able to figure out which reference to use in the first scan. Larger reference (face height), or the smaller reference (bullet diameter). - Dino

I know.

Then you have no complaint about using the bullet’s diameter as a reference.

How did you get that from what I said after telling me you knew I was wrong bruh.

I was explaining the basics of pixel scaling. If you have a distance of 1000 pixels to scale and your reference is a 1 cm object that has a length of 100 pixels, you get a result of 10 cm for the 1000 pixel distance. Do the opposite (use the 1000 pixel long 10 cm object as reference and scale the 100 pixel object) and you have the same distance as the reference never really changed.

My argument wasn't related to that so that's why I said I was wrong specifically about that, not my point.

Instead of finding the character’s actual face height, you’re only relying on the human proportions calculator. That’s just an average value. The character’s face height could be smaller, and by using the panel we actually found that it is.

The human proportions calculator is just an average value. It’s more reliable to find the character’s face height from the panels. Saying “the face is small so I don’t believe it” isn’t even a good argument. The character’s face might simply have been drawn small.

My argument wasn't "the face is small so I don’t believe it”. I explained why I thought that, and this reply didn't really convince me.

If a 2 meters tall human character has an upper limb length of 50 cm via a pixel , that pixel scale simply makes no sense (this only doesn't apply when characters canonically have small features btw).

And it doesn’t look tilted forward at all. It’s only tilted to the left.

He stands the same way he's standing in the currently used full body panel.

 

[Viott]

This doesn't really explain why his face is 6 cm away from his eyes. Using face height invalidates the calc, while using the eye invalidates the angsizing to the face which makes the angsizing in the panel inconsistent overall, which invalidates the calc as well.

When a large reference is used, the result does not always come out 100% consistent. For example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the diameter of the bullet, which is 7.62, changes. Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference. Your only argument for saying the eye length gives inconsistent results is “small reference.” But no. As I said, since the eye is closer to the screen, it can be used. For the reasons I explained, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

And pixel scaling doesn't????

Sure.

Like I said, you're completely off track here. His eye being "quite close to the screen" changes nothing. His face is also quite close to the screen (should logically be like a mm further than his eye to the screen). Why is agnsizing his face inconsistent when using his eye is consistent? You should be the one who needs to be consistent lmao.

I’m not going off-topic. I’m explaining why using the eye would not be inconsistent. As I said, when we use the face with the angsize formula, the result comes out inconsistent because the distance turns out greater than in the first panel. Therefore, instead of using face height, something else needs to be used. And when we use the eye with the angsize formula, the distance comes out a little smaller than the first distance, so it’s actually more consistent. You can’t just say it shouldn’t be used simply because it’s a small reference. You can’t always rely on a large reference. I’ll repeat: for example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the bullet’s diameter of 7.62 changes, and that’s how I proved it.

This angsizing being invalid/inconsistent can only mean two things: 1. Using the eye length is invalid as it's a small reference,

Bro, you’re still saying “small reference.” When we use a large reference in the first panel, the bullet’s diameter changes. What does this mean? It means a large reference isn’t always reliable.

or 2. The face height (in meters) used there is wrong because it's completely inconsistent with the angsizing to the eye.

Why would it be wrong? I'm finding the face height using the character's height as a reference.

I already explained why "this is a small reference" argument works multiple times:

You’re ignoring my argument. I explained why a large reference isn’t always reliable.

The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

You're saying that just because the bullet's base diameter is small, the artist doesn't care. But you have no evidence. You're making things up to invalidate the calculation.

Back to the part when you agreed me on this topic btw:

You’re trying to justify yourself using part of what I said. Here’s the rest:

Also, since the eye is close to the screen, the result will not be inconsistent.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

I was explaining the basics of pixel scaling. If you have a distance of 1000 pixels to scale and your reference is a 1 cm object that has a length of 100 pixels, you get a result of 10 cm for the 1000 pixel distance. Do the opposite (use the 1000 pixel long 10 cm object as reference and scale the 100 pixel object) and you have the same distance as the reference never really changed.

So?? Using the base diameter of this bullet doesn’t change the fact.

My argument wasn't "the face is small so I don’t believe it”. I explained why I thought that, and this reply didn't really convince me.

Your answers also did not convince me.

If a 2 meters tall human character has an upper limb length of 50 cm via a pixel , that pixel scale simply makes no sense (this only doesn't apply when characters canonically have small features btw).

The character's face height isn’t exaggerated. It’s 4.9 cm smaller than an average face height. So there’s no reason not to use the actual face height.

He stands the same way he's standing in the currently used full body panel.

You’re just making up reasons not to use the panel. As I said, it’s standing perfectly upright. Only the head is tilted, but that’s fine because I drew the pixel line in that direction. It’s that simple.

 

[Crimsonobu]

This feat displays inconsistency, the dude is crying in one panel and in the next panel his face is contorted to the side, meaning scaling to his nose bridge is flawed as the distance moved by him creates larger distance between him and the bullet, meaning the bullet moved more distance. Onto my second reasoning as to why the calc is flawed, we use the diameter of the bullet here which is closer to the Point of View of the camera then the slash, using something closer to the camera to scale something further than the camera actually makes the thing further than the camera look much larger. Onto the third reason, once the bullet is touched, the velocity slows down significantly, so using the end of the bullet as scaling is flawed because the bullet has already slow'n down due to being cut from the front. I also declare this calculation, debunked.

doesn't really tackle anything major. just sounds like a cringe lord talking. the calc if anything should be faster as the character being shot at portrays the feat as manager kim also cutting the soldiers within the same timeframe. "in that instance, i thought the bullet had been sliced. But that wasn't true, rather it was... the afterimage, something that had happened in an insant" that is more than obviously portraying manager kim slicing the bullet AND the enemies within the same timeframe.

the "minimum distance moved" is also a gargantuan ******* lowball . its a measurement of HALF the slice you can literally see on the screen. to cut something people need to at least SWING the knife. idk why viott went with 5 cms when there's clearly more distance observable within the very own image. one line coming down clearly representing the slash, measuring only half of it is just weird. the minimum distance should be 0.1184854 meters making it 0.1184854/ 0.0000225142 = 5262.94 m/s Hypersonic+ (without even adjusting for the previously pointed out timeframe issues)

 

[Crimsonobu]

@Dinozxd
what are your thoughts on the timeframe and minimum distance issues? or atleast something i percive as an issue.
the context within the feat seams to portray the timeframe differently (not just bullet being cut but simoltaniously having an army cut down within the same timeframe)
"in that instance, i thought the bullet had been sliced. But that wasn't true, rather it was... the afterimage, something that had happened in an insant"
And the minimum distance traveled in of itself being weird.
the calc itself uses an image to pixel scale the distance, but only measures half of the quite literally present line that's purpose is to literally show the slice traveling (0.0592427 m being measured , being only half if not less of the visible line) its quite farfetched to assume someone only did a 5 cm swing for a slicing motion, unless im mistaken.

 

[Second22]

It’s not some “minimum distance”, dude. Being off by just 1–2 cm literally throws the result off by like double.

 

[Dinozxd]

When a large reference is used, the result does not always come out 100% consistent. For example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the diameter of the bullet, which is 7.62, changes. Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

I already explained why that happened but this is also irrelevant to the panel we're using as the reason the bullet's diameter changes is because of the angle, not the reference being incosnsitent.

Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference. Your only argument for saying the eye length gives inconsistent results is “small reference.” But no. As I said, since the eye is closer to the screen, it can be used. For the reasons I explained, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

What the hell does the bolded part even mean? His eye and face has to be the same distance away (either 20 or 26 centimeters) from the screen but they're not. Like I said before, the point isn't his eye being "closer" to the screen, it's the inconsistency between angsizing to his face and eye. I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference. I'm relying on it because the smaller reference you're using is inconsistent with it, which forces us to use either one of them. I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed.

So i'm not just picking the larger reference for no reason. I have a clear cut reason, as you can see.

I’m not going off-topic. I’m explaining why using the eye would not be inconsistent. As I said, when we use the face with the angsize formula, the result comes out inconsistent because the distance turns out greater than in the first panel. Therefore, instead of using face height, something else needs to be used. And when we use the eye with the angsize formula, the distance comes out a little smaller than the first distance, so it’s actually more consistent. You can’t just say it shouldn’t be used simply because it’s a small reference. You can’t always rely on a large reference.

You think it's inconsistent because it contradict your calculation, that's it. That's no different from changing distances to prove that your calc is valid. If a speed feat is inconsistent with distances, you just use another method. Not change the distances to your liking.

Bro, you’re still saying “small reference.” When we use a large reference in the first panel, the bullet’s diameter changes. What does this mean? It means a large reference isn’t always reliable.

I already explained it above and you seem to have replied to it so I'm gonna reply to it later.

Why would it be wrong? I'm finding the face height using the character's height as a reference.

You, yourself, said that large references aren't always reliable but when you use a large reference yourself, it's perfect. Nice.

You’re ignoring my argument. I explained why a large reference isn’t always reliable.

I replied to that shit like 10 times bruh you can't tell me I'm ignoring your arguments.

You're saying that just because the bullet's base diameter is small, the artist doesn't care. But you have no evidence. You're making things up to invalidate the calculation.

I'm not just saying that the "artist doesn't care".

Yk the times when you're watching a youtube vid with like 720p or 1080 p resolution and youtube suddenly ***** u over and changes it to 360p or something? You can see that the video gets undetailed and pixelated asf. This doesn't just apply to videos, but images too. That was my entire point basically.

You’re trying to justify yourself using part of what I said. Here’s the rest:

Let's see:

Also, since the eye is close to the screen, the result will not be inconsistent.

This is pretty much irrelevant with my point.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

This is also irrelevant to how you agreed with my point lmao. You basically said "Yes using larger references in pixel scaling makes more sense than using smaller ones" while not accounting for the fact that angsizing works the same way pixel scaling does.

So?? Using the base diameter of this bullet doesn’t change the fact.

Yes. It doesn't. But it's also irrelevant and that's why I came clean and stated that I was wrong there.

The character's face height isn’t exaggerated. It’s 4.9 cm smaller than an average face height. So there’s no reason not to use the actual face height.

A 4.9 cm difference is about a 25 percent difference in comparison to the average face height.

You’re just making up reasons not to use the panel. As I said, it’s standing perfectly upright. Only the head is tilted, but that’s fine because I drew the pixel line in that direction. It’s that simple.

Yeah I have no reason to really argue over this as there are other factors that indicate that the pixel scaled face height is wrong as I said above.

Spoiler: Replying to Crimsonobu

what are your thoughts on the timeframe and minimum distance issues?

I agree with Vzearr's and Second22's opinions on the matter. They brought up similar matters I brought up in another thread where this feat was discussed and they're pretty much enough to debunk this calc, even tho I'm currently tryna teach debating Viot about the basics of pixel scaling and angsizing.

the context within the feat seams to portray the timeframe differently (not just bullet being cut but simoltaniously having an army cut down within the same timeframe)
"in that instance, i thought the bullet had been sliced. But that wasn't true, rather it was... the afterimage, something that had happened in an insant"

That bolded statement has no proof that all of that happened in the same timeframe. Something being done in an "instant" isn't a timeframe, it just means that MK went so fast that the other guy couldn't keep up with his movements.

As a reference, to prove that all of that was done in the same timeframe, MK should've let the bullet go and slash everyone in the timeframe it takes for the bullet to hit the dude in the face. This is basically invalidated by the scene itself as the bullet gets sliced by MK.

And the minimum distance traveled in of itself being weird.
the calc itself uses an image to pixel scale the distance, but only measures half of the quite literally present line that's purpose is to literally show the slice traveling (0.0592427 m being measured , being only half if not less of the visible line)

It pixel scales half of the line as that's the distance MK has to travel to slice the bullet. After the bullet gets sliced, it loses it's velocity, so taking the full slice into the account would make the feat much slower.

its quite farfetched to assume someone only did a 5 cm swing for a slicing motion, unless im mistaken.

We have no idea about the actual movement of MK's katana other than his on screen movement so we can't really use the "katana length x movement in radians" method to calc it's movement. His on screen movement seems to be 5 cm so only that can be used.

 

[Vzearr]

doesn't really tackle anything major. just sounds like a cringe lord talking. the calc if anything should be faster as the character being shot at portrays the feat as manager kim also cutting the soldiers within the same timeframe. "in that instance, i thought the bullet had been sliced. But that wasn't true, rather it was... the afterimage, something that had happened in an insant" that is more than obviously portraying manager kim slicing the bullet AND the enemies within the same timeframe.

the "minimum distance moved" is also a gargantuan ******* lowball . its a measurement of HALF the slice you can literally see on the screen. to cut something people need to at least SWING the knife. idk why viott went with 5 cms when there's clearly more distance observable within the very own image. one line coming down clearly representing the slash, measuring only half of it is just weird. the minimum distance should be 0.1184854 meters making it 0.1184854/ 0.0000225142 = 5262.94 m/s Hypersonic+ (without even adjusting for the previously pointed out timeframe issues)

Alright bro, call me a cringe lord instead of debunking what I say.

 

[Vzearr]

Can someone summarise dino's and viott's debate.

 

[Crimsonobu]

Can someone summarise dino's and viott's debate.

lowk just a disagreement on mesurment methods, and a argument about how the results get affected by the characters seeming head /body movement .

thats it for the most part, they just delve into the specifics. i think viotts "minimum" estimate completely ignores context of the scene, and manager kims actions during the timeframe.

idk if what im saying is logically flawed but its just outright shown manager kim starts moving when after the bullet reaches near the guys face, he wasnt present anywhere in a multiple meter wide scene shot, so like the "minimum distance" is extremily lowballed . and according to the context manager kim cutting the army members and the bullet are all within one timeframe. i know you didnt ask about anything other then the summary, but i feel like im going insane cuz no one adresses that

 

[Crimsonobu]

It’s not some “minimum distance”, dude. Being off by just 1–2 cm literally throws the result off by like double.

yes im completely aware of this. i belive this calc is flawed in many ways. the "minimum distance" being utterly wrong is one of the most important things. theres 2 ways to account for it and the way it was done within this calc completely ignores logic and inverse context.
i also do agree with the arguments that Dinozxd provides. i do belive this calc can get a FAR higher result. withing the high hyper range if everythings actually acounted for. the only issue lies in the fact that the dude being shot at changes hand positions like 3 times in the span of 3 panels. ironically enough his hands might have moved more distance then the bullet needed to in the time frame. i just havent gotten any comments / anwsers on why the further context shouldnt be accounted for.

like for example. we see a wide shot image of the person being shot at. around a 1.5 meter area is clear with no one present, that includes manager kim.
the bullet gets closer. and only RIGHT after that, we see manager kim start moving. thus logically, manager kim traveled the distance that he wasnt show being present in

it makes no sense for him to move before that timeframe as the sign of motion we get is after the bullet reaches the location the calc is attempting to mesure.

and theres more to account with the character implying manager kim cut the bullet AND the armed forces within the timeframe. theres just quite a bit of variables at play

 

[Viott]

I already explained why that happened

I explained why you were wrong.

but this is also irrelevant to the panel we're using as the reason the bullet's diameter changes is because of the angle, not the reference being incosnsitent.

What are you talking about? The angle is perfectly fine.

His eye and face has to be the same distance away (either 20 or 26 centimeters) from the screen but they're not. Like I said before, the point isn't his eye being "closer" to the screen, it's the inconsistency between angsizing to his face and eye. I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference. I'm relying on it because the smaller reference you're using is inconsistent with it, which forces us to use either one of them. I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed.

Using a large reference does not always mean it will be consistent. Let me repeat: when we use a large reference, the bullet diameter of 7.62 changes. Therefore, you cannot always rely on the face length just because the reference is large. Understand this.

You think it's inconsistent because it contradict your calculation, that's it. That's no different from changing distances to prove that your calc is valid. If a speed feat is inconsistent with distances, you just use another method. Not change the distances to your liking.

That’s not how it works. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. We need to use another area. And when I use the eye length, it comes out more consistent. So there’s no reason not to use it.

I already explained it above and you seem to have replied to it so I'm gonna reply to it later.

Sure

You, yourself, said that large references aren't always reliable but when you use a large reference yourself, it's perfect. Nice.

What are you talking about? I used a small reference in my calculation.

I replied to that shit like 10 times bruh you can't tell me I'm ignoring your arguments.

Bro, I’ve responded to your terrible arguments over and over again, but you still don’t understand.

I'm not just saying that the "artist doesn't care".

I know, and I already said you have no proof.

Yk the times when you're watching a youtube vid with like 720p or 1080 p resolution and youtube suddenly ***** u over and changes it to 360p or something? You can see that the video gets undetailed and pixelated asf. This doesn't just apply to videos, but images too. That was my entire point basically.

When you switch it to 360p, the image gets even blurrier. But in the first panel, the image isn’t blurry; it’s more detailed. It’s as detailed as it would be in 720p or 1080p.

This is pretty much irrelevant with my point.

It’s relevant. You just didn’t understand my argument.

This is also irrelevant to how you agreed with my point lmao.

Lmao. It’s not my fault that you didn’t understand the argument in which I proved I disagree with your opinion.

You basically said "Yes using larger references in pixel scaling makes more sense than using smaller ones" while not accounting for the fact that angsizing works the same way pixel scaling does.

You're ignoring my arguments. I already explained that major references aren’t always valid.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore. Since the bullet’s diameter is explicitly defined, it makes more sense to use it. The fact that it’s a small reference doesn’t matter, because if we take a larger reference, the bullet’s diameter changes and the result becomes inconsistent. That’s why using the bullet’s diameter as a reference is more logical.

Yes. It doesn't. But it's also irrelevant and that's why I came clean and stated that I was wrong there.

Sure.

A 4.9 cm difference is about a 25 percent difference in comparison to the average face height.

The average face length of a young adult is 0.208 m. Therefore, the difference is not 25% but 23.6%.

And yes, it is quite small.

Yeah I have no reason to really argue over this as there are other factors that indicate that the pixel scaled face height is wrong as I said above.

Ok.

 

[Viott]

It’s not some “minimum distance”, dude. Being off by just 1–2 cm literally throws the result off by like double.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Dinozxd]

i also do agree with the arguments that Dinozxd provides. i do belive this calc can get a FAR higher result. withing the high hyper range if everythings actually acounted for.

Unironically, Lookism scaling to HHS would be the last thing that would come outta my mouth. Idk where u got that from my replies.

I explained why you were wrong.

Yeah this is exactly what happens when I discuss shi with u. It always turns into a "No u" back and forth rather than being an actual discussion/debate.

What are you talking about? The angle is perfectly fine.

I was talking about the angsized panel. The first panel is obviously fine.

Using a large reference does not always mean it will be consistent. Let me repeat: when we use a large reference, the bullet diameter of 7.62 changes. Therefore, you cannot always rely on the face length just because the reference is large. Understand this.

Let me repeat too then: I'm not arguing to use a larger reference just because it's a larger reference.

Like I said before, the point isn't his eye being "closer" to the screen, it's the inconsistency between angsizing to his face and eye. I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference. I'm relying on it because the smaller reference you're using is inconsistent with it, which forces us to use either one of them. I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed.

This is my reasoning.

That’s not how it works. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. We need to use another area. And when I use the eye length, it comes out more consistent. So there’s no reason not to use it.

****** hell. How many times have you told me this already? I'm just gonna quote my past reply cuz I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again:

His eye and face has to be the same distance away (either 20 or 26 centimeters) from the screen but they're not. Like I said before, the point isn't his eye being "closer" to the screen, it's the inconsistency between angsizing to his face and eye. I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference. I'm relying on it because the smaller reference you're using is inconsistent with it, which forces us to use either one of them. I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed.

So i'm not just picking the larger reference for no reason. I have a clear cut reason, as you can see.

What are you talking about? I used a small reference in my calculation.

How can one be so clueless about what they reply to and still reply to shit anyway.

I'm talking about the full body pixel scale for ****'s sake.

When you switch it to 360p, the image gets even blurrier. But in the first panel, the image isn’t blurry; it’s more detailed. It’s as detailed as it would be in 720p or 1080p.

Holy shit. I'm gonna crash out.

I'm not talking about the full image, I'm talking about pixel scaling small references. Small references have less pixels, that's why they're less reliable compared to larger ones.

It’s relevant. You just didn’t understand my argument.

Lmao. It’s not my fault that you didn’t understand the argument in which I proved I disagree with your opinion.

Assuming I geniunely didn't, why are you not making efforts to try explaining your point further rather than tryna mock my intelligence with petty comments like this? Do you think reading these stuff makes me go "Ahhhh, I get his arguments that I supposedly didn't understand before".

It doesn't and that's why I can never have a constructive debate with you.

You're ignoring my arguments. I already explained that major references aren’t always valid.

And I explained you explaining my explaining of your explaining back. Wow. Ts is going nowhere it seems lik.

The average face length of a young adult is 0.208 m. Therefore, the difference is not 25% but 23.6%.

And yes, it is quite small.

We agreed on one thing then. 50 other points to go.

 

[Dinozxd]

Can someone summarise dino's and viott's debate.

Just read it lil bro. Shit's not even half as long as an average TR thread back in the day.

 

[Crimsonobu]

"Unironically, Lookism scaling to HHS would be the last thing that would come outta my mouth." Idk where u got that from my replies.
im not quoting you. im saying this feat can get to hhs as of my own opinion. read a bit more attentively.

 

[Dinozxd]

im not quoting you. im saying this feat can get to hhs as of my own opinion. read a bit more attentively.

Quoting you:

i also do agree with the arguments that Dinozxd provides. i do belive this calc can get a FAR higher result. withing the high hyper range if everythings actually acounted for.

This suggests that my arguments support this calc scaling to HHS, while I've been debating aganist this feat being higher than Supersonic, for like, 1 and a half pages?

I also already stated clearly that I don't agree with your "interpration" (if it can be even called that) of the feat here:

That bolded statement has no proof that all of that happened in the same timeframe. Something being done in an "instant" isn't a timeframe, it just means that MK went so fast that the other guy couldn't keep up with his movements.

As a reference, to prove that all of that was done in the same timeframe, MK should've let the bullet go and slash everyone in the timeframe it takes for the bullet to hit the dude in the face. This is basically invalidated by the scene itself as the bullet gets sliced by MK.

It pixel scales half of the line as that's the distance MK has to travel to slice the bullet. After the bullet gets sliced, it loses it's velocity, so taking the full slice into the account would make the feat much slower.

We have no idea about the actual movement of MK's katana other than his on screen movement so we can't really use the "katana length x movement in radians" method to calc it's movement. His on screen movement seems to be 5 cm so only that can be used.

 

[Viott]

Yeah this is exactly what happens when I discuss shi with u. It always turns into a "No u" back and forth rather than being an actual discussion/debate.

And don’t forget that I keep responding to your awful arguments that you keep repeating.

I was talking about the angsized panel. The first panel is obviously fine.

Oh really? Let’s take a look at the comment you made then:

but this is also irrelevant to the panel we're using as the reason the bullet's diameter changes is because of the angle, not the reference being incosnsitent.

Now let’s take a look at the comment I made.

When a large reference is used, the result does not always come out 100% consistent. For example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the diameter of the bullet, which is 7.62, changes. Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

I was talking about the first panel. I’m saying that when a large reference is used, the bullet’s diameter changes. You can’t determine the bullet’s diameter in the panel where it’s cut by using face height as a reference. And you’re saying the panel is irrelevant because the reason the bullet’s diameter changes is the angle. What? Bro, what are you even talking about?

Let me repeat too then: I'm not arguing to use a larger reference just because it's a larger reference.

I already explained this.

That’s not how it works. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. We need to use another area. And when I use the eye length, it comes out more consistent. So there’s no reason not to use it.

I'm explaining again. If the distance comes out inconsistent when we use face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. So what should we do then? We need to use another area. Why are you choosing face height? Is it because it's more detailed? Why? Is it because it's a large reference? You say, "I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference." But at the same time, you say, "I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed." So, you don't trust it because it's a large reference, but at the same time, you do trust a large reference. What? Bro, you're contradicting yourself.

****** hell. How many times have you told me this already? I'm just gonna quote my past reply cuz I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again:

You don’t have a good argument. Your only point is "I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed." And I already explained that a bigger reference isn’t always reliable.

When a large reference is used, the result does not always come out 100% consistent. For example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the diameter of the bullet, which is 7.62, changes. Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference. Your only argument for saying the eye length gives inconsistent results is “small reference.” But no. As I said, since the eye is closer to the screen, it can be used. For the reasons I explained, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

How can one be so clueless about what they reply to and still reply to shit anyway.

I'm talking about the full body pixel scale for ****'s sake.

I’m not saying a bigger reference can’t be used; I’m saying it’s not 100% reliable.

Holy shit. I'm gonna crash out.

Stop talking like you’re right. You keep repeating your terrible arguments.

I'm not talking about the full image, I'm talking about pixel scaling small references. Small references have less pixels, that's why they're less reliable compared to larger ones.

Why is it less reliable? Is it because it’s a small reference? Do you think a large reference is always 100% reliable? When I use the large reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So it’s not always reliable. Bro, stop trying to trick me.

Assuming I geniunely didn't, why are you not making efforts to try explaining your point further rather than tryna mock my intelligence with petty comments like this? Do you think reading these stuff makes me go "Ahhhh, I get his arguments that I supposedly didn't understand before".

It doesn't and that's why I can never have a constructive debate with you.

Bro, you keep repeating the arguments I’ve already debunked and still want me to explain more? Really?

And I explained you explaining my explaining of your explaining back. Wow. Ts is going nowhere it seems lik.

You’re just repeating the same things because your argument has run out.

We agreed on one thing then. 50 other points to go.

What? You still didn’t get what I meant. I’m saying that the percentage is small, so the difference between them isn’t that big.

 

[Crimsonobu]

"i also do agree with the arguments that Dinozxd provides. i do belive this calc can get a FAR higher result. withing the high hyper range if everything's actually accounted for. "
you see there's a clear separation between the 2 sentences.

"This suggests that my arguments support this calc scaling to HHS, while I've been debating aganist this feat being higher than Supersonic, for like, 1 and a half pages?"

hey buddy stop putting words in my mouth if you cant understand whats being written . i clearly separated mine and your opinions.
i stated that i agree with your discrepancies on the calc. but i think the calc gets far higher then the original result that you are debating against

I have no issue with the statement being valid, although

"His on screen movement seems to be 5 cm so only that can be used."

why the hell can only onscreen movement be used. when you literally can get a proper estimate of how much distance manager kim actually had to travel to even get within range. we clearly see he isn't in the surrounding area with a zoom out shot. and we know when his movement Beguins. there's nothing farfetched in using that as the necessary distance he had to travel.

if has shown to not be present in a lets say 1.5 meter radius. and we literally see on screen when his movement starts. its not illogical to say he had to travel the distance he wasn't present in to get to the bullet. unless you think he moved in-between the time that it took the bullet to get close to the character, which is invalid due to us seeing when his movement actually starts (being after the bullet reaches the distance that the calc is measuring)

Looking at the panels. you can see manager kim is approaching the character from the front (the same direction the bullet is traveling)

even if you want to argue that manager kim cutting the army and the bullet arent all within one timeframe, you have to consider the fact that manager kim cut the person shooting the bullet, the army AND THEN the bullet (as he stands right Infront of the character after doing so)

so we see the area he wasn't present in. from the front (which would start at o even behind the location of the shooter due to him being far enough away to cut the army members)

by all accounts using 5 cms of distance traveled is ignoring the fact that manager kim wasnt present anywhere near the area. untill after his movement that happened during the calculated timeframe

to emphesize my point ill make a imgur post providing all the images. present here

 

[Viott]

by all accounts using 5 cms of distance traveled is ignoring the fact that manager kim wasnt present anywhere near the area. untill after his movement that happened during the calculated timeframe

There’s no proof of exactly where it moved. It could have jumped at a closer distance and cut the bullet. We can’t know.

 

[Crimsonobu]

There’s no proof of exactly where it moved. It could have jumped at a closer distance and cut the bullet. We can’t know.

there's 5 plus panels showing that he isn't in the surrounding premisises. we have a panel that shows when he starts moving. specifically should be more usable due to him coming from the front of the character. hed first need to slice the person who was shooting at the redhead .

1. bullet reaches the area which the calculation is about.
2. manager kim starts moving
3. we see he cuts the bullet, but its implied he slices the army before that especially from the character in context
4. he standing infront of the character meaning the bullet slice was his last action after his movement.

my point is that he wasnt close enough to just jump in. as we SEE his movement only starts after the bullet reaches near the guys face
after which he HAS TO slice the army members. otherwise hed be , slicing the bullet, then the enemies, then stepping infornt of the character which literally makes no sense chronologically or just logically. everything points to him having to travel a far greater amount of distance out of frame.

@Vzearr you kind of sound familiar. have we debated on discord before?

 

[Viott]

there's 5 plus panels showing that he isn't in the surrounding premisises. we have a panel that shows when he starts moving. specifically should be more usable due to him coming from the front of the character. hed first need to slice the person who was shooting at the redhead .

1. bullet reaches the area which the calculation is about.
2. manager kim starts moving
3. we see he cuts the bullet, but its implied he slices the army before that especially from the character in context
4. he standing infront of the character meaning the bullet slice was his last action after his movement.

my point is that he wasnt close enough to just jump in. as we SEE his movement only starts after the bullet reaches near the guys face
after which he HAS TO slice the army members. otherwise hed be , slicing the bullet, then the enemies, then stepping infornt of the character which literally makes no sense chronologically or just logically. everything points to him having to travel a far greater amount of distance out of frame.

In image 6, it doesn’t mean that Manager Kim moved, but rather that he jumped. In this webtoon, such effects are drawn when characters jump. So, after the bullet started moving, how far did Manager Kim start moving? And how far did he jump? It’s unknown."

 

[Dinozxd]

And don’t forget that I keep responding to your awful arguments that you keep repeating.

I can say the same thing for u then.

Oh really? Let’s take a look at the comment you made then:

Now let’s take a look at the comment I made.

I was talking about the first panel. I’m saying that when a large reference is used, the bullet’s diameter changes. You can’t determine the bullet’s diameter in the panel where it’s cut by using face height as a reference. And you’re saying the panel is irrelevant because the reason the bullet’s diameter changes is the angle. What? Bro, what are you even talking about?

Alright this is just confusing me atp.

Spoiler

Alright, so at the start, I said this:

This doesn't really explain why his face is 6 cm away from his eyes. Using face height invalidates the calc, while using the eye invalidates the angsizing to the face which makes the angsizing in the panel inconsistent overall, which invalidates the calc as well.

This was strictly about the angsized panel (this one), as even before this reply, we were discussing about the validity of the angsizing you made after I corrected your references.

Then, you answered me with this:

When a large reference is used, the result does not always come out 100% consistent. For example, when we use the character’s face as a reference, the diameter of the bullet, which is 7.62, changes. Therefore, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference. Your only argument for saying the eye length gives inconsistent results is “small reference.” But no. As I said, since the eye is closer to the screen, it can be used. For the reasons I explained, you can’t rely on face length just because it’s a large reference.

The bolded part of this reply refers to the first scan, where you come into the conclusion that the pixel scaling larger references can lead to wrong results, which is something I never disagreed with anyway. I replied to this with this:

I already explained why that happened but this is also irrelevant to the panel we're using as the reason the bullet's diameter changes is because of the angle, not the reference being incosnsitent.

The word in red refers to you bringing up the first scan, while the discussion we were having had a completely diferent topic. The blue part refers to the angsized panel, as that was the point at hand.

The yellow part also refers to the angsized panel, not the first panel. It's actually pretty obvious which one I meant too, as the reason why I think that the bullet's diameter changes in the first panel was it being a small pixel scale getting referenced by a large one, while the reason why the bullet's diameter would have changed in the angsized panel if the face height (larger reference) would've been used is the fact that the bullet was closer to the POV than the dude's face was, which is an angle (POV) issue.

Btw don't try to reply to these by repeating the arguments that I already heard loud and clear, numerous times. This is just explaining how you could've gotten confused with what I was talkin about.

I already explained this.

And I already explained your explaining by explaining you back.

His eye and face has to be the same distance away (either 20 or 26 centimeters) from the screen but they're not. Like I said before, the point isn't his eye being "closer" to the screen, it's the inconsistency between angsizing to his face and eye. I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference. I'm relying on it because the smaller reference you're using is inconsistent with it, which forces us to use either one of them. I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed.

So i'm not just picking the larger reference for no reason. I have a clear cut reason, as you can see.

How many times do I have to spam this quote for my argument to actually be understood, I wonder.

If the distance comes out inconsistent when we use face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently.

It just means that your method is inconsistent with how the feat is portrayed, as there's nothing suggesting that the face height was drawn inconsistently other than the fact that angsizing to his eye gives a different result, which anatomically makes no sense. So the results we get from two body parts that pretty much have to be at the same distance away from the POV are 20 and 26. This means that only one of them can be used.

Your argument for using the 20 cm result is the fact that it's consistent with your calculation, while your calculation is also your premise (which is being questioned by multiple people, including me). You're using your premise (your calculation being right and consistent) as your support for using the 20 cm angsized distance, pretty much saying "Angsizing to the eye is correct because it's consistent with my calculation and my calculation is consistent because I'm angsizing to the eye". This is regarded as Begging the Question fallacy, which is also a form of Circular Reasoning.

You say, "I'm not relying on his face height just because it's a large reference." But at the same time, you say, "I'm simply picking the bigger reference outta them because bigger references are generally more reliable as they're more detailed." So, you don't trust it because it's a large reference, but at the same time, you do trust a large reference. What? Bro, you're contradicting yourself.

I never contradicted myself. You're claiming that I'm relying on angsizing to the face height just because it's a large reference, when I think I made very clear numerous times to not be the case.

I geniunely think you're not reading my replies. Idk how I can even get my arguments over this stonewall atp.

I’m not saying a bigger reference can’t be used; I’m saying it’s not 100% reliable.

Then why do you see your full body scale as fully reliable when it massively contradicts human proportions, when you deem using the face height as unreliable because it "contradicts" a smaller reference.

Stop talking like you’re right.

I'm not talking like I'm right mate. Where do i even say that I'm right.

Is it because it’s a small reference? Do you think a large reference is always 100% reliable?

No and no. I already explained this above.

Bro, you keep repeating the arguments I’ve already debunked and still want me to explain more? Really?

You’re just repeating the same things because your argument has run out.

These aren't really attacks to my arguments but rather to me, so I'm not really forced to reply to these.

What? You still didn’t get what I meant. I’m saying that the percentage is small, so the difference between them isn’t that big.

How did you conclude that a 23 percent difference was small? That's literally the face height of a person with dwarfism syndrome.

Spoiler: Replying to Crimsonobu as well cuz I like debating aganist 2 people at once so much

hey buddy stop putting words in my mouth if you cant understand whats being written

Hey hey buddy. I never put no words into your mouth, partner.

i clearly separated mine and your opinions.
i stated that i agree with your discrepancies on the calc. but i think the calc gets far higher then the original result that you are debating against

Well then you should've seperated them by using words like "Although", "Though", ".... but" etc. to make it obvious that we weren't arguing for the same thing.

why the hell can only onscreen movement be used. when you literally can get a proper estimate of how much distance manager kim actually had to travel to even get within range. we clearly see he isn't in the surrounding area with a zoom out shot. and we know when his movement Beguins. there's nothing farfetched in using that as the necessary distance he had to travel.

Checking the full scene out, he's only not visible in the second scan (the top panel of the second scan), when the bullet that has been shot is several meters away. MK could've closed the distance while the bullet was approaching, and sliced it when it was in the position of the panel below (the below panel in the second scan).

to emphesize my point ill make a imgur post providing all the images. present here

I'm gonna break it down scan by scan then:

1st and 2nd scans are irrelevant as I already broke them down right above.

3rd scan is too vauge in terms of where exactly he started moving from. It could've been 100 meters away or right near the dude.

4th and 5th scan gets contradicted with the character stating how everything happened, and the panel arrangement itself showing the order of how everything happened.

 

[Crimsonobu]

In image 6, it doesn’t mean that Manager Kim moved, but rather that he jumped. In this webtoon, such effects are drawn when characters jump. So, after the bullet started moving, how far did Manager Kim start moving? And how far did he jump? It’s unknown."

not necesarily used for jumping, even in lookism questism or manager kim its used to represent a dash. how far hed have to travel is the distance that he wasnt previously present in. for which there are 5+ images to get a guage

 

[Crimsonobu]

I can say the same thing for u then.



Alright this is just confusing me atp.

Spoiler

Alright, so at the start, I said this:

This was strictly about the angsized panel (this one), as even before this reply, we were discussing about the validity of the angsizing you made after I corrected your references.

Then, you answered me with this:

The bolded part of this reply refers to the first scan, where you come into the conclusion that the pixel scaling larger references can lead to wrong results, which is something I never disagreed with anyway. I replied to this with this:

The word in red refers to you bringing up the first scan, while the discussion we were having had a completely diferent topic. The blue part refers to the angsized panel, as that was the point at hand.

The yellow part also refers to the angsized panel, not the first panel. It's actually pretty obvious which one I meant too, as the reason why I think that the bullet's diameter changes in the first panel was it being a small pixel scale getting referenced by a large one, while the reason why the bullet's diameter would have changed in the angsized panel if the face height (larger reference) would've been used is the fact that the bullet was closer to the POV than the dude's face was, which is an angle (POV) issue.

Btw don't try to reply to these by repeating the arguments that I already heard loud and clear, numerous times. This is just explaining how you could've gotten confused with what I was talkin about.

And I already explained your explaining by explaining you back.

How many times do I have to spam this quote for my argument to actually be understood, I wonder.

It just means that your method is inconsistent with how the feat is portrayed, as there's nothing suggesting that the face height was drawn inconsistently other than the fact that angsizing to his eye gives a different result, which anatomically makes no sense. So the results we get from two body parts that pretty much have to be at the same distance away from the POV are 20 and 26. This means that only one of them can be used.

Your argument for using the 20 cm result is the fact that it's consistent with your calculation, while your calculation is also your premise (which is being questioned by multiple people, including me). You're using your premise (your calculation being right and consistent) as your support for using the 20 cm angsized distance, pretty much saying "Angsizing to the eye is correct because it's consistent with my calculation and my calculation is consistent because I'm angsizing to the eye". This is regarded as Begging the Question fallacy, which is also a form of Circular Reasoning.

I never contradicted myself. You're claiming that I'm relying on angsizing to the face height just because it's a large reference, when I think I made very clear numerous times to not be the case.

I geniunely think you're not reading my replies. Idk how I can even get my arguments over this stonewall atp.

Then why do you see your full body scale as fully reliable when it massively contradicts human proportions, when you deem using the face height as unreliable because it "contradicts" a smaller reference.

I'm not talking like I'm right mate. Where do i even say that I'm right.

No and no. I already explained this above.


These aren't really attacks to my arguments but rather to me, so I'm not really forced to reply to these.

How did you conclude that a 23 percent difference was small? That's literally the face height of a person with dwarfism syndrome.

Spoiler: Replying to Crimsonobu as well cuz I like debating aganist 2 people at once so much

Hey hey buddy. I never put no words into your mouth, partner.

Well then you should've seperated them by using words like "Although", "Though", ".... but" etc. to make it obvious that we weren't arguing for the same thing.

Checking the full scene out, he's only not visible in the second scan (the top panel of the second scan), when the bullet that has been shot is several meters away. MK could've closed the distance while the bullet was approaching, and sliced it when it was in the position of the panel below (the below panel in the second scan).

I'm gonna break it down scan by scan then:

1st and 2nd scans are irrelevant as I already broke them down right above.

3rd scan is too vauge in terms of where exactly he started moving from. It could've been 100 meters away or right near the dude.

4th and 5th scan gets contradicted with the character stating how everything happened, and the panel arrangement itself showing the order of how everything happened.

the scans arent in chronological order as its ment to represenet the characters perspective of manager kim creating an aftervision of everything happening.
the character directly stated that everything happend in an instant. it makes 0 chronological order for manager kim to take the bullet down, then the enemies, then step back into the same position hed be in to take down the bullet.

"Hey hey buddy. I never put no words into your mouth, partner."
my bad matey
"MK could've closed the distance while the bullet was approaching, and sliced it when it was in the position of the panel below (the below panel in the second scan)."

the entire point here is that we see manager kim move (dashing panel) literally only after the bullet gets into position, theres 0 indication of him moving or getting closer before that panel.

"he's only not visible in the second scan" dude genuinely what are you talking about hes not present in any of the scans up untill he slices the bullet.

the panel arrangement argument gets contradicted by the characters description . and the path of aproach manager kim would have to take to slice the bullet from the position hes standing in (direcly infront of the character who got shot at) meaning his path of aproach is from directly infront of the character, for which theres a multiple meter area where he wasnt seen or present anywhere untill his movement. an area that would be filled with enemies, which we see him slice up and outright cripple . chronologically it would be as follows .
1. dude gets shot at.
2. bullet aproaches.
3. manager kim comes from the front, cripples the enemies
4. manager kim slices the bullet and stands infront of the character.
5. it appears as an afterimage to the character becouse manager kim did it at such as speed that he wasnt capable of perciving the cut enemies untill after he took the time to pause post bullet slice (applies for the enemies aswell becouse they literally looked like they didnt realise they got cut . "in that instance i thought the bullet had been sliced, rather it was an afterimage of what had happened in an instant"


just clearly portrays that the order we see things isnt the order of events, scince its presented as its from the characters perspective

also : "3rd scan is too vauge in terms of where exactly he started moving from. It could've been 100 meters away or right near the dude."
not really vauge, its simple, he isnt in the area he doesnt appear in, thus thats the distance he was at before hes outright shown to do a dash.

at smallest he wasnt in the surrounding distance in the 2nd scan, at largest he was far enough away to need to cut down the army to reach the character. for which you can make 2 different type of calcs. movement post bullet reaching near the red heads face. or manager kim moving said distance before the bullet reached the red head from the moment of fire

 

[Vzearr]

Just read it lil bro. Shit's not even half as long as an average TR thread back in the day.

Where do I start bruh.

 

[Vzearr]

@Vzearr you kind of sound familiar. have we debated on discord before?

My name is vapour5095 on disc.

 

[Crimsonobu]

My name is vapour5095 on disc.

yeah i do belive we debated. if i recall right in a group chat with another fellow named slayz?

 

[Viott]

I can say the same thing for u then.

My arguments aren’t as terrible as yours.

This was strictly about the angsized panel (this one), as even before this reply, we were discussing about the validity of the angsizing you made after I corrected your references.

Then, you answered me with this:

The bolded part of this reply refers to the first scan, where you come into the conclusion that the pixel scaling larger references can lead to wrong results, which is something I never disagreed with anyway. I replied to this with this:

The word in red refers to you bringing up the first scan, while the discussion we were having had a completely diferent topic. The blue part refers to the angsized panel, as that was the point at hand.


The yellow part also refers to the angsized panel, not the first panel.

I’m not going to respond to these because they’re not even arguments.

It's actually pretty obvious which one I meant too, as the reason why I think that the bullet's diameter changes in the first panel was it being a small pixel scale getting referenced by a large one,

The reason the bullet’s base angle changes is because the large reference is inconsistent. It’s that simple.

while the reason why the bullet's diameter would have changed in the angsized panel if the face height (larger reference) would've been used is the fact that the bullet was closer to the POV than the dude's face was, which is an angle (POV) issue.

Why would the bullet’s base diameter change in the other panel?

And I already explained your explaining by explaining you back.

Let me explain again. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing the face height? Because it’s a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So it’s not always reliable. So stop acting like a larger reference is 100% reliable. Then what should we do? We should use something else. And when we use the eye, the result is more consistent. You’re choosing the face height just because it’s a larger reference, but the result is inconsistent. So you can’t choose that. The fact that the eye is smaller doesn’t matter — it’s more consistent than the face height. There’s no reason not to use the eye. Understand that.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore.

How many times do I have to spam this quote for my argument to actually be understood, I wonder.

How many times do I have to respond to your terrible arguments in the same way?

It just means that your method is inconsistent with how the feat is portrayed, as there's nothing suggesting that the face height was drawn inconsistently other than the fact that angsizing to his eye gives a different result, which anatomically makes no sense. So the results we get from two body parts that pretty much have to be at the same distance away from the POV are 20 and 26. This means that only one of them can be used.

You're wrong. That's not how it works. If the distance comes out larger than the initial distance, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing face height? Because it's a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So stop assuming that a larger reference is 100% reliable. When I use eye length, the result is more consistent. Why shouldn’t I use eye length? Because it’s a smaller reference? When I use the larger reference, the result still comes out inconsistent, so why should I trust it? The eye length gives a more consistent result, so why shouldn’t I trust it? You’re only choosing face height because it’s a larger reference, but I’ve already explained why a larger reference isn’t always reliable.

The only thing you’re saying is “this is a small reference.” That’s not even a good argument. You’re talking as if using face height as a reference would make the distance consistent. But no. The bullet’s diameter changes, and then it wouldn’t be a 7.62 bullet anymore.

Your argument for using the 20 cm result is the fact that it's consistent with your calculation, while your calculation is also your premise (which is being questioned by multiple people, including me).

Their arguments were different from yours, and I debunked theirs.

You're using your premise (your calculation being right and consistent) as your support for using the 20 cm angsized distance, pretty much saying "Angsizing to the eye is correct because it's consistent with my calculation and my calculation is consistent because I'm angsizing to the eye".

And your only argument is saying, “I choose face height because it’s a larger reference.” When I use eye length, the result is more consistent. Why shouldn’t I use eye length? Because it’s a smaller reference? When I use the larger reference, the result comes out inconsistent, so why should I trust it? The eye length gives a more consistent result, so why shouldn’t I trust it? You’re only choosing face height because it’s a larger reference, but I’ve already explained why a larger reference isn’t always reliable.

This is regarded as Begging the Question fallacy, which is also a form of Circular Reasoning.

Even though I’ve debunked your arguments multiple times, you’re repeating the same thing again. Are you the one saying this again?

I never contradicted myself. You're claiming that I'm relying on angsizing to the face height just because it's a large reference, when I think I made very clear numerous times to not be the case.

You’re literally contradicting yourself.

I geniunely think you're not reading my replies. Idk how I can even get my arguments over this stonewall atp.

How can you say this after I’ve debunked your arguments multiple times?

Then why do you see your full body scale as fully reliable when it massively contradicts human proportions, when you deem using the face height as unreliable because it "contradicts" a smaller reference.

If the distance comes out greater than the starting distance, it means the face height has been drawn inconsistently. That’s why it’s unreliable. But there’s no reason not to use the full body length as a reference to find the face height.

I'm not talking like I'm right mate. Where do i even say that I'm right.

By making such ridiculous comments, you’re literally speaking as if you’re right.

No and no. I already explained this above.

I had already debunked it.

These aren't really attacks to my arguments but rather to me, so I'm not really forced to reply to these.

?????

How did you conclude that a 23 percent difference was small? That's literally the face height of a person with dwarfism syndrome.

Read

Instead of finding the character’s actual face height, you’re only relying on the human proportions calculator. That’s just an average value. The character’s face height could be smaller, and by using the panel we actually found that it is.

 

[Viott]

not necesarily used for jumping, even in lookism questism or manager kim its used to represent a dash. how far hed have to travel is the distance that he wasnt previously present in. for which there are 5+ images to get a guage

No, this is an effect used for jumping.

 

[Vzearr]

My arguments aren’t as terrible as yours.




I’m not going to respond to these because they’re not even arguments.


The reason the bullet’s base angle changes is because the large reference is inconsistent. It’s that simple.


Why would the bullet’s base diameter change in the other panel?


Let me explain again. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing the face height? Because it’s a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So it’s not always reliable. So stop acting like a larger reference is 100% reliable. Then what should we do? We should use something else. And when we use the eye, the result is more consistent. You’re choosing the face height just because it’s a larger reference, but the result is inconsistent. So you can’t choose that. The fact that the eye is smaller doesn’t matter — it’s more consistent than the face height. There’s no reason not to use the eye. Understand that.



How many times do I have to respond to your terrible arguments in the same way?


You're wrong. That's not how it works. If the distance comes out larger than the initial distance, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing face height? Because it's a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So stop assuming that a larger reference is 100% reliable. When I use eye length, the result is more consistent. Why shouldn’t I use eye length? Because it’s a smaller reference? When I use the larger reference, the result still comes out inconsistent, so why should I trust it? The eye length gives a more consistent result, so why shouldn’t I trust it? You’re only choosing face height because it’s a larger reference, but I’ve already explained why a larger reference isn’t always reliable.



Their arguments were different from yours, and I debunked theirs.


And your only argument is saying, “I choose face height because it’s a larger reference.” When I use eye length, the result is more consistent. Why shouldn’t I use eye length? Because it’s a smaller reference? When I use the larger reference, the result comes out inconsistent, so why should I trust it? The eye length gives a more consistent result, so why shouldn’t I trust it? You’re only choosing face height because it’s a larger reference, but I’ve already explained why a larger reference isn’t always reliable.


Even though I’ve debunked your arguments multiple times, you’re repeating the same thing again. Are you the one saying this again?


You’re literally contradicting yourself.


How can you say this after I’ve debunked your arguments multiple times?

If the distance comes out greater than the starting distance, it means the face height has been drawn inconsistently. That’s why it’s unreliable. But there’s no reason not to use the full body length as a reference to find the face height.

By making such ridiculous comments, you’re literally speaking as if you’re right.

I had already debunked it.

?????


Read

Ignore me again king.

 

[Viott]

Also, since I recalculated it, this debate should be paused for now until an end is accepted.

 

[Crimsonobu]

Also, since I recalculated it, this debate should be paused for now until an end is accepted.

i do greatly enjoy every end of the argument being accounted for. mostly just upto the mods now

 

[Dinozxd]

my bad matey

No problem, crewmate.

the entire point here is that we see manager kim move (dashing panel) literally only after the bullet gets into position, theres 0 indication of him moving or getting closer before that panel.

There's also 0 indication that the dashing panel was the panel MK started his whole movement. The last scan where we don't see MK in the panel is a panel where the bullet is still several meters away from the guy. After that, we see a flashback and then the bullet gets into the position (10 cm away from the guy). MK could've traveled some distance between that timeframe and the dashing panel might've been MK's "final" dash before slicing the bullet.

dude genuinely what are you talking about hes not present in any of the scans up untill he slices the bullet.

Him not being present doesn't mean he can't move off screen.

5. it appears as an afterimage to the character becouse manager kim did it at such as speed that he wasnt capable of perciving the cut enemies untill after he took the time to pause post bullet slice (applies for the enemies aswell becouse they literally looked like they didnt realise they got cut . "in that instance i thought the bullet had been sliced, rather it was an afterimage of what had happened in an instant"

This makes no sense physics wise. You don't see afterimages before the action takes place, you see them after, which means that MK slicing the bullet happened before he sliced all the guys up. This makes the panel arrrangement more consistent with the supposed afterimage MK created.

Spoiler: Replying to Viot (not proud of this one)

My arguments aren’t as terrible as yours.

So you agree that they're still terrible

I’m not going to respond to these because they’re not even arguments.

Huh? Why say this as an insult after I already cleared up the fact that they're not new arguments, rather explaining the situation?

What kinda gaslighting is this bruh.

The reason the bullet’s base angle changes is because the large reference is inconsistent. It’s that simple.

I specifically asked you to not respond to those as arguments as they are literally not arguments, rather just my reasoning for coming to those conclusions.

Slower than a turtle.

Why would the bullet’s base diameter change in the other panel?

The reason is right there my dude. Copy and paste that shit to google translate, gpt or whatever you're using as a translator to type your replies out. Not that hard.

Let me explain again. If the distance turns out inconsistent when we use the face height, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing the face height? Because it’s a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So it’s not always reliable. So stop acting like a larger reference is 100% reliable. Then what should we do? We should use something else. And when we use the eye, the result is more consistent. You’re choosing the face height just because it’s a larger reference, but the result is inconsistent. So you can’t choose that. The fact that the eye is smaller doesn’t matter — it’s more consistent than the face height. There’s no reason not to use the eye. Understand that.

And this guys calling me out for repeating arguments

How many times do I have to respond to your terrible arguments in the same way?

You're wrong. That's not how it works. If the distance comes out larger than the initial distance, it means the face height was drawn inconsistently. Why are you choosing face height? Because it's a larger reference? When I use a larger reference, the bullet’s base diameter changes. So stop assuming that a larger reference is 100% reliable. When I use eye length, the result is more consistent. Why shouldn’t I use eye length? Because it’s a smaller reference? When I use the larger reference, the result still comes out inconsistent, so why should I trust it? The eye length gives a more consistent result, so why shouldn’t I trust it? You’re only choosing face height because it’s a larger reference, but I’ve already explained why a larger reference isn’t always reliable.

Strongest stonewaller of today vs Strongest stonewaller in history

Their arguments were different from yours, and I debunked theirs.

Having the ego to say this out loud when a dude you "debunked" said this to your face is CRAZY

I'll just wait for calc group to evaluate it since you don't understand my debunks, which is okay.

I wouldn't take this shi lightly if I were you ngl. Go back and stonewall him for a week like you did to me

And your only argument is saying, “I choose face height because it’s a larger reference.”

Quote me once saying the bolded part. I geniunely wanna see where I said some shi like this that caused allat stonewalling from u.

Even though I’ve debunked your arguments multiple times, you’re repeating the same thing again. Are you the one saying this again?

How bad would your logical comprehension and reasoning skills have to be to reply to that with this shit, check it out and send it to a public platform?

Digital footprint is a thing gng

You’re literally contradicting yourself.

Holy argument.

If the distance comes out greater than the starting distance, it means the face height has been drawn inconsistently. That’s why it’s unreliable. But there’s no reason not to use the full body length as a reference to find the face height.

I already explained this like, 10 times.

Just wanted to respond to this so I don't look ignorant.

By making such ridiculous comments, you’re literally speaking as if you’re right.

What ridiculous comments bruh. Tf did I say.

It looks like no one will be right in this "debate", if it even can be called that, till one of us literally pass away typing on their keyboard.

For reference, I've seen discord debates more conclusive than this.

Read

Eh. Why not.

Instead of finding the character’s actual face height, you’re only relying on the human proportions calculator. That’s just an average value. The character’s face height could be smaller, and by using the panel we actually found that it is.

There's no indication that this guy's a dwarf, nor having a small ass face. I already concluded that the reason why the angsized face height contradicts the angsizing to eye is either his eye being drawn inconsistent, or his face height (cm wise) being wrong. The latter matches my interperation.

Where do I start bruh.

Everything started here.

 

[Crimsonobu]

No problem, crewmate.

There's also 0 indication that the dashing panel was the panel MK started his whole movement. The last scan where we don't see MK in the panel is a panel where the bullet is still several meters away from the guy. After that, we see a flashback and then the bullet gets into the position (10 cm away from the guy). MK could've traveled some distance between that timeframe and the dashing panel might've been MK's "final" dash before slicing the bullet.

Him not being present doesn't mean he can't move off screen.

This makes no sense physics wise. You don't see afterimages before the action takes place, you see them after, which means that MK slicing the bullet happened before he sliced all the guys up. This makes the panel arrrangement more consistent with the supposed afterimage MK created.

Spoiler: Replying to Viot (not proud of this one)

So you agree that they're still terrible

Huh? Why say this as an insult after I already cleared up the fact that they're not new arguments, rather explaining the situation?

What kinda gaslighting is this bruh.

I specifically asked you to not respond to those as arguments as they are literally not arguments, rather just my reasoning for coming to those conclusions.

Slower than a turtle.

The reason is right there my dude. Copy and paste that shit to google translate, gpt or whatever you're using as a translator to type your replies out. Not that hard.

And this guys calling me out for repeating arguments


Strongest stonewaller of today vs Strongest stonewaller in history

Having the ego to say this out loud when a dude you "debunked" said this to your face is CRAZY

I wouldn't take this shi lightly if I were you ngl. Go back and stonewall him for a week like you did to me

Quote me once saying the bolded part. I geniunely wanna see where I said some shi like this that caused allat stonewalling from u.

How bad would your logical comprehension and reasoning skills have to be to reply to that with this shit, check it out and send it to a public platform?

Digital footprint is a thing gng

Holy argument.

I already explained this like, 10 times.

Just wanted to respond to this so I don't look ignorant.

What ridiculous comments bruh. Tf did I say.

It looks like no one will be right in this "debate", if it even can be called that, till one of us literally pass away typing on their keyboard.

For reference, I've seen discord debates more conclusive than this.

Eh. Why not.

There's no indication that this guy's a dwarf, nor having a small ass face. I already concluded that the reason why the angsized face height contradicts the angsizing to eye is either his eye being drawn inconsistent, or his face height (cm wise) being wrong. The latter matches my interperation.

Everything started here.

Ok so we still have disagreements on the general timeframe thingamabob. but its been going on for 2+ days. the calc got retouched so im calling it quits till a calc member says something on it.

this discussion genuinely feels like a Sisyphean task . some progress gets made, but theres another minor disagreement that goes into another huge argument.

cant we all just get along? relax and take some research chemicals. better use of time then what WE are doing here.

 

[Dinozxd]

Ok so we still have disagreements on the general timeframe thingamabob. but its been going on for 2+ days.

I didn't really understand this part. Aren't we (as in me and you specifically) agreed with the timeframe but disagreed on the distance MK traveled.

the calc got retouched so im calling it quits till a calc member says something on it.

The retouching is weird too.

He pixel scaled the diameter of the bullet 222 pxs originally but he suddenly changed his mind and made it 187 px in the recalc which makes the distance MK moved higher. Even though I see where he's coming from with that change (though I don't agree to it as the diameter precisely ends in 222 pixels, not 187) , he made no effort on explaining it, which makes it seem like a sneaky change rather than a fix tbh.

Edit: This doesn't just effect the distance MK moved, but almost the whole calc too btw.

this discussion genuinely feels like a Sisyphean task . some progress gets made, but theres another minor disagreement that goes into another huge argument.

You aren't entirely wrong, though the "disagreement" we had was basically "is this calc even valid or not" so It's not really a minor disagreement.

This verse has seen bigger arguments than this.

cant we all just get along? relax and take some research chemicals. better use of time then what WE are doing here.

Holy true. I haven't been able to fully focus on my academics because of this thread, so I'd rather have a pause till the new recalc gets an evaluation.

 

[Viott]

Spoiler: Replying to Viot (not proud of this one)

So you agree that they're still terrible

Huh? Why say this as an insult after I already cleared up the fact that they're not new arguments, rather explaining the situation?

What kinda gaslighting is this bruh.

I specifically asked you to not respond to those as arguments as they are literally not arguments, rather just my reasoning for coming to those conclusions.

Slower than a turtle.

The reason is right there my dude. Copy and paste that shit to google translate, gpt or whatever you're using as a translator to type your replies out. Not that hard.

And this guys calling me out for repeating arguments


Strongest stonewaller of today vs Strongest stonewaller in history

Having the ego to say this out loud when a dude you "debunked" said this to your face is CRAZY

I wouldn't take this shi lightly if I were you ngl. Go back and stonewall him for a week like you did to me

Quote me once saying the bolded part. I geniunely wanna see where I said some shi like this that caused allat stonewalling from u.

How bad would your logical comprehension and reasoning skills have to be to reply to that with this shit, check it out and send it to a public platform?

Digital footprint is a thing gng

Holy argument.

I already explained this like, 10 times.

Just wanted to respond to this so I don't look ignorant.

What ridiculous comments bruh. Tf did I say.

It looks like no one will be right in this "debate", if it even can be called that, till one of us literally pass away typing on their keyboard.

For reference, I've seen discord debates more conclusive than this.

Eh. Why not.

There's no indication that this guy's a dwarf, nor having a small ass face. I already concluded that the reason why the angsized face height contradicts the angsizing to eye is either his eye being drawn inconsistent, or his face height (cm wise) being wrong. The latter matches my interperation.

None of these are even arguments. Responding to them wouldn’t change anything. Sorry, you couldn’t convince

 

[Viott]

He pixel scaled the diameter of the bullet 222 pxs originally but he suddenly changed his mind and made it 187 px in the recalc which makes the distance MK moved higher. Even though I see where he's coming from with that change (though I don't agree to it as the diameter precisely ends in 222 pixels, not 187) , he made no effort on explaining it, which makes it seem like a sneaky change rather than a fix tbh.

???? I unnecessarily extended the diameter. I later realized that the bullet’s base diameter should be the same as the black circle.

 

[Crimsonobu]

I didn't really understand this part. Aren't we (as in me and you specifically) agreed with the timeframe but disagreed on the distance MK traveled.

The retouching is weird too.

He pixel scaled the diameter of the bullet 222 pxs originally but he suddenly changed his mind and made it 187 px in the recalc which makes the distance MK moved higher. Even though I see where he's coming from with that change (though I don't agree to it as the diameter precisely ends in 222 pixels, not 187) , he made no effort on explaining it, which makes it seem like a sneaky change rather than a fix tbh.

Edit: This doesn't just effect the distance MK moved, but almost the whole calc too btw.

You aren't entirely wrong, though the "disagreement" we had was basically "is this calc even valid or not" so It's not really a minor disagreement.

This verse has seen bigger arguments than this.

Holy true. I haven't been able to fully focus on my academics because of this thread, so I'd rather have a pause till the new recalc gets an evaluation.

ment to say distance traveled, my fault on that one. not commening on the quality of the retouch, unless a cgm member finds it worthwhile to "accept" after which its worth disecting, i think the change to the calc is made with the readers of this thread in mind. which yeah is kind of weird, should have an argument/explination of why each end is the way it is

"You aren't entirely wrong, though the "disagreement" we had was basically "is this calc even valid or not" so It's not really a minor disagreement."

true aswell. trust me im aware of just how ridiculously bad tokyo revengers , lookism and other low tier verses are interms of calc consistency and accuracy

WE all remember sub rel lookism

"Holy true. I haven't been able to fully focus on my academics because of this thread, so I'd rather have a pause till the new recalc gets an evaluation."

same ngl. highkey have an exam that's worth 30% of my grade in 9 hours and im here instead.

i highly doubt that it will get a fast re evaluation. ryunizeni had his calc "accepted" then he changed it to be more accurate, and hasnt gotten a response scince busan arc which was months ago, unless i missed it.

 

[Dinozxd]

None of these are even arguments. Responding to them wouldn’t change anything. Sorry, you couldn’t convince

That's right. I already typed up all my arguments before lol.

I also didn't see that u wanted to pause the CRT so that's why I replied. I wouldn't have replied if I saw that.

???? I unnecessarily extended the diameter. I later realized that the bullet’s base diameter should be the same as the black circle.

Then you should have also typed this out on the blog as an explanation on why you changed it.

i think the change to the calc is made with the readers of this thread in mind. which yeah is kind of weird, should have an argument/explination of why each end is the way it is

There already are explanations in the blog so I don't think that'd me that much of a problem.

true aswell. trust me im aware of just how ridiculously bad tokyo revengers , lookism and other low tier verses are interms of calc consistency and accuracy

Eh. I'm not that familiar with all the bad calcs for Lookism (only ones I remember are 8-C Hudson and HHS Kid Johan calcs) but I don't think TR's as bad as Lookism in that department lol. Sure there were bad calcs for it (9-A Taiju and 9-A Sanzu calcs are the only ones that come to my mind) but there weren't as bad as the bad Lookism calcs.

You also gotta consider the fact that bad TR calcs aren't even used atm, while some bad Lookism calcs (especially speed calcs) are still being used.

WE all remember sub rel lookism

Don't remember that one. Was that the James Lee dodges Eli calc?

same ngl. highkey have an exam that's worth 30% of my grade in 9 hours and im here instead.

Damn. Hope ya pass it.