Change Angsizing Usage (THIS AFFECTS MORE THAN 1000 CALCULATIONS!!!!!)

Movies and Series​

Problem with Vertical FOV Usage
The main problem with using a vertical FOV of 70° in distance calculations is that it generates a distorted image in the results, as most movies and series do not use such a wide vertical FOV. Instead, the film and television industry commonly uses a standard horizontal FOV of 70° or close to this value.



The use of a vertical FOV creates inconsistencies because a vertical FOV of 70° implies a horizontal FOV of over 100° in a 16:9 aspect ratio, which would lead to visible distortions in the image, but this does not occur in film productions. Therefore, using the vertical FOV does not accurately reflect what we see on screen.

Cameras in movies typically use horizontal FOV values ranging from 60° to 75°, which provides a more realistic representation of the scene. By assuming a vertical FOV of 70°, the viewing angle is exaggerated, and therefore the measured distances are less than the actual ones, which affects the accuracy of distance calculations in action scenes.

For example, in the film industry, it is common to use 35 mm and 28 mm lenses, which offer a diagonal field of view of 63° and 75°, respectively.





Examples of Incorrect Calculations
Case N°1

X-Men Franchise: Wade Wilson Slices Bullets

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this panel, we can observe the scene with Ryan Reynolds, whose distance from the camera has been calculated as follows:

Ryan Reynolds head distance calculation: 0.2966222 * 818 / [200 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)] = 0.86m | 86cm

Subsequently, the camera zooms in, suggesting that the actual distance decreases. However, we observe Ryan wielding his arm with a katana right in front of the camera. The approximate length of Ryan's arm is 82 cm, while a katana measures between 60 and 75 cm, giving us a total length of approximately 142 cm. This discrepancy from the calculated distance of 86 cm indicates that the use of a 70° vertical FOV may not be the most appropriate for this analysis.

Case N°2

One Piece Netflix feat compilation 2

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this One Piece (Netflix) panel, we can observe the scene with Arlong, whose distance from the camera has been calculated as follows:

Calculation of distance to Arlong's head: 0.309033333m * 617/[126.78*2tan(70deg/2)] = 1.07m

In the panel, we can notice that between the camera and Arlong is Luffy, who has his arms outstretched, which should measure more than a meter. Arlong, also with his arms outstretched, is approximately 80 cm long. Despite this, he is still a considerable distance from the camera, which is supposed to be only 1 meter away. This discrepancy is hard to believe given the visual context, suggesting that the actual distance between Arlong and the camera is considerably greater.

Case N°3

Homelander outspeeds an explosion

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this panel, the distance to the Homelander head is calculated as follows:

0.22118644068 * 545/[197 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)] = 0.43m | 43cm
The calculated distance is highly questionable. Anyone observing the scene can conclude that Homelander is not only 43 cm (less than two feet) from the camera. This remarkable discrepancy suggests that the use of a 70° vertical FOV is inappropriate for this analysis, indicating that the actual distance between him and the camera is considerably greater.

Also, let's look at this scene where Homelander's head is shown in a much larger proportion on screen, implying a smaller distance, and yet looking at the behind-the-scenes, it is apparent that the camera is at least a meter away from him.


Case N°4

Amazing Spider-Man: Spider-Man swings a manhole very fast

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this panel, the distance to Spider-Man's head is determined as follows:

0.2482 * 868 /[47 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)] = 3.27m
In this scene, we observe Spider-Man extending his arm with a webbing hooked to a manhole cover, which is positioned right in front of the camera. The length of the arm, combined with the webbing, exceeds 2 meters. However, despite this measurement, it appears that Spider-Man is a considerable distance from the panel, which has been calculated at 3.27 meters. In fact, in the shot below it is evident that Spider-Man is much farther away than that 3 meters.

Case N°5

MCU Tony unarmored feats

vsbattles.fandom.com

In the first panel calculation, the distance to Tony Stark is determined to be:

172.72 * 800/[115 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)] = 857.98 cm | 8.57m
However, in the later scene it can be clearly seen that the actual distance is considerably greater.

Case N°6

DCEU Black Adam: Black Adam catches a rocket

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this panel, the distance to Black Adam is:
1.9558 * 804 /[88 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)] = 12.7m.

However, in both earlier and later scenes, it is evident that the actual distance is significantly greater, even scaling to a distance close to the rock gives me 10m and you can see that the panel is still at a much greater distance.

Case N°7

Some DCEU laser blocking

vsbattles.fandom.com

In this panel, the distance to Superman is calculated to be:
1.8415m x 1080 : (570 x 2 x tan(70deg : 2)) = 2.49m
However, the shot below demonstrates that this distance is actually greater, suggesting that the initial measurement does not accurately reflect the visual reality presented.

I can take any calculation derived from a screen capture of a movie or series using the angsizing technique to illustrate that a 70° vertical FOV is not adequate. However, I have selected specific cases that allow a clearer and more direct demonstration of this point (also because it makes me lazy to look for more cases, most of the calculations I saw are from manga feats XD).

Games​

Problem with the Use of Vertical FOV
In video games, the FOV is typically horizontal and, in many cases, customizable. Many first-person and third-person games use a horizontal FOV ranging from 60° to 75°, which better fits the 16:9 aspect ratio of modern monitors and screens. Applying a vertical FOV of 70° in these games distorts the calculation of distances, resulting in an excessive horizontal FOV greater than 100°.

Examples
If a vertical FOV of 70° is used when analyzing screenshots from video games, the calculated distances between the camera and game objects would be significantly shorter than they actually are. This error can lead to misinterpretations in the analysis of feats, affecting crucial aspects like character speed or distances between key elements within the game. Consequently, applying an appropriate and representative FOV is essential for obtaining accurate results in measuring distances and actions in video games.

Proposed Solution
Use the standard horizontal FOV of 70° in video game calculations, provided the exact FOV of the game is unknown.
Investigate the exact FOV of the video game, as many games allow this value to be adjusted in settings. In cases where the game has a customized FOV, it would be advisable to use that specific value in calculations for more accurate results.

Comics and Manga​

Problem with the Use of Vertical FOV
The composition of panels in comics and manga exhibits significant diversity in aspect ratios, making it inappropriate to use a vertical FOV of 70° for calculating distances. This approach can result in excessively small distances or, in the worst case, exaggeratedly wide viewing angles in panels that are particularly long horizontally. Such distortion does not reflect the reality of the illustrated images and can lead to misinterpretations regarding the scale and proximity of elements within the scene.

Comics Panels with a 16:9 Aspect Ratio
In some cases, certain panels in comics and manga have an aspect ratio resembling cinematic captures (16:9). For these panels, it is more appropriate to utilize a horizontal FOV of 70°, similar to that applied in films or series. This allows distance calculations to be more consistent and better reflects the visual experience intended.

Proposed Solution
For more traditional or vertically oriented comic and manga panels, it is advisable to use a reduced vertical field of view (FOV), such as 40°. This makes sense given the static and detailed nature of these media, where compositions tend to focus on fixed and precise elements rather than the dynamic, moving action characteristic of cinematography. In comics, attention to detail is crucial, and a narrower FOV allows these elements to be appreciated more clearly and coherently in perception.

The use of a 40° FOV in comics and manga is justified by its ability to provide a more natural and faithful representation of human perception. In photography, a 50mm lens on full-frame cameras is recognized for creating images that are perceived as balanced, without distorting or exaggerating the proportions of the scene.

(Source: “how to” by Randall Munroe))

In the context of comics, this FOV allows characters and details to be represented with greater clarity, aligning with the need to highlight key elements in a static narrative focused on details without introducing distortion.

For example, for panels such as these:


In contrast, for panels with a 16:9 aspect ratio or those similar to cinematic captures, a horizontal FOV of 70° should be applied. This ensures that distance calculations maintain consistency and that the proportions of the represented elements align with what is expected in a high-quality visual experience.

Example:

I personally do not think that this project seems remotely realistic to apply at this point, especially as other issues, such as Damage3245's project to add infoboxes to all of our character profile pages, would be heavily prioritised in terms of being beneficial for our wiki.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr. Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer

What do you think?

Accuracy is of the utmost importance to our wiki, moreso than practically any other objective (aside from, perhaps, stability). I would therefore argue that if the OP is legitimate, it is vastly more important: we are nothing if we do not strive to achieve accuracy.

With that said, I am uncertain if the OP is legitimate. It is no secret that I picked up calcwork by just reading calculations. If that premise is fundamentally flawed, I would lack a good deal of knowledge necessary to recognize it. I will say that from my understanding, this sounds about right, but my evaluation is essentially worthless on this facet of the issue. I would defer to others to determine if the OP makes a valid case.

If it does, we should begin adjusting values immediately when we come across them. I don't think it needs to be a huge ordeal, even with as many calculations are affected- this small of a margin is unlikely to do tremendous changes to tiers, and they have sat as they are for a long time. We can clean as we go, as it were.

As I said in the last thread, I am in favor of keeping the current method for calcs where we can't actually determine the angle.
For calcs where we can determine it by use of a reference objects (or by some other precise means), that should be done. But that falls under calc improvements that don't require a giant immediate revision.

A variety of thoughts:

• I think this change is pretty important, due to its impact on the accuracy of our statistics. I think this is more comparable to adjusting tiers due to recalculating GBE, than it is to changing ways of calculating destruction values (in that there's a concrete, viable replacement that can be applied for all calculations).
• Some of these are pretty egregious, and should be spot-checked as unusable regardless. If a BtS camera angle shows a longer distance than you get from angsizing, or a character length between the measured object and the camera shows that the measurement is obviously unreliable, angsizing should not be used in that way.
• In situations where FoVs are known (such as some video games, and productions with known camera equipment), those should definitely be used instead.
• I'm not familiar enough with photography to evaluate the suggestions for improved default angle choice.

I will go out of my way to say that this topic is one that I've personally answered to with a 4:3 camera: https://vsbattles.com/threads/angsizing-formula-2-0.171235/post-6700369

I used 1 foot and 2 foot distances for the camera and got a rough vertical field of view ranging from 52 to 55° using our own angular sizing formula.

Now, @Agnaa brought up an interesting point, since cameras have this feature called zooming in, which... Well, come on. Basic Kodak cameras have a zoom feature that lets you zoom in up to 2x normal size. Who knows how capable of zooming in film crew cameras are? I purposely never used the zoom feature when doing my camera experiment because of this issue.

I do, personally, appreciate the photography and film sources used as a means of boosting reliability. However, the thing about video game cameras is that, while they don't exactly function like a legit camera in 2D games, in 3D games where you'd expect the camera to work more like a camera, the camera is based on the engine the game is made in. Let's put it this way... Mario is 155 cm tall from the top of his hat down according to both a limited-edition official life-sized statue from Amazon and Super Mario Odyssey:

Across each and every game and especially the Nintendo 64 games where the graphics are usually poo, you're going to see how different those 155 cm are going to look across Mario's various 3D titles. While cherry-picking is not a good thing to do, Mario's been in like hundreds of games, so it's pretty easy to start with him and work your way up from there.

Oh boy... Another potential massive revision for like a gazillion calculations... How fun...

Anyways, I learned calcing via learning other people's calculations, not sure how much help I'll be in this thread

Flashlight237 said:

Now, @Agnaa brought up an interesting point, since cameras have this feature called zooming in, which... Well, come on. Basic Kodak cameras have a zoom feature that lets you zoom in up to 2x normal size. Who knows how capable of zooming in film crew cameras are? I purposely never used the zoom feature when doing my camera experiment because of this issue.

Click to expand...

I didn't actually think of that, but I really should've.

I believe we may be able to think about that sort of thing as dynamically changing the FoV, but that might make only knowing the camera/lens used in a production insufficient, due to the risk of zoom being used.

I'm on the same boat as DT more or less.

Also, was another thread for this necessary?

Mr. Bambu said:

Accuracy is of the utmost importance to our wiki, moreso than practically any other objective (aside from, perhaps, stability). I would therefore argue that if the OP is legitimate, it is vastly more important: we are nothing if we do not strive to achieve accuracy.

With that said, I am uncertain if the OP is legitimate. It is no secret that I picked up calcwork by just reading calculations. If that premise is fundamentally flawed, I would lack a good deal of knowledge necessary to recognize it. I will say that from my understanding, this sounds about right, but my evaluation is essentially worthless on this facet of the issue. I would defer to others to determine if the OP makes a valid case.

If it does, we should begin adjusting values immediately when we come across them. I don't think it needs to be a huge ordeal, even with as many calculations are affected- this small of a margin is unlikely to do tremendous changes to tiers, and they have sat as they are for a long time. We can clean as we go, as it were.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. I too learned to do calculations in a similar way, and although I do not possess such deep technical knowledge, it is not necessary to know that much to notice the error of using a 70° angle for panel height in the angsizing calculation. I have already presented arguments and shown live-action movie calculations to back up my point.

DontTalkDT said:

As I said in the last thread, I am in favor of keeping the current method for calcs where we can't actually determine the angle.
For calcs where we can determine it by use of a reference objects (or by some other precise means), that should be done. But that falls under calc improvements that don't require a giant immediate revision.

Click to expand...

It is the same method, only the pixel length of the panels should be used instead of the panel height.

Dark-Carioca said:

I'm on the same boat as DT more or less.

Also, was another thread for this necessary?

Click to expand...

Being fair to the guy, the OP of this thread IS more comprehensive than the last.

Flashlight237 said:

I will go out of my way to say that this topic is one that I've personally answered to with a 4:3 camera: https://vsbattles.com/threads/angsizing-formula-2-0.171235/post-6700369
I used 1 foot and 2 foot distances for the camera and got a rough vertical field of view ranging from 52 to 55° using our own angular sizing formula.

Click to expand...

The issue you responded to was using 35° for the panel height. However, I have retracted that stance, as I have observed that the correct method is to use the panel length with 70°.https://vsbattles.com/threads/angsizing-formula-2-0.171235/post-6700369

Kulf_Boba said:

The issue you responded to was using 35° for the panel height. However, I have retracted that stance, as I have observed that the correct method is to use the panel length with 70°.https://vsbattles.com/threads/angsizing-formula-2-0.171235/post-6700369

Click to expand...

Either way, the point still stands as I still improvised with a camera in real time.

Dark-Carioca said:

I'm on the same boat as DT more or less.

Click to expand...

The decision to continue using 70° for the panel height? Which has proven to be incorrect.

Dark-Carioca said:

Also, was another thread for this necessary?

Click to expand...

It is a different proposal from the other OP. I mentioned this new proposal in the previous thread after the contribution you made, but it was not addressed.

Flashlight237 said:

Either way, the point still stands as I still improvised with a camera in real time.

Click to expand...

I don't think that disproves this thread. Your result found 55 degrees, while we currently use 70 degrees, about as far away from Kulf's suggestion as it is from the status quo.

Flashlight237 said:

Either way, the point still stands as I still improvised with a camera in real time.

Click to expand...

Could you summarize your point and explain how it affects what I have proposed?

1. Angsizing calculations should use the panel length (Not the panel height) in film and series scans, preferably 70°, as it falls within the range of the most common viewing angles in cinema.
2. In video games, the standard for the horizontal field of view (FOV) is around 70°, so this value should also be used for the panel length, unless an exact value is known.
3. For comic and manga panels, a more reduced angle should be used, preferably 40° for the panel height, while panels resembling those in cinema should use 70° for the panel length.

Kulf_Boba said:

Could you summarize your point and explain how it affects what I have proposed?

1. Angsizing calculations should use the panel length (Not the panel height) in film and series scans, preferably 70°, as it falls within the range of the most common viewing angles in cinema.
2. In video games, the standard for the horizontal field of view (FOV) is around 70°, so this value should also be used for the panel length, unless an exact value is known.
3. For comic and manga panels, a more reduced angle should be used, preferably 40° for the panel height, while panels resembling those in cinema should use 70° for the panel length.

Click to expand...

Agnaa said:

I don't think that disproves this thread. Your result found 55 degrees, while we currently use 70 degrees, about as far away from Kulf's suggestion as it is from the status quo.

Click to expand...

This is in response to both of yas since I feel the concern there is both equal, so I'll get this out of the way.

The entire thing, as I have already stated before, shows a 52-55° vertical FOV for a 4:3 camera based on different distances based on experimentation and working back our current angular sizing formula solving for field-of-view angle. Might I point out that our current angular sizing method uses VERTICAL field-of-view aka panel height? If anything, actually experimenting with cameras and distances would provide a better picture of angular sizing than a written assumption would.

Flashlight237 said:

The entire thing, as I have already stated before, shows a 52-55° vertical FOV for a 4:3 camera based on different distances based on experimentation and working back our current angular sizing formula solving for field-of-view angle.

Click to expand...

Each camera can have a different field of view depending on the lens used. Lenses commonly employed in cinema typically provide a field of view that ranges from 60° to 75°. It's important to note that the most commonly used standard format is 16:9.

Might I point out that our current angular sizing method uses VERTICAL field-of-view aka panel height? If anything, actually experimenting with cameras and distances would provide a better picture of angular sizing than a written assumption would.

Click to expand...

In the captures, three types of fields of view can be observed: horizontal, vertical, and diagonal.


The calculations obviously use the vertical FOV.

Flashlight237 said:

This is in response to both of yas since I feel the concern there is both equal, so I'll get this out of the way.

The entire thing, as I have already stated before, shows a 52-55° vertical FOV for a 4:3 camera based on different distances based on experimentation and working back our current angular sizing formula solving for field-of-view angle. Might I point out that our current angular sizing method uses VERTICAL field-of-view aka panel height? If anything, actually experimenting with cameras and distances would provide a better picture of angular sizing than a written assumption would.

Click to expand...

Experiments would lead to a written assumption. Experiments just let you gain data about common household cameras which may not have easily-available FoV information out there.

In other words, I don't see much difference between "Experiment to find common FoVs, then change our angsizing formula to those" and "Research to find common FOVs, then change our angsizing formula to those"; ideally both of them would be used in finding a standard for fiction.

Consulting ChatGPT this is the information I provide about the lenses used in cinema:

In cinema, the choice of lenses depends on the visual style being sought, but some ranges of focal lengths are more common due to their versatility and ability to convey specific emotions or environments. Below, I present the most commonly used lenses in cinema:

Wide-Angle Lenses (16 mm - 35 mm)

• Common Focal Lengths: 16 mm, 24 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm
• Uses: They are used to capture wide landscapes, establish settings, or create an immersive effect. They are also useful in small spaces. Wide-angle lenses slightly distort the edges, which can be used creatively.
• Visual Effect: They expand the field of view and offer a greater perspective, but they can distort proportions, making nearby objects appear larger.
• Examples of Use:
  • 35 mm is very popular in cinema, as it has a slight wide-angle characteristic without too much distortion. It is widely used for medium and establishing shots.
  • 24 mm or 28 mm are common for action scenes or situations where it is important to show a lot of visual information.

Normal Lenses (40 mm - 50 mm)

• Common Focal Lengths: 40 mm, 50 mm
• Uses: They are considered the closest to the perspective of the human eye. They are versatile and can be used in a variety of scenes: dialogues, wide shots, and medium shots.
• Visual Effect: They provide a realistic representation of the scene, without distorting elements or compressing distances too much.
• Examples of Use:
  • 50 mm is one of the most classic lenses in cinema. It has a field of view similar to that of the human eye, offering a natural framing that does not exaggerate or distort.

Summary of Popular Lenses in Cinema:​

• 35 mm (wide angle with little distortion, widely used for wide and medium shots).
• 50 mm (natural perspective, versatile).

Click to expand...

Here is a table with the fov depending on the lens:

ChatGPT isn't a reliable source by any means, mind.

Kulf_Boba said:

Thanks for your input. I too learned to do calculations in a similar way, and although I do not possess such deep technical knowledge, it is not necessary to know that much to notice the error of using a 70° angle for panel height in the angsizing calculation. I have already presented arguments and shown live-action movie calculations to back up my point.

Click to expand...

You're correct in that one can recognize an issue. I've rejected calculations before on the basis that they were visibly obviously not correct in terms of angsizing, leading to distances being blatantly wrong. Still, I would not feel comfortable backing a revision to them when I lack a deeper understanding of the methodology's thought process to begin with. I may attempt to dig into that later, currently I am at work.

I'm sorry, what... We're using ChatGPT as a source in our arguments for this now?

Dark-Carioca said:

I'm sorry, what... We're using ChatGPT as a source in our arguments for this now?

Click to expand...

I can provide the sources that ChatGPT uses. In any case, if you do simple searches on lenses used in cinema, you will find the same ones that ChatGPT mentions as common in the industry. This is not particularly exclusive information.

ChatGPT? Really? Okay, I would very much prefer to get back into the topic, but that is just... Wow.

Flashlight237 said:

ChatGPT? Really? Okay, I would very much prefer to get back into the topic, but that is just... Wow.

Click to expand...

Friend, so far you have not contributed anything interesting to the discussion.

The OP seems to be raising some good points to me. If all of these calcs are inaccurate then we're clearly doing something wrong.

Mr. Bambu said:

ChatGPT isn't a reliable source by any means, mind.

Click to expand...

The newest paid o1-preview version, with the ability to think for several minutes when necessary, has been tested as being rather reliable at least.

Damage3245 said:

The OP seems to be raising some good points to me. If all of these calcs are inaccurate then we're clearly doing something wrong.

Click to expand...

But only people with wiki administrator rights are even able to modify other people's blog posts. I doubt that we can realistically even modify all of the allegedly over 1000 calculations, much less all of the pages that scale from them.

Antvasima said:

But only people with wiki administrator rights are even able to modify other people's blog posts. I doubt that we can realistically even modify all of the allegedly over 1000 calculations, much less all of the pages that scale from them.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not necessarily in favor of a mass calc-corrections project. But I'm open to the idea that some of our calc standards may need to be updated over time.

Antvasima said:

But only people with wiki administrator rights are even able to modify other people's blog posts. I doubt that we can realistically even modify all of the allegedly over 1000 calculations, much less all of the pages that scale from them.

Click to expand...

Although it seems extremely difficult, I can offer a helping hand if needed (granted temporary admin rights).

When I enter "70deg" in the wiki search, I get 1600 results.:


The number of affected calculations should be this, probably less or equal.

Antvasima said:

The newest paid o1-preview version, with the ability to think for several minutes when necessary, has been tested as being rather reliable at least.

Click to expand...

Finding an actual source (which Chat GPT may have read) is always preferable.

If this is all deemed legitimate, I will try to lend my hand. All work will be meticulous, as it will need to be double checked for accuracy and may require occasional minor CRTs if it results in a tier change.

Antvasima said:

But only people with wiki administrator rights are even able to modify other people's blog posts. I doubt that we can realistically even modify all of the allegedly over 1000 calculations, much less all of the pages that scale from them.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the tough part.

We could get some more participants if some updates can be done through remaking the blogs, as this would, in some cases, be able to be done by all users, and at worst, need at least a content mod to unlock certain profiles.

Still, if we deem such a project unfeasible, we could put a moratorium on the use of old methods in new calcs, which is relatively easy since we'd just need the relevant gatekeepers (i.e. CGMs) to be notified.

Let's see what @DontTalkDT , @Ugarik , and @Executor_N0 think.

Also, if we are going to change our standards, we have to make absolutely certain that we find the most reliable replacements.

I actually remember the way in the past that alternative angles and formulas that took into account different panel structures did exist and were used, the current one on the calculation page was just the standard one with good enough results to be used in case someone didn't know how to do a more precise measurement of what was happening.

There are two main points here from the looks of it. One is giving more precise measurements; I don't think anyone is against that. It's always preferred that the measurements fit reality as much as possible, so if it's possible to give a direct way of measuring the distances and sizes that more accurately represent reality, that will likely be accepted. The only thing left to discuss is the rulings and methods, I do think that finding generic values when there's little information about the scene, but using very precise ones when it's known the way the scene was structured (Like using angle lenses that are known to be used in the recording of the scene).

The other point is the long revision that could happen, but I think it's not as much as a drastic change that would request every calculation to be redone right after the revision if accepted (If it's accepted). So if everyone agrees I'm also fine with the guide changing, but even if not accepted as is, I do think that at least something useful from the post could be used.

Thank you very much for your evaluation, Executor.

Kulf_Boba said:

Friend, so far you have not contributed anything interesting to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Because providing experimental data that is relevant to the topic at hand and touching on Agnaa's concerns with the workings on camera functionality is "not contributing anything to the discussion"? This is a site-wide revision where any relevant data both current and previous, including my own, should be considered in EQUAL weight if it needs to be done as smoothly as possible. By deliberately claiming someone who has contributed to the discussion didn't contribute to the discussion, you're actively ignoring what was presented, thus stagnating possible avenues where an important revision can go. If you're not going to be civil about it and accept my contributions equally to others' contributions, then I don't know what to do with you. We're all staff members trying to figure out where this should go and how to handle it, and I do not appreciate you leaving me out like that. I provided evidence that I personally had to collect in order to contribute; please do me a kind favor and take it with due diligence.

Antvasima said:

But only people with wiki administrator rights are even able to modify other people's blog posts. I doubt that we can realistically even modify all of the allegedly over 1000 calculations, much less all of the pages that scale from them.

Click to expand...

The main issue to me is if the revisions (IF staff agrees on them needing to be made, but so far things are looking conflicting) are botted like they seem to be more often than not as of late, that would mess with the calculations that used angular sizing, as blog posts typically don't feature scripts of any sort. The math concerning angular sizing will have to be redone manually. Problem is manual math is purely a voluntary thing, and some of the blogs may have been done by users who may have been banned and thus cannot volunteer to work with said changes (WeeklyBattles for example).

If that's the main issue, it could just be taken slowly. Encouraging people to remake old blogs, and not accepting new blogs with a bad basis.