The main argument for using a 60° field of view is that 'drawings are made in conjunction with vision, so comic panels should have a field of view equal to that of the human eye.' Is this the only argument, or is there something more?
For movie and TV show panels, the horizontal FOV should be used as the default.
I've provided all I can, Ant. The only thing else I really have is one of the comic panels one of the OP provided merely further supports the idea that drawings are based on the human eye rather than a camera.:We seem to need further help here.
Yeah. This much I agree with.
He's not really arguing that. Moreover, if you use a 60° FOV for the height of extremely wide horizontal panels, you would be implying that the horizontal FOV exceeds 100°, which should result in visible distortions.
I’ve already explained in the OP why using the horizontal FOV provides more accurate results in movies and TV shows.
That's what Dalesean said.
To achieve a more effective review, I suggest dividing the process into three reviews by category:@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
We seem to need further help here.
35 mm and 50 mm Lenses (Standard Lenses)
- 35 mm: This lens is considered slightly wide-angle, offering a broad field of view without distorting perspective too much. It is commonly used for indoor scenes or situations where a larger portion of the environment needs to be shown without making objects appear distorted.
- 50 mm: Considered the standard lens closest to what the human eye sees in terms of perspective. It does not produce distortion and is ideal for medium shots and general takes.
24 mm and 28 mm Lenses (Wide-Angle)
- 24 mm: Used for wide shots that capture more of the environment. Ideal for landscapes, action scenes, or small interiors where more space needs to be encompassed.
- 28 mm: This is a wide-angle lens that does not distort as much as more extreme lenses (like the 18 mm), making it suitable for shots where a broad view is needed without distortion.
Lens Focal Length Diagonal Vertical Horizontal 24mm 84.1° 53.1° 73.7° 28mm 75.4° 46.4° 65.5° 35mm 63.4° 37.8° 54.4° 50mm 46.8° 27.0° 39.6°
Value table source:
Angle of view (photography) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yes, but their message makes me understand that they don't know the reason why more precise values are obtained.
I read the thread I get it, I just said they are more accurate nothing more lol
How are you planning to get FOV for any panel with random height/length ratio?
Comics and manga aren't counted under the current stuff
If you count the votes, and there's at least 4 people in favour of that, with at least a 4:1 acceptance rate, I think it should be fine to apply.
Didn't we already accept both of these
It was agreed that the method is correct, but I did not see any direct opinions on using 60° as a default value based on the reasons I explained. The topic related to animated movies was not discussed either. I would like to do a recap to see who agrees and also propose the possibility of creating an individual CRT for calculations that use this type of panels. This would allow us to address the topics of video games, comics, and manga separately, preventing the debate and updates from becoming endless.
Pretty sure we've already explicitly accepted the 60deg FOV, i specifcally mentioned having already used it in calcs and saying that it has gotten more accurate results as far as film and TV goes (be it live action or animated)
The original proposal was to use 70° for the horizontal field of view, then I proposed it to be 60°:
Yes I'm aware, we've already spoken on the 60 degree value and affirmed itThe original proposal was to use 70° for the horizontal field of view, then I proposed it to be 60°:
and I have not seen opinions on the matter other than yours.My final proposal for movies, series, comics, and manga is as follows:
For movies and series, I suggest a horizontal field of view of 60°, as it falls within the values commonly used in cinematography. Alternatively, we could also consider a fixed value like 65.5° or 54.4°.
Agnaa responded to this saying it's should be fine to apply with a 4 staff vote in agreeance already
This thread is meant to discuss all proposals. My suggestion is to create three separate CRTs to update the relevant calculations as the changes are approved, according to the type of panel and the corresponding medium.
You should make the other stuff a new CRT yes, thats why I'm saying we should just go ahead and apply the already accepted stuff for now at least the horizontal FOV with 60 degrees is accepted so we should just get permission to apply that and the other stuff should be proposed the in the next crt
I assume those four members approved the use of the horizontal FOV with a value of 70°, but did not express their opinion on using 60°. I imagine they will also agree, but I want to make sure everything is done correctly and would prefer to get their direct input.
This thread is not considered a CRT; its purpose is to discuss proposals. Once a consensus is reached, accepted proposals should be moved to a specific CRT to analyze which calculations are affected and need to be updated.
It would be necessary to tag the staff to confirm if they agree with the latest proposal. This way, we could start a CRT and move forward with the other proposals. So far, no one has expressed opposition to the review related to movie and series panels.What has been accepted here so far, and which staff members have accepted or rejected it?
I'm perfectly fine with applying this to live action stuff as cinematographic devices and principles apply to something that has been filmed. As for animation, I don't think this would apply. Just like with comic panels, animation comes across the same issues I had before when it comes to applying this logic to drawings. Everything regarding drawings relies on artistic interpretation and stylization as opposed to anything involving cameras.
I'm perfectly fine with applying this to live action stuff as cinematographic devices and principles apply to something that has been filmed. As for animation, I don't think this would apply. Just like with comic panels, animation comes across the same issues I had before when it comes to applying this logic to drawings. Everything regarding drawings relies on artistic interpretation and stylization as opposed to anything involving cameras.
Let's look at Total Drama for example as that is a wild example of stylization (plus I've had people compare the art style to Butch Hartman stuff), having the humans be largely polygonal in appearance. The animation used Adobe Flash (now Adobe Animate) and Toon Boom, the latter which was designed for animators. The former doesn't have anything regarding FoV, and I'm saying this as someone who had to use that program in high school. I wouldn't know anything about Toon Boom, however. The show itself is heavily stylized and perspective goofs go as far back as the very second episode of the show:
In this case, there are two measuring sticks available: the cliff (which is officially stated to be 1000 feet tall) and Lindsay (who is officially measured at 5'9" from the top of her character model down in a TV special). Keep in mind that the tiny offset of the locations of both the bottom of the cliff and the bottom of Lindsay's feet along the Z-axis as depicted in the scene is apparently the animators' idea of being right next to something, as seen here:
As shown in the scene of Owen's splash using a 1366x768 px screenshot, Lindsay is roughly 25 pixels tall, yet the cliff is 611 pixels tall. Using the cliff's size, Lindsay would be considered this tall:
25/611*1000=40.91653028 feet tall
Whereas if I used Lindsay's height, I would get this height for the cliff:
611/25*5.75=140.53 feet tall
This would in effect throw any concept of using cinematographic FoVs for angular sizing right out the window as no camera can account for the discrepancy that the animators put out.
Also, if I were to find this... creature, photograph it, and then sell the photos online, I wouldn't be on this forum today because of all the money I'd make:
I'm not suggesting discarding angular sizing. I'm suggesting with how animation is again a purely artistic interpretation thing just like comics and especially with how animation uses tools that have nothing to do with cinematography, we just stick with what we already have for angular sizing for animations (and other things related to drawings) and just apply the changes proposed to live-action films.
With the arguments you present, you imply that no type of FOV would be suitable for animated productions, not just cinematic ones. If you claim that an FOV comparable to human central vision is appropriate for the vertical FOV in animation panels, you should explain why, since the only apparent justification is that "drawings" are created in conjunction with vision. However, this does not necessarily mean that the final images conform to our field of view.
