DCEU Superman Downgrade

[FuriousFieryFist]

Hello all, I recently watched Man of Steel in my free time and noticed something after checking out his profile on the wiki. I'm no professional with calculations but glancing at the 7-C calculation he currently scales to I noticed a pretty big discrepancy. The calculation is based on assuming the height of the mountain we see is equal to that of Highpointer peak, which is over 1500 meters tall; However, when watching the clip this feat occurs in Superman is clearly visible and is far larger than the less than 1/800th size ratio (1500m/1.85m) the calculation suggests. With that in mind I think the current calculation should be disregarded and a new one using Superman's visible size on screen in order to scale the mountain should used.

 

[Saqphire]

Using character heights to pixel scale large objects like mountains is almost never a good idea because the size disreperancy would be so large that it'd be inconsistent with how the mountain is portrayed which is a large-scale mountain that goes beyond the base altitude of cumulus clouds (which is between 1000 to 5000 feet) and has ice on-top of it due to the coldness of the atmosphere.

Yes we see Superman be visible alongside the mountain, however that would just be for us the viewers to see what was going on in the narrative, as otherwise if he was realistically portrayed with the mountain, he'd be just a super tiny non-visible blip. For that reason I disagree with the downgrade

 

[Dalesean027]

I disagree, we know for a fact that this scene takes place not far at all from Superman Kryptonian ship which is confirmed to be on Ellesmere Island, the smallest peak of any mountain range present there would be the Osborn Range's Mount Townsend which has an elevation of 1,235 m tall. Also consider the film medium they want to make the action visible for the shot you're not exactly gonna have the mountain just explode from an invisible force. The Mountains are visibly portrayed reaching into the clouds so there is no way this would work as a downgrade

 

[Planck69]

Dalesean makes sense to me.

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

Apologies for the late response.

Using character heights to pixel scale large objects like mountains is almost never a good idea because the size disreperancy would be so large that it'd be inconsistent with how the mountain is portrayed which is a large-scale mountain that goes beyond the base altitude of cumulus clouds (which is between 1000 to 5000 feet) and has ice on-top of it due to the coldness of the atmosphere.

Yes we see Superman be visible alongside the mountain, however that would just be for us the viewers to see what was going on in the narrative, as otherwise if he was realistically portrayed with the mountain, he'd be just a super tiny non-visible blip. For that reason I disagree with the downgrade

I disagree, we know for a fact that this scene takes place not far at all from Superman Kryptonian ship which is confirmed to be on Ellesmere Island, the smallest peak of any mountain range present there would be the Osborn Range's Mount Townsend which has an elevation of 1,235 m tall. Also consider the film medium they want to make the action visible for the shot you're not exactly gonna have the mountain just explode from an invisible force. The Mountains are visibly portrayed reaching into the clouds so there is no way this would work as a downgrade

I was not aware of the rule against using character heights in situations like this, so in this case visible size shouldn't be used. However, I still disagree that Highpointer peak is a good reference to judge the mountains size. It being in Ellesmere Island doesn't help your case as there are hundreds of unnamed peaks in that area with altitudes lower than the specific mountain range you chose from wikipedia, which only categorizes notable peaks and ranges. With that in mind we should instead use the agreed upon minimum mountain height used in most calculations which is 609 meters. This height is also still well above the minimum formation altitudes of the cumulous clouds we see in the scene.

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

bump

 

[Dalesean027]

Apologies for the late response.


I was not aware of the rule against using character heights in situations like this, so in this case visible size shouldn't be used. However, I still disagree that Highpointer peak is a good reference to judge the mountains size. It being in Ellesmere Island doesn't help your case as there are hundreds of unnamed peaks in that area with altitudes lower than the specific mountain range you chose from wikipedia, which only categorizes notable peaks and ranges. With that in mind we should instead use the agreed upon minimum mountain height used in most calculations which is 609 meters. This height is also still well above the minimum formation altitudes of the cumulous clouds we see in the scene.

The average elevation of the mountains on Ellesmere Island is around 1000m as sourced below with these exact quote:

"Ellesmere Island, at the most northerly tip of Canada, possesses the highest mountain peaks within 10 degrees of the pole. The highest is 2616 m, with many summits over 1000 m"

"Ranges in Canada’sEastern Arctic archipelago are of particular note, having many summits between 1000 m and 2000 m that project into the free atmosphere."

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Topographic-map-of-Ellesmere-Island-The-study-region-is-outlined-and-below-is-a_fig1_45928498

The first page of the abstract of this reseaxh article

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45928498_First_Assessment_of_Mountains_on_Northwestern_Ellesmere_Island_Nunavut_as_Potential_Astronomical_Observing_Sites#pf24

So I still don't think anything less than that should do

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

The average elevation of the mountains on Ellesmere Island is around 1000m as sourced below with these exact quote:

"Ellesmere Island, at the most northerly tip of Canada, possesses the highest mountain peaks within 10 degrees of the pole. The highest is 2616 m, with many summits over 1000 m"

"Ranges in Canada’sEastern Arctic archipelago are of particular note, having many summits between 1000 m and 2000 m that project into the free atmosphere."

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Topographic-map-of-Ellesmere-Island-The-study-region-is-outlined-and-below-is-a_fig1_45928498

The first page of the abstract of this reseaxh article

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45928498_First_Assessment_of_Mountains_on_Northwestern_Ellesmere_Island_Nunavut_as_Potential_Astronomical_Observing_Sites#pf24

So I still don't think anything less than that should do

None of that says the average mountain height is 1000+ meters, in fact it shows the opposite with the majority of the islands topography being below 1000+ meters. The source I provided lists all the peaks in that particular area of which there are, and once again I reiterate, hundreds of peaks are below 1000 meters as the entire area spans nearly 200,000 square miles. Estimating the average height of a mountain in this area based on wikipedia articles and statements of there being mountains that reach that height to me seems to be taking the extremes of one side of the bell curve and treating it as average. I still believe that the minimum set value that we use on this wiki is the best option as it requires no guesswork whatsoever.

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

Bump