Kirin AP Discussion

[Damage3245]

I just px scaled both of them and got 311 for the back one and 313 for the front one.

I'm not talking about the side and the side; but the front and the side. That's the only way to explain the size discrepency. We're not seeing the pillar from a perfectly on-the-side perspective, but seeing a bit of the front of it too.

Like this.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

That really looks like an issue of using unfocused small scale objects to attempt to scale objects that dwarf them (aka my midget Sasuke issue). The fact it’s so unclear and questionable with the version 1 pixel scaling makes me wonder why we don’t just use version 2 since it doesn’t suffer from that issue at all.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Having looked at both calcs, I’ll give my opinion on which I think is more accurate and why.

Personally, I believe the second version is best as it keeps the pixel scaling to a single panel, eliminating as much panel to panel art inconsistency as possible. Additionally, it makes use of the accepted Kirin cloud height that comes from an ang size based on the canon distance statement from Hinata.

On the other hand, the first calc has more margin for error as it pixel scales across multiple panels. But more importantly the image used to find the wall height uses a super tiny image of Sasuke, which I find particularly meh because that undetailed Sasuke is more likely to have proportion inconsistencies than a closer up counter part. This issue solely exists within the first calc and isn’t present at all in the second calc.

Otherwise the methods for finding AP are the exact same. So, since the second calc offers far less opportunities for errors from inconsistencies with pixel scaling than the first calc does, I believe the second calc is objectively superior.

I personally think that this makes sense.

@KLOL506 last ping I promise
Could we also get your thoughts on this, please?

 

[Deceived3596]

"Bump" -

 

[BlackeJan]

Nerds

 

[Deceived3596]

Nerds

 

[Jvando]

I mean, Arc’s already gone through a detailed explanation of my issues regarding the first calculation. It really all comes down to a very basic fact regarding assumptions: The less of them you have to make, the more accurate you likely are. Having to assume - a less number of times - that the author is consistent with his scaling in every scan is obviously going to result in a calculation that is more accurate than one where the implied assumption of consistency is applied in more scans.

 

[Deceived3596]

I find myself agreeing with Jvando's ass explanation of Arc's ass explanation regarding these calcs more compared to Damage's ass explanations tbh.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

 

[Damage3245]

@Deceived I haven't even explained it yet.

Haven't made me post yet because I'm still figuring out on wording my thoughts on a way that will hopefully make sense as I've ran into that being an issue many times in the past.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

@Deceived I haven't even explained it yet.

Haven't made me post yet because I'm still figuring out on wording my thoughts on a way that will hopefully make sense as I've ran into that being an issue many times in the past.

If I may, can I ask you to include a section justifying the use of pixel scaling a tiny out of focus Sasuke when you make your post? Personally I believe that is the biggest contention in deciding which calc is better.

 

[BlackeJan]

Why

 

[Damage3245]

I'll concede on using Version 2 for the calc. I don't think that my objections that I were ruminating on are as solid as I thought they were.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Thanks for taking the time to make and review the calcs

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

This thread can be closed.

 

[LordTracer]

Alright, closing. Add the calc to the verse page, US69 and I will take care of the scaling changes.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Yes, and thank you Damage for helping us with this!