Laxus Dreyar's Current Power

[SchutzenDunkelZiel1217]

There is no longer such a thing as Low 6-C. And we still need something to link to Laxus' profile so until a proper calc for this is made on a blog post and after it's been thoroughly examined to be accurate we can't make any changes to Laxus' profile...

 

[DontTalk]

I like to wait a bit with aplying calculations, because I want everyone to have the chance to give their opinion.

I will do the block post tomorrow and if then no one complains we can change it.

 

[Quincy_King]

seems reasonable

 

[Nibbler3100]

Thanks for all your help guys!

 

[Antvasima]

I am also fine with this.

 

[Rib78]

I don't know much about retinal size, but the equation used here seems to be physically impossible.

If retinal size can be determined by scaling off of something which has a known size (which is how you got your 14.643etc. figure) and the following equation is correct:

Retinal Size= Size of Object/ Distance of object

That would make the actual size of the object dependant on the location of the object it was scaled from, and I don't mean dependant for quantifying; I mean actually physically dependant.

For example:

There is a red ball and a green ball; the red ball has a 1m diameter and is smaller and closer to us than the green ball: seen here:


The green ball's retinal size is obviously 1 metre; we don't know the other two factors in the equation, nor do we need too.
Retinal Size= Size of Object/ Distance of object


Now, the red ball moves closer to us, and so appears larger but is still d=1m, following the method that was used here, this would mean the retinal size of the green ball has gotten smaller.
Retinal Size= Size of Object/ Distance of object

And of course, looking at the equations tells us that therefore, either the green ball has literally shrunk, or it has gotten further away, by virtue of the red ball moving. This is obviously untrue.

 

[DontTalk]

I think the problem isn´t the formula itself, but how I used it.

The problem is that I used a relative measuring stick (in your example the red ball).

In order to use it properly I would have to figure out the true relation between pixel and meters.

If I had an object at one meter away I could say that Rentinal Size = Size of object.

Which means X px = Y meters.

Using that I could measure the real rentinal size in meters, which I can than use to determine the size of an object, if I have distance in meters.

I could also calculate out the size of the measuring stick with this fomular if I would know distance from point of view (in meters), size of measuring stick (in meters) and rentinal size of measuring stick (In pixel).

So if we don´t assume that the ship (our measuring stick) is one meter away the calc seems to be wrong.

Any alternative methods?


(If we are at the subject of discussing methods I always wondered why the angsize formula has panel height in it. After all I can draw the panel as large as I want?)

 

[Rib78]

The reason the angsizing formula has panel height in it is because it basically assumes the panel has a 70 degree field of view (which is a pretty safe assumption 90% of the time) and finds the angular size of the object by (in part) finding how much of that field of view the object takes up.

The panel height is used to determine the total size of the field of view, as such, there are actually certain protocols for special occasions for example you use, I think, 130 degrees for a close up, and you'd use panel width if that obviously better resembles 70 degrees.

 

[DontTalk]

hmm... ok. Good to know were it comes from. So in this case should I use panel width = 70┬░ to angsize the explosion and then redo the other calculations with this result?

 

[Rib78]

I think panel height would be better in this case; to me the panel looks more like it was horizontally squashed than it was vertically stretched. Maybe it'd be best to use width for a high end and height for a low end, although if you're keeping both the cap and the cylinder 4 final numbers might be a bit much.

I'm not sure.

 

[DontTalk]

Ok I made a blog post with the calc (using panel height) here.

Sadly not impressive anymore using this method.

 

[Alpha149]

Could be Laxus Upgrade to Mountain Level because the feat was very casual?

 

[Nibbler3100]

Could be Laxus Upgrade to Mountain Level because the feat was very casual?

Most likely where his Full power lies