My Hero Academia: Wolfram's Giant Cube Attack Again

[TheRustyOne]

So, something like this?

Not fully certain how I feel about using something like this. But I'll concede to whatever the calc group here agrees with. Guess I'm neutral about it?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Mehhhhhh... Do we really use averages for size debates like this? I feel like we just kinda settle on one

 

[Dalesean027]

So, something like this?

Not fully certain how I feel about using something like this. But I'll concede to whatever the calc group here agrees with. Guess I'm neutral about it?

Yeah this is exactly what I mean

 

[TheRustyOne]

Mehhhhhh... Do we really use averages for size debates like this? I feel like we just kinda settle on one

I'd rather stick with one of the ends in all honesty. Even if it does ends up being the lower end.

Not certain if we can just make up a size like this.

Note: I did make a sandbox for the lower size as well, just in case anyone was curious. Still prefer my end, obviously.

 

[CloverDragon03]

For the record, at the moment I'm still more in support of Rusty's originally proposed calc. I don't think this averaging stuff is necessary, and his arguments in favor of his calc have been pretty compelling so far

 

[Damage3245]

Mehhhhhh... Do we really use averages for size debates like this? I feel like we just kinda settle on one

Yeah, we do sometimes. Did you see Arc7Kuroi's post earlier in the thread? There was a similar case where we averaged two different sizes in Naruto for a feat.

If whichever size of the cube is most valid is interpretation-based then using both shots makes sense as a reasonable compromise. I can accept using this as a Mid End for the feat.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, we do sometimes. Did you see Arc7Kuroi's post earlier in the thread? There was a similar case where we averaged two different sizes in Naruto for a feat.

If whichever size of the cube is most valid is interpretation-based then using both shots makes sense as a reasonable compromise. I can accept using this as a Mid End for the feat.

Didn't participate in the Naruto thread, personally I'm not big on that if it can be helped

 

[Damage3245]

Didn't participate in the Naruto thread, personally I'm not big on that if it can be helped

Fair enough, just pointing out that it is a thing we can do.

 

[TheRustyOne]

If whichever size of the cube is most valid is interpretation-based then using both shots makes sense as a reasonable compromise. I can accept using this as a Mid End for the feat.

So, should I add the average size calculation to the OP?

Note: Do you even agree with using that? You said you accept it as a Mid End, not that you agree with using it. Just want to make sure.

Personally, I'm not okay with this, but I won't argue against it anymore than I've already.

 

[Damage3245]

So, should I add the average size calculation to the OP?

Note: Do you even agree with using that? You said you accept it as a Mid End, not that you agree with using it. Just want to make sure.

Personally, I'm not okay with this, but I won't argue against it anymore than I've already.

I agree with that method, yes. I think there's a small modification I'd make the calc itself in that sandbox but I'm heading out imminently and not in a position to argue it / re-calc it until tomorrow. I also need to respond to one of your earlier posts tomorrow too.

 

[Dalesean027]

So, should I add the average size calculation to the OP?

Note: Do you even agree with using that? You said you accept it as a Mid End, not that you agree with using it. Just want to make sure.

Personally, I'm not okay with this, but I won't argue against it anymore than I've already.

Yes either this or the op calc is fine by me

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

So which end are we sticking with now?

 

[Damage3245]

So which end are we sticking with now?

Most of the Calc Group Members are fine with the calc in the OP. Dalesean and I have stated we're fine with the new Mid End which averages the two shots of the cube - Rusty and Clover have said they aren't fine with this version as far as I can tell. This isn't final though as I've got some more arguments to post when I have time.


EDIT: I've had to spend a lot of the day working on styling experiments so likely won't be able to post until Saturday.

 

[Dalesean027]

bump

 

[Damage3245]

bump

As mentioned in my edit above, I'll have my suggestions for the calc and my next response up later today, just been busy yesterday. Thanks to everyone by the way for waiting while I get ready.

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, so the mild issue I have with the pixelscaling on these two images here:

Spoiler

Is that the pixelscaling is being done along the edge closest to the viewer.

The cube is being created from the looks of it directly above the tower; not prominently off to one side. It goes without saying that from the perspective of the viewer, the far edge will be further away from the fan and the close edge will be closer to the viewer than the fan. If you'll forgive my absolutely basic diagram here, from the viewpoint of the camera, the edge of the cube is going to be closer than the fan is:

Spoiler

Instead of pixelscaling along the exact edge of the cube, we should be trying to ensure that the line is as closest to the reference object as possible in both pixelscaling images. That's why when I did my rough example earlier I tried to get the line cloer to the fan (though actually not as close as I should have), rather than pixelscaling along an edge that is further away from the fan than across the middle.

This won't downgrade the size massively but it does have an impact that needs to be taken into account.

Next half of my post going up soon.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Bump?

Note: I did change the px scaling in the average sandbox for this shot. However, my previous reasonings I said above for my current calculation explains why I will not change the first one. The example above assumes the center of the cube is directly above the tower/fan, which is only true for the second scan.

We see in a previous shot this is not true, these two scans contradict each other. The cube is clearly very far in the background in comparison to the tower/fan as the metal objects he's putting into it would be going upward if it was directly above the tower. But they're going further away into the background.

So I will not be changing my new calculation, as I still believe it to be correct.

Since Damage mentioned another part to his post, I'm going to hold off on saying anymore than this.

 

[Damage3245]

We see in a previous shot this is not true, these two scans contradict each other. The cube is clearly very far in the background in comparison to the tower/fan as the metal objects he's putting into it would be going upward if it was directly above the tower. But they're going further away into the background.

Isn't the angle of the shot at the end here looking mostly upwards? It's initially from the perspective of Ochaoc & Jiro who are off to the side of the base of the tower. So their POV of the "camera" would be something like this.

Then it starts panning up the tower, angling upwards so the POV would be something like this.

Until finally the shot is focused on the cube above the tower, so the PVO would be looking mostly upwards like this.

Something that is further up above the tower (which is where I'm arguing the cube would be) would necessarily be further away into the background than the tower is. The higher up it goes, the further away it is from the perspective of the viewer, the more into the background it is. If the debris were going only straight "up" from the perspective of the camera in this scene, then they'd be moving away from the tower/cube as they'd be going the direction of this black arrow.

So the debris that is forming the cube receding into the background doesn't seem like it would go against my point. How far off from the tower are you arguing the cube is in that shot?

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

Whatever distance it is. It's a 2D scan so there is no 100% confirmation. We'd need a statement for that, so obviously I cannot say for certain.

By comparing the size of the smaller cubes next to the growing bigger cube, I'm getting a distance of 1419.49 m away from the tower/fan. And obviously the size comparison between the smaller cube and big cube is also inconsistent between the scans as well.

Beyond the fact it's clearly in the background.

Going by the latter shot. The cube's center should be straight above the tower/fan, which is clearly incorrect. The latter shot does have the cube's center being directly above the tower. However, the other shots are not like that. Maybe it's another interpretation, though I don't see how the cube is above the tower like that in that shot.

Though as I said above, I'd rather hear the other half of your post.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm running out of time tonight - can't respond fully - but I will note that when Wolfram starts forming the mega-cube, he does raise both of his arms straight up. The cube being formed directly above him seems to make a lot more logical sense to me than Wolfram making it 1.4 km off to the side of the tower, then for some reason repositions it so that it's directly overhead before he throws it.

The other half of my post was just going be analyzing the height some more with other shots - but if we can't even agree on where the cube is being formed, I'm not sure what good it will do.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I'm running out of time tonight - can't respond fully - but I will note that when Wolfram starts forming the mega-cube, he does raise both of his arms straight up. The cube being formed directly above him seems to make a lot more logical sense to me than Wolfram making it 1.4 km off to the side of the tower, then for some reason repositions it so that it's directly overhead before he throws it.

Don't really think his hand position matters, since sometimes he makes movements that either don't match what he's doing. Or he doesn't make any movements at all.

Your issue is assuming the latter shot is more correct for the size of the cube, which is were we respectfully disagree. I've stated my shot is far more accurate in getting the cube's dimension and we already know it doesn't line up with the latter shot. We cannot use anything in the latter shot to say anything about the shot I'm using.

Since they're inconsistent between each other.

 

[Damage3245]

Don't really think his hand position matters, since sometimes he makes movements that either don't match what he's doing. Or he doesn't make any movements at all.

Your issue is assuming the latter shot is more correct for the size of the cube, which is were we respectfully disagree. I've stated my shot is far more accurate in getting the cube's dimension and we already know it doesn't line up with the latter shot. We cannot use anything in the latter shot to say anything about the shot I'm using.

Since they're inconsistent between each other.

I'm not trying to disprove your earlier shot with the latter shots anymore; my position is that since the latter shot isn't invalid for scaling either that the best solution to take into account all of the evidence over just a single shot is to average the two shots together. Both shots have their pros and cons, but if it's down to personal preference then the fairest solution is to compromise between them.

My main point of contention now is whether using that edge of the cube in the first shot is the most accurate pixelscaling line that could be used for it.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

Which goes back to the same point of interpretation, which isn't going to go anywhere at all. Using the cube's center or edge only works on if the cube's center is directly above the tower or not. Which we disagree with to perform our scaling. The cube is "behind" the fan, meaning we can use it to measure the cube's size.

In the latter shot it's clear that it lines up with the cube's center. But my shot has no such clarity beyond interpretation.

Note: Is there anything else besides this point do you have to add about the calculation?

 

[Damage3245]

Which goes back to the same point of interpretation, which isn't going to go anywhere at all. Using the cube's center or edge only works on if the cube's center is directly above the tower or not. Which we disagree with to perform our scaling. The cube is "behind" the fan, meaning we can use it to measure the cube's size.

In the latter shot it's clear that it lines up with the cube's center. But my shot has no such clarity beyond interpretation.

Note: Is there anything else besides this point do you have to add about the calculation?

I'm trying to understand your interpretation here, really.

You're saying that the shot you use, this frame, has no clarity about whether the cube is directly above the tower or not. In other words the basis of the closest edge of the cube being the most suitable for scaling is what?

Because as I tried to illustrate here:

It's initially from the perspective of Ochaoc & Jiro who are off to the side of the base of the tower. So their POV of the "camera" would be something like this.

Then it starts panning up the tower, angling upwards so the POV would be something like this.

Until finally the shot is focused on the cube above the tower, so the PVO would be looking mostly upwards like this.

Something that is further up above the tower (which is where I'm arguing the cube would be) would necessarily be further away into the background than the tower is. The higher up it goes, the further away it is from the perspective of the viewer, the more into the background it is. If the debris were going only straight "up" from the perspective of the camera in this scene, then they'd be moving away from the tower/cube as they'd be going the direction of this black arrow.

The debris receding into the background doesn't mean it's not going up. If the cube was being formed directly above the tower, then the movement of the debris would still make sense. You didn't really respond to this point from my earlier post. The cube being as you put it:

Beyond the fact it's clearly in the background.

"Clearly in the background" means it is just further up in the sky than the top of the tower is.

Even here, where you say:

The cube is "behind" the fan, meaning we can use it to measure the cube's size.

If the perspective of the camera is angled upwards, then the cube being "behind the fan" just means it's further up above it, doesn't it?

If Wolfram finishes assembled the cube here... Why assume there was some offscreen movement where he scooted it along to the side by a kilometer just to get it lined up overhead? Doesn't that seems a bit unnecessary?

This might just be me failing to comprehend your point here so please forgive me if that's the case, but I'm trying to follow the movement of the cube exactly here under your interpretation and see how it lines up with what we see in the scene.

 

[TheRustyOne]

There's no point discussing this, you haven't changed my mind. Getting kind of confused by this back and forth actually.

I believe it's time to just count votes. As I said above, I'll concede to whatever is agreed upon without any fuss. Even if it's against my own calculation.

@Therefir @Dalesean027 @CloverDragon03 and @Damage3245

Can all of you restate your votes, have any of your opinions change?

TLDR; The biggest question here is which shot should be used? These are the two shots, which do you believe is more accurate to get the cube's size?

Higher End Calculation: CloverDragon03, Dalesean027, Therefir, (3)

Lower End Calculation: (0)

Average Between The Two Ends: Damage3245, Dalesean027, (2)

While my vote is irrelevant, I'd rather use the Higher or Lower End.

While I do have a bias for my initial calculation, I prefer the Lower End over using an "Average" size that does not exist at all.

If the majority agree with Damage's point on the px scaling above should use the cube's center, I will obviously comply regardless of what I've said and will edit the two calcs.

I honestly just want this to end. I wasn't expecting this to take so long.

 

[Damage3245]

As stated above, I prefer the average between the two ends.

 

[CloverDragon03]

My stance still leans towards the initially proposed calc, so the higher end

 

[Dalesean027]

My thoughts are the same as well either the average or inital works for me

 

[Therefir]

I still prefer the initial option, I feel that the other two options are nitpicking.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Considering three out of the four calc group members here are okay with using my initial calculation.

Would it be alright to assume this has been accepted?

Could one of the agreeing calc group members also leave an evaluation in the blog if this is the case?

 

[Damage3245]

Considering three out of the four calc group members here are okay with using my initial calculation.

Would it be alright to assume this has been accepted?

Yeah, I don't have any issues with this going ahead.

Could one of the agreeing calc group members also leave an evaluation in the blog if this is the case?

Sure.

 

[TheRustyOne]

Alright, this thread can be closed now.

I'll make the CRT to discuss the actual changes later.