Nanatsu no Taizai - Albion Calc Timeframe

[Damage3245]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the timeframe used in this calc for Albion II.

The calc uses a timeframe derived from the anime, claiming that the entire feat happened in a single to a timeframe of 1/24 seconds can be used to find the kinetic energy of the hilltop being launched into the air.

The clip used can be found here, at around 5:32.

Using the WatchFrameByFrame website, we can see how the frames were used to find this timeframe from frame 8312 to 8313.

Spoiler: 8312

Spoiler: 8313

However this seems like a case of cherrypicking frames to me; the difference in one frame to the other up above is a sudden cut from one perspective (the Albion swinging its arm) to another perspective (the hill being already up in the air). It's not a case of us watching a continuous sequence of the hill being at Point A in frame 1 and Point B in frame 2.

Rule 4 of our Cinematic Time page states this:

• Cinematic time should not be used if the time-frame the event of interest happens in occurs during a time-frame that is suggested to be sped up in any way and a cut is involved.

The event in question here being the hill being launched into the air which takes place entirely off-screen due to a cut being involved.

If we look at the subsequent frames of the clip, such as between frames 8321 and 8341:

Spoiler: 8321

Spoiler: 8341

This is a difference of twenty frames between the two shots and the hilltop has barely moved. What happened to all of the momentum or kinetic energy that the hilltop should have if we assume it moved all of the initial distance in only a single frame?


My proposal is that instead of using 1/24th of a second by focusing on a very specific frame of the feat and ignoring the rest of the clip, we just assume that the feat (which did take place quickly and in a single panel in the manga) be assumed as being 1 second long.

 

[speedster352]

Would this affect the calc in any way?

 

[Demon_Lord18]

Would this affect the calc in any way?

Yes, it would affect it, a lot.

4.9202318004e+14J

 

[Damage3245]

Would this affect the calc in any way?

Yes, it would.

A quick re-calc would put it at 117 Kilotons, or High 7-C.

 

[speedster352]

Yes, it would.

A quick re-calc would put it at 117 Kilotons, or High 7-C.

There is another 7a calc for the verse so this wouldn’t be the worst.

 

[Damage3245]

There is another 7a calc for the verse so this wouldn’t be the worst.

Right. This thread isn't about scaling; just adjusting the calc.

 

[Demon_Lord18]

There is another 7a calc for the verse so this wouldn’t be the worst.

The calculation first needs to be accepted

 

[Demon_Lord18]

I agree

 

[Damage3245]

@Agnaa @Chariot190 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Therefir Any input on this would be appreciated.

 

[Chariot190]

• Cinematic time should not be used if the time-frame the event of interest happens in occurs during a time-frame that is suggested to be sped up in any way and a cut is involved.

The event in question here being the hill being launched into the air which takes place entirely off-screen due to a cut being involved.

I'm not sure, while there is a cut, do we have any reason to believe there was an actual cut in time? The rule exists solely for cuts where there's a tangible time cut out, not just a cut to change perspective. If no cut in the actual time exists, it would then still be ok. Tbh, maybe the following bit is actually slowed down, rather than the former being sped up? Would explain the sudden massive apparent deceleration? personally i dont think it's either

This is a difference of twenty frames between the two shots and the hilltop has barely moved.

That is true, but going by that logic, you'd be implying there's a huge gap between frames, like 10-20 seconds. I don't find that believable, why would the giant just stand there in the same position for almost half a minute? With its arm outstretched? We see like a second later it's attacking a dude and is moving constantly.

Secondly, I firmly believe it happened within that 1 frame cut. Why?


See that?



After the "cut", it's actually still swinging, its arm is still being swung, we watch the arm move and finish swinging, and you can even see the arm's recoil.
This outright confirms that the cut, isn't a "cinematic" or "time skip". From the front angle, to this shot, is in real-time, as we see its swing finish its arc, and jiggle. There is no gap, we can also confirm this by the audio, there's no cut in the audio, notably the impact and destruction sfx, from what I can tell.

So that 1 frame cut? Isn't really a cut, it's just a change in perspective. If we went with the logic in OP, the gap based on the following hill movement would've been close to half a minute, such a long gap isn't supported by the giant's following and preceding actions, the audio, context and the giant's very own swing.

What happened to all of the momentum or kinetic energy that the hilltop should have if we assume it moved all of the initial distance in only a single frame?

Idk, animators being dumb? it's 100% because it looks cool, lots of anime do that actually, where there'll be a sudden impact and like a cliff or wall or building or whatever will shatter, and then the debris will slow to a crawl after the first like 5 impact and exploding frames, it's just a wacky anime effect.

Now it doesn't make any sense that is true, but it happens a lot in high-octane sequences or powerful impacts, I've seen it in everything from Fate to the funny lil stickman fights on yt, point is, if the argument is that the hill cut thing wasn't instant, I disagree, the time frame of the swing and elevation is like 1 frame.

But the point of where did all that momentum or KE go? If we wanna ignore it's just an animation technique and how at the end of the day, the hill DID go from Point A to B in a instant even if it unrealistically slowed down almost immediately, well **** it, that ain't my cross, others can decide how that would factor in, I just gave my breakdown on if the timeframe was legit, not if the following bit is and if it'd invalidate it or not, personally, I do not know how that should be considered i havent actually watched NNT so i cant say if other evidence or context would change anything.

 

[Damage3245]

That is true, but going by that logic, you'd be implying there's a huge gap between frames, like 10-20 seconds. I don't find that believable, why would the giant just stand there in the same position for almost half a minute? With its arm outstretched? We see like a second later it's attacking a dude and is moving constantly.

I don't think I said anything about the giant standing there for like 20 seconds?

I'm ignoring the anime adaptation of it in my suggested timeframe and just going by the manga.

My saying that we can assume the movement as taking one second long is not the same as me saying that every frame of the anime takes a second to happen.

Secondly, I firmly believe it happened within that 1 frame cut. Why?

Of course the cut happened within that 1 frame cut, otherwise it wouldn't be a calc in the first place. My argument is that it is cherrypicking frames by the calc only using that cut.

After the "cut", it's actually still swinging, its arm is still being swung, we watch the arm move and finish swinging, and you can even see the arm's recoil.
This outright confirms that the cut, isn't a "cinematic" or "time skip". From the front angle, to this shot, is in real-time, as we see its swing finish its arc, and jiggle. There is no gap, we can also confirm this by the audio, there's no cut in the audio, notably the impact and destruction sfx, from what I can tell.

So that 1 frame cut? Isn't really a cut, it's just a change in perspective. If we went with the logic in OP, the gap based on the following hill movement would've been close to half a minute, such a long gap isn't supported by the giant's following and preceding actions, the audio, context and the giant's very own swing.

I think focusing on that change in perspective is just cherrypicking frames. The calc is picking the one frame where we don't actually see any motion of the hilltop on screen.

Idk, animators being dumb? it's 100% because it looks cool, lots of anime do that actually, where there'll be a sudden impact and like a cliff or wall or building or whatever will shatter, and then the debris will slow to a crawl after the first like 5 impact and exploding frames, it's just a wacky anime effect.

Now it doesn't make any sense that is true, but it happens a lot in high-octane sequences or powerful impacts, I've seen it in everything from Fate to the funny lil stickman fights on yt, point is, if the argument is that the hill cut thing wasn't instant, I disagree, the time frame of the swing and elevation is like 1 frame.

But the point of where did all that momentum or KE go? If we wanna ignore it's just an animation technique and how at the end of the day, the hill DID go from Point A to B in a instant even if it unrealistically slowed down almost immediately, well **** it, that ain't my cross, others can decide how that would factor in, I just gave my breakdown on if the timeframe was legit, not if the following bit is and if it'd invalidate it or not, personally, I do not know how that should be considered i havent actually watched NNT so i cant say if other evidence or context would change anything.

If it's just the animators being dumb then let's ignore the anime's version of it then.

 

[Chariot190]

I don't think I said anything about the giant standing there for like 20 seconds?

He would have to, you're arguing that the hill was slow in the following scene, so there was a cut. Based on the movement of the hill, which you pointed out.
If applied, would result in him just kinda standing there for half a minute.

You didn't say 20 seconds, but that's what your argument would result in, whether you meant to argue that or not.

I'm ignoring the anime adaptation of it in my suggested timeframe and just going by the manga.

Idk, I feel an official time, even if a lil odd, is better than making one up.
Unless you can calc a timeframe based on debris or something? I remember a Piccolo moon bust calc that managed a timeframe based on a falling rock. Something like that maybe?

My saying that we can assume the movement as taking one second long is not the same as me saying that every frame of the anime takes a second to happen.

I never said that was what you were arguing? I gave reason why the cut was in real time. And your direct implication of such.

• Cinematic time should not be used if the time-frame the event of interest happens in occurs during a time-frame that is suggested to be sped up in any way and a cut is involved.

The event in question here being the hill being launched into the air which takes place entirely off-screen due to a cut being involved.

and

This is a difference of twenty frames between the two shots and the hilltop has barely moved. What happened to all of the momentum or kinetic energy that the hilltop should have if we assume it moved all of the initial distance in only a single frame?

Directly implies that, you're arguing that due to the following hill movement not being exceptionally quick as that 1 frame cut would imply it moved, that there was a cut in time. Going by the reasoning shown, that being the hill movement, such a gap to raise to that height based on the presented velocity you pointed out would be unrealistically long, like half a minute. At no point did you say each frame would be 1 second, nor did I think that was what you meant.

I'm just saying the argument presented would imply a impossible and impractical time cut based on context and what we see which would be dozens of seconds in length.

I think focusing on that change in perspective is just cherrypicking frames. The calc is picking the one frame where we don't actually see any motion of the hilltop on screen.

But you're the person who brought it up? It's quite literally the only reason why you can argue there was a "cut".

That doesn't matter anyway. The calc wants the timeframe of when the hill went from being attached to the ground, to in the air. This happens in a gap of 1 frame, as outlined, given we know that gap and cut was just a POV shift and still happened without a gap in time.


As you can see, frame 1 swing, frame 2/3 hill in air, frame 4 zooms out showing yeah, it's quite a bit in the air and we know the hill itself hadn't moved only the POV based on cloud and debris placement (You can even overlay them, it's the same frame even in frame 4, just zoomed).

As long as we know the timeframe that movement occurred (1 frame), it's usable.

We don't need to see the movement (which would be impossible if it happened in 1 frame anyway, it'd just go from point A to point B without any visible movement), we just need to know if it moved said distance in a 1 frame gap, which we do.

If it's just the animators being dumb then let's ignore the anime's version of it then.

Why? The issue isn't with the timeframe, the issue lies in after it happened, in how debris slowed down. If you're saying to ignore that, it wouldn't be the timeframe being ignored, it'd be the anime effect.


As said, if you wanna argue the feat is fucky due to a loss of momentum or KE, idk, whatever go ahead, but that 1 frame timeframe did in fact happen. No real way around it, we can confirm it was on the ground and reached an elevated height between the 2 frames, we know there isn't a cut in time based on audio such as the destruction noise, the fact the arm is still mid-swing, and he'd have just stood there for an unreasonable amount of time which doesn't adhere to context. And I'm keener on using an official timeframe as opposed to a made-up one, especially as the arguments made against 1 frame, apply to 1 second too.

 

[Damage3245]

He would have to, you're arguing that the hill was slow in the following scene, so there was a cut. Based on the movement of the hill, which you pointed out.
If applied, would result in him just kinda standing there for half a minute.

You didn't say 20 seconds, but that's what your argument would result in, whether you meant to argue that or not.

I don't agree.

Idk, I feel an official time, even if a lil odd, is better than making one up.
Unless you can calc a timeframe based on debris or something? I remember a Piccolo moon bust calc that managed a timeframe based on a falling rock. Something like that maybe?

If that official time was on-screen, perhaps, but I don't think it is in this case.

I never said that was what you were arguing? I gave reason why the cut was in real time. And your direct implication of such.

It's what it seemed like you were arguing.

Directly implies that, you're arguing that due to the following hill movement not being exceptionally quick as that 1 frame cut would imply it moved, that there was a cut in time. Going by the reasoning shown, that being the hill movement, such a gap to raise to that height based on the presented velocity you pointed out would be unrealistically long, like half a minute. At no point did you say each frame would be 1 second, nor did I think that was what you meant.

I'm just saying the argument presented would imply a impossible and impractical time cut based on context and what we see which would be dozens of seconds in length.

If you look at the Albion's movement from before and after the cut, both times we see it moving is far far slower than it is during the 1 frame where we don't see it.

My argument is that we are focusing on an inconsistency in the Albion's movement and using that for the cut.

• Cinematic time should not be used if the time-frame the event of interest happens in occurs during a time-frame that is suggested to be sped up in any way and a cut is involved.

This is like the definition of this rule; the movement is suggested to be sped up by the fact that the Albion is far slower than this before and after the cut, and "cut" does happen because we cut away from the Albion's movement and we only see the results.

We don't need to see the movement (which would be impossible if it happened in 1 frame anyway, it'd just go from point A to point B without any visible movement), we just need to know if it moved said distance in a 1 frame gap, which we do.

We would see the movement if we had one frame of the hill on the ground and one frame of the hill in the air.

We don't have that here.

Why? The issue isn't with the timeframe, the issue lies in after it happened, in how debris slowed down. If you're saying to ignore that, it wouldn't be the timeframe being ignored, it'd be the anime effect.

To me the issue is 100% with the timeframe given by the anime.

As said, if you wanna argue the feat is fucky due to a loss of momentum or KE, idk, whatever go ahead, but that 1 frame timeframe did in fact happen. No real way around it, we can confirm it was on the ground and reached an elevated height between the 2 frames, we know there isn't a cut in time based on audio such as the destruction noise, the fact the arm is still mid-swing, and he'd have just stood there for an unreasonable amount of time which doesn't adhere to context. And I'm keener on using an official timeframe as opposed to a made-up one, especially as the arguments made against 1 frame, apply to 1 second too.

What arguments do you possibly have against one second being used for the manga feat? Ignore the anime in this case.


Your argument inherently depends on a stupidly massive inconsistencfy in the Albion's speed. You're effectively saying that it can swing its arm in a nearly 180 degrees swing in 1/24th of a second while at the same time that arm in the same swing takes more than a second to move a tiny distance after the hilltop is in the air.

You're cherrypicking the one frame we don't see it move on-screen to ignore the rest of the frames that we do actually see it move on-screen. This should nor be allowed.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I pretty much agree with the OP, you can’t even get a timeframe from the Anime because the slicing and lifting of the mountain top isn’t actually shown

1 Second timeframe should be fine

 

[Damage3245]

I pretty much agree with the OP, you can’t even get a timeframe from the Anime because the slicing and lifting of the mountain top isn’t actually shown

1 Second timeframe should be fine

Thank you for commenting.

 

[Chariot190]

I don't agree.

I'm going to need a proper rebuttal.

If that official time was on-screen, perhaps, but I don't think it is in this case.

The timeframe WAS onscreen Damage. It's realtime, objectively so. You haven't acually tackled any points made, rather, you keep tackling stuff that occurs afterward, as if that changes the fact that what I said was true.

It's what it seemed like you were arguing.

It wasn't, your very arguments, result in that being the case, if you take the hill's apparent velocity afterward, take that to assume a cut in time despite all the evidence on the contrary, you'd end up with an obscene cut in time that evidently didn't happen.

If you look at the Albion's movement from before and after the cut, both times we see it moving is far far slower than it is during the 1 frame where we don't see it.

No? It reels up and swings, the next frame the swing is finishing. Of course such actions will be slower than the swing at peak acceleration. But even then, that isn't actually quite true, the real discrepency, if there even is one, is far, far, less relevant than you think as outlined below.
The frame that it cuts, isn't a real cut anyway as established, it's just a change in perspective to show what happened.

My argument is that we are focusing on an inconsistency in the Albion's movement and using that for the cut.

No, that isn't your argument? You've changed your argument completely if that's the case, nowhere in OP did you mention that.

• Cinematic time should not be used if the time-frame the event of interest happens in occurs during a time-frame that is suggested to be sped up in any way and a cut is involved.

This is like the definition of this rule; the movement is suggested to be sped up by the fact that the Albion is far slower than this before and after the cut, and "cut" does happen because we cut away from the Albion's movement and we only see the results.

Yes, I saw that the first time. You're incorrect, if anything you just shot yourself in the foot. If you're actively arguing that "oh it looks slower", Damage, that isn't it being "sped up", it's the scene being slowed down. As in it'd be even higher.

That, is not the definition of the rule, you're being semantic. When it says "cut", it means a cut in time, not a cut to change perspective, which is precisely what's happening. In fact even calling it a "cut" is misleading, it's just a shift to a different angle.

The Giant, if you're arguing appears to be far slower after the cut (it isn't actually), on top of the hill's sudden apparent slowdown that wuld imply a totally impossible cut in time that we know didn't actually occur based on context, audio, and movement, that doesn't imply there was some arbitrary timeframe that was cut out, it implies the following scene was slowed down for dramatic effect and viewing pleasure, drawing attention to the destruction it just caused. The exact opposite of what you need to be true to have a point.

What arguments do you possibly have against one second being used for the manga feat? Ignore the anime in this case.

Because the anime knows better than you? It's honestly just that simple. You made up one second, it'd only be fine as a placeholder if we lacked any other option, we don't need it, the anime gives a timeframe, one that despite your claims isn't actually that bad hell all your arguments don't even involve te timeframe but stuff that happened after anyway, it should be used instead.

Your argument inherently depends on a stupidly massive inconsistencfy in the Albion's speed.

No, my argument depends on the fact your argument leads to an impossible timeframe of him just sitting there for half a minute doing nothing, because whether you intended that to be your argument or not, that's exactly what your conclusion leads to, as well as the fact we see its swing finishing up directly after telling us no cut in time actually happened and definitely not one of the magnitude you're implicating, the audio of said destruction straight up isn't cut at all so no real argument there as if it was cut the sfx would have a gap in it, and the context implies no cut based on what's happening.

All your issues involve stuff that happens after what the calc and feat actually needs, none of it changes the fact it happened in one frame, instead of pretending there was some secret cut in time that blatantly didn't happen, well, don't?

You're effectively saying that it can swing its arm in a nearly 180 degrees swing in 1/24th of a second while at the same time that arm in the same swing takes more than a second to move a tiny distance after the hilltop is in the air.

Blatantly false, by the time the frame cut to show a different angle, its arm was in front of it and its shoulder having completed well over 90 degrees, having already completed 90 degrees of that 180 degree swing, as we know, the immediate next frame is zoomed in on the hill, so is the next, the frame after that. That actually gives it about a 3+ frame window before we get a good view of the arm again, all while only needing to finish up a less than 90 degree swing (about 30 degrees for the shoulder actually), which is, totally feasible and makes sense to have happened within that timeframe?

This argument would make sense if we got a good shot of the arm in the next frame to confirm its placement, we don't, but what we do get, the hill, is what we actually need.

Besides,

This takes place in 1 frame, half the swing we see him finish, in 1 frame, thus, we do know it's capable of such a thing same swing btw, and you're arguing because he had like 3-4 frames to finish up the rest, it's wrong? Mind you the hill's placement would only take up about 20~rads of the swing as well.

I can not agree with this thread, the arguments presented are an utter reach, disregard context, and disregard even the most obvious pieces of information whether it be contextual, audio, visual, all while seemingly not even thinking your own arguments through such as your initial argument with debris leading to a gap in time which in turn would lead to an obscene cut that definitely didn't happen, and now an argument involving the giant's own slowdown while ignoring it was the finis of said swing we see and the recoil which obviously isn't gonna be as quick as the peak speed of the arc, only needed to do less than a 90degree swing in like 3 frames (objectively not your exaggerated 180), and an even less like 20-30 rad arc to actually sweep through the hill, both of which is something it absolutely can do, or simultaneously making as case for slowdown, not speedup.

All to argue there's an imaginary cut that objectively did not happen, simply because the perspective changed, rather than a real cut in time, all to impose a made-up arbitrary timeframe that wouldn't make sense anyway under the arguments you've presented anyway? Nuh uh, if you wanna argue something, arguing there's a made-up cut in time, ain't it, there simply wasn't one, the hill being on the ground and going up in the air taking place within a 0.0416666666666667 timeframe did in fact occur. If you have a different argument for why it shouldn't be used, I'm open, but the whole "there's a cinematic cut", I definitely disagree with, feels like blatantly lying if I were to agree with such a thing.

like even the sfx aligns.

 

[Damage3245]

Looks like we're just not on the same page on this Chariot so I'll wait to see what others say if anyone else ends up commenting.

 

[Chariot190]

No like really though
I've even gone as far to whip out a protractor just to check some angles,


The argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Damage3245]

On second thought, I'm not interested in pursuing this revision currently so I'm withdrawing this and closing the thread. May come back to it when I have more time & energy.