Naruto Calcs (Calc Group members only)

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

@Dama, I noticed, but I dont really think its the best idea looking small pixelscaling with a PC that have windows XP.

It isnt really a different method, just in place of a hemisphere is with a half ellipsoid if there is no evidence how deep the crater is. It would be similar calculating the combined TBB using the scan of the explosion and then using the hamisphere volume when we know that the crater doesnt have that shape. It would be fine if it was a rasenshuriken that in multiple times it have showed that it indeed leave an hemisphere crater and that it expands like it was a sphere, but TBBs are inconsistent with their craters, going from sphericall caps, half ellipsoids and others, and this stuff need to be looked case by case.

 

[Damage3245]

@Alex; the only page where we can get an estimate on the depth of the Biju Bomb in this case is this page (chapter 438, page 9).

 

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

@Dama, Windonws XP-chan cannot enter to that page. But I know which part you are talking about since I reread the chapters before saying the stuff about the calc, so I wanted to ask here that people who knows what is the support for it before anything else.

 

[TheFinalOrder]

What about 5 and 6 then? Let's not let Kn6 TBB stall this overall. I'm sure we'd all like this to be finished soon.

 

[Damage3245]

@TFO; Calc 6 is likely going to involve the most discussion and may require its own thread to deal with how we calc it.

Ideally we could wrap up Calc 5 and 7 beforehand.

Unfortunately Alex is suffering from computer-related problems and TataHakai appears pretty busy. I'll try getting some other calc group members involved.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Perhaps Ugarik is willing to help?

 

[M3X_2.0]

I want to say Damage's 6 Tails calc wasnt accepted to use, but accepted to add here. His methods was rejected and he was creating new methods after the rejection, he asked for evaluation and now it is ready to be disscused here.

And his 4th method still wrong because of angle stuff between Hokage monument and the explosion, and Alex already said that above. If for some reason this angle and perspective was refuted I would like to know why his calc is better than mine, since we use the same method of scaling (What changes is that i used the cliff and he used the hokage monument, they are both in the same place so the angle and perspective should wreck both)

 

[Damage3245]

@M3X; I've already spoken with Alex, Ugarik and TataHakai and they agreed that the method 4 was most preferable to use.

I will double-check with them to make sure that is the case.

 

[M3X_2.0]

No, they didnt. They evaluated the math. This thread serves to discuss the wich calc is better, and what they did wad evaluating the math.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I talked with damage about the calc 7 and wr agreed to wait until I make my new method. I am also sorry for being rude

 

[TataHakai]

What else needs to be done, this thread is way too overdrawn

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; I agree.

I've been told that M3X has something to say regarding his version of the Six-Tails calc.

I'm pretty busy this weekend so I've asked Alex if it would be possible to arrange discussing this on Monday so we can get that topic and the Prime Kurama calc settled then.

After that the most important topic left relates to the planet shot from The Last movie and how it impacts the remaining two calcs for the Biju Bombs created by Kurama, Gyuki and the other Tailed Beasts.

So ideally, starting in a couple days, we'll be down for wrapping this up.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

It seems Alex and Tata both think Jvando's combined TBB is the best.

 

[Damage3245]

It seems Alex and Tata both think Jvando's combined TBB is the best.

I'm sure they might very well do, but I'd prefer to hear that from them after we've gotten the two simpler calcs out of the way first, to be honest.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

I dont see why we have to wait, since they agree that calc should be settled and over with.

 

[Damage3245]

I dont see why we have to wait, since they agree that calc should be settled and over with.

I literally posted up above that I have almost no time this weekend due to moving house and I've arranged with Alex to get a discussion going for it on Monday.

 

[Qawsedf234]

This is a long revision anyways, so I don't see why waiting a bit longer is an issue.

 

[TataHakai]

The planet shot is fine, i already said i think that Jvan's is my preffered one out of all of them as it's consistent

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

This is a long revision anyways, so I don't see why waiting a bit longer is an issue.

Those are the exact words damage said when he started this revision. And here we are, two months later.

 

[Damage3245]

Those are the exact words damage said when he started this revision. And here we are, two months later.

I've spent a long amount of time waiting for TataHakai and other calc group members to be less busy, and recently I've been waiting for M3X to do his re-calcs and post about it.

I'm not the one who's been holding up the revision process.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

You are the one who startes this revision, and recalcing all the Naruto feats you could. So yeah, you are partially responsible.

 

[TheFinalOrder]

Let's not do this guys...it's 2 days left before Monday. Chill and enjoy yourselves.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's wait for Damage please.

 

[Damage3245]

I should be able to make some time tomorrow as well, so we don't have to discuss everything on Monday.

 

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

>It seems Alex and Tata both think Jvando's combined TBB is the best.

What I said:

Calc 6: Dunno about the size of the mountains and vaporization for tsb since I haven't read all the manga, so I won't really touch that. And Naruto's world isn't Japan, like, at all, so dunno how good would this comparation be.

DodoNova2's version for the depth is this:

Crater diameter that the explosion leave = Explosion diameter (Assuming that the explosion didn't grew bigger.)

Which makes: Crater depth that the explosion leave = Explosion depth

280 px = 233 px

280 px / 233 px = 1.201716738x (this would be the difference of sizes between panels)

23 px x 1.201716738x = 27.63948498 px (this would mean that, assuming that the two depths are totally equal between panels, it would have a size 27.63948498 px)

11 px = 3000 m

3000 m / 11 px = 272.7272727 m/px

27.63948498 px x 272.7272727 m/px = 7538.041358 m

And his depth is "Deph = 7537m", so yeah, that.


And Damage3245's vesion have this problem. You want to argue that I didn't put the circle in the right position? You can say that, Damage3245's line still wouldn't being the real diameter.
And I personally think that spherical cap is the correct volume in this case.

What I will add to that:

DodoNova2 and M3X's versions: The 3km size would need to be discussed to see if it is usable or not, but we already know how that will end.

Damage3245 and Adam of darknesses' versions: Using the size of the biju is far too inconsistent, I can get a different one using x panel before y panel of the same chapter of the feat, but I can get a totally different size using y panel before the x panel.

Jvando's version: Using the planet shot from the movie then go back to the manga is an iffy thing and needs to be discussed.

 

[M3X_2.0]

That's my argument about the 6 Tails calc. After this, I will wait Damage's response.

The main point of Damage's calc being accepted was because he used less scans than me to find the size of the cliff, and because of that, my calc is inconsistent, but this argument is ridiculous, make no sense.

Dictionary defines consistency as the characteristic of a body from the point of view of homogeneity, coherence, firmness, compactness, strength, density, and so on. In short, the more elements in the sample space, the more information you bring to the discussion, the more consistent, tangible and believable your point\argument, that is. It's simple, what Damage is doing is just the opposite of this, assuming that the smallest amount of information incorporates more into the text than the largest, but that makes no sense, they are totally different weights on the scale. The basis on which he stands is that the art of Kishimoto is inconsistent, but his art was quite solid until the narrative decline, it accompanies the decline, and what he does is to take as an example an art from the period of Kishimoto's inconsistency and combine it with one of when it was solid, that was already quite as you are using as an example of when his design was palpable, it makes no sense to use argument drawings from the era that Kishimoto was about to drop everything to counter his peak of art, still using the pretext that all art is inconsistent. All he is doing is creating scarecrows to support a generic argument, so he has to show why the art of my examples is inconsistent, and why fewer tools incorporate text more than more informations.

So, in resume, Damage is using an image from 250+ chapters from the feat, when I am using images from like, not even 5 chapters of difference of each other. Both calcs should be judged, but without this ridiculous "using more scans make it inconsistent" argument.

 

[Damage3245]

@M3X; using less scans to minimize the risk of inflation of scaling between scans is only one reason why I consider my calc to be better for use.

The other is that the panel with the four Hokages is one of the clearest shots we have of all four Hokage heads next to a character with a known height (so no need to make an assumption there at the root of the scaling).

And that the scan you've chosen for scaling is not necessarily accurate because you're scaling from someone who is standing back from the edge of the building and trying to use that to get the full height of the building. I believe TataHakai was the one that mentioned adding meters to the distance between two different things for scaling would lead to inflation when dealing with a few pixels.

Overall, my calc makes less assumptions and should be more accurate overall.

And taking this definition into consideration:

> In short, the more elements in the sample space, the more information you bring to the discussion, the more consistent, tangible and believable your point\argument, that is.

I have calced this feat using four different methods and each time it has consistently came out to be Large Mountain level. I think that all of the methods are generally fine for use but the 4th one is the best out of all of them.

Regarding this issue with less scans meaning greater inconsistency, I'll say this:

Using more panels is inherently more inconsistent due to the fact that you have to assume for each panel that the author himself is being consistent in every single one of them to accurately scale from each of the individual panels.

With each new panel included in the count, you are assuming even more that the author is carrying that consistency through it all. Thus by using less panels your assumption does not rely on as much trust in the author to remain consistent themselves.

This is literally the definition of Occam's Razor, the method with the least assumptions is more likely to be accurate, so with less panels used for scaling you are assuming even less.

 

[M3X_2.0]

And that the scan you've chosen for scaling is not necessarily accurate because you're scaling from someone who is standing back from the edge of the building and trying to use that to get the full height of the building. I believe TataHakai was the one that mentioned adding meters to the distance between two different things for scaling would lead to inflation when dealing with a few pixels.

Do not relate one thing to another. You were using something with a distance of hundreds of meters, and this problem does not even apply to my calculation. If we calculated the height of the building by placing the pixel line in front of the base character used, it would be the same as what I did. There is no problem with this scaling. Even me and Alex did some other tests and the result was exactly the same as my. If we are refusing calculations that have irrelevant differences in distance from the pixel, I would like you to create a CRT and invite all CGM to talk about this and remove hundreds of calculations.

I have calced this feat using four different methods and each time it has consistently came out to be Large Mountain level. I think that all of the methods are generally fine for use but the 4th one is the best out of all of them.

I can also use inumerous methods to make this consistently Island level. I didnt undertand how this is relevant here.

About the last stuff

It should be kept in mind that scaling works with maintained proportions and this is what sustains scaling, but still, no proportion is perfect and so things can vary. The number of panels and objects observed does not matter, what really matters is the proportion that should theoretically be followed, that is, it does not matter if another observation left from 2 panels while another left from 1000, this will not make the first one. more consistent / proportionate if the art in question is inconsistent. All that really matters is whether or not art is consistent, which will only depend on the work, but the notion that art must be consistent is something that some authors must take into account because it is an important theme when studying drawing, proportions should be maintained unless the author does not care and decides to do so anyway. The panel I'm using is the arc of the pain, which is the same arc as the deed, at a point where Kishimoto's art was still consistent (no, it's not at all inconsistent), so you want to use one of the War Arc, where Kishimoto was practically giving up and delivering something done poorly, on the grounds that less objects = more precision, when accuracy is solely up to ART, which is against you

 

[Damage3245]

Small update; after a discussion between myself and Jvando, we've come to an agreement about which calc to use for the Prime Kurama feat.

Alex has told me he'll post his thoughts regarding the Six-Tails calcs soon.

Regarding the other two calcs, we'll need to have some discussion regarding what the best method is for calcing those feats.

 

[TataHakai]

Small update; after a discussion between myself and Jvando, we've come to an agreement about which calc to use for the Prime Kurama feat.

And which is that?

 

[Damage3245]

And which is that?

The one I calced which can be found here.

Though there are two different results to it due to different methods.

I'm fine with either, though I can see why some people would prefer one method over the other in both cases.

 

[TataHakai]

Neither of those calcs work

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, would you be able to leave an evaluation on it for both methods please?

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if everybody help us out to reach a reliable conclusion here. This has been stalled for long enough.

 

[TataHakai]

The rashomon scaling for the first method doesn't work at all, it's obstructed and in the second scaling for the rashomon it's literally just squiggly lines that you're trying to scale from

As for the second one you're scaling less in the second shot of the wake (after the explosion) than you are prior to the explosion

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; here is a link showing what the Rashomen looks like unobstructed, there is barely anything that is covered up. At worst I've actually overestimated the height of the Rashomen.

As for the second pic in the scaling, those aren't squiggly lines; that's the Rashomen which is partially obscured by a dust cloud but we can still actually make out where the individual Rashomen is and how big it is.

As for the second one, I need you to elaborate a bit more on that.

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

Shouldn't you be talking about this on the actual calc blog?

 

[Damage3245]

Shouldn't you be talking about this on the actual calc blog?

This thread exists so that we can have a discussion where multiple calc group members can join in.

 

[TataHakai]

@TataHakai; here is a link showing what the Rashomen looks like unobstructed, there is barely anything that is covered up. At worst I've actually overestimated the height of the Rashomen.
As for the second pic in the scaling, those aren't squiggly lines; that's the Rashomen which is partially obscured by a dust cloud but we can still actually make out where the individual Rashomen is and how big it is.

As for the second one, I need you to elaborate a bit more on that.

Those rashomon aren't hashirama's, firstly

And secondly there's plenty being covered, if the rashomon are 76 meters according to you and an average tree is 10-20 meters then nearly 25% of it is covered by trees, and that is "at worst"

"As for the second pic in the scaling, those aren't squiggly lines; that's the Rashomen which is partially obscured by a dust cloud but we can still actually make out where the individual Rashomen is and how big it is."

Bruh, come on, this picture is way too low quality to reliably scale from, you can't even see where it ends or starts you just randomly threw in a line there



And ok i'll elaborate

In the first picture you're scaling from red circle to red circle, whereas in the second picture you're scaling from purple circle to purple circle, which is lowballing the calculation as you're assuming it's smaller in the second picture, the entire scaling is just wrong, you're scaling different areas in each picture, i can redo this properly for you if you want to

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; I think your purple dot placement is a bit off. In the first image you've got the purple dot directly in front of the Rashomen.

But in the second picture, the purple dot is all the way over to the side.

Regarding the Rashomen scaling, those trees are in the foreground and aren't in the way of scaling the height of the Rashomen.

It doesn't matter if Orochimaru's Rashomen is Hashirama's or not, they're the same summon with the same designs. You can see going by Orochimaru's Rashomen that extremely little is being blocked in the shot where Hashirama is summoning them.