Naruto Calcs (Calc Group members only)

[The_Causality]

Like i already said, the Rashomon size in both Damage and Jvando are both fallacious.

 

[Damage3245]

Like i already said, the Rashomon size in both Damage and Jvando are both fallacious.

If anything, I've scaled the Rashomen to be too big in the initial scaling.

 

[TataHakai]

"@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."

That's true but at the same time your picture is missing the tip of the shore, the spiky part

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

They're in front of it in the "unobstructed" picture you sent me

"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."

Not true, The size and strength of summonings depends on who is summoning them, this is shown to us many times within the series, unless you think Kiba has a higher strength than a bijuu bomb because he dented a rashomon whereas Kurama's prime rashomon only slightly moved them aside without much damage

 

[The_Causality]

Like i already said, the Rashomon size in both Damage and Jvando are both fallacious.

If anything, I've scaled the Rashomen to be too big in the initial scaling.

I talk about both the former and current version, the size you get in both calc are fallacious.

 

[Damage3245]

> Not true, The size and strength of summonings depends on who is summoning them, this is shown to us many times within the series, unless you think Kiba has a higher strength than a bijuu bomb because he dented a rashomon whereas Kurama's prime rashomon only slightly moved them aside without much damage

What does the size and strength have to do with the design on the front of the Rashomen?

Also, Kurama's Biju Bomb basically plowed straight through them and knocked over all five instantly, with the only result being that the trajectory of the Biju Bomb was shifted.

 

[The_Causality]

OkOk soo i'll elaborate about why Damage calc is false.

It mainly talk about the size of Rachoumon, basically, you used Madara's height from a tiny panel to got the size of the Bijuu bomb you calced at 13.425 meters. and from this you also calced the size of the rachoumon at 76.7 meters, so a step by step calculation.

Firstly, the step by step calculation in this calc use some tiny panel to get the size, maybe? but scaling things to another again can make the result fallacious (just lik the Planet size Nardo), if it's correct, i guess we can do it but in this case, it's incorrect.

Indeed we have Directly the size of the Rachoumon from the Scaling to the Mountais , basically, no need to use a step by step calculation when you can get the size directly from the mountain.

And damage's calc add another inconsistency, due to teh fact that he calced the rachoumon at 76 meters when they dwarf the mountains, it's something pretty impossible.

So i disagree with this calc, and suggest to directly use the size of mountain (609 meters) to get the size of those gates.

 

[Damage3245]

@The Causality; how do you know those are mountains and not just bare hills? I don't see the point in needing to assume a size when we have a clear reference on screen next to the Rashomen (the Biju Bomb) which has a clear reference on screen next to it (Madara) which has a known height.

Backscaling from that assumption would lead to Madara being tens of meters tall at least which is an even bigger inconsistency.

 

[TataHakai]

> Not true, The size and strength of summonings depends on who is summoning them, this is shown to us many times within the series, unless you think Kiba has a higher strength than a bijuu bomb because he dented a rashomon whereas Kurama's prime rashomon only slightly moved them aside without much damage

Dude you showed a picture of Orochimaru's summoning which was obstructed by trees and flying dust, that doesn't prove anything if Hashirama's wasn't too

Also Kishimoto always draws mountains, i don't actually recall him ever having drawn a hill, especially in large scale fights like this

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; I was referring to the bottom right panel where we can see the base of the Rashomen.

 

[The_Causality]

>how do you know those are mountains and not just bare hills?

Because they look just like all mountain shot in the same chapter (this for exemple) and they honestly look just like mountains.

>I don't see the point in needing to assume a size when we have a clear reference on screen next to the Rashomen (the Biju Bomb) which has a clear reference on screen next to it (Madara) which has a known height.

Your method add way more assumption than the basic scaling to the mountain, you use the scaling from differents page to calc a things which can be calced in a single scan without a step by step calculation. between using multiple shot to find a proper size instead of using the very know size of mountain (609 meters) to scale the gates due to being in the same scan, the second method seem way more valable.

>Backscaling from that assumption would lead to Madara being tens of meters tall at least which is an even bigger inconsistency.

Backscaling are pretty bad in every calc with different size at different panel and it isn't recommended to do it, it lead with inconsistency. you don't need to backscaling things since it will use again a step by step scaling from a size to get another in a different panel. Madara has his size and the gate too, no need to try to linkl both due to the fact that step by step will lead to inconsistency.

 

[Damage3245]

@The Causality; I disagree with that. I think that two steps of pixelscaling with the root scaling being to a known height is better than just trying to scale purely off of an assumption.

 

[The_Causality]

@The Causality; I disagree with that. I think that two steps of pixelscaling with the root scaling being to a known height is better than just trying to scale purely off of an assumption.

You know that Pixel calc and scaling are also assumption? it way better to use the know size of mountains in the same panel as the gate to use step by step pixel scaling from another scan with tiny size scaling.

i've asked the Neptunia fan know as Alex to comment on this issue, i want to finish this as soon as possible.

 

[Damage3245]

@The Causlity; even if we went with that (and I think assuming things like that should only be the case when we have nothing to contradict it, which isn't the case here) Tata Hakai is disagreeing with using the Rashomen scaling at all.

Which means reworking the 2nd Method sounds like the best option (if it needs reworking).

 

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

Let's not use the Rashomen's height, the dust on the tbb exploding panel makes the thing not realiable enough without adding x scaling that may or may not be accureated to give us a close estimated of the correct result because of the incostent draw between panel x with panel y and viceversa.

Which is no different than the land in front of the Rashomen, one panel shows us one thing then the other shows other leaving things to interpretation that x amount of people will either agree or disagree.


Like here---->
One of the purple circle is above an edge of the land that is just in front of the Rashomen.




Unlike here. ---->

It doesn't show that edge in front of the Rashomen, it has a similar edge in front of the mountain itself that one of the purple circles encirculates.

So saying "this goes here because it is the same" doesn't apply with those edges in front of the Rashomen, those two things aren't the same, and using one above the other is just as wrong as using the latter in place of the former because the draw is inconsistent.

Which lead us to the inconsistent draw argument all over again.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, I have an alternative solution which doesn't involve scaling from the height of the Rashomen or the coast.

I'll post it tomorrow as I am unfortunately out of time tonight.

EDIT: Annoyingly I've had no time tonight to finish the blog, so I'll need to post it tomorrow (again).

 

[TataHakai]

Should just scale the wake directly to the TBB

 

[Damage3245]

After discussing the calc with Alex; I've created a new version of the calc that does not involve scaling to the Rashomen at all - since the Rashomen are too unclear and covered by clouds of dust to be used for scaling.

This seems like the best method to go with.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for trying so hard to make our profiles more reliable.

 

[Damage3245]

Thank you for trying so hard to make our profiles more reliable.

It's no problem. Revising and improving verses is honestly pretty fun, even if it does drag on a bit sometimes.

 

[Damage3245]

@Wrath of Itachi + @BlackeJan; this is supposed to be a staff only thread.

If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them on my message wall.

 

[Damage3245]

An update (for anyone still interested).

I've recently re-calced my versio of the Combined Biju Bomb and Individual Biju Bombs feat using a different method as it has been discussed and decided that scaling from the Biju themselves are not the best method since their height appears to vary significantly and it would involve a lot more steps to do so.

Instead I've decided to go for a simpler approach and scale the crater from an adjacent mountain which I've assumed to be 609 meters tall. Obviously assumptions should be kept to a minimum when calcing but it is not unprecedented to assume this height if the height of a mountain is unknown.

Additionally my method only requires a single scaling image for the feat of the individual Biju Bombs and two scaling images for the feat of the Combined Biju Bombs.

Another reason why I believe my calc should be used going forwards is that the scale of the visuals more closely supports my version of the scaling. Here is an album pretty much all the significant shots of the Combined Biju Bomb crater in the manga and all of them lean much more toward the crater being much smaller than 140 KM diameter calculated by Jvando. If the argument is about which size is most consistent, then I believe that 140 KM diameter is the outlier in terms of size here. Simple explanation is that the planet shot from the movie isn't something drawn by Kishimoto himself but by an animator assuming total consistency between two different artists (in two different art forms) is a bigger assumption than assuming an author is consistent with himself in his own work.

I'd appreciate if any interest Calc Group Members could share their thoughts.

 

[Antvasima]

If nobody replies, you can politely request help via their message walls. Just remember to describe what the request is about in the titles of the threads.

 

[TataHakai]

. Here is an album pretty much all the significant shots of the Combined Biju Bomb crater in the manga and all of them lean much more toward the crater being much smaller than 140 KM diameter calculated by Jvando. If the argument is about which size is most consistent, then I believe that 140 KM diameter is the outlier in terms of size here.

There's only 1 scan in there that actually shows the crater in whole and that's the one you used though

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; agreed, by "significant shot" I meant panels where we can see parts of the crater in relation to the surroundings & characters. Some of them are clearer than others.

 

[TataHakai]

@TataHakai; agreed, by "significant shot" I meant panels where we can see parts of the crater in relation to the surroundings & characters. Some of them are clearer than others.

Most of the "significant shots" are just 1/10th of the crater to the point where we can't even see the curve of the circle because of how little of it it is

Like this one

 

[Damage3245]

@TataHakai; the reason I selected that panel wasn't to highlight the diameter of the crater but the depth.

Seeing as the Uchiha pair on top of the Juubi could see over the rim of the crater, and we can see the curve of the crater from the edge down to where the Shinobi Alliance are gathered.

EDIT: I've gotta go offline for tonight.

 

[Jvando]

I think I'm allowed one comment on my calc, yes?

Expand


Simple explanation is that the planet shot from the movie isn't something drawn by Kishimoto himself but by an animator assuming total consistency between two different artists (in two different art forms) is a bigger assumption than assuming an author is consistent with himself in his own work.

There are a couple things wrong with this statement:

• It is provably true that Kishimoto's drawings are inconsistent with themselves and for good reason as he was on a deadline and in a rush when drawing these scans. I'm just trying to say that the assumption that Kishimoto is consistent with Himself is a false one. I understand that this is the baseline assumption we all use when pixel scaling, I just think it is important to note that this argument doesn't hold well.
• Second, you bring up a point about the animator assuming total consistency between two different artists. Do you know why most manga drawings tend to be inconsistent? It is because the artists are put on a strict deadline and usually don't have the leisure to care that much about scaling inconsistencies as most readers hardly ever notice. In the case of the movie, however, this is a completely different case. Over a year of effort and research went into the making of the Last and, more than that, I can prove that the movie is consistent with Kishimoto's art.

• The animator not only had more than enough time to make sure things were accurately portrayed, he/she was able to take into account these minute details that are plainly visible in the manga, something that most individuals would have missed. This is doubly important when you realize this area I am highlighting is also around the same area I scaled from.

On another note, Kishimoto's art, especially his mountains, are highly inconsistent such that is you were to scale them according to the Earth's curvature (Which he also loves to overuse in his art), they would be numerous times larger than a lowball 609 meters. Even hills in naruto can reach a kilometer tall. That's not to say that I don't understad the need to use a 609m assumption, but its just a really poor one in the case of Naruto when information suggests mountains are much larger anyway.

My calc, however, really doesn't use an assumption in the sense that assuming Earth diameter is a given especially when the planet in question is called "Earth"; there would be no reason to assume otherwise. The other calc, on the otherhand, uses a really low end assumption that isn't supported in any sense and is unnecessary when we can scale without using one.

I do not think my Calc is perfect by any means, but I think it's along the lines of "It's the best we can do".

 

[Antvasima]

Sorry about being a bother, but how are things proceeding with this project?

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; we're down to three calcs which we're currently discussing. Alex has told me that he'll give his input soon.

@Jvando, I'll address a couple of your points soon.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Damage3245]

@Jvando;

Just to respond to a few of your points;

1) Kishimoto having examples of notable inconsistency among some objects (such as the Biju) is not the same as proving all of Kishimoto's art is inherently inconsistent. Objects that are in the same panel can be compared and assuming Kishimoto is consistent with himself isn't a wrong assumption if it isn't being contradicted.

2) I don't quite get your point about highlighting areas of the map there to try and prove consistency in size; yes, details from the Naruto map are present on the Naruto globe from the movie but I don't think anyone was disputing that. The issue is whether the portrayed size of features from the movie is consistent with the manga.

2.5) And just to focus on those areas you've highlighted; the red line from the movie is much, much larger than what you've highlighted in the manga when you compare the size of the purple line in each one. Doesn't that invalidate your point about consistency of size if the details are that drastically different even if the rough shape is there?

3) We don't use the Earth's curvature for size scaling anymore last time I checked. Pointing out the mountains aren't consistent with the curvature of the Earth doesn't really mean anything here.

4) Assuming the Naruto Earth's size is consistent with our Earth's size is still an assumption, even if it is a reasonable one. Assuming the mountain's are at least as large as baseline mountain size is also a reasonable assumption.

5) What reason do you think there is to support the crater being about 140 kilometers in diameter? I did post several visuals of the crater from the manga to try and highlight this issue.

 

[Jvando]

In this case scenario, it actually is contradicted. In the very same album you linked, there are a couple panels that but the Ten-Tails as towering over the crater caused by the combined TBB, however, in the scan that we all scale from, the Ten Tails is notably much shorter than the depth of the crater. In fact, some panels you've shown actually hardly showcase a depth at all while there is one indicating that the ten-tails is towering over the entire crater which all indicates how inconsistent Kishimoto's drawing of that area is as a whole.

Additionally, as Tata already pointed out, not a single one of the scans in your album showcase the full length of the crater or anything relative to it. We can't even get an idea of its size from the first pic since that only shows the blast caused by the combined TBB.

I only pointed out the Earth's curvature to highlight how vastly the size of the mountains vary in the manga and not that we should scale from it or anything. Assuming such a low mountain height is a much much greater and less reasonable assumption than assuming Earth diameter mainly because the size of mountains can vary widely while the size of Earth can't possibly be different.

Finally, the reason that red line appears smaller in the manga is literally due to the perspective we are looking at it from due to the curvature Kishimoto drew. So no, it's not contradicted. Additionally, for the prime Kurama calc, we even saw how Kishimoto couldn't draw the shore in front of the Rashomon consistently between two consecutive panels and I can similarly point to a few panels in that album where using a 609m assumption would net different results of the depth of the crater. If you want to say that 140km in diameter is unsupported, I can likewise point out that your depth is inconsistent as well.

I could go on to write another paragraph of text but at the end of the day, few CGMs want to deal with this thread which is understandable as they have their own things to focus on. I just feel like at the rate we are going, this thread will extend until next year so this will be my last reply on the topic at hand. The few that are passing by can check for themselves.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree that the depiction of the crater is generally inconsistent, but taken as a whole the majority of the panels still suggest strongly against the scaling you've derived from the planet's diameter.

I agree my calc isn't exactly perfect either, but I believe it is closer to the actual result based on the majority of shots of the crater.

Take for example this bit of rough scaling from a wide shot we have of the crater being destroyed by the Juubi; if the proposed diameter of roughly 140 kilometers is accurate then the clouds would be almost 85 kilometers high which stretches belief considering the normal altitude of clouds.

Just because the size of the crater can vary depending on the method doesn't mean that the biggest possible interpretation of it is the most accurate, when the majority of shots indicate otherwise.

At this point I agree that any other staff that wants to take part should check out this discussion and share their thoughts.

 

[Antvasima]

You can ask a few to take part if you wish, but this is more the calc group's area.

 

[KLOL506]

AFAIK, DMUA and Bambu are actively staying away from anything Naruto, Bleach or OP-related.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is too bad.

 

[Ugarik]

So the only thing left to do is no decide which version of Six-Tails calc in more accurate.

Take a note that this is by no means a correct metrological terminology and a complete uncertainty budget

M3X version:
First pannel:

Red Line: 16.00px - 1.71m

Standart Error: 0.5*1.71/16 = 0.0534 m

Building hight error: 437/16*0.0534 = 1.458 m

Second pannel:

Standart Error: 0.5*46.7/25 = 0.934 m

Total error: 0.934+1.458 = 2.392 m

Yellow Line's error: 112.30/25*2.392 = 10.745 m

Third pannel:

Standart Error: 0.5*209.796/32.26 = 3.252 m

Total Error: 3.252+10.745 = 13.997 m

Blue line's error: 357/32.26*13.997 = 154.896 m

Since the final result is proportional to the cube of the diameter:

((2321.673+154.896)/2321.673)^3 = 1.21;

High End result: 20*1.21 = 24.27 gigatons

Final Result: 20 ┬▒ 4.3 Gigatons (21% error)

Damage3245
First Pannel

Standart Error: 0.5*1.792/40 = 0.0224 m

Mountain Width's error: 1855/40*0.0224 = 1.039 m

Second Pannel

Standart Error: 0.5*83.104/35 = 1.187 m

Total Error: 1.039+1.187 = 2.226 m

Crater Diameter Error: 481/35*2.226 = 30.592 m

((1142.086+30.592)/1142.086)^3 = 1.08.

High End Result: 2.40*1.08 = 2.59 Gigatons

Final Result: 2.4 ┬▒ 0.19 Gigatons (8% Error)

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Ugarik]

There's another reason for using less panels for pixel scaling other than the metrological one.

We should take into account that those pannels are not actual photos and artists likely don't care about proportions of the objects on picture as much as we do. And with the number of pannels it's getting harder and harder to keep the drawn objects the same size That's the main reason why 80,000 km one piece planet has been rejected.

Anyway I'm sure Damage3245 version is way more accurate

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, thanks for the input.

I believe the majority are in favor of my version for that, but I'll wait a day to see if any other CGM's have any input.