One Piece: ANOTHER Dressrosa Size Revision

[Damage3245]

I was going to address all the calculations at once but since Method 4 is being highlighted as the one that people are agreeing with, I'll get this one out the way first while I'm still gathering together all the necessary scans for the other methods:

Method 4

This method calcs the speed at which the Birdcage is moving at (9.87552 m/s) and assumes that if the Birdcage was moving at this speed for the whole hour duration that Doflamingo declared in chapter 781 then the longer distance of its uneven travel would be 35.551872 km, which would make the entire diameter of Dressrosa to be 50.0136504407 km.

The biggest problem that I can see with this method is that the scene that is used to calculate the speed of the Birdcage comes from an adaptation of the end of chapter 788, here.

But at the end of chapter 787 and the beginning of chapter 788, it is noted that Doflamingo purposefully increased the speed at which the Birdcage is moving in order to pressure Luffy.

So the Birdcage wouldn't have been travelling this quickly for the entire 1 hour duration from the start so we can't use that timeframe for it, meaning this method can't be used in its current state.


In fact, I believe if we combine two pieces of evidence here (which is A) that the sped-up version of Birdcage is 9.87552 m/s, and B) it would take 3 minutes of the sped-up version of Birdcage to reach the central zone of Dressross and start causing mass deaths) then we would end up with a size value of Dressrosa that is far smaller than 50 kilometers.

For example, this was just put together quickly by me but since the colosseum is noted to be just on the border of the central zone of Dressrosa in this diagram, then using this pixelscaling and the speed provided by Method 4 for the Birdcage and a timeframe of 3 minutes provided to us by the manga, we'd get a size of just over 12.6 km for Dressrosa's diameter.

 

[KingTempest]

I was going to address all the calculations at once but since Method 4 is being highlighted as the one that people are agreeing with, I'll get this one out the way first while I'm still gathering together all the necessary scans for the other methods:

Method 4

This method calcs the speed at which the Birdcage is moving at (9.87552 m/s) and assumes that if the Birdcage was moving at this speed for the whole hour duration that Doflamingo declared in chapter 781 then the longer distance of its uneven travel would be 35.551872 km, which would make the entire diameter of Dressrosa to be 50.0136504407 km.

The biggest problem that I can see with this method is that the scene that is used to calculate the speed of the Birdcage comes from an adaptation of the end of chapter 788, here.

But at the end of chapter 787 and the beginning of chapter 788, it is noted that Doflamingo purposefully increased the speed at which the Birdcage is moving in order to pressure Luffy.

So the Birdcage wouldn't have been travelling this quickly for the entire 1 hour duration from the start so we can't use that timeframe for it, meaning this method can't be used in its current state.


In fact, I believe if we combine two pieces of evidence here (which is A) that the sped-up version of Birdcage is 9.87552 m/s, and B) it would take 3 minutes of the sped-up version of Birdcage to reach the central zone of Dressross and start causing mass deaths) then we would end up with a size value of Dressrosa that is far smaller than 50 kilometers.

For example, this was just put together quickly by me but since the colosseum is noted to be just on the border of the central zone of Dressrosa in this diagram, then using this pixelscaling and the speed provided by Method 4 for the Birdcage and a timeframe of 3 minutes provided to us by the manga, we'd get a size of just over 12.6 km for Dressrosa's diameter.

That speed is the speed of the birdcage's contested push back when not even frames before it was struggling to move and has some seconds where it straight stopped moving.

I think "struggling to move but moves that in a second" should scale to "moves with not as much effort but still constantly moves"

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah this was when they were trying to push it back. Based on what KT said, its speed was affected by this, and it actually makes Dressrosa’s size here a lowball

 

[KingTempest]

Also it was stated to be slower, and with a decent amount of force added onto it it straight stopped moving.

 

[Damage3245]

Also it was stated to be slower,

The fact that Kin'emon and Kanjuro say:

"The pace is slowing down... I think!!!"

"Now that you say it, I do believe it to be the case!!!"

Leads me to believe that while the Birdcage may have been slowing down by that point, the slow down isn't all that obvious. Otherwise Kine'mon wouldn't have to clarify it with "I think", because it would be self-evident and likewise Kanjuro not noticing it slowing until Kine'mon brings attention to it. It can't be that much faster when not being pushed against by that point at least.

The anime's depiction of the Birdcage coming to a stop for a moment is not very trustworthy as it only truly came to a stop in that second scan that you linked. In the manga there's no indication of the Birdcage having fluctuating speed before Kine'mon comments on it.

You really haven't given any reason at all for this:

I think "struggling to move but moves that in a second" should scale to "moves with not as much effort but still constantly moves"

If what is truly relevant here isn't 'the Birdcage when it is sped-up but also when it is being slowed down', but actually the initial speed of the Birdcage before it was speed up in the first place, then that is what you should be calcing for this method.

Why use a speed from a scene that is unrelated to the 1 hour timeframe?

 

[Kachon123]

Leads me to believe that while the Birdcage may have been slowing down by that point, the slow down isn't all that obvious. Otherwise Kine'mon wouldn't have to clarify it with "I think", because it would be self-evident and likewise Kanjuro not noticing it slowing until Kine'mon brings attention to it. It can't be that much faster when not being pushed against by that point at least.

Or that they were more focused on pushing the birdcage itself rather than seeing if it was slowing down or not?

 

[KingTempest]

The fact that Kin'emon and Kanjuro say:

"The pace is slowing down... I think!!!"

"Now that you say it, I do believe it to be the case!!!"

Leads me to believe that while the Birdcage may have been slowing down by that point, the slow down isn't all that obvious. Otherwise Kine'mon wouldn't have to clarify it with "I think", because it would be self-evident and likewise Kanjuro not noticing it slowing until Kine'mon brings attention to it. It can't be that much faster when not being pushed against by that point at least.

All this point shows is that they were hyperfocused on the push. This is right before it fully stopped too, and the anime switched around the perspectives of characters as well, so it could be confusing looking at the exact moments of everything.

The anime's depiction of the Birdcage coming to a stop for a moment is not very trustworthy as it only truly came to a stop in that second scan that you linked. In the manga there's no indication of the Birdcage having fluctuating speed before Kine'mon comments on it.

You really haven't given any reason at all for this:

In the second scan it came to a full stop for a long period of time to where they could let go and it wouldn’t move again. First time it hiccuped movements:

There wouldn’t be an indication of motion in a stagnant medium like manga.

 

[SnookB]

In the manga there's no indication of the Birdcage having fluctuating speed before Kine'mon comments on it.

Actually

That indicates that the birdcage had to have been stalled for longer than a minute at least. They only comment on it 'slowing' just before it fully stops. But that was for far less than a minute.
This means the birdcage HAD to have had fluctuating speeds and slowing down often since it SHOULD have been far, far smaller by the time Luffy recovered. When the time was up it should've been pretty much at Doflamingo's position by the time him and Luffy had their final clash, yet that's clearly not the case since Luffy uproots a massive area and the civilians have more than enough space to be away from all that damage. It should've been much smaller if it only truly stopped for a few seconds yet it was still towns wide.
That means the bird cage was stalled for at the very least a minute. Bare minimum, assuming it's thinnest point is anything bigger than Doflamingo himself (which it isn't)

 

[SnookB]

The anime's depiction of the Birdcage coming to a stop for a moment is not very trustworthy as it only truly came to a stop in that second scan that you linked.

It had to have.
The sound effect used for it
ドスン
dosun

Sound of something heavy sitting down/falling; lighter impact than zushin, harder impact than patan.

Implies that exact panel KT sent is the panel where everything stagnated. Then everybody realized it moments after.

 

[Damage3245]

That indicates that the birdcage had to have been stalled for longer than a minute at least. They only comment on it 'slowing' just before it fully stops. But that was for far less than a minute.

I won't deny that you have a point but after Kine'mon's comments there are more scenes before it stopping which involve a lot more people coming out to help including Fujitora and many others.

This doesn't have anything to do with the core issue though which is that there is nothing connecting the speed that was calced to the 1 hour timeframe. Just because the cage was being slowed by Franky and the dwarves (and Zoro, Kine'mon, Kanjuro, etc.) doesn't mean it had slowed exactly to the point that it was at prior to Doflamingo speeding it up.

EDIT: This is all I have time for tonight. Cursed timezones.

 

[SnookB]

All of that just means the calc is a lowball. We know it fluctuated to the point of saving up far more than a minute (as it should've been much closer to doflamingo than it were otherwise), and we know it stopped at some point.

Method 4 just ends up with an extremely safe (if not lowballed) assumption.
I don't see the issue with it at all

 

[KingTempest]

Unless you wanna use any of the others

@M3X_2.0 @CloverDragon03 how do y’all feel about any of the other calcs?

 

[Damage3245]

Unless you wanna use any of the others

I think there's an issue with Method 2. As far as the angsizing goes with it, it seems like the distance from the screen to the top of the stairs is being treated like it's a purely vertical measurement given how it is being used as the height value of the cliffs.

Angsizing tells you how far away something is from the viewer; the only way this would get you the exact height of the cliffs is if the the perspective of the screen was looking directly vertically upwards. What you've got currently is more like the hypotenuse side of a right-angle triangle.

That's if my understanding of angsizing is correct here; maybe another CGM can vet that.

 

[Deceived3596]

Using angizing when dealing with incredibly warped perspectives like the one used for Method 2 is ehhhhh. Just through the sheer nature of how the scan is actually constructed can drastically inflate the results, like with how it's currently used; we have the distance between the bottom of the stair to the top of the stair being around three and a half times larger (2854.7 meters vs 829.8 m) than the entire height of the Burj Khalifa, which when looking at the panel and comparing it with the Burj Khalifa is ehhhhhh, not exactly the most consistent.

I'm not saying this concretely debunks the method used at all, but I do believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the method given the blatant visual inconsistency. If we have more reason to believe the values gained are more likely true compared to the opposite, I'm fine with accepting them. I just need to see that evidence first though.

 

[KingTempest]

I think there's an issue with Method 2. As far as the angsizing goes with it, it seems like the distance from the screen to the top of the stairs is being treated like it's a purely vertical measurement given how it is being used as the height value of the cliffs.

Angsizing tells you how far away something is from the viewer; the only way this would get you the exact height of the cliffs is if the the perspective of the screen was looking directly vertically upwards. What you've got currently is more like the hypotenuse side of a right-angle triangle.

That's if my understanding of angsizing is correct here; maybe another CGM can vet that.

So that can be accounted for then

Using angizing when dealing with incredibly warped perspectives like the one used for Method 2 is ehhhhh. Just through the sheer nature of how the scan is actually constructed can drastically inflate the results, like with how it's currently used; we have the distance between the bottom of the stair to the top of the stair being around three and a half times larger (2854.7 meters vs 829.8 m) than the entire height of the Burj Khalifa, which when looking at the panel and comparing it with the Burj Khalifa is ehhhhhh.

I'm not saying this concretely debunks the method used but I do believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the method given the blatant visual inconsistency.

Sorry but this isn't warped at all. It's just at an angle and the stairs get smaller the more they go upwards.

It being bigger than the Burj Khalifa or not doesn't really matter to the perception of the feat.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Using angizing when dealing with incredibly warped perspectives like the one used for Method 2 is ehhhhh. Just through the sheer nature of how the scan is actually constructed can drastically inflate the results, like with how it's currently used; we have the distance between the bottom of the stair to the top of the stair being around three and a half times larger (2854.7 meters vs 829.8 m) than the entire height of the Burj Khalifa, which when looking at the panel and comparing it with the Burj Khalifa is ehhhhhh.

I'm not saying this concretely debunks the method used but I do believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the method given the blatant visual inconsistency.

Burb Babifa

 

[Damage3245]

Sorry but this isn't warped at all. It's just at an angle and the stairs get smaller the more they go upwards.

It being bigger than the Burj Khalifa or not doesn't really matter to the perception of the feat.

In a vacuum, the cliff / topmost plateau being 3.5 taller than the tallest skyscraper in the world doesn't mean much admittedly but the visual consistency point that Deceived mentions is a valid point to bring up.

For example in this page we get a look down to the next level of Flower Hill from perspective looking down at both the topmost layer and the layer where they climbed up from, and angsizing the distance to the barrier ball down there produces a distance of less than a hundred meters. Which lines up closer with the view of the cliff from the side here than it does with it being 2.8 kilometers or so.

I'm not saying the cliff is definitely less than a hundred meters because I believe there are other, better methods for that - but Oda does tend more often than not to draw it far, far smaller than 2.8 kilometers tall.

 

[KingTempest]

In a vacuum, the cliff / topmost plateau being 3.5 taller than the tallest skyscraper in the world doesn't mean much admittedly but the visual consistency point that Deceived mentions is a valid point to bring up.

He didn't bring up visual consistency. He just said "I don't like it being that big"

For example in this page we get a look down to the next level of Flower Hill from perspective looking down at both the topmost layer and the layer where they climbed up from, and angsizing the distance to the barrier ball down there produces a distance of less than a hundred meters. Which lines up closer with the view of the cliff from the side here than it does with it being 2.8 kilometers or so.

Them being that close to the ground in the first one contradicts like every visual of looking down ever.

That second visual is the worst shot ever and that same panel was declined usage in the last thread because of the blatant enlargement.

 

[Damage3245]

He didn't bring up visual consistency. He just said "I don't like it being that big"

Them being that close to the ground in the first one contradicts like every visual of looking down ever.

That second visual is the worst shot ever and that same panel was declined usage in the last thread because of the blatant enlargement.

I get the characters... but you're also arguing that the palace in the background was enlarged as well?

Everything in relation to the cliff is unreliably drawn... except for the 1 pixel wide stairs?

 

[KingTempest]

I get the characters... but you're also arguing that the palace in the background was enlarged as well?

Nobody cares about the palace at all. The palace gets its size scaling from any and everything else.

Everything in relation to the cliff is unreliably drawn... except for the 1 pixel wide stairs?

Why is the stairs being 1 pixel wide a problem?

There were hundreds to thousands of stairs that were extended upwards, progressively getting smaller and smaller.

1 point perspective is now "unreliably drawn"? It's things that were big when close getting small when far

 

[Damage3245]

Why is the stairs being 1 pixel wide a problem?

For pretty much any calc out there, the smaller the object being used for a reference is, the less reliable it is going to be in my books. Trying to scale from characters or objects that are 1 pixel tall is a lot riskier than when the characters or objects are more clearly visible. Maybe other CGM's disagree with me on that, maybe not, but this is the case for all verses for me.

I'm not saying I'd reject a calc for just that, but I'd prefer to look at what alternative methods provide consistency for that.

For our pixelscaling guideline for example we say:

As a general guideline, it's preferable to use a scaling where the measuring stick used is of similar size to the object being scaled, rather than a scaling where the measuring stick and object are of very different sizes. However, this guideline should not take priority over other criteria that may cause similar or greater uncertainty in the scaling.

In your method 3 you directly scale the 1 pixel wide stairs to the height of the cliff and get a height of 3.6 kilometers for the cliff. Would you say that is the most consistent depiction of the cliff's height?

 

[Deceived3596]

He didn't bring up visual consistency. He just said "I don't like it being that big"

but I do believe it calls into question the legitimacy of the method given the blatant visual inconsistency

Bro please read what I said so you don't strawman my position like that. I wasn't saying "I don't like it being that big", I was saying "I believe this method might have problems with it because of this visual inconsistency".

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I wasn't saying "I don't like it being that big"

We know you like it big

 

[SnookB]

For pretty much any calc out there, the smaller the object being used for a reference is, the less reliable it is going to be in my books. Trying to scale from characters or objects that are 1 pixel tall is a lot riskier than when the characters or objects are more clearly visible.

The issue here is that the object has an immediate comparaison in the same page. Not like he got the stair's size from one page and then reused it in another shot where the size of the palace/stairs is different.

 

[Damage3245]

@Arc7Kuroi; your last two contributions to the thread have been memes/jokes. Please rein it in.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

@Arc7Kuroi; your last two contributions to the thread have been memes/jokes. Please rein it in.

Yessir, I'll quit the quips now

 

[KingTempest]

Bro please read what I said so you don't strawman my position like that. I wasn't saying "I don't like it being that big", I was saying "I believe this method might have problems with it because of this visual inconsistency".

You didn’t bring a visual inconsistency. You brought up a real world landmark and said “idk about it being that big”.

For pretty much any calc out there, the smaller the object being used for a reference is, the less reliable it is going to be in my books. Trying to scale from characters or objects that are 1 pixel tall is a lot riskier than when the characters or objects are more clearly visible. Maybe other CGM's disagree with me on that, maybe not, but this is the case for all verses for me.

I'm not saying I'd reject a calc for just that, but I'd prefer to look at what alternative methods provide consistency for that.

Yet you pull the one where the characters look like bruises on the page and use it as a counter to an object progressively getting smaller.

In your method 3 you directly scale the 1 pixel wide stairs to the height of the cliff and get a height of 3.6 kilometers for the cliff. Would you say that is the most consistent depiction of the cliff's height?

So since this is a “pick apart every one of KT’s calc until I find what’s wrong with it witch hunt” since you aren’t even tackling the calcs atp and you’re just either
A. Looking for points you disagree with
B. Asking me with a digital sarcastic tone “do YOU think this is ___”
I’m gonna stop engaging your arguments and ask more CGM to read.

Cause now you’re not even defending your own calcs or providing solutions to our mutual problem, that we need a size. You’re just nitpicking which parts you don’t like from my calcs.

Stop asking me useless questions. Tackle what is the most accurate, stop searching for your own skewed perception of consistency, and let’s finish this damn thread.

 

[Damage3245]

So since this is a “pick apart every one of KT’s calc until I find what’s wrong with it witch hunt” since you aren’t even tackling the calcs atp and you’re just either

KT, please, this isn't a witch hunt.

Cause now you’re not even defending your own calcs or providing solutions to our mutual problem, that we need a size. You’re just nitpicking which parts you don’t like from my calcs.

This is a bit inaccurate; I did provide solutions earlier in the thread and I'm not just nitpicking; I am anylzing what I find to be wrong with the calcs from a Calcing perspective (like the point i brought up about Method 2 further up the thread or with Method 4 yesterday), and I was commenting on the consistency again because Deceived drew attention to it.

Also, it seems more efficient to me to try and get the problems out of the way I have with the proposed calcs before I defend the other ones.

Stop asking me useless questions. Tackle what is the most accurate, stop searching for your own skewed perception of consistency, and let’s finish this damn thread.

Okay; I won't ask you questions like that again but I will come back to you with points that I find to be wrong or questionable for your proposed calcs.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Unless you wanna use any of the others

@M3X_2.0 @CloverDragon03 how do y’all feel about any of the other calcs?

I'm open to looking into them, though personally I'm still convinced of Method 4 being the best

 

[KingTempest]

@Dalesean027 @M3X_2.0 has you guys’ mind changed from Damage’s arguments or no

 

[Dalesean027]

What are the new proposals

 

[KingTempest]

What are the new proposals

One Piece: KT's Examination of Dressrosa

vsbattles.fandom.com

I'm proposing method 4 and Damage doesn't like it

 

[Damage3245]

What are the new proposals

The current main proposal is Method 4 from KT's six new methods. I've raised an issue with it though KT and Clover have argued that it is not an issue.

I'm having to go offline now, but perhaps I can better explain my issue with it to you and others tomorrow.

 

[KingTempest]

You've already explained your issue several times, he is free to scroll up and read them

 

[Damage3245]

You've already explained your issue several times, he is free to scroll up and read them

Obviously he can, but it seems like my explanation for why it is a problem hasn't been fully understood and I want to make sure everything is clear.

 

[SnookB]

Method 4 is the safest one, with the least assumptions and an even lowballed result without over-relying on constantly changing landmark sizes.
I'm with Clover and M3X on this

 

[Damage3245]

Method 4 is the safest one, with the least assumptions and an even lowballed result without over-relying on constantly changing landmark sizes.
I'm with Clover and M3X on this

Noted. I'll just try to pick this up tomorrow.

 

[Kachon123]

What are the new proposals

I was going to address all the calculations at once but since Method 4 is being highlighted as the one that people are agreeing with, I'll get this one out the way first while I'm still gathering together all the necessary scans for the other methods:

Method 4

That speed is the speed of the birdcage's contested push back when not even frames before it was struggling to move and has some seconds where it straight stopped moving.

I think "struggling to move but moves that in a second" should scale to "moves with not as much effort but still constantly moves"

 

[Kachon123]

After the CGMs finish revoting, can we close this?

 

[Dalesean027]

I don't see the problem with method 4