• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Onigashima Pixelscaling problems

5,744
4,998
As someone pointed out to me on my most recent calc, the size we use for Onigashima, currently, is based off a panel from 2020 where the island itself was too far from the screen to be accurately depicted. We've got a far more accurate depiction of the island's size, and scaling now in 2021, and we should likely update it.

For example, Onigashima's eyes, one of the most used aspects of Wano-Related calcs, it was calculated at 863m by Mitch using this poorly detailed panel.
nV07nlK.png



We have FAR more detailed depictions of the island now, like this
hjf1yby.png


Highest Hill: 13px/466.96m

Eye: 41px = (41/13)*466.96 = 1472.72m

Or this:
KnMJqbH.png


Highest Hill: 17px/466.96m

Eye: 37px = (37/17)*466.96 = 1016.32471m

And this:
QBDvKtR.png


Highest Hill: 20px/466.96m

Eye: 75px = (75/20)*466.96 = 1751.1m

We can use the Average (1413.4m), or use one of the three. It's clear that the 863m result is just inconsistent with the rest that always give 1000m+
 
I read this and, why are you assuming that the branch in the foreground is the same size as the one in the background? They can have the same shape and design but not the same size, you know that right?
That, and it looks like the branch in the background could be even further away than the sword handle is. Makes comparing between them more difficult.
 
The branch in the background is definitly farther away it looks around the side of the skull when the sword is in front of the skull
 
I read this and, why are you assuming that the branch in the foreground is the same size as the one in the background? They can have the same shape and design but not the same size, you know that right?
Because every single branch around the front one has a similar size
That, and it looks like the branch in the background could be even further away than the sword handle is. Makes comparing between them more difficult.
Wait really? I don’t see that.

The branch in the back is on the mountains which are closer to the front than the Katana is, shown by the second scan and the portrayal of the mountain under it
 
Again, a very similar result is attained through the eye scaling, which rely far less on perspective to work. Or... maybe just scaling the hill directly to the diameter.
I could get 17km with that method, we should really decide on the size of the eye first, as it's a bigger object and less likely to be less detailed due to size.
 
Because every single branch around the front one has a similar size

Wait really? I don’t see that.

The branch in the back is on the mountains which are closer to the front than the Katana is, shown by the second scan and the portrayal of the mountain under it
I see above that there are branches that are bigger than the ones you're scaling from and they are the same level, they're hidden behind the two exclamation marks (!!).
 
I see above that there are branches that are bigger than the ones you're scaling from and they are the same level, they're hidden behind the two exclamation marks (!!).
Those look closer to the screen than the ones around the purple imho
 
Those look closer to the screen than the ones around the purple imho
I can't really confirm or deny this, but I think it would be quite a big assumption to think that all the tress of that type have the exact same size of branches for each specimen, unless it's consistently shown so, I think that calculation would be pretty iffy, but that's just my opinion.
 
I can't really confirm or deny this, but I think it would be quite a big assumption to think that all the tress of that type have the exact same size of branches for each specimen, unless it's consistently shown so, I think that calculation would be pretty iffy, but that's just my opinion.
Nah I understand, it's just that at least in that frame, all the trees around each other are the same shape, and all the other trees that aren't the same shape look closer or further than the middle ones.
 
It's not urgent, but it is still an issue, so it should be tackled regardless
 
Onigashima has had a lot of depictions so far. It might be worth not tackling this until the battle is done, like the rest of the Wano revisions.
 
I agree with Damage here, we can probably wait until we leave Onigashina and take most clear depictions, averaging them out.
 
Exceeeept we currently use the values from a poorly depicted Onigashima, so we might want to at least update that. Should I ask DGM's opinion on this?
 
Back
Top