Rework Angsizing Formula (This affects your favorite verse!!!)

[Flashlight237]

With the arguments you present, you imply that no type of FOV would be suitable for animated productions, not just cinematic ones. If you claim that an FOV comparable to human central vision is appropriate for the vertical FOV in animation panels, you should explain why, since the only apparent justification is that "drawings" are created in conjunction with vision. However, this does not necessarily mean that the final images conform to our field of view.

Furthermore, if you argue that the human visual field of 60° should be used for panels, shouldn't it also apply to the horizontal FOV? After all, central vision covers 60° both vertically and horizontally, which would ultimately lead to the same result as my current proposal.

1. Don't air quote drawings like a condescending prick when animations are literally moving drawings. That only implies that you don't know how animation works and refuse to let someone who knows how it works explain it to you. I've been watching cartoons all my life and even made a frame-by-frame animation of an armadillo for an indie game (which by the way took several hours and nine different drawings to do). Even rotoscoping involves drawing, and that's been a thing since Koko the Clown made use of rotoscoping. You're crazy if you think animations aren't drawn, let alone in a meticulous process that takes months to do per episode.
2. "However, this does not necessarily mean that the final images conform to our field of view." They don't conform to the FOV of cameras either; it's all purely based on interpretation. I don't see why you're so adamant to brush off interpretation as a justification when interpretation (which by the way is a thought process) is the only good explanation for practically everything going on in animation, be it the art styles used and the behind-the-scenes handiwork involved in the process itself, or how it gets presented to the audience thus letting the audience interpret the scenes shown. There are even visual cues in animation used to get audiences too interpret things a certain way, like two merged circles when a character is looking at something through binoculars or an interface with the word "REC" on it when a character is using a camera.

This is very much unlike photography and live action cinematography which in the context of vision is purely WYSIWIG. An ink pen isn't anywhere as complex as a camera to a point where just the choice of lens would change everything. That's why I suggested we stick with what we have written in the article already: it's the easiest way to mathematically interpret the scene provided given cinematographic details are absent in anything involving drawings.

3. Uh, no. While, yes, FOV involves angles, unless you find yourself in a situation where you're forced to wear an eye patch (which I sincerely hope doesn't happen to you), human vision isn't square like that. Just using the Wikipedia article for Field of View as a source, our central vision (vertical) is 60° whereas our binocular vision (horizontal) is anywhere from 114° to 120°. Our full horizontal and vertical FOVs (which involves eye movement) aren't square either; they are 220° and 135° respectively.

 

[Antvasima]

It would be necessary to tag the staff to confirm if they agree with the latest proposal. This way, we could start a CRT and move forward with the other proposals. So far, no one has expressed opposition to the review related to movie and series panels.

Proposal for Movie and Series Panels:

1. For panels from live-action movies and series, it is recommended to use a horizontal field of view (FOV) of 60°, as this value represents an approximation within the range of FOVs commonly used in cinematography, unless a specific FOV can be determined for the scene.
2. For panels from animated movies and series, it is suggested to apply the same horizontal FOV, unless a more precise value can be established.

Agree: Dalesean027
Neutral:
Disagreement:

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr. Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer @Vzearr

What do you think should be done here?

 

[DMUA]

That title alone (and every prior variation of it I've been forced to be subjected to) makes me want to knife the OP rather than engage with whatever minor complaint he has that'll force us to change like 2,000 calculations (which of course, because he's not staff, he will not be required to do)

Like, yeah I think it's been known for awhile our Anglesizing methods are off, but this is a hobby where we know from the outset we're applying fake and unintended numbers, is there significance? Does this revision actually apply a consistent solution to the practice as a whole? Is it really worth going through perhaps even more stuff than us deciding to change our fragmentation values?

 

[Dalesean027]

That title alone (and every prior variation of it I've been forced to be subjected to) makes me want to knife the OP rather than engage with whatever minor complaint he has that'll force us to change like 2,000 calculations (which of course, because he's not staff, he will not be required to do)

Like, yeah I think it's been known for awhile our Anglesizing methods are off, but this is a hobby where we know from the outset we're applying fake and unintended numbers, is there significance? Does this revision actually apply a consistent solution to the practice as a whole? Is it really worth going through perhaps even more stuff than us deciding to change our fragmentation values?

OP kinda goes in depth with a bunch of other micro details but his point for live action TV and Movies was good suggestion wise and did prove to get more accurate results. So I'd say its good for that medium but otherwise shouldn't be applied for like comics, manga, or cartoons

interest has been lost here though because he keeps adding more and more instead of applying what's accepted which would be the the live action suggestions

 

[DMUA]

his point for live action TV and Movies was good suggestion wise and did prove to get more accurate results. So I'd say its good for that medium but otherwise shouldn't be applied for like comics, manga, or cartoons

I suppose this would beg the question of "how do games play into this?", but alright. And I guess looking at it more closely, all the change really would entail is switching one number, but even discounting all the stuff it shouldn't apply to, a lot of times

I'll just say I'm fine with that but I'm definitely not going to look through every single calculation I've made searching for angles to resize

 

[Flashlight237]

OP kinda goes in depth with a bunch of other micro details but his point for live action TV and Movies was good suggestion wise and did prove to get more accurate results. So I'd say its good for that medium but otherwise shouldn't be applied for like comics, manga, or cartoons

interest has been lost here though because he keeps adding more and more instead of applying what's accepted which would be the the live action suggestions

Yeah, that's what I take issue with: why change goal posts repeatedly like that?

 

[Dalesean027]

Yeah, that's what I take issue with: why change goal posts repeatedly like that?

Yeah that's why I've stopped commenting here, there is no point when the goal post keeps shifting from whats already been accepted.

I'll just say I'm fine with that but I'm definitely not going to look through every single calculation I've made searching for angles to resize

Yeah I don't we should be expected to seek out every live action calc and do this either but yeah its good to have I think moving forward but still not much more here otherwise

 

[Flashlight237]

Yeah that's why I've stopped commenting here, there is no point when the goal post keeps shifting from whats already been accepted.



Yeah I don't we should be expected to seek out every live action calc and do this either but yeah its good to have I think moving forward but still not much more here otherwise

Yeah, top that off with how defensive he gets when someone shows opposition and... Yeah, it's pretty easy to see how this thread will completely stagnate. Me? I've made my piece with this thread; I can't in good conscience provide any more arguments here.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Just briefly reading over the thread, changing the angle used for movies and tv seems fine

 

[Kulf_Boba]

1. Don't air quote drawings like a condescending prick when animations are literally moving drawings. That only implies that you don't know how animation works and refuse to let someone who knows how it works explain it to you. I've been watching cartoons all my life and even made a frame-by-frame animation of an armadillo for an indie game (which by the way took several hours and nine different drawings to do). Even rotoscoping involves drawing, and that's been a thing since Koko the Clown made use of rotoscoping. You're crazy if you think animations aren't drawn, let alone in a meticulous process that takes months to do per episode.
2. "However, this does not necessarily mean that the final images conform to our field of view." They don't conform to the FOV of cameras either; it's all purely based on interpretation. I don't see why you're so adamant to brush off interpretation as a justification when interpretation (which by the way is a thought process) is the only good explanation for practically everything going on in animation, be it the art styles used and the behind-the-scenes handiwork involved in the process itself, or how it gets presented to the audience thus letting the audience interpret the scenes shown. There are even visual cues in animation used to get audiences too interpret things a certain way, like two merged circles when a character is looking at something through binoculars or an interface with the word "REC" on it when a character is using a camera.

This is very much unlike photography and live action cinematography which in the context of vision is purely WYSIWIG. An ink pen isn't anywhere as complex as a camera to a point where just the choice of lens would change everything. That's why I suggested we stick with what we have written in the article already: it's the easiest way to mathematically interpret the scene provided given cinematographic details are absent in anything involving drawings.

3. Uh, no. While, yes, FOV involves angles, unless you find yourself in a situation where you're forced to wear an eye patch (which I sincerely hope doesn't happen to you), human vision isn't square like that. Just using the Wikipedia article for Field of View as a source, our central vision (vertical) is 60° whereas our binocular vision (horizontal) is anywhere from 114° to 120°. Our full horizontal and vertical FOVs (which involves eye movement) aren't square either; they are 220° and 135° respectively.

1. The use of quotation marks around "drawings" was not intended to convey what you mentioned, but rather simply reflected that your argument is limited to that, as you did not provide a coherent explanation of why human vision would be suitable for calculating the FOV in animated productions. Furthermore, you did not respond to the questions I raised earlier when we discussed its use in comic and manga panels.


2. Both approaches, the 60° central vision and the use of cinematic parameters, are, in a sense, arbitrary within the context of animation. Interpretation plays a key role, but that doesn't mean we can't apply mathematical methods to calculate the FOV. Since both approaches rely on interpretative criteria, I suggest evaluating different animation panels to see which of the two options provides values that are more consistent with what we can visually assume at first glance.


3. Binocular vision covers a much larger field, but this does not equate to the central horizontal vision, as part of those 120° corresponds to peripheral vision. Most diagrams and studies online show that the area where we perceive details and colors with the greatest precision (i.e., central vision) is about 60° both vertically and horizontally. This value aligns with the color discrimination limit, which is also around 60°. Based on this, if it is argued that panels in animated productions should use human central vision, why limit that angle to just the height of the panel?

 

[Kulf_Boba]

OP kinda goes in depth with a bunch of other micro details but his point for live action TV and Movies was good suggestion wise and did prove to get more accurate results. So I'd say its good for that medium but otherwise shouldn't be applied for like comics, manga, or cartoons

interest has been lost here though because he keeps adding more and more instead of applying what's accepted which would be the the live action suggestions

This is not a CRT but a discussion thread. It’s normal for new conclusions to emerge and for proposals to be refined as research and debate progress.

The approach for comics and manga is different from that for film and television. If you check my previous posts, you'll see that multiple comic and manga panels demonstrated that using 40° yields better results than the human field of view. However, that topic can be discussed later; otherwise, this will become endless.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Yeah, that's what I take issue with: why change goal posts repeatedly like that?

The changes in the proposal for film and television were already explained previously in the thread. But if they hadn't been so dramatic, they would have realized that the only adjustment I made to the proposal was to use a 60° horizontal field of view instead of 70°.

My proposal for comics and manga remains the same as OP's, and for video games I suggested a horizontal FOV of 70°. However, since I don't have enough knowledge on the topic, I prefer to leave it for a deeper discussion.

 

[KLOL506]

After seeing everything that's been discussed here, neutral on the new values for the live-action stuff, disagree for the new values regarding drawings and animations.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

After seeing everything that's been discussed here, neutral on the new values for the live-action stuff, disagree for the new values regarding drawings and animations.

Ok, thanks for your opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

That title alone (and every prior variation of it I've been forced to be subjected to) makes me want to knife the OP rather than engage with whatever minor complaint he has that'll force us to change like 2,000 calculations (which of course, because he's not staff, he will not be required to do)

Like, yeah I think it's been known for awhile our Anglesizing methods are off, but this is a hobby where we know from the outset we're applying fake and unintended numbers, is there significance? Does this revision actually apply a consistent solution to the practice as a whole? Is it really worth going through perhaps even more stuff than us deciding to change our fragmentation values?

That seem like very valid points.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Question: If the angsizing method were changed to use 60° for the horizontal FOV, would the planet curvature formula change in any way?

Corrected planet diameter = sqrt(1-(tan(35)(planet diameter in pixels/panel height in pixels))^2/((tan(35)(planet diameter in pixels/panel height in pixels))^2+1))*planet diameter

Planet Curvature Scaling

For many feats of very high destructive power scaling from measuring sticks like humans, trees or even mountains becomes very difficult, because they are too small compared to the phenomenon we are scaling. For such feats scaling from the size of the planet itself can be of interest. However...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

That title alone (and every prior variation of it I've been forced to be subjected to) makes me want to knife the OP rather than engage with whatever minor complaint he has that'll force us to change like 2,000 calculations (which of course, because he's not staff, he will not be required to do)

Like, yeah I think it's been known for awhile our Anglesizing methods are off, but this is a hobby where we know from the outset we're applying fake and unintended numbers, is there significance? Does this revision actually apply a consistent solution to the practice as a whole? Is it really worth going through perhaps even more stuff than us deciding to change our fragmentation values?

So should we apply any clearly defined constructive change based on this discussion thread, or just close it in lack of better options?

 

[DMUA]

So should we apply any clearly defined constructive change based on this discussion

Yeah, but "we" is not going to include me because this will be many adjustments

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I agree with you that it seems completely unrealistic for us to do so, and that the suggested standards here seem very confused and constantly changing, so it may be best to close this thread, and possibly let @DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 figure out a related revision of their own posted at some later date.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Well, I agree with you that it seems completely unrealistic for us to do so

Why would carrying out the revision be unrealistic? The way I am proposing it, it can be done without major issues.

Kulf Boba:
This thread is meant to discuss all proposals. My suggestion is to create three separate CRTs to update the relevant calculations as the changes are approved, according to the type of panel and the corresponding medium.

For example, if the current proposal related to movie and TV panels is approved, I suggest creating a specific CRT to review which calculations are affected. Then, we would proceed with comics and manga, and finally with video games.

Even Executor_N0 has stated that "he doesn't think it's such a drastic change that it would require all calculations to be redone immediately."

and that the suggested standards here seem very confused and constantly changing, so it may be best to close this thread

It is natural for standards to evolve as research on the topic deepens. Furthermore, each adjustment is properly justified. If someone finds them confusing, it may be for two reasons: either they do not fully understand the subject being discussed, or they have not followed the thread from the beginning and have only read the latest tags.


On the other hand, what would be the point of closing the thread if it was specifically moved here to discuss this topic? There is a reason why it was transferred from the content revision threads to this space, so closing it suddenly makes no sense. As it stands now, this is not a CRT.

and possibly let @DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 figure out a related revision of their own posted at some later date.

Finally, why should @DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 handle the revision on their own when I was the one who proposed these changes?

DontTalkDT has barely participated in the thread, and his only contribution has been this:

[Quote from DontTalkDT]: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rewor...fects-your-favorite-verse.172862/post-6773905

As I said in the last thread, I am in favor of keeping the current method for calcs where we can't actually determine the angle.
For calcs where we can determine it by use of a reference objects (or by some other precise means), that should be done. But that falls under calc improvements that don't require a giant immediate revision.

To which I have already responded.
For his part, Executor_N0 only shared his opinion at the beginning of the thread and has not participated beyond that.

[Quote from Executor N0]: https://vsbattles.com/threads/rewor...fects-your-favorite-verse.172862/post-6774561
I actually remember the way in the past that alternative angles and formulas that took into account different panel structures did exist and were used, the current one on the calculation page was just the standard one with good enough results to be used in case someone didn't know how to do a more precise measurement of what was happening.

There are two main points here from the looks of it. One is giving more precise measurements; I don't think anyone is against that. It's always preferred that the measurements fit reality as much as possible, so if it's possible to give a direct way of measuring the distances and sizes that more accurately represent reality, that will likely be accepted. The only thing left to discuss is the rulings and methods, I do think that finding generic values when there's little information about the scene, but using very precise ones when it's known the way the scene was structured (Like using angle lenses that are known to be used in the recording of the scene).

The other point is the long revision that could happen, but I think it's not as much as a drastic change that would request every calculation to be redone right after the revision if accepted (If it's accepted). So if everyone agrees I'm also fine with the guide changing, but even if not accepted as is, I do think that at least something useful from the post could be used.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

My current proposal for film and television remains the same.

Proposal for Movie and Series Panels:

1. For panels from live-action movies and series, it is proposed to use a horizontal field of view (FOV) of 60°, as this falls within the values commonly used in cinematography, unless a specific FOV can be determined for the scene.
2. For panels from animated movies and series, it is suggested to use the same horizontal FOV unless a more precise value can be identified.

35 mm and 50 mm Lenses (Standard Lenses)

• 35 mm: This lens is considered slightly wide-angle, offering a broad field of view without distorting perspective too much. It is commonly used for indoor scenes or situations where a larger portion of the environment needs to be shown without making objects appear distorted.
• 50 mm: Considered the standard lens closest to what the human eye sees in terms of perspective. It does not produce distortion and is ideal for medium shots and general takes.

24 mm and 28 mm Lenses (Wide-Angle)

• 24 mm: Used for wide shots that capture more of the environment. Ideal for landscapes, action scenes, or small interiors where more space needs to be encompassed.
• 28 mm: This is a wide-angle lens that does not distort as much as more extreme lenses (like the 18 mm), making it suitable for shots where a broad view is needed without distortion.

Lens Focal Length	Diagonal	Vertical	Horizontal
24mm	84.1°	53.1°	73.7°
28mm	75.4°	46.4°	65.5°
35mm	63.4°	37.8°	54.4°
50mm	46.8°	27.0°	39.6°

Value table source:
https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables

 

[Kulf_Boba]

The arguments presented by Flashlight237 against using the same horizontal FOV for animated products have already been addressed here:

1. Don't air quote drawings like a condescending prick when animations are literally moving drawings. That only implies that you don't know how animation works and refuse to let someone who knows how it works explain it to you. I've been watching cartoons all my life and even made a frame-by-frame animation of an armadillo for an indie game (which by the way took several hours and nine different drawings to do). Even rotoscoping involves drawing, and that's been a thing since Koko the Clown made use of rotoscoping. You're crazy if you think animations aren't drawn, let alone in a meticulous process that takes months to do per episode.
2. "However, this does not necessarily mean that the final images conform to our field of view." They don't conform to the FOV of cameras either; it's all purely based on interpretation. I don't see why you're so adamant to brush off interpretation as a justification when interpretation (which by the way is a thought process) is the only good explanation for practically everything going on in animation, be it the art styles used and the behind-the-scenes handiwork involved in the process itself, or how it gets presented to the audience thus letting the audience interpret the scenes shown. There are even visual cues in animation used to get audiences too interpret things a certain way, like two merged circles when a character is looking at something through binoculars or an interface with the word "REC" on it when a character is using a camera.

This is very much unlike photography and live action cinematography which in the context of vision is purely WYSIWIG. An ink pen isn't anywhere as complex as a camera to a point where just the choice of lens would change everything. That's why I suggested we stick with what we have written in the article already: it's the easiest way to mathematically interpret the scene provided given cinematographic details are absent in anything involving drawings.

3. Uh, no. While, yes, FOV involves angles, unless you find yourself in a situation where you're forced to wear an eye patch (which I sincerely hope doesn't happen to you), human vision isn't square like that. Just using the Wikipedia article for Field of View as a source, our central vision (vertical) is 60° whereas our binocular vision (horizontal) is anywhere from 114° to 120°. Our full horizontal and vertical FOVs (which involves eye movement) aren't square either; they are 220° and 135° respectively.

1. The use of quotation marks around "drawings" was not intended to convey what you mentioned, but rather simply reflected that your argument is limited to that, as you did not provide a coherent explanation of why human vision would be suitable for calculating the FOV in animated productions. Furthermore, you did not respond to the questions I raised earlier when we discussed its use in comic and manga panels.


2. Both approaches, the 60° central vision and the use of cinematic parameters, are, in a sense, arbitrary within the context of animation. Interpretation plays a key role, but that doesn't mean we can't apply mathematical methods to calculate the FOV. Since both approaches rely on interpretative criteria, I suggest evaluating different animation panels to see which of the two options provides values that are more consistent with what we can visually assume at first glance.


3. Binocular vision covers a much larger field, but this does not equate to the central horizontal vision, as part of those 120° corresponds to peripheral vision. Most diagrams and studies online show that the area where we perceive details and colors with the greatest precision (i.e., central vision) is about 60° both vertically and horizontally. This value aligns with the color discrimination limit, which is also around 60°. Based on this, if it is argued that panels in animated productions should use human central vision, why limit that angle to just the height of the panel?

Even if the idea of using the human central vision FOV (60°) were accepted, it should still be applied to the horizontal FOV of the panels, as explained in point 3. Therefore, this would lead to the same results as what I have already proposed.

 

[Dalesean027]

My current proposal for film and television remains the same.

Again we've already accepted the usage of the horiztonal 60degree viewing angle with live action film and TV, looking at it though the table does seem fine but we don't really measure diagonally ever so that should be removed its just cause for clutter otherwise though the actual values themself have a credible source and you've described the usage fine enough for what's accepted.

For me its just that given the table there is no point in the 60degree angle we already accepted then since the 35mm and 50mm are more accurate seemingly to what that common FOV usage you were pushing the 60 degree viewing angle for. The 28mm I'll be honest doesn't at least to me seem that useful because how often are you gonna be dealing with big wide angle shots that aren't more likely than not just a perspective shot of like the environment or something zooming out into that wider FoV which the 24mm already covers. It just seems a bit redundant especially when you have to consider you're proposing this for usage of our general users.

I'd say personally either axe the 60 degree angle or 50 degree one we don't need both since they are both for general shots and axe 28mm because it doesn't seem at least to me that its worth having which would reduce it down to this for live action film and tv:

35mm (Indoor scene PX scaling)

Either 50mm or 60mm (General scene px scaling)

And 24mm (Environment shot scene px scaling)

This is all they need if it is accepted

 

[KLOL506]

After re-reading all the arguments posted by DMUA and Ant, count me in as disagreeing with this CRT altogether.

No I will not elaborate further, my vote is final

 

[Antvasima]

My impression is that the suggestions here seem confused and constantly changing, which likely means that we would have to rework thousands of calculations based on a revision that isn't even necessarily an improvement to our current standards, and we do not have the available resources to rework so many calculations in the first place.

@DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 are two of our most knowledgeable calc group members, and I usually trust their senses of judgement.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

My impression is that the suggestions here seem confused and constantly changing, which likely means that we would have to rework thousands of calculations based on a revision that isn't even necessarily an improvement to our current standards, and we do not have the available resources to rework so many calculations in the first place.

@DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 are two of our most knowledgeable calc group members, and I usually trust their senses of judgement.

If you carefully reviewed the thread, you would notice that the proposals are not actually confusing. In fact, many users at the beginning of the thread have stated that they make sense, including Executor_N0. I also want to reiterate that this is not a CRT but a discussion thread, so it's normal for proposals to change slightly as new information emerges.

The only significant change in my proposal was using 60° instead of 70° since I have advocated from the start for using the horizontal FOV instead of the vertical one. I have already demonstrated why the horizontal FOV is more accurate for film and television, so this change is an improvement.

There have been much larger revisions than this, so I don't see why it would be an issue, especially if it's an update that objectively improves the accuracy of the calculations.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Again we've already accepted the usage of the horiztonal 60degree viewing angle with live action film and TV, looking at it though the table does seem fine but we don't really measure diagonally ever so that should be removed its just cause for clutter otherwise though the actual values themself have a credible source and you've described the usage fine enough for what's accepted.

For me its just that given the table there is no point in the 60degree angle we already accepted then since the 35mm and 50mm are more accurate seemingly to what that common FOV usage you were pushing the 60 degree viewing angle for. The 28mm I'll be honest doesn't at least to me seem that useful because how often are you gonna be dealing with big wide angle shots that aren't more likely than not just a perspective shot of like the environment or something zooming out into that wider FoV which the 24mm already covers. It just seems a bit redundant especially when you have to consider you're proposing this for usage of our general users.

I'd say personally either axe the 60 degree angle or 50 degree one we don't need both since they are both for general shots and axe 28mm because it doesn't seem at least to me that its worth having which would reduce it down to this for live action film and tv:

35mm (Indoor scene PX scaling)

Either 50mm or 60mm (General scene px scaling)

And 24mm (Environment shot scene px scaling)

This is all they need if it is accepted

Several users have already accepted the use of horizontal FOV, and others agree with using a 60° angle. Do you think it would be feasible to start a CRT to review calculations based on cinema and television panels?

The table was included to justify the use of 60°, as 35mm and 28mm lenses are quite common. That’s why I asked whether one should be preferred or if 60° could be used as an average. My intention is not to add that table or use different FOVs depending on the shot, but simply to propose 60° as a general approximation—unless precise information about the lens used in a particular scene is available.

From what I’ve researched, the most common lenses are 28mm and 35mm, with 35mm being the most frequently used, while 50mm is reserved for more specific shots. Here, you can see an example of how 28mm and 35mm lenses are used in different scenes and why I consider an average to be a reasonable approach.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What do DontTalk and our calc group members think that we should do here? Should we close this thread?

 

[Kulf_Boba]

What do DontTalk and our calc group members think that we should do here? Should we close this thread?

I’d say go ahead and close it. I don’t intend to contribute any further to this proposal due to the attention it has received. However, if someone wants to revisit it in the future, this is everything I have proposed or intended to propose:


Film and TV:
For live-action and animated productions, use a horizontal FOV of 60°.

Comics and Manga:
Use a horizontal FOV of 40° for square panels, and a horizontal or vertical FOV of 60° for particularly wide rectangular panels.

Video Games:
Use an average value for horizontal or vertical FOV. Based on my research, the average for horizontal FOV is 70°, unless the exact value for the game is known.

 

[Antvasima]

What do DontTalk and our calc group members think that we should do here? Should we close this thread?

I’d say go ahead and close it. I don’t intend to contribute any further to this proposal due to the attention it has received. However, if someone wants to revisit it in the future, this is everything I have proposed or intended to propose:


Film and TV:
For live-action and animated productions, use a horizontal FOV of 60°.

Comics and Manga:
Use a horizontal FOV of 40° for square panels, and a horizontal or vertical FOV of 60° for particularly wide rectangular panels.

Video Games:
Use an average value for horizontal or vertical FOV. Based on my research, the average for horizontal FOV is 70°, unless the exact value for the game is known.

Okay. No problem, and thank you for being reasonable.

@DontTalkDT

Is any of this information useful for you to note down somewhere?

 

[ByArrow]

Can someone apply the things that have been agreed upon in this thread?

 

[Dalesean027]

If you count the votes, and there's at least 4 people in favour of that, with at least a 4:1 acceptance rate, I think it should be fine to apply.

Is this part that was accepted before Kulf went on about other stuff that was rejected after fine to apply?

Asking since I'm apparently being made aware some have been using it already

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have thought what here so far?

 

[ByArrow]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have thought what here so far?

 

[Breadbear83]

I’d say go ahead and close it. I don’t intend to contribute any further to this proposal due to the attention it has received. However, if someone wants to revisit it in the future, this is everything I have proposed or intended to propose:


Film and TV:
For live-action and animated productions, use a horizontal FOV of 60°.

Comics and Manga:
Use a horizontal FOV of 40° for square panels, and a horizontal or vertical FOV of 60° for particularly wide rectangular panels.

Video Games:
Use an average value for horizontal or vertical FOV. Based on my research, the average for horizontal FOV is 70°, unless the exact value for the game is known.

Sorry if somewhat derailling, but what to do with panels with weird shapes like this one? https://files.catbox.moe/ur5odn.webp

Every side of the panel is different in length, right side is bigger than left side, and the lower side is bigger than the upper side

 

[Dalesean027]

Sorry if somewhat derailling, but what to do with panels with weird shapes like this one? https://files.catbox.moe/ur5odn.webp

Every side of the panel is different in length, right side is bigger than left side, and the lower side is bigger than the upper side

This isn't accepted for manga and comics, only like film ant TV

Which staff members have thought what here so far?

I'll have to reread this thread later to see what the final votes were

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[ByArrow]

Bump