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.