- 4
- 0
damn what happened?
-
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.
Rework Angsizing Formula (This affects your favorite verse!!!)
- Thread starter Kulf_Boba
- Start date
-
- Tags
- angsizing calculations
- 2,605
- 1,159
Have you reread?
- 21,565
- 36,224
Nope been busy
- 8,736
- 1,864
I have several calculations that use the current ang size formula, does this mean I need to redo them?
- 8,736
- 1,864
Do they need to be re-evaluated as well?yes, for better results, use this that i made regarding the formula made by OP forum
NEW ANGSIZE FORMULA
New Angsizing Formula --------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live Action (Movies, TV Shows, Streaming Series) Do not use the old 70° vertical FOV standard. Modern films and television are generally shot i...docs.google.com
Also why is it "Distance = Object Size • Panel Width ÷ [Object Pixel Size • 2 • tan(70° ÷ 2)]" instead of "Distance = Object Size • Panel Width ÷ [Object Pixel Size • 2 • tan(35)]"?
- 8,736
- 1,864
@Debatismwis will this be affected as well: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Planet_Curvature_Scaling
- 4
- 0
thats literally the same thing mathematically tho
70° / 2 = 35°
So:
and
produce identical results.
the formula is usually written as tan(FOV/2) because it keeps the structure consistent if the FOV changes.
- 4
- 0
potentially yes.
that page currently uses panel height and tan(35), which come from the existing vsbw 70° vertical angsizing framework. since the proposal specifically challenges that framework for live action and games, planet curvature scaling would likely need to be examined separately to determine whether the correction formula should also be updated. i wouldn't automatically call the page invalid but it is definitely connected to the same assumptions being discussed in this thread anyway.
- 892
- 849
Don't use Google Docs, it's not allowed in the site.
Remove the link and move everything into a Fandom blog instead.
- 4
- 0
i dont know how to do that but ill delete both of my comments then
- 8,736
- 1,864
Just create a user blog on the wikia
- 178,086
- 91,154
What do our calc group members here think about this?
@Executor_N0 @Mr. Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer @Naito-desu @Floxy178 @ElJoaki5 @Drite77
- 2,605
- 1,159
The blog is showing the things that are already in the OP but doesn't cover everything OP suggest in thread. It doesn't mention things like the use of 60 degrees for Live Action, which was accepted in this thread. What I mean is, it would be a mistake for CGMs to just look at this blog and leave comments, because this blog doesn't cover everything in this thread.What do our calc group members here think about this?
@Executor_N0 @Mr. Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer @Naito-desu @Floxy178 @ElJoaki5 @Drite77
What needs to be done right now is for Dale or someone else to list what the final votes are. Then, if there are enough votes, implement the accepted things; if not, ask other CGMs to vote.
- 8,736
- 1,864
Why am I getting this?What do our calc group members here think about this?
@Executor_N0 @Mr. Bambu @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Agnaa @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer @Naito-desu @Floxy178 @ElJoaki5 @Drite77
I was trying to insert the images from the Google doc
- 8,736
- 1,864
fixed
- 178,086
- 91,154
- 178,086
- 91,154
As your screencapture says, that is not allowed.Why am I getting this?
I was trying to insert the images from the Google doc
- 8,736
- 1,864
But I have uploaded images onto User Blogs before or linked imgur images, what is different now?As your screencapture says, that is not allowed.
- 8,736
- 1,864
Looks like to problem was that I tried linking the Google DocAs your screencapture says, that is not allowed.
Which is weird because I have linked other Google Docs before: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...iyajin/Anakin_stopping_his_ship_in_Hyperspace
- 178,086
- 91,154
That is not allowed, as it can be used to expose private information about those who click on the Google Docs links, so you are required to remove it and incorporate the relevant information directly to your blog post instead.
- 8,736
- 1,864
How do I link the source to my calculation then?That is not allowed, as it can be used to expose private information about those who click on the Google Docs links, so you are required to remove it and incorporate the relevant information directly to your blog post instead.
- 8,736
- 1,864
That's what I did, but that calc is not mine, so I need to provide the link to the original calc in question
- 6,209
- 3,104
I don't think it's a bad idea. I think the current standard can be used for situations where it's hard to extrapolate or find info on the FOV. I've tried it before but some of the info of FOV is very difficult to find.What do our calc group members here think about this?
- 1,044
- 1,110
I'd be fine with using lower field of view for cinematic shots like 16:9 as around 40-50 degrees as you proposed, but I don't like the idea of its application for comic/manga panels. You're saying that there can be panels where it's like 16:9 ratio and we should use 40 deg vertical or 70 deg horizontal or whatever. But they can literally have any x:y aspect ratio unlike cinematic shots and it'll be too problematic if you use 70 degree vertical for everything else (so it's instant switch of value at some point) and the question how much close it needs to be to use new value will still remain.
I'm thinking maybe we can use diagonal FOV to account both width and height? That'll not only help as to calculate at any x:y aspect ratio with according vertical and horizontal FOVs but also fix problem you mentioned that if difference is big it may give very wide horizontal FOV, because when you assume a diagonal POV, neither vertical nor horizontal one can exceed it at any ratio.
For any x:y ratio, 2 × arctan( (x / sqrt(x^2 + y^2)) × tan(DFOV / 2) ) will give FOV along x.
For example if we assume 90 degree diagonal FOV, that'd be 70 degrees for 1:1, 62 degrees for 4:3 and 52 degrees for 16:9 as vertical FOV.
Maybe we can continue using standard 70 degree vertical when vertical>horizontal and use 90 degree diagonal FOV when vertical <= horizontal (which might be good as method gives 70 degree at 1:1 breaking point).
I'm thinking maybe we can use diagonal FOV to account both width and height? That'll not only help as to calculate at any x:y aspect ratio with according vertical and horizontal FOVs but also fix problem you mentioned that if difference is big it may give very wide horizontal FOV, because when you assume a diagonal POV, neither vertical nor horizontal one can exceed it at any ratio.
For any x:y ratio, 2 × arctan( (x / sqrt(x^2 + y^2)) × tan(DFOV / 2) ) will give FOV along x.
For example if we assume 90 degree diagonal FOV, that'd be 70 degrees for 1:1, 62 degrees for 4:3 and 52 degrees for 16:9 as vertical FOV.
Maybe we can continue using standard 70 degree vertical when vertical>horizontal and use 90 degree diagonal FOV when vertical <= horizontal (which might be good as method gives 70 degree at 1:1 breaking point).
