- 31,258
- 27,482
In circumstances where we're directly given the size of a landmark or location by a statement or some other official source (Word of God, databooks), we should preferably use it unless there are contradicting official sources or logical issues that are impossible to ignore. But in circumstances where this information isn't provided we need to rely only on our own methods to find the size of these landmarks or locations; namely calcs and pixelscaling. This can be a critical step as the basis of other calcs and pixelscaling which require a figure for the size of something.
I used to take a rather lowball approach to these but recent revisions and discussions (most commonly for Bleach, Naruto and One Piece [though this thread isn't just to do with them but all verses]) have forced me to take another look at this important stage in the calcing process and try to think of a better solution that would be logical and fair.
It's no surprise that when a landmark or location is drawn multiple times over the course of a series, you can get different perspectives and frames of reference for finding the size of it.
Pixelscaling it through one method is just as valid as pixelscaling it through a different method that uses different panels and arrives at a different result. It's extremely difficult to find multiple shots of something that are all perfectly consistent with each other because art styles almost never work out that way.
Instead of trying to dismiss methods of visual-based scaling for being inconsistent with each other (which will always be the case), I have some proposals for how we could try and use them better:
(Sometimes people even using the same panels can arrive at different results depending on how they draw their pixelscaling. This guideline is to try and ensure only the most accurate option is picked when this scaling conflict happens)
(This is the Mid End approach. If the different visuals of a particular landmark or location are all valid, then an average of the results from the scaling will get us to the most accurate and fairest result for our estimation of its size. This applies also to methods for size that can be calculated such as using walking speed or running speed in a set timeframe to find a distance travelled. No matter how we calc it or pixelscale it, we are never truly finding the actual size of whatever it is we're scaling. We're only creating estimates of the size based on figures for other frames of reference, or assumptions. Because these size calcs can form the basis for other calcs, the butterfly effect can cause sweeping upgrades or downgrades just based on how you find the size value, and which panels you choose to use)
(This can be trickier to figure out but even in cases where we have varying results for the size of a landmark or location there will sometimes by results that are so extraordinarly high or low that they make zero logical sense. Even if we can figure out an estimate of the size based on one or two pieces of information from the source, our estimates may be off wildly due to other assumptions or extremely warped perspectives when pixelscaling. Or in cases where one particular visual is extremely different from the others, such as a character being drawn in a chibi format that doesn't reflect their most consistent appearance for example)
I would prefer to get input from Staff on this, particularly other Calc Group Members, first off so ordinary users please don't respond for now. My proposal in a nutshell is basically: For unknown size values that are necessary for other calculations, if multiple valid results can be found then a Mid End average of these results is preferable.
I'm not proposing that we make any radical changes or pages or verses right off the bat.
I used to take a rather lowball approach to these but recent revisions and discussions (most commonly for Bleach, Naruto and One Piece [though this thread isn't just to do with them but all verses]) have forced me to take another look at this important stage in the calcing process and try to think of a better solution that would be logical and fair.
It's no surprise that when a landmark or location is drawn multiple times over the course of a series, you can get different perspectives and frames of reference for finding the size of it.
Pixelscaling it through one method is just as valid as pixelscaling it through a different method that uses different panels and arrives at a different result. It's extremely difficult to find multiple shots of something that are all perfectly consistent with each other because art styles almost never work out that way.
Instead of trying to dismiss methods of visual-based scaling for being inconsistent with each other (which will always be the case), I have some proposals for how we could try and use them better:
- 1) If you have two or more identical scaling methods for size, then preferably the one that is most accurately drawn should be used and the other one is rejected.
(Sometimes people even using the same panels can arrive at different results depending on how they draw their pixelscaling. This guideline is to try and ensure only the most accurate option is picked when this scaling conflict happens)
- 2) If you have multiple / different valid scaling methods for size, then an average size from the range of values from the valid methods should be used if the value is necessary for further calculations.
(This is the Mid End approach. If the different visuals of a particular landmark or location are all valid, then an average of the results from the scaling will get us to the most accurate and fairest result for our estimation of its size. This applies also to methods for size that can be calculated such as using walking speed or running speed in a set timeframe to find a distance travelled. No matter how we calc it or pixelscale it, we are never truly finding the actual size of whatever it is we're scaling. We're only creating estimates of the size based on figures for other frames of reference, or assumptions. Because these size calcs can form the basis for other calcs, the butterfly effect can cause sweeping upgrades or downgrades just based on how you find the size value, and which panels you choose to use)
- 3) Invalid scaling methods or outlier results will not be treated as valid for this Mid End average.
(This can be trickier to figure out but even in cases where we have varying results for the size of a landmark or location there will sometimes by results that are so extraordinarly high or low that they make zero logical sense. Even if we can figure out an estimate of the size based on one or two pieces of information from the source, our estimates may be off wildly due to other assumptions or extremely warped perspectives when pixelscaling. Or in cases where one particular visual is extremely different from the others, such as a character being drawn in a chibi format that doesn't reflect their most consistent appearance for example)
I would prefer to get input from Staff on this, particularly other Calc Group Members, first off so ordinary users please don't respond for now. My proposal in a nutshell is basically: For unknown size values that are necessary for other calculations, if multiple valid results can be found then a Mid End average of these results is preferable.
I'm not proposing that we make any radical changes or pages or verses right off the bat.
