Retackling the KN6 Naruto TBB Calc

[MinatoSparkle]

This calc has been accepted for a possibly rating, but here I'd like to propose that it be fully implemented.

Spoiler: previous thread summary

One of the points against using this calc was the possibility that the forest on the edge of this panel may not be the Forest of Death, but this issue has been deliberated here, and it's been officially accepted to be the Forest of Death, so that argument is no longer relevant. I also addressed Damage's point about the FoD not being fully visible in the KN6 TBB panel, but I'll just copy the explanation here since I can't highlight a spoiler message.

"The specific panel doesn't need to show the full forest for us to know it's circular. That's how it's depicted, and it's stated to have a "circular perimeter" (which just makes sense with each team entering the forest from different points along the perimeter and the distance from each gate to the tower being about 10 kilometers). It's not an assumption at all to complete the partially drawn circle shown in the Bijuudama panel.

If the contention is that the angle might mean it's not circular from that panel's POV, this is demonstrably false, given that Arc's overlaid circle aligns almost perfectly with what we do see of the forest."

Spoiler: Author intent

As for the consistency argument, the primary focus shouldn't be on the quantity of support for a value, but the quality. While I have no objections with Damage's math, pixel scaling sizes from other images is inherently less reliable than using a clearly and consistently stated size, especially since the Forest of Death is the largest landmark in the image (besides the crater of Konoha itself), and thinking from a meta perspective, it'd obviously be easier as an artist to accurately convey the size of a huge forest than something so small that its distinguishing features can't be filled in.

Pixel scaling against just about anything, constantly averaging the values, can exponentially reduce the size of a structure and doing so is just a bad attempt at pretending to be more accurate while ignoring officially listed numbers that take precedence over everything. We know the structures are not drawn to scale most of the time, so they're subject to inconsistency, but explicitly stated sizes are not subject to change, they remain one explicit value in the absence of retcons. And since sizing can change from panel to panel, trying to use manga panels of OTHER scenes to gauge sizes in this scene is quite shaky. If the TBB panel were to be pixel scaled to give us an average'd value of that it would be one thing, but when you choose to go outside the boundaries of one instance and into other varying instances, you can lowball something down to oblivion.

As an analogy, let's say you're trying to calculate the destruction of a star, and instead of using star GBE you just ang size the star from the Earth’s view and get a super lowballed calc and then keep averaging with every sun shot until you get a tier 6 star destruction feat. Makes no sense right? It's the same in this situation; the only clear reference point in the panel with a canon size takes priority over everything else.

I think it should also be noted that it's pretty convenient that the FoD is visible in the same panel as KN6 Naruto's TBB and happens to be around the same size. I say this because the FoD is almost NEVER drawn outside of when the story was actually taking place in it, the only other time I know of in the manga being here. Even in the Chaotic Shinra Tensei wide shots earlier in the arc that showed huge portions of Konoha, Kishimoto didn't use an angle that would show the FoD. He didn't have to make the explosion take place around the same area as the FoD, and given how much of an outlier it is for him to include it in any way, Kishimoto likely included it intentionally to convey the TBB explosion's scale without just stating its size; showing rather than telling.

Spoiler: Hopefully my other thread wasn't completely useless

Much like Damage's calc consistency argument, this point doesn't stand on its own, but it should be noted that it's very consistent feat/statement/scaling-wise for high tiers to be Low 6-B (the conclusion from KN6 Naruto's TBB being 14.9 teratons), as I elaborated on in the first section of this thread. Don't consider this necessary reading (as it doesn't inherently support the calc's method and moreso just proves that Low 6-B is a more consistent rating for Bijuu level characters than 6-C), but if Arc's calc being an outlier ever comes to mind as a problem, feel free to peruse that other thread.

TLDR; the location partially depicted here is accepted to be the 20 km Forest of Death, and using the FoD as a reference aligns more closely with author intent than the other small objects in the image on at least one, and potentially two levels, so Arc's calc should be fully used for scaling. Let's discuss.

Agree: Ghostimuscrime

Disagree: Dalesean027, Damage3245

Neutral:

 

[Damage3245]

I'll try to get up a response to this tomorrow.

EDIT: Delayed on my response, apologies.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Having seen this before, I naturally agree

 

[Damage3245]

Having seen this before, I naturally agree

This is a Calc Group Discussion thread. Just in the interests of avoiding filling the thread up with posts that don't contribute anything to make it easier for evaluating staff members, regular users should avoid posting unless it's necessary.

 

[DavidTPPM]

I think it's also worth questioning using the size of hill for scaling in general. It's shape and size is not exactly the most consistent where we see Minatos face magically rise up and down and up all the time by several meters and Tsunades face kinda get closer and further away from the other faces all the time.

The hill should have by all means gotten bigger compared to the surrounding area as well, as Pain didn't just flatten the village but turned it into a deep hole. We even got multiple direct shots (there's many more but I'm too lazy to grab more scans) displaying just how much deeper Konoha was compared to both where it was and the hokage face hill. And yet this massive change in height is magically not visible in the TBB explosion panel, where the height of the hill seems to be in the same as before the chaotic Shinra tensei.

So not only does the old calc need far more steps (something that generally tends to lower calc accuracy on its own) but it also uses a structure that's very inconsistent in size and shape. The new calc doesn't have that issue as it directly compares it to another object on-screen which has a consistent stated size.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bump

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bump

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bump

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Bump.

 

[Kaydee1648]

Bump

snip

can you please tag some CGM?

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Thread got hit with the sparkle curse, see yall in 5 business years when the convo starts taking off

 

[Antvasima]

@Aguywhodoesthings @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @SunDaGamer

Are any of you willing to take a look here please?

 

[Damage3245]

Thanks for the reminder - got to finish working on my post when I get the chance.

 

[Dalesean027]

I'll take a look here later

 

[Dalesean027]

I think it's also worth questioning using the size of hill for scaling in general. It's shape and size is not exactly the most consistent where we see Minatos face magically rise up and down and up all the time by several meters and Tsunades face kinda get closer and further away from the other faces all the time.

The hill should have by all means gotten bigger compared to the surrounding area as well, as Pain didn't just flatten the village but turned it into a deep hole. We even got multiple direct shots (there's many more but I'm too lazy to grab more scans) displaying just how much deeper Konoha was compared to both where it was and the hokage face hill. And yet this massive change in height is magically not visible in the TBB explosion panel, where the height of the hill seems to be in the same as before the chaotic Shinra tensei.

So not only does the old calc need far more steps (something that generally tends to lower calc accuracy on its own) but it also uses a structure that's very inconsistent in size and shape. The new calc doesn't have that issue as it directly compares it to another object on-screen which has a consistent stated size.

I share the opinion that the cliff should not be used at all in any scaling just purely due to how wildly inconsistent it is in size, working my way back from the several times stated FoD size working backwards on the px scaling that was already done in damage and arcs calcs I got a hokage residence sized at 575m tall working back from the cliff size. I don't think I need to explain why that obviously does not work. The thing is if the forest of death didn't have at least 2 statements of its size stated then I'd likely be more inclined to say that's 1/3rd of where the problem is coming from outside of the cliff inconsistency as well as the consistency of the appearance of the area around the forest of death (literally the rivers, and geography around it change constantly)


I do agree with the area being the FoD in Arcs calc given the consistency of its positioning in those wider shots and the structure of the area shots as even with their inconsistencies the general locations the things are placed at still align at least and I do see the intent there.

Personally I really do think it should keep the possibly rating not because of any contentions that it is the forest of death but purely due to the insane amount of inconsistencies in the geography despite things being for the most part placed in the same general area, the actual finer details that matter don't line up in any of the art or depictions which is pretty damning.

TDLR have no real comment on the outlier stuff or and don't prefer one persons math over the other (Damage vs Arc) and I do actually think using the Forest of death is valid but the amount of constant and consistent inconsistencies in the depiction of the geography even with author intent backing makes me hesitant to give it a 100% outright rating even with me believing the feat and use of the 20km statement to be valid

 

[MinatoSparkle]

I share the opinion that the cliff should not be used at all in any scaling just purely due to how wildly inconsistent it is in size, working my way back from the several times stated FoD size working backwards on the px scaling that was already done in damage and arcs calcs I got a hokage residence sized at 575m tall working back from the cliff size. I don't think I need to explain why that obviously does not work. The thing is if the forest of death didn't have at least 2 statements of its size stated then I'd likely be more inclined to say that's 1/3rd of where the problem is coming from outside of the cliff inconsistency as well as the consistency of the appearance of the area around the forest of death (literally the rivers, and geography around it change constantly)


I do agree with the area being the FoD in Arcs calc given the consistency of its positioning in those wider shots and the structure of the area shots as even with their inconsistencies the general locations the things are placed at still align at least and I do see the intent there.

Personally I really do think it should keep the possibly rating not because of any contentions that it is the forest of death but purely due to the insane amount of inconsistencies in the geography despite things being for the most part placed in the same general area, the actual finer details that matter don't line up in any of the art or depictions which is pretty damning.

TDLR have no real comment on the outlier stuff or and don't prefer one persons math over the other (Damage vs Arc) and I do actually think using the Forest of death is valid but the amount of constant and consistent inconsistencies in the depiction of the geography even with author intent backing makes me hesitant to give it a 100% outright rating even with me believing the feat and use of the 20km statement to be valid

I'm not sure I see why finer details really change anything about the argument here? Finer details are gonna vary with any large complex area that's drawn repeatedly. But like you said, that doesn't change the fact that the important marker, the Forest of Death, is portrayed clearly (the geography point was also addressed well here, which you seemingly were on board with too?). A lot of accepted calcs would be rendered invalid if small details in the area being inconsistent were to be used as points against them.

Plus, you even say that the cliff shouldn't be used at all, and that's what the other (at least primarily) accepted version of the KN6 TBB calc uses, so that would make the FoD based calc the most valid.

 

[Dalesean027]

I'm not sure I see why finer details really change anything about the argument here? Finer details are gonna vary with any large complex area that's drawn repeatedly. But like you said, that doesn't change the fact that the important marker, the Forest of Death, is portrayed clearly (the geography point was also addressed well here, which you seemingly were on board with too?). A lot of accepted calcs would be rendered invalid if small details in the area being inconsistent were to be used as points against them.

Plus, you even say that the cliff shouldn't be used at all, and that's what the other (at least primarily) accepted version of the KN6 TBB calc uses, so that would make the FoD based calc the most valid.

Not to be rude but this isn't really saying anything? Nothing substantial anyways, what point are you trying to get to exactly?

Because your response to what I said doesn't really make sense considering I never expressed a problem with the calc or suggested using another one

 

[Damage3245]

Apologies for the delay.

---

As for the consistency argument, the primary focus shouldn't be on the quantity of support for a value, but the quality. While I have no objections with Damage's math, pixel scaling sizes from other images is inherently less reliable than using a clearly and consistently stated size, especially since the Forest of Death is the largest landmark in the image (besides the crater of Konoha itself), and thinking from a meta perspective, it'd obviously be easier as an artist to accurately convey the size of a huge forest than something so small that its distinguishing features can't be filled in.

I agree with you that quality is an important consideration to make when evaluating this but I think that you're portraying the issue a little differently than what it actually is.

The way you're framing it makes it appearing as though your method is the only one that is based off of a stated size. To be clear, three of the methods I use for my calculation are based at their roots on the stated size of characters; Hashirama Senju, Omoi and Minato Namikaze. The fourth method uses average male height for an unnamed shinobi.

Using multiple steps of pixelscaling over a singular step of pixelscaling doesn't introduce greater potential for unreliability, it is true - but it doesn't actually make the other methods any more incorrect or invalid to use. You after all have to make the same fundamental assumption that Kishimoto's art is reliable enough to judge the size of the crater of the size of the partially visible forest. If you can believe that Kishimoto can be consistent enough within one panel, it is not a big stretch to believe he can be consistent enough between two separate panels.

Pixel scaling against just about anything, constantly averaging the values, can exponentially reduce the size of a structure and doing so is just a bad attempt at pretending to be more accurate while ignoring officially listed numbers that take precedence over everything. We know the structures are not drawn to scale most of the time, so they're subject to inconsistency, but explicitly stated sizes are not subject to change, they remain one explicit value in the absence of retcons. And since sizing can change from panel to panel, trying to use manga panels of OTHER scenes to gauge sizes in this scene is quite shaky. If the TBB panel were to be pixel scaled to give us an average'd value of that it would be one thing, but when you choose to go outside the boundaries of one instance and into other varying instances, you can lowball something down to oblivion.

This is another attempt to misrepresent the opposition. I'm not just "pixelscaling just about anything", I'm looking at what other notable landmarks are present in the scene. Averaging the values is just one of the potential solutions mentioned in the other thread to give a balanced approach. Ignoring the majority of figures and focusing specifically one just the one outlier can also exponentially inflate the size of a structure too.

And your side isn't the only one that has "officially listed numbers" on its side. If officially listed numbers take precedence over anything; then my methods have the greater number of officially listed numbers here.

If - hypothetically speaking - we got the official figure of the Forest of Death to be 20 km in diameter and found a panel to compare it to the diameter of Konoha, and we found that in that specific panel the diameter of Konoha was something crazy like 5000 km.... I trust that we wouldn't say "Well, the original figure is from an official statement so based on that we have no choice but to accept that Konoha is 5000 km across". That'd be called crazy because we'd have contradicting evidence against a figure as exceptional as that. So just solely being based on an official figure isn't the most important thing. How do we know if the result of one particular method is to be trust? By verifying its consistency; here is where the quantity of support is important. Because if using other valid method we find that there's actually 4 methods with figures of 4800 km, 4900, km, 4750 km and 5200 km..... Then suddenly the 5000 km figure doesn't appear so inconsistent. There is valid support for it.

And so as we look here; we need to verify is the 21 km figure is accurate. If my other methods had gotten something consistently close to that, then your method wouldn't be problematic... but instead we have four methods all supporting a figure roughly 1 kilometer across. Not 21. Doesn't the existence of four different methods against it throw the result in question?

As an analogy, let's say you're trying to calculate the destruction of a star, and instead of using star GBE you just ang size the star from the Earth’s view and get a super lowballed calc and then keep averaging with every sun shot until you get a tier 6 star destruction feat. Makes no sense right? It's the same in this situation; the only clear reference point in the panel with a canon size takes priority over everything else.

I don't think this anlogy is relevant. A Star's GBE is an objective real-world figure based off of the size of a star. This is a fictional explosion that has no objective stated size for it; all we can do is work by comparison.

And whatever method we go for it; isn't it just better to get as much support as possible by exploring all otpions? It's not about just aiming for a lowball calc; if you had one method that suggested that the explosion was 100 meters across, you wouldn't say we were arbitrarily highballing it if we pointed out four methods that suggested a size of 1 km across instead.

I think it should also be noted that it's pretty convenient that the FoD is visible in the same panel as KN6 Naruto's TBB and happens to be around the same size. I say this because the FoD is almost NEVER drawn outside of when the story was actually taking place in it, the only other time I know of in the manga being here. Even in the Chaotic Shinra Tensei wide shots earlier in the arc that showed huge portions of Konoha, Kishimoto didn't use an angle that would show the FoD. He didn't have to make the explosion take place around the same area as the FoD, and given how much of an outlier it is for him to include it in any way, Kishimoto likely included it intentionally to convey the TBB explosion's scale without just stating its size; showing rather than telling.

I don't believe we can assume author intention like this. If you believe it, then fair enough but Kishimoto also made the deliberate choice to include other landmarks too. And I believe that there is enough consistency with them that we can get Kishimoto's intention for them that way too.


With all of that in mind, my vote on the calc mentioned in the OP is to either keep it as a possibly as we do currently, or to remove it due to it's inconsistency with the other accepted methods.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Not to be rude but this isn't really saying anything? Nothing substantial anyways, what point are you trying to get to exactly?

You're saying that you have doubts with the calc being fully used due to the geography of the area and its finer details being inconsistent, and I'm saying that those things shouldn't be an issue when talking about a specific landmark.

Because your response to what I said doesn't really make sense considering I never expressed a problem with the calc or suggested using another one

Well the point of this thread is to decide whether Damage's or Arc's calc should be used for the feat.

 

[Dalesean027]

Well the point of this thread is to decide whether Damage's or Arc's calc should be used for the feat.

Then you should reword the OP entirely because the OPs premise is about whether or not the feat should remain as possibly for the calc or be fully instated not whether we should decide between two calcs which is best for the rating

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Then you should reword the OP entirely because the OPs premise is about whether or not the feat should remain as possibly for the calc or be fully instated not whether we should decide between two calcs which is best for the rating

I'm pretty sure that I've always seen that when one version of a calc is accepted above all others it is fully implemented for scaling, but if you mean like that then that's fine, though my response otherwise remains the same.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Apologies for the delay.

---

I agree with you that quality is an important consideration to make when evaluating this but I think that you're portraying the issue a little differently than what it actually is.

The way you're framing it makes it appearing as though your method is the only one that is based off of a stated size. To be clear, three of the methods I use for my calculation are based at their roots on the stated size of characters; Hashirama Senju, Omoi and Minato Namikaze. The fourth method uses average male height for an unnamed shinobi.

Using multiple steps of pixelscaling over a singular step of pixelscaling doesn't introduce greater potential for unreliability, it is true - but it doesn't actually make the other methods any more incorrect or invalid to use. You after all have to make the same fundamental assumption that Kishimoto's art is reliable enough to judge the size of the crater of the size of the partially visible forest. If you can believe that Kishimoto can be consistent enough within one panel, it is not a big stretch to believe he can be consistent enough between two separate panels.

All of this is addressed by what I said in the OP. "it'd obviously be easier as an artist to accurately convey the size of a huge forest than something so small that its distinguishing features can't be filled in." I'm aware that pixel scaling starts from a stated size, but using micro details and a location that takes up a significant portion of a panel are not comparable whatsoever.

This is another attempt to misrepresent the opposition. I'm not just "pixelscaling just about anything", I'm looking at what other notable landmarks are present in the scene.

Again, how is it notable? Just because it's a known place doesn't mean it's notable in this context. York is a notable area in a map of Toronto, but would be negligible in a map of Earth or even North America.

Averaging the values is just one of the potential solutions mentioned in the other thread to give a balanced approach. Ignoring the majority of figures and focusing specifically one just the one outlier can also exponentially inflate the size of a structure too.

It's not an outlier because it's not irreconcilable with the village's established sized. It should be considered the main reference against which other objects' sizes should be scrutinized if anything, given the other evidence for how much larger Konoha is than what the drawn size of its buildings would suggest.

And your side isn't the only one that has "officially listed numbers" on its side. If officially listed numbers take precedence over anything; then my methods have the greater number of officially listed numbers here.

One step of pixel scaling from an officially stated size of a clear large object>>>multiple steps of pixel scaling from an officially stated size for a speck-sized object.

If - hypothetically speaking - we got the official figure of the Forest of Death to be 20 km in diameter and found a panel to compare it to the diameter of Konoha, and we found that in that specific panel the diameter of Konoha was something crazy like 5000 km.... I trust that we wouldn't say "Well, the original figure is from an official statement so based on that we have no choice but to accept that Konoha is 5000 km across". That'd be called crazy because we'd have contradicting evidence against a figure as exceptional as that. So just solely being based on an official figure isn't the most important thing.

This is a poor comparison, even as an intentional exaggeration. Konoha can't reasonably be 5000 kilometers, that being a considerable part of the planet's circumference. I agree that something being official isn't the be all end all and that other factors should be taken into consideration, but there's a big difference between the only important thing and the most important thing. Being official is the most important factor, and since there's not a strong reason to disregard the direct official figure, it should be used.

How do we know if the result of one particular method is to be trust? By verifying its consistency; here is where the quantity of support is important. Because if using other valid method we find that there's actually 4 methods with figures of 4800 km, 4900, km, 4750 km and 5200 km..... Then suddenly the 5000 km figure doesn't appear so inconsistent. There is valid support for it.

And so as we look here; we need to verify is the 21 km figure is accurate. If my other methods had gotten something consistently close to that, then your method wouldn't be problematic... but instead we have four methods all supporting a figure roughly 1 kilometer across. Not 21. Doesn't the existence of four different methods against it throw the result in question?

It means that it's easier to draw large objects to scale, and that's literally it. If we're talking about other methods, what about the fact that the explosion is clearly covering a notable portion of Konoha, which we know contains the Forest of Death in its outskirts even without taking into account that that's visible in the image? Or that Konoha is compared to a city multiple times, meaning another method could be to use a small/average city's size for Konoha to find the size of the explosion? We can list off different kinds of methods to calculate the feat all day, but none of them are gonna trump the very simple explosion~>FoD = 20 kilometers method.

I don't think this anlogy is relevant. A Star's GBE is an objective real-world figure based off of the size of a star. This is a fictional explosion that has no objective stated size for it; all we can do is work by comparison.

The Forest of Death is the star in this analogy as it's what has an objective size. Saying the explosion is ~1 kilometer in diameter is essentially the same as saying the FoD is 1 kilometer as they're next to each other and very clearly comparable in size with simple eye balling.

And whatever method we go for it; isn't it just better to get as much support as possible by exploring all otpions? It's not about just aiming for a lowball calc; if you had one method that suggested that the explosion was 100 meters across, you wouldn't say we were arbitrarily highballing it if we pointed out four methods that suggested a size of 1 km across instead.

There's nothing wrong with exploring other options, but the most logical method should be used for scaling, not every option that has some validity.

I don't believe we can assume author intention like this. If you believe it, then fair enough but Kishimoto also made the deliberate choice to include other landmarks too. And I believe that there is enough consistency with them that we can get Kishimoto's intention for them that way too.

The difference is that those are consistent markers in a large number of Konoha wide shots, whereas this is an extreme anomaly. It makes far more sense for Kishimoto to simply be drawing the explosion at a similar size to the FoD as a way of establishing its size than for him to be measuring how many centimeters the dozens of tiny landmarks across Konoha measure and multiply those to determine how large he would draw the explosion, especially since he'd be contradicting those supposed intentions if he were to very obviously draw the 20 km wide FoD at a comparable size right next to it.

With all of that in mind, my vote on the calc mentioned in the OP is to either keep it as a possibly as we do currently, or to remove it due to it's inconsistency with the other accepted methods.

With all due respect, removing the most direct method entirely just because it doesn't match other pixel scaled sizes is crazy work.

 

[DavidTPPM]

TDLR have no real comment on the outlier stuff or and don't prefer one persons math over the other (Damage vs Arc) and I do actually think using the Forest of death is valid but the amount of constant and consistent inconsistencies in the depiction of the geography even with author intent backing makes me hesitant to give it a 100% outright rating even with me believing the feat and use of the 20km statement to be valid

What would you say is the best course of action then?
Clearly the feat is extremely important to scaling as it's directly tanked on screen and can be measured by comparison to something with a stated size, so simply removing it doesn't seem like a fair and logical choice.

And the current method is also pretty clearly worse than the FoD one given how much more direct it is and how many issues there are with the Hokage Hill method. So using it as the solid value just because the results are lower seems illogical. The solid value should be the better method, not the lower result.

 

[Damage3245]

Clearly the feat is extremely important to scaling as it's directly tanked on screen

It's not directly tanked if you're referring to Pain. That part of it was removed in another CRT.

And the current method is also pretty clearly worse than the FoD one given how much more direct it is and how many issues there are with the Hokage Hill method. So using it as the solid value just because the results are lower seems illogical. The solid value should be the better method, not the lower result.

The argument has never been "This number is lower than the number you got, so it must be better". I'm not advocating for my methods because they're a "lowball". If I had four methods that gave me a higher result than Arc7Kuroi's calc instead then I'd be arguing for the higher result.

 

[DavidTPPM]

It's not directly tanked if you're referring to Pain. That part of it was removed in another CRT.

When I say directly tanked I mean that we see it was undeniably tanked at point blank range by at least 1 character meaning even if Pain only got hit partially, it's clear he should be in the same ballpark.

We even mention it in Pains durability section.

The argument has never been "This number is lower than the number you got, so it must be better". I'm not advocating for my methods because they're a "lowball".

I'm not saying it is. I'm specifically answering to Daleseans reply because he agreed the FoD method is better but still is hesitant to give it a full rating.

Since if the FoD method is better then keeping the worse hokage hill method as a solid value and the better method as just a possibly or a likely value makes no sense.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bump

 

[Kaydee1648]

bump

 

[MinatoSparkle]

.

.

New idea: instead of fully replacing the pixel scaled calc, we average the two methods.

 

[Damage3245]

New idea: instead of fully replacing the pixel scaled calc, we average the two methods.

Not completely a new idea since I've brought it up before. I can agree with averaging multiple valid methods together to create a compromise solution. But there are more than just two methods that can be considered for that.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Not completely a new idea since I've brought it up before.

I meant new in the context of this CRT but I digress

I can agree with averaging multiple valid methods together to create a compromise solution. But there are more than just two methods that can be considered for that.

I know, but averaging the FoD method with the other method that's currently used makes more sense than just using as many as we can. This way it's basically a balanced average between the philosophies of statement scaling and pixel scaling rather than giving a heavy advantage to pixel scaling.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bump

 

[BlackeJan]

Bump

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Ok, this thread isn't really going anywhere at this rate, so it can be closed for now. I or Ghost will revisit the topic later.

 

[Damage3245]

Okay. Closing the thread.