My Hero Academia: Wolfram's Giant Cube Attack Again

[TheRustyOne]

Hopefully this is for the last time, at least I don't see any other way the calculation can be improved.

I've made a new calculation regarding Wolfram's giant cube feat, and I believe it should replace the current one.

Current Calculation.

Updated Calculation.

Unlike last time, where I admitted my measurement of the Cube's size was a lowball. This time I'm not lowballing it, I'm getting the actual size. However, there are other issues that are fixed in my updated version. And one was a horrible mistake made in finding the force of the Cube that I'm a bit embarrassed to admit.

I already admitted in the original thread and calculation that the size was lowballed. The reason being is that I measured the cube while Wolfram was making it, meaning it did grow by an unknown amount after what I measured. I felt that was the best I could do at the time. However, this time the cube is finished in my new measurement.

My new px scaling also removes an assumption. I previously used the calculate size for Wolfram's smaller cubes and compared it to the bigger cube. The assumption here is that Wolfram makes all of these cubes in the exact same size. while not impossible, as the size of the cubes are the same when he makes dozens of them.

They're still things he creates by smashing objects together and don't have a stable size. The fan I'm using here is an object Wolfram doesn't create, which means the size doesn't vary. Not unless it gets deformed, which isn't the case here. As such, I feel like using the fan's size here is more accurate than using the smaller cubes for those two reason.

The mistake I made comes from the acceleration, which I calculated completely wrong. The formula I used assumes the initial speed of the cube was 0 m/s, which is wrong. The cube was already in motion beforehand, meaning that value is incorrect. I've instead found the deceleration of the cube from when Izuku and All Might stopped it.

This gives me the force produced in a far less convoluted way.

Note: Scaling or changes to the profiles will be saved for a CRT, this is just to update the calculation. And I've updated the original blog instead of using a new one so I won't have to change any of the links on the profiles. And I'd appreciated it if a calc group member leaves an evaluation in the blog if this is accepted.

Agree: Therefir, CloverDragon03, (2)

Disagree: Damage3245, (1)

Neutral: (0)

 

[TheRustyOne]

@Damage3245 @Therefir @CloverDragon03 @Dalesean027

If you can find the time, your input here would be appreciated.

 

[Therefir]

I don't really see any trouble with the scaling itself, using the giant fan to scale the cube at its final size should be perfectly fine, and it uses less scaling steps.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, my first thought after rewatching the feat is that the cube appears to be different sizes in relation to the fan in different scenes, like in this shot:

Also, the calc would suggest that Wolfram's cube travelled for over ten kilometers before All Might and Deku intercepted it.

Is Wolfram's tower that he launches the attack from ever depicted to be of comparable size to that in any other time in the climax of the film? I can't find high-quality shots at the moment but this is Wolfram's tower here:

Just because you get a distance the cube travels as being 10 km in one shot doesn't mean that it is necessarily consistent.

 

[Damage3245]

Like here's a better example of what I mean. Wolfram's tower is just about 671.5196 meters tall in comparison to the fan being used in the scaling here:

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

The cube could easily just be higher up in the sky, that's why it can move that far and look like that. The shot I'm using is to scale to fan is a detailed look at the cube in comparison. It's clearly intended to showcase how massive the cube is. The cube is never shown in relation to the tower, so the size is irrelevant.

"Just because you get a distance the cube travels as being 10 km in one shot doesn't mean that it is necessarily consistent."

What does this mean? The cube only moves like that once, he doesn't throw multiple cubes. What do you mean by consistent, note that the cube is portrayed as accelerating.

Also the same reasoning you're bringing up can be mentioned in any version of the calculations. Your basically saying the feat can never be calculated period. Of course things are inconsistent in animation, it's even worse than the manga.

 

[Damage3245]

The cube could easily just be higher up in the sky, that's why it can move that far and look like that. The shot I'm using is to scale to fan is a detailed look at the cube in comparison. It's clearly intended to showcase how massive the cube is. The cube is never shown in relation to the tower, so the size is irrelevant.

But we know it's not though because of the sequence of the feat? It starts off just higher than the tower, yes, but then it shoots down.

"Just because you get a distance the cube travels as being 10 km in one shot doesn't mean that it is necessarily consistent."

What does this mean? The cube only moves like that once, he doesn't throw multiple cubes. What do you mean by consistent, note that the cube is portrayed as accelerating.

Also the same reasoning you're bringing up can be mentioned in any version of the calculations. Your basically saying the feat can never be calculated period. Of course things are inconsistent in animation, it's even worse than manga. Bringing this up isn't good enough reason to reject a feat.

Yeah no, I disagree with your reasoning here.

What I mean is that if you're getting a value that is inconsistent with the rest of the scene, then something could clearly be off in the scaling.

Like, if two characters are fighting inside an arena that has a diameter of 100 meters, but you make a calc for one of their punches and somehow find that the shockwave inside the arena is 1500 meters. Then something is clearly off, yeah? Physically, a shockwave of that size could not be produced inside an area that small.

It would be ridiculous to extrapolate from what I'm saying there that no feat could ever be calculated.

 

[Damage3245]

You may not think that other visuals are of any relevance to this, but it is worthwhile to actually check whether the thing you're calcing is consistent or not. Take this other shot for example, I get the length of the cube's side to be 516 meters, not 1355 meters.

We can have debates about which shot is better or which shot should be used - but I don't like this attitude that we don't even need to bother checking for any consistency because "of course things are inconsistent".

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

The scan you're showing still has it in the background.

And I'm obligated to point out that the tower's size is constantly moving/changing. So I can say it's height isn't consistent either. And comparing the fans to the cube in that scene is wrong, as the shot isn't being used to compare the sign like in my scan. Where it's a slow shot design to show the cube's size.

Your point would carry more weight if we have a canon height of Wolfram's self made tower, but this doesn't exist. Your using px scaling to show off that animation is inconsistent. I'm using a detailed shot of the cube to measure it's size to find the speed. While you're taking random shots of Wolfram's structure to try and show that it's smaller.

To be more clear, I personally believe you're overcomplicating something simple based on inconsistent animation quick looks. Your main point is the tower height not being tall enough in some scenes compared to the scene I'm using.

We can see how big the fans are, we get a clear shot showing how big the cubes are to the fan. I feel like that is very simple and clean compared to anything else.

For your second comment, the cube is in the background. Meaning if it was closer the cube would be bigger.

Wolfram simply moved it higher up as he was preparing to throw it so it can have more power behind it. That's why the cube looks smaller, they aren't on the same plane.

 

[Damage3245]

And I'm obligated to point out that the tower's size is constantly moving/changing. So I can say it's height isn't consistent either. And comparing the fans to the cube in that scene is wrong, as the shot isn't being used to compare the sign like in my scan. Where it's a slow shot design to show the cube's size.

Your point would carry more weight if we have a canon height of Wolfram's self made tower, but this doesn't exist. Your using px scaling to show off that animation is inconsistent. I'm using a detailed shot of the cube to measure it's size to find the speed. While you're taking random shots of Wolfram's structure to try and show that it's smaller.

To be more clear, I personally believe you're overcomplicating something simple based on inconsistent animation quick looks. Your main point is the tower height not being tall enough in some scenes compared to the scene I'm using.

If it's a matter of personal interpretation that the shot you're using is more important because it's meant to emphasize size more, then fair enough because I can't change your approach to that.

But I believe that the calc in the OP is cherrypicking visuals to get the biggest possible size and that the other visuals shouldn't just be dismissed just because they produce smaller results.

You can put me down as disagree for the calc in the OP, I'll let other CGM's cast their own views on it. I already suspect the calc is going to go through, of course, but I can't support it based on what has been presented.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I don't think you need to say I'm cherrypicking. What's wrong with me having a different interpretation than you? I do believe visual relevance is important, just like with other feats. The shot I'm using is clearly meant to showcase the cube's size, while the other shots are meant to showcase its speed.

Counted your vote. I'll do my best to explain anything more, but I'll concede to the majority rules.

Thank you for taking your time to discuss this.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't think you need to say I'm cherrypicking.

I didn't mean anything negatively directed at you; just saying that's how the calc seems to me, not that it is what is going on.

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation than you? I do believe visual relevance is important, just like with other feats. The shot I'm using is clearly meant to showcase the cube's size, while the other shots are meant to showcase its speed.

You can have a different interpretation of course; I know we have very different mindsets when approaching this.

I think if the pixelscaling and angsizing produces results that are incompatible with the scene, then the fault lies in the method of assuming that this one particular visual "emphasizing size" is the defacto "true visual." It's also possible that a shot emphasizing size could be hyperbolic too. Showing the object in the frame appearing drastically larger than it should be.

 

[CloverDragon03]

How many times are we gonna revisit this damn feat lmao
Very minor thing, but with this part:

Scan 2 happens in frame 124523, while Scan 3 happens in frame 124532. A 9 frame difference, meaning this happened in 9 frames.

Did you mean Scan 3 and Scan 4 here?

That aside, the new calc looks good to go in my opinion. You can put me down as agreeing. Now, not to beat a dead (or at least, dying) horse, but saying it's cherrypicking shots to achieve a higher result and such doesn't make for a particularly healthy discussion. Even if it's said about the calc... Well, who made the calc and did that to begin with? Potential motives should not be brought up like this, in my opinion.

I also wanted to talk about the whole "depicting size" thing. A shot emphasizing one object could theoretically make it appear hyperbolically large in size, but chances are, this is significantly less likely. As far as I'm concerned, it usually makes it more likely to reflect the actual intended size (as it's not having to account for other stuff present). I feel that's an ongoing stance with me regarding these kinds of size debacles.

 

[Damage3245]

I also wanted to talk about the whole "depicting size" thing. A shot emphasizing one object could theoretically make it appear hyperbolically large in size, but chances are, this is significantly less likely. As far as I'm concerned, it usually makes it more likely to reflect the actual intended size (as it's not having to account for other stuff present). I feel that's an ongoing stance with me regarding these kinds of size debacles.

I'm not going to argue that such a shot makes it more likely that the size is wrong, but my mindset when approaching this is:

"Okay, by doing a 1-to-1 comparison ot fan to cube, we get a size of X for the cube if the fan is size Y."

In a vacuum, that's the end of it. The fan is size Y so the cube has to be size X. On a surface level, I can understand why the calc would be acceptable based on that.

But my next line of thinking is, "How can I be sure?" I look at other shots, other angles. I think about where the feat is taking place. I search for things that could validate or invalidate the scaling.

A piece of pixelscaling, on its own, could give you an accurate size. Or a wonky, inaccurate size. How could we tell which one it is?

Let's say, for the sake of argument that Wolfram's metal tower really is in the ballpark of 700 meters tall. The cube is being flung down 10 km (and intercepted in the air, not even 10 km to the ground just 10 km to where All Might & Izuku punched it). Is the cube really being created around 9.3 kilometers above the tower?

 

[CloverDragon03]

This starts to lean into interpretation territory, and while I'm not opposed to different interpretations at all, it makes actually arguing one way or another a lot messier and (in my opinion) more difficult. In such cases, I'm more so just inclined to agree to disagree

 

[Papusupreme]

Door Height = 2.032 m (34 px)

Fan Diameter = 43.986 m (736 px)

The fan has that problem with the angle. I can decently see the depth of the fan, so 45 degrees should be a good approximation. Fan diameter is like 43.986/cos(45)=62.2 meters. Using 20 degrees the diameter only become 46.8 meters, wich still significantly affect the results. But you should consult a CGM more experienced in trigonometry.

 

[Damage3245]

I'll try one more argument. Maybe nobody will agree, but it has to be said.

Ignore any other visuals of the cube itself, if we just do angsizing on the image being used for finding the distance the cube travelled:

Fan = 40 px = 43.986 m

Cube Side = px = 1355.318 m

Screen Height = 1072 px

Angular Size = object size*panel height in pixels/[object height in pixels*2*tan(70deg/2)]

Distance of Fan From Screen = 43.986*1072/[40*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 841.768144209 m

Distance of Cube From Screen = 1355.318*1072/[92*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 11276.943 m

So; in this shot the fan is about 842 meters away from the viewer. The gigantic cube is about 11276 m away from the viewer. That's if the cube is really as big as the pixelscaling used in the OP suggests.

But the cube was created directly above the tower. Close enough that we even use the fan on the tower to pixelscale the size of the cube in the calc in the OP.

Rusty says this:

The cube could easily just be higher up in the sky, that's why it can move that far and look like that. The shot I'm using is to scale to fan is a detailed look at the cube in comparison. It's clearly intended to showcase how massive the cube is. The cube is never shown in relation to the tower, so the size is irrelevant.

Wolfram simply moved it higher up as he was preparing to throw it so it can have more power behind it. That's why the cube looks smaller, they aren't on the same plane.

So the argument for why the cube appears so much higher in the sky in the later shot is that the cube could be that much higher in the sky because Wolfram moved it up even higher in the sky.

But does the actual scene support that interpretation? I don't think so. Here is a clip of the fight when the gigantic cube is thrown.

^ This is the last shot of the cube before Wolfram starts moving it and we can see from the clip that he doesn't start moving it up to gain height... it is just instantly launched downwards.

How can this 1355.318 m wide cube be over 10 kilometers above the tower in this shot?

This is not nitpicking, or overcomplicating the situation. The arguments of "The other visuals don't matter because animation is inherently inconsistent so we should use just the best shot" is completely negated when you use another visual to get the distance the cube travels despite it contradicting the earlier shot. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're using another visual of the cube to get the distance it travels; ignoring how that distance value conflicts with the scene.

I don't see how it makes sense to have the cube be both that big and for the distance to be that far. The two are incompatible; if you use that size for the cube in the shot where you're angsizing the distance for it, it ends up too far away from where it was earlier in the scene - and we can see with our own eyes that it didn't move up that before because we see the exact moment Wolfram starts moving it after it is formed.

If the cube isn't meant to be drawn in proportion in that second shot because it's not emphasizing the size like the earlier shot, then how can be it be used for the distance calc? What makes it accurate for distance and not size?

I know calcs aren't meant to be perfect, but is nothing actually impossible in calcs? Do you guys think a calc can ever contradict itself and become too unreliable? @Therefir @TheRustyOne @CloverDragon03

It might seem like I'm asking rhetorical questions here, but I really want to know; can any counter-evidence even exist to contradict a calc like this? If I show you that the distance the cube travels isn't supported by the scene, and that isn't enough, then what would be enough? Direct character statements only? Word of God? I just don't know how I can disprove something to you guys if I can't use any other visual from the feat in question.

 

[Therefir]

I think the cube was obviously shrinked in that next scene to create shot where it can quickly accelerate towards the screen.

To be honest with you I don't really care about that scene since the purpose of it is to show the cube moving at fast speeds, not display its enormous size to the viewers.

The image that Rusty used is perfectly fine with me, as it is showing the cube in all its glory, and the fan is closer to the screen than the cube itself so there is nothing wrong with the scale itself, not sure why you are bringing in different, lower quality shots with entirely different purposes.

This is almost coming across like the Star and Stripe calc situation.

 

[Damage3245]

I think the cube was obviously shrinked in that next scene to create shot where it can quickly accelerate towards the screen.

To be honest with you I don't really care about that scene since the purpose of it is to show the cube moving at fast speeds, not display its enormous size to the viewers.

The image that Rusty used is perfectly fine with me, as it is showing the cube in all its glory, and the fan is closer to the screen than the cube itself so there is nothing wrong with the scale itself, not sure why you are bringing in different, lower quality shots with entirely different purposes.

This is almost coming across like the Star and Stripe calc situation.

If you're arguing that the purpose of that shot is irrelevant to the size of the cube, why is it being used to find the distance the cube travelled... which is entirely dependent on the size of the cube?

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here? You're suggesting the cube was drawn incorrectly to create a shot where it can quickly accelerate towards the screen... so if the drawing of the cube is unreliable, stop relying on it to find the distance.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Damage has a point here. By conceding that the cube itself “shrank” in order to create the scene you say it does, then you inherently concede that the cube had its “observable” size altered to create a cool looking scene. In other words, you’re conceding that the size in that scene is not the true size, as they modified it for the purpose of making the scene look cool visually at the expense of maintaining an accurate size of the cube. Which begs the question, if they’re willing to alter properties of the cube to achieve a desired effect, who’s to say they didn’t inflate the cube to emphasize the size? In which case that scene overestimates its true size for effect (think fisheye lens).

But from what I understand, you’re claiming that because the focus isn’t on size that the scene should be ignored entirely. Which, as far as I know, isn’t the protocol for how we treat inconsistencies in sizes here. I know it’s a bit of a whataboutism; however, with Naruto’s moon split calc for the movie we had the same discussion where the pro side argued that only the scene of the feat itself mattered (the higher end), and the con side argued that the entire context of the film mattered (the lower end). The solution there was you average them, since at the end of the day the assertion of intent behind scenes isn’t backed entirely reliably in either side, but far more interpretation based, with both sides having valid logic.

Now I can’t speak holistically here since I don’t really partake much in MHA, but this seems like a similar case as the one I mentioned previously. But it seems like some kind of average between the ends might encompass the logic of both sides in a more reasonable manner. Although, that is not for me to decide and rather my two cents.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I don't think I can explain my points clearer than I've already had. The cube distance/size compared to the tower is irrelevant as I'm not using the tower to measure the cube. The tower size is inconsistent in many shots. The cube however has a fairly clear and purposeful shot designed to show off how big it was.

Which I believe is the most accurate way of measuring the size of it.

The next scene is meant to show off the speed, which is why I'm only using the cube to find the speed and nothing around it. If there was a canon size for the cube or tower, that'd be more reasonable. But no such thing exist, we're px scaling it. The fan to cube is clear as day and doesn't rely on too much px scaling.

The more px scaling you add the more inaccurate a calculation can become. Yes I know, this isn't always the case. But I personally feel like you're overcomplicating a simple matter. Not saying anything against you, I know you just want to believe in a reasonable lower end for the vast majority of things.

We have a different interpretation of events as Clover said above. I feel like the reasoning in this calc is perfectly fine.

 

[Damage3245]

The next scene is meant to show off the speed, which is why I'm only using the cube to find the speed and nothing around it. If there was a canon size for the cube or tower, that'd be more reasonable. But no such thing exist, we're px scaling it. The fan to cube is clear as day and doesn't rely on too much px scaling.

The fan to the screen distance uses the exact same angsizing and even less amount of pixelscaling steps than the cube to the screen.

The more px scaling you add the more inaccurate a calculation can become. Yes I know, this isn't always the case. But I personally feel like you're overcomplicating a simple matter. Not saying anything against you, I know you just want to believe in a reasonable lower end for the vast majority of things.

We have a different interpretation of events as Clover said above. I feel like the reasoning in this calc is perfectly fine.

I just showed you that your interpretation of events is unsupported. I linked you the clip where we can see for ourselves that Wolfram didn't raise the cube up higher in the air as you argued he did.

You can have a different interpretation, but how about you try backing it up?


Our standards when it comes to Inconsistent Measurements says this:

In truly extreme examples, exceptions may apply, and common sense should be used. Ultimately, the most important factor is to choose a scaling method that is appropriate for the particular situation and provides the most accurate and consistent results.

If accuracy and consistency matter in our standards, why is there no attempt being made here to find out whether the methods in the OP is consistent or accurate?

 

[TheRustyOne]

Snip

The scans you're using are not as good as what I'm using. You shouldn't be finding the cube's size while it's moving at high speed. Not only that but I've explained to you why you can't use that to measure the cube. The scan you're using shows the cube moved farther along, but magically went backwards to have that shot.

The shot I used is more accurate as it's a still clearly designed to show off the size of the cube. I'm not using, what I believe, are lower quality scans of extremely quick moments. I used a slow panning shot of the cube while it was finished and stationary. While your scans are short burst of the cube moving compared to background elements. These aren't meant to be on the screen for long compared to the shot I'm using.

Like it was said, at this point this is an argument of what we feel is better. My still shot holds for 3.958 seconds, while the angular size scan you're using only last for 0.375 seconds (Given in the calculation). The focus of that shot is meant to show the impact of Izuku and All Might towards the cube and not how big it is compared to the fan.

Let me try something, at this point I'm ignoring the tower as I've already explained why. There are only a few shots that we can use to measure the cube fairly. I completely disagree with using shots while the cube is moving at high speed. This shot here, where it's shown to be extremely far away and is still being made.

So the size can easily be bigger, so that one can be ignored due to that part.

My shot here, which I believe is the most accurate. It's clearly designed to show off the cube's sense of size and scale compared to everything else.

Finally this shot here. Here the cube is shown to move, since it's animated that's why it's shaded weirdly. I personally don't believe this shot is usable for the cube's size. There's no reason to assume the cube wasn't shifted a bit more to the side to avoid Wolfram from getting crushed by the cube itself.

I've already explained why I believe my shot is valid. As that last shot is shown to be animated and is designed for movement, not for a sense of scale/size.

However, I cannot really convince you if you still disagree. Like I said, this is a matter of opinion at this point. I'll concede to whoever agrees with what.

 

[Damage3245]

I likely won't be able to respond until tomorrow.

 

[Papusupreme]

Screen Height = 1072 px

Angular Size = object size*panel height in pixels/[object height in pixels*2*tan(70deg/2)]

Distance From Screen = 1355.318*1080/[92*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 11361.099 m

Distance From Screen = 1355.318*1080/[864*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 1209.746 m

Uh I'm here again. You wrote 1080 instead of 1072. On my calculator I'm getting 11276.943 and 1200.785 meters. About -70 meters difference.

Edit: I was looking at an previous version of the calculation, my bad.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Odd, it should be a 1080p screen (because this would be 1920 x 1080 afaik)

 

[TheRustyOne]

My screen was and is 1080px, but for some reason the scan I uploaded as 1072px back then. Edit: Noticed the bottom was cut off to make it 1072px, no idea how that happen.

But the screen size is 1080px. I reuploaded the two scans to fix that.

 

[Dalesean027]

So I can understand better the arguments since I was asked to speak here and I'm working atm the arguments are that either the cubes shrank or they didn't but we say they did for the sake of fitting into the argument?

 

[Damage3245]

So I can understand better the arguments since I was asked to speak here and I'm working atm the arguments are that either the cubes shrank or they didn't but we say they did for the sake of fitting into the argument?

The big cube that Wolfram throws at All Might & Deku should have consistent size because it's the same cube and he shows no reason to shrink it; but it's depicted at different sizes in different shots.

For example this is the main scan being used to find its size in the OP, comparing it to a fan.

But if you look at it in subsequent shots here and here, it's much smaller in size.

The problem that comes from that is that in the latter shot, angsizing is used on the cube (despite it appearing much smaller) and this inflates the distance that it travels when Wolfram throws it. Wolfram's tower is hundreds of meters tall and the cube is created right above it in the first shot (and appears right to be right above it directly before being thrown). Yet using a later shot (and the pixelscaled size of the cube), you end up with a calculating that has the cube being thrown over ten kilometers. It's a value that defies everything else going on in the scene. You'd have to ignore the earlier shots establishing that the cube is not over ten kilometers away.

Some arguments appear to be "They just drew it incorrectly to emphasize the speed that it travels in that shot", but if that's the case and the visuals are unreliable here, then they shouldn't be used to angsize a distance value that the cube travels.

 

[Therefir]

So I can understand better the arguments since I was asked to speak here and I'm working atm the arguments are that either the cubes shrank or they didn't but we say they did for the sake of fitting into the argument?

So TheRustyOne is using this shot to measure the size of the cube, as it is the highest quality shot of the cube itself and is panned for several seconds. The cube is 30.81 times bigger than the fan.

Then there's this shot after that, where the cube is only 11.73 times bigger than the cube, this shot doesn't last as much as the previous one and it's not as detailed.

Then there's the last shot, where our cube is only 2.3 times bigger than the fan, this shot however only last for 0.375 seconds.

This last shot is the one Rusty is using to measure the speed of the cube, which really doesn't seem like a problem to me since it's not like he has much of a choice, the cube has already shrunk when it started moving as we can see above.

 

[Therefir]

you end up with a calculating that has the cube being thrown over ten kilometers. It's a value that defies everything else going on in the scene. You'd have to ignore the earlier shots establishing that the cube is not over ten kilometers away.

Can you explain this in more detail? Why the cube cannot be over ten kilometers away in the previous shot? The only thing that it would defy would be the fan and the tower which appear too big compared to the cube itself.

 

[Damage3245]

Can you explain this in more detail? Why the cube cannot be over ten kilometers away in the previous shot? The only thing that it would defy would be the fan and the tower which appear too big compared to the cube itself.

I'm away right now but should be able to respond to this in a couple hours.

 

[Damage3245]

Can you explain this in more detail? Why the cube cannot be over ten kilometers away in the previous shot? The only thing that it would defy would be the fan and the tower which appear too big compared to the cube itself.

Okay, so I think we can agree that in order to find the size of the cube in the first place using the method in the OP, the edge of the cube and the fan have to be on roughly the same plane. If they weren't, for example by one being far in the background, then you couldn't pixelscale from one to the other.

So if they're in the same plane, we can find the distance between them:

48 px = 43.986 m

353 px = 323.480375 m

I scale from the top of the fan for the example though that's not the highest part of the tower. Nonetheless, this puts the cube as being created approximately 300 meters above the top of the tower.

As I established earlier in the thread, the tower itself is shown multiple times to be a no more than several hundred meters tall. There's several shots of it we could look at.

So combine those pieces of information and you have the cube being create in the air roughly 1 kilometer above the surface where All Might & Deku are running along (and remember, they intercept it in the air by jumping up towards it too).

We know Wolfram didn't move the cube up even higher in the air after creating it in order to gain some momentum because we see the exact moment he launches the cube at Deku and All Might here in this shot.

So this is what I mean when I say that the previous shots conflict with the value that's being gotten for the distance. And this is just going off of the same visual above that's used for finding the size of the cube.

 

[TheRustyOne]

48 px = 43.986 m

353 px = 323.480375 m

That's wrong, you cannot scale how high the cube is like that because we're looking at the from below to above. The perspective prevents this. We'd have to be looking at it from the side and make sure they're leveled with each other. I don't see why you'd even think what you're measuring is straight above the tower.

We can px scale them if they aren't perfectly leveled with each other. As long as what is being used for scaling is in front of the object we're measuring. All this means is that the cube can be bigger than what I mentioned, the cube isn't shown to be touching the tower after all. This is reaching speculation, and I've explained mine before.

But I mentioned the possibility that Wolfram moved the cube between these two shots. Using the second one.

The Fan is 43.986*1080/[49*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 692.285 meters away from the camera.

The cube is now 1355.318*1080/[49*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 21331.0436 meters away from the camera. Meaning the cube is 20638 meters away from the tower in this scene.

This fits with my calculation of it moving 10151.353 meters. Also, because the cube is that far away here. You cannot say the cube has become level with the tower as it moves across the screen. Wolfram also has complete control of the cube and can move it however he wants. And there are periods of time before we see it again.

I see no issue with this interpretation. Though I still feel like all of this is an overcomplication of the feat. Adding more scaling like this doesn't really help.

As I said above, I believe there are only two shots that can be used for scaling the cube. And my shot is more detailed, as such I feel it's more likely to be accurate. I don't believe your point above explains why the cube can't be 10 km away in the previous shot.

Note: I've already explain my issue with the tower size being used. The exact angle the cube is throw at is inconsistent as hell. Which is why I'm not using it for scaling, it's just a background element that doesn't even stay on screen for one second. As such, I don't believe that takes precedent over the actual size of the cube.

Another Note: The cube's position compared to the tower also changes between the shots despite the fact it hasn't moved. Further showing why the background detail shouldn't be used to try and point out where the cube is in order to say the size or distance can't be used. It's just an overcomplication of something simple.

 

[Damage3245]

The cube is now 1355.318*1080/[49*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 21331.0436 meters away from the camera. Meaning the cube is 20638 meters away from the tower in this scene.

Can you explain this step in more detail? Why are you using 49 there?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Can you explain this step in more detail? Why are you using 49 there?

Object size in pixels. It should be 48, though this is a very small error and shouldn't affect the result or overall conclusion much

Edit: Hang on, never mind I see what you mean. Not sure myself

 

[TheRustyOne]

Can you explain this step in more detail? Why are you using 49 there?

Mistake on my part.

1355.318*1080/[603*2*tan(70deg/2)] = 1733.368 meters instead. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Dalesean027]

Sorry I couldn't respond at all before, been in really bad health here and i'm only just now feeling a bit better and able to comment. I do think Arc makes a point here and I can agree here with what he's said

Then there's the last shot, where our cube is only 2.3 times bigger than the fan, this shot however only last for 0.375 seconds.

that said this shot being used for scaling wouldn't really work and isn't held as nearly as much as the other two so I think I average between these two ends would be the best here

So TheRustyOne is using this shot to measure the size of the cube, as it is the highest quality shot of the cube itself and is panned for several seconds. The cube is 30.81 times bigger than the fan.

Then there's this shot after that, where the cube is only 11.73 time

since neither can really say for certain their interpretation is 100% on the money albeit from what I'm seeing the distance calculated from Rusty seems to align with what he's already done prior so it could be consistent at the bigger sizes.

those are my thoughts at least

 

[TheRustyOne]

Do you mean taking the average between the two cube sizes?

Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Dalesean027]

Do you mean taking the average between the two cube sizes?

Or am I misunderstanding?

Yeah you got it