VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: "INCONSISTENT SIZES"

[Therefir]

But it makes more sense to scale "laser/giant -> cloud thickness -> from cloud thickness this panel to get hole size" rather than just using cloud height and then the panel.

Isn't that similar to what I did in the new version? Laser>cloud thickness and height to ocean level>cloud length from this panel.

Still, the laser is closer to the field of view than the thickness of the cloud, which means we are working with a low-balled result because god forbids me from using the average thickness of a cloud.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Honestly, I think Clover is making more sense.

 

[DontTalkDT]

But now I'm talking about generally when it comes to getting the size of things. I find it a rather dubious practice to use shots that need to account for the presence of human beings for one reason or another as a reason to either drastically reduce the size of the object or just discard the calc entirely

I don't really see it an issue in general. You could also say the opposite: In a landscape shot the author has to make sure to draw it large enough for it to be easily prominently visible and hence inflate the size.

There are lots of things to consider regarding what the best scaling method is. Like, which the best measurement sticks are, which assumptions are used, how many scaling steps are taken, which scaling methods are used (e.g. pixel scaling vs angsizing), how much background-foreground stuff is involved, possibly even consistency if we have really lots of ways to scale something. Heck, you could take into account how consistent a result is without other showings if there is an outlier debate to be had.
Things like why the author drew something a certain way in a certain panel should be the absolute last thing to consider if all else is equal. It essentially is a consideration of author intent and, as we all know, we really don't care about author intent. We use feats the author made more impressive than intended all the time. So if the author accidentally made a feat less impressive than intended for once? Well, that's just the same side of the same coin.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Isn't that similar to what I did in the new version? Laser>cloud thickness and height to ocean level>cloud length from this panel.

Still, the laser is closer to the field of view than the thickness of the cloud, which means we are working with a low-balled result because god forbids me from using the average thickness of a cloud.

Thickness of a cloud can vary by huge factors (2 to 80 depending on cloud type, and that's still just the regular lengths), which is why using the average ain't a great method.

Anyway, only thing I would do different about the new version is to scale the last panel from cloud thickness instead of ocean distance. So yeah, it's mostly fine.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't really see it an issue in general. You could also say the opposite: In a landscape shot the author has to make sure to draw it large enough for it to be easily prominently visible and hence inflate the size.

Not necessarily. In fact, the landscape shots are typically drawn first and foremost, and then the smaller shots end up coming later, as is the case with both the cloud split and the dragon used as examples in the OP.

There are lots of things to consider regarding what the best scaling method is. Like, which the best measurement sticks are, which assumptions are used, how many scaling steps are taken, which scaling methods are used (e.g. pixel scaling vs angsizing), how much background-foreground stuff is involved, possibly even consistency if we have really lots of ways to scale something. Heck, you could take into account how consistent a result is without other showings if there is an outlier debate to be had.

I'm fine with most of this except for the whole "consistency" thing because, again... being consistently wrong is a possibility. If something's drawn to be visible from a completely separate island far away (even being commented on as such), for example, it makes no sense to then turn around and try using a size that's only as big as a mountain in a few other shots where it's displayed next to humans that need to fully be shown.

Things like why the author drew something a certain way in a certain panel should be the absolute last thing to consider if all else is equal. It essentially is a consideration of author intent and, as we all know, we really don't care about author intent. We use feats the author made more impressive than intended all the time. So if the author accidentally made a feat less impressive than intended for once? Well, that's just the same side of the same coin.

This brings me to this question: Why do we ignore authorial intend to conveniently suit our own biases to begin with? The author knows more about their own verse than we do, after all.

Obviously, we're not mind readers, so it's not like we can objectively know for sure what the intent is. But, we can extrapolate it to some degree based on things like the aforementioned direct shots.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

EXACTLY

 

[Damage3245]

I'm fine with most of this except for the whole "consistency" thing because, again... being consistently wrong is a possibility. If something's drawn to be visible from a completely separate island far away (even being commented on as such), for example, it makes no sense to then turn around and try using a size that's only as big as a mountain in a few other shots where it's displayed next to humans that need to fully be shown.

You can't dismiss evidence just because it's possible it could be wrong. Almost all of our calcs could possibly be wrong because there's no way for us to account for every single hypothetical variable.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not necessarily. In fact, the landscape shots are typically drawn first and foremost, and then the smaller shots end up coming later, as is the case with both the cloud split and the dragon used as examples in the OP.

I don't really see why having them drawn first or not is of any relevance. If the object in question stays the same size, I see no reason to prioritize the first showing.

I'm fine with most of this except for the whole "consistency" thing because, again... being consistently wrong is a possibility. If something's drawn to be visible from a completely separate island far away (even being commented on as such), for example, it makes no sense to then turn around and try using a size that's only as big as a mountain in a few other shots where it's displayed next to humans that need to fully be shown.

An author will always try to draw things consistently. Not just the first time. If the first panel shows it one way and 5 others show it consistently a specific different size, I will go with the 5 panels.

This brings me to this question: Why do we ignore authorial intend to conveniently suit our own biases to begin with? The author knows more about their own verse than we do, after all.

Obviously, we're not mind readers, so it's not like we can objectively know for sure what the intent is. But, we can extrapolate it to some degree based on things like the aforementioned direct shots.

Exactly because you can't know author intent. You can only guess at it. I bet you 80% of the characters we have supersonic or something via bullet dodging are in fact not supposed to be that fast. But what will you do? Ignore that they performed blatantly supersonic feats based on your guess that the author probably doesn't intend them to be that fast? Nah.

Heck, you could have a debate about every explosion on whether the author intended the power to be measured with the explosion formula (they don't).

And your "extrapolation" based on direct shots is just as bad. The author didn't intend it to be measured at all. Do you really think he sat down with a ruler and measured how big the gap to the ocean should be? Nah. It's very assumptive to think you could guess at what the authors intended size was through stuff like pixel scaling.

The principle is Death of the Author. We rank characters based on what we see happen, not based on what we think the author might have intended.

 

[CloverDragon03]

You can't dismiss evidence just because it's possible it could be wrong. Almost all of our calcs could possibly be wrong because there's no way for us to account for every single hypothetical variable.

And the alternative is to dismiss the entire thing because of such a possibility?

We cannot expect visual media to always display large size objects at the same height, yet with our current system, we do just that and otherwise dismiss the entire thing. That's why intent is so important, and also why I'm astounded that we're so intent on ignoring that.

 

[Therefir]

The only reason human-sized characters are still visible compared to supergiants like Sage Centipede is because of visibility, it would look extremely weird if an unrecognizable dot was fighting a massive creature that can dwarf cities.

So the author has no choice other than shrinking the monster/making the human-sized character much bigger in the panel, even if the creature dwarves cities and islands like Sage Centipede and the Dragons from Black Clover.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't really see why having them drawn first or not is of any relevance. If the object in question stays the same size, I see no reason to prioritize the first showing.

I'm talking about when it isn't. Such as when it's drawn smaller in order to account for regular sized humans that may be fighting such a large being.

Also, it being drawn first lends credence to the idea that this is the size it's meant to be.

An author will always try to draw things consistently. Not just the first time. If the first panel shows it one way and 5 others show it consistently a specific different size, I will go with the 5 panels.

Context is important. Is it drawn that way because it needs to account for the presence of fitting it and much smaller objects all on one panel, for example? If so, that's not exactly fair

In addition, it's not as if the 5 other panels even draw it the same way consistently. It's different each time.

Exactly because you can't know author intent. You can only guess at it. I bet you 80% of the characters we have supersonic or something via bullet dodging are in fact not supposed to be that fast. But what will you do? Ignore that they performed blatantly supersonic feats based on your guess that the author probably doesn't intend them to be that fast? Nah.

The author clearly intended for them to be fast enough to dodge bullets at least, given they drew that event happening.

Heck, you could have a debate about every explosion on whether the author intended the power to be measured with the explosion formula (they don't).

They may not be intended to use the explosion formula but they're most certainly intended as displays of strength. You don't need to get so overly specific about it to recognize authorial intent.

And your "extrapolation" based on direct shots is just as bad. The author didn't intend it to be measured at all. Do you really think he sat down with a ruler and measured how big the gap to the ocean should be? Nah. It's very assumptive to think you could guess at what the authors intended size was through stuff like pixel scaling.

The principle is Death of the Author. We rank characters based on what we see happen, not based on what we think the author might have intended.

I'm not saying it was intended to be measured, but it very much appears intended to be a massive split that is later contradicted due to a need to fit other things into the panels for the sake of visibility, as Therefir mentioned.

It's really not as difficult to extrapolate intent as it may seem

 

[Damage3245]

The only reason human-sized characters are still visible compared to supergiants like Sage Centipede is because of visibility, it would look extremely weird if an unrecognizable dot was fighting a massive creature that can dwarf cities.

So the author has no choice other than shrinking the monster/making the human-sized character much bigger in the panel, even if the creature dwarves cities and islands like Sage Centipede and the Dragons from Black Clover.

But in cases like that we have several panels showing the size of Sage Centipede compared to the landscape, geographical features, etc. So if it becomes a consistency topic, there shouldn't be an issue.

In the cloud dispersal feat we have one prominent panel showing it to be 100 km across, and three panels showing that not to be the case. It's a different situation to Sage Centipede's depiction.

 

[CloverDragon03]

But in cases like that we have several panels showing the size of Sage Centipede compared to the landscape, geographical features, etc. So if it becomes a consistency topic, there shouldn't be an issue.

In the cloud dispersal feat we have one prominent panel showing it to be 100 km across, and three panels showing that not to be the case. It's a different situation to Sage Centipede's depiction.

It still follows the same principle though, of needing to shrink the size of the large object or inflate the size of the small object to fit everything. It's an inevitability, and yet we're choosing to hold that inevitability against the affected verses

 

[Therefir]

Regarding the use of the first panel, I would say that the panel in which the feat occurs/the object is presented in more detail should be the one chosen to measure.

And that many times is usually the first panel.

 

[Damage3245]

Regarding the use of the first panel, I would say that the panel in which the feat occurs/the object is presented in more detail should be the one chosen to measure.

And that many times is usually the first panel.

Doesn't that go against the principle that the most up-to-date information the author gives us should be treated as priority? It is always possible for authors to retcon information after all.

 

[Therefir]

In the cloud dispersal feat we have one prominent panel showing it to be 100 km across, and three panels showing that not to be the case. It's a different situation to Sage Centipede's depiction.

The panel we are using for the feat is not only the largest and most detailed of them all, since it's a double-page spread, but also the panel in which the feat is actually occurring in real time.

The other panels you mention either aren't focusing in the hole in the sky, we can't see it's full width making your point on this panel moot, or are from subsequent chapters far after the feat have occurred.

I have to remind you that the author took a break before chapter 332, keeping consistency between chapters would be extremely complicated.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Small people, objects, etc. being displayed right next to massive things should never be the go to unless it is the only option to scale something

The people are usually never properly to scale because the author is just trying to show us where they are. Some series are definitely aggregious about this tho. A lot of series have large things be extremely inconsistent in terms of size, hence why we should try to look for the most consistent showcases. But comparing to people is never the best way to do that most of the time

 

[Therefir]

Doesn't that go against the principle that the most up-to-date information the author gives us should be treated as priority? It is always possible for authors to retcon information after all.

It's not up to you to decide what is retcon and what isn't, the panel with the most detail is the one that the author put the most work and effort into, which means it comes closest to their actual vision of what they are trying to portray.

A smaller panel means less detail and less time to work on it, but I find it hard to believe that you're really implying that the author is making the objects smaller on purpose, retconning previous panels, rather than thinking that they are doing it for convenience and comfort.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

@Damage3245 and @DontTalkDT i really hope we have been able to change your minds about how we approach this topic. Several CGMs have made great points and explained my sentiments better than I ever could.

 

[Damage3245]

@Damage3245 and @DontTalkDT i really hope we have been able to change your minds about how we approach this topic. Several CGMs have made great points and explained my sentiments better than I ever could.

I can see merits in some of the examples whereas I disagree with others. I also think that DT has made some good points.

 

[Armorchompy]

While you can't make a human more or less visible in regards of a giant you can zoom in or out of a landscape as much as you want, saying that a giant was made bigger to fit a panoramic shot is very silly.

I'm in support of OP, at least generally, you can't expect a perfect level of consistency from manga, so a panel meant to showcase size should generally be given more weight (Granted, this shouldn't be absolute, if a character is 3000 meters in their establishing shot and then literally always in the 200 meters range you shouldn't treat them as being 3 km tall. But I do think it should be a guideline)

 

[DMUA]

As I brought up in my thread on this specific feat, I can't agree with that. I intend to continue arguing my point over there soon.

I have no interest in debating any popular shonen but I'll have to add onto this:

I mentioned when asked about this topic on discord that we already do generally prioritize shots where the size of the object is the focus, the exception being when there's just nothing good to go off of in said shot

Considering the reference points here consist of the cloud height (which seems to be hovering exactly above the ground from the camera's perspective, as if the fight is taking place in orbit, which it definitely doesn't seem to be) or the blur vaguely resembling a human being that got severed in twain (I think), this falls in the latter case

The main reason I put this here is to emphasize that this is already the general jist of what we do and it's just sometimes there are exceptions

In the event the sizes are still deemed inconsistent after enacting the aforementioned policy, I propose that we should measure several acceptable shots of the same object and simply average each result as the final compromise.

This on the other hand I think is kinda goofy and if you have at least one good shot that you can actually use to measure something, you should just use it

 

[Nierre]

Share the same sentiments with DMUA.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

This on the other hand I think is kinda goofy and if you have at least one good shot that you can actually use to measure something, you should just use it

I don’t mind this at all. I was just trying to solve the very very rare case of multiple good shots having inconsistent sizes.

 

[Armorchompy]

This on the other hand I think is kinda goofy and if you have at least one good shot that you can actually use to measure something, you should just use it

This reminds me of the time I took a crater and calculated it 8 different times just because the size was inconsistent and I thought the result from the panel that was previously used was too high

Then I actually re-read the manga and found a different feat that put the verse a little higher than any of the results would give which was pretty funny since it invalidated all the effort

 

[DMUA]

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It looks like most of us are in the agreement of using a more focused and detailed shot of objects we intend to measure, rather than using the less detailed/less focused shots of those objects next to far smaller and more focused entities (e.g. a human).

 

[Dalesean027]

Did anyone have anything else to add here?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Not really much left.

@Abstractions and @Moritzva might comment later. Mori let me know she was in agreement privately.

 

[Jasonsith]

It looks like most of us are in the agreement of using a more focused and detailed shot of objects we intend to measure, rather than using the less detailed/less focused shots of those objects next to far smaller and more focused entities (e.g. a human).

I would say that context is always important and should be examined on a case eby add basis.
The above words could be taken as an advice but it would be counter intuitive to be made a hard rule.



Just to discuss here is one polar opposite case:
Say some character is lifting and hurling a small skyscraper and the other character is tanking the hit from the said hurled skyscraper.

The skyscraper is the size of some city block at one screen, but is then shown as significantly visible from outer space as a tiny yet visible fraction of the size of a moon.

Should the skyscraper size be taken as one city block or one celestial body?

 

[Armorchompy]

I mean if it's a skyscraper you can just determine its size from the windows or floor height or whatever

 

[Damage3245]

If we agree that its on a case-by-case basis, then it's fine.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It looks like most of us are in the agreement of using a more focused and detailed shot of objects we intend to measure, rather than using the less detailed/less focused shots of those objects next to far smaller and more focused entities (e.g. a human).

Let me rephrase this

I meant to say that most of us are in agreement of not using less focused background shots of the object we intend to measure as counter evidence to more focused detailed shots of that object being inconsistent in size.

 

[Damage3245]

Let me rephrase this

I meant to say that most of us are in agreement of not using less focused background shots of the object we intend to measure as counter evidence to more focused detailed shots of that object being inconsistent in size.

It's still a form of evidence. No matter what it should never be completely off the table.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

The skyscraper is the size of some city block at one screen, but is then shown as significantly visible from outer space as a tiny yet visible fraction of the size of a moon.

Should the skyscraper size be taken as one city block or one celestial body?

The shot where the skyscraper was picked up/thrown is usually the most detailed and focused so that takes more precedence when determining if it’s inconsistent or not. Then we just use the windows to scale it like @Armorchompy said.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It's still a form of evidence. No matter what it should never be completely off the table.

I understand but shots where the feat actually happens and other shots that directly focus on the object and not other things next to it in general should always take precedence.

So if the only counter evidence against a well detailed and focused shot are shots like this then it should not be sufficient evidence to claim the sizes are too inconsistent to be used for scaling.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

So what do you think should be done here in summary?

 

[Crabwhale]

Honestly neutral on this.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

So what do you think should be done here in summary?

@DontTalkDT