VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: "INCONSISTENT SIZES"

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

Damage retracted their opposition to the thread after it was explained to him that it was only about adding a guideline, not a hard rule, while DT, the only person stopping this thread from going through, hasn't replied to the newer arguments yet.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, and what did DontTalk think, and what does the other side think should be done here?

 

[Deagonx]

Okay, and what did DontTalk think, and what does the other side think should be done here?

DontTalk's point was very similar to Damage's. This part of the OP:

When discussing the consistency of sizes of a measured object, using shots of the less focused measured object in the background of other more focused objects far smaller/larger in comparison should not take precedence over shots that focus directly on said measured object.

Was considered fairly controversial, as they said consistency should take precedence over whether or not a scan "focuses" on a certain object. So they were very against the possible result of dismissing scans that did not "focus" on an object despite being valid counter-evidence if such a rule were implemented.

Damage seems to be okay with it under the pretext of a guideline, rather than a hard rule, but it seems like the guideline doesn't exactly resolve the controversial examples in the OP if it isn't a hard rule, so I wonder what the utility is of applying such a thing? Not trying to be negative, just genuinely wondering as it seems to take all the teeth out of the proposal if it can ultimately be dismissed under the same pretext that the aforementioned controversial scans are being dismissed. Not trying to say the dismissal is inappropriate, I am inclined to agree with Damage and DT's judgment.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, and what did DontTalk think, and what does the other side think should be done here?

DontTalk's point was very similar to Damage's. This part of the OP:

When discussing the consistency of sizes of a measured object, using shots of the less focused measured object in the background of other more focused objects far smaller/larger in comparison should not take precedence over shots that focus directly on said measured object.

Was considered fairly controversial, as they said consistency should take precedence over whether or not a scan "focuses" on a certain object. So they were very against the possible result of dismissing scans that did not "focus" on an object despite being valid counter-evidence if such a rule were implemented.

Damage seems to be okay with it under the pretext of a guideline, rather than a hard rule, but it seems like the guideline doesn't exactly resolve the controversial examples in the OP if it isn't a hard rule, so I wonder what the utility is of applying such a thing? Not trying to be negative, just genuinely wondering as it seems to take all the teeth out of the proposal if it can ultimately be dismissed under the same pretext that the aforementioned controversial scans are being dismissed. Not trying to say the dismissal is inappropriate, I am inclined to agree with Damage and DT's judgment.

Hmm. So can somebody list all of the staff members who have commented here and a tally for what they think please?

 

[Deagonx]

Hmm. So can somebody list all of the staff members who have commented here and a tally for what they think please?

Sure.

I don't know that I can effectively capture the slight nuances between the agreeing/disagreeing staff, but essentially the proposal is to prioritize focused shots of a calced object over panels where the object is a minor detail, and as a possible last resort, calcing an average of all the images in question

Agrees: Clover, DDM, Therefir, KLOL, M3X, TheRustyOne, Dalesean, DemonGodMitch, Armorchompy, and DMUA (I think)

Disagrees: Damage, Qawsedf, DontTalkDT

However, it seems that Damage's concern was that a strict rule on the subject would enable the wholesale dismissal of piece of counter-evidence on account of them "not focusing on the object in question" and was generally against any such rule which would indiscriminately discard evidence, and that all pieces of evidence should be given serious consideration, even if that consideration is not always equal.

With the clarification that the rule is not absolute, and is just a general guideline (and DMUA's explanation that we generally prioritize focused shots anyways) he was amicable to it, just as long we're on the same page that "non-focused shots" of an object cannot be dismissed out-of-hand based on such a rule, and that if an unfocused shot is determined to be an outlier, that should be made on a case by case basis, not automatically based on the rule being proposed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, and what did DontTalk think, and what does the other side think should be done here?

DontTalk's point was very similar to Damage's. This part of the OP:

When discussing the consistency of sizes of a measured object, using shots of the less focused measured object in the background of other more focused objects far smaller/larger in comparison should not take precedence over shots that focus directly on said measured object.

Was considered fairly controversial, as they said consistency should take precedence over whether or not a scan "focuses" on a certain object. So they were very against the possible result of dismissing scans that did not "focus" on an object despite being valid counter-evidence if such a rule were implemented.

Damage seems to be okay with it under the pretext of a guideline, rather than a hard rule, but it seems like the guideline doesn't exactly resolve the controversial examples in the OP if it isn't a hard rule, so I wonder what the utility is of applying such a thing? Not trying to be negative, just genuinely wondering as it seems to take all the teeth out of the proposal if it can ultimately be dismissed under the same pretext that the aforementioned controversial scans are being dismissed. Not trying to say the dismissal is inappropriate, I am inclined to agree with Damage and DT's judgment.

Hmm. So can somebody list all of the staff members who have commented here and a tally for what they think please?

Sure.

I don't know that I can effectively capture the slight nuances between the agreeing/disagreeing staff, but essentially the proposal is to prioritize focused shots of a calced object over panels where the object is a minor detail, and as a possible last resort, calcing an average of all the images in question

Agrees: Clover, DDM, Therefir, KLOL, M3X, TheRustyOne, Dalesean, DemonGodMitch, Armorchompy, and DMUA (I think)

Disagrees: Damage, Qawsedf, DontTalkDT

However, it seems that Damage's concern was that a strict rule on the subject would enable the wholesale dismissal of piece of counter-evidence on account of them "not focusing on the object in question" and was generally against any such rule which would indiscriminately discard evidence, and that all pieces of evidence should be given serious consideration, even if that consideration is not always equal.

With the clarification that the rule is not absolute, and is just a general guideline (and DMUA's explanation that we generally prioritize focused shots anyways) he was amicable to it, just as long we're on the same page that "non-focused shots" of an object cannot be dismissed out-of-hand based on such a rule, and that if an unfocused shot is determined to be an outlier, that should be made on a case by case basis, not automatically based on the rule being proposed.

Thank you for the information.

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234

Do these clarifications change your stances regarding this issue?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Do these clarifications change your stances regarding this issue?

I was against a hard rule like Damage, but just a suggestion I'm fine with.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It can probably be applied then, but it seems best if we wait a while for DontTalk first.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't understand what the problem is. Type A uncertainty always exists even if we don't take multiple measurements to assess it. It all makes sense from metrological standpoint if we can consider the author an uncertainty contributor

The uncertainty associated with using clouds doesn't necessarily exist, though?
Like, my point is we have one scaling that is, say, cloud height -> giant character.
Then we have a second scaling that is, for example, car -> giant character.
Cloud height is very uncertain. It can vary by huge amounts. Meanwhile, we know pretty exactly how large a car is. So that latter scaling step has no cloud uncertainty in it. At best it has some uncertainty in it from "maybe the author drew it not up to scale", but that is more speculative and can ultimately not be excluded for the first case either, even if it's the more focused one. Ultimately, I would be more willing to believe that the clouds that day were just a little thinner or thicker than usual, as clouds just sometimes are like that. (Not like the author would have researched cloud thickness anyway)

Similarly, let's say we have one scaling using a focussed shot and angsizing to measure things and another scaling using direct pixel scaling, but the shot is less "focused". I would still take the latter above the former. Angsizing uses viewing angle assumptions that are even harder to expect a mangaka to consistently meet.

Or, if we have a 3 step scaling of focussed shots vs. a 1 step scaling of a less focussed one, I still take the one with less scaling steps. If we can't even expect the author to always draw things consistent in size to each other, we can even less expect them to get the size right between objects that only indirectly compare.

Or, one more example, say in one version you scale something in the foreground to something in the background. That always somewhat decreases the size of the measured object. And then you have another scaling method, were the measuring stick and object are closer together. Even if the former is "more focussed", I would take the latter, because it just doesn't have the foreground-background deflation.

And, generally, I also think more consistent portrayals of size take some priority over less consistent ones. Like, that's just statistics. The more often a result appears the less likely it becomes that it did so by chance.

So, like I was saying, I believe the rule should only be used as tie-breaker between otherwise equally good scaling methods and that should be made clear.


Another thing is that I think the formulation isn't very good. I feel like what is more focused is somewhat subjective in many cases. Furthermore, I think it misses the key argument that was made. The idea was that with objects of wildly different sizes, the author might have difficulty portraying both at once while keeping size consistent. If that is the main argument I think the rule can reflect that better. I think a good formulation could go more in the direction of "Scaling methods in which the size of the measuring stick is close to that of the scaled object are preferable to ones where measuring stick and scaled object are of vastly different sizes".

In total, I would propose something more something in the direction of:

One should consider that an author has to depict events in a fashion visible to the viewer. As such it can at times happen that the size of an object is displayed inconsistently, for the sake of showing a large and comparatively small object at the same time or other artistic considerations. This should be taken into account when evaluating which of several possible size scalings should be used. Generally speaking, a scaling where the measuring stick used is of similar size to the object scaled with it, is preferable to a scaling where the measuring stick and object are of very different sizes. However, this guideline should not take priority over criteria which cause a similar or greater uncertainty in the scaling, such as one method taking more scaling steps than another, one using angsizing while the other uses pixel scaling, one measuring stick having a much less certain size than the other, perspective in one method preventing precise results or general consistency of the sizes obtained by various methods. Exceptions might apply in truly extreme examples, where common sense should be used.

 

[Damage3245]

DontTalk's proposal looks fairly reasonable to me.

 

[ImmortalDread]

When evaluating the size of objects depicted by an author, it's important to consider that the author may have depicted them inconsistently for artistic reasons. For example, the author may have shown a large object and a comparatively small object at the same time. When deciding on the appropriate size scaling to use, this inconsistency should be taken into account.

As a general guideline, it's preferable to use a scaling where the measuring stick used is of similar size to the object being scaled, rather than a scaling where the measuring stick and object are of very different sizes. However, this guideline should not take priority over other criteria that may cause similar or greater uncertainty in the scaling.

For instance, one method may involve more scaling steps than another, or one method may use ang-sizing while another uses pixel scaling. Additionally, the size of one measuring stick may be much less certain than the other, or perspective in one method may prevent precise results or general consistency of the sizes obtained by various methods.

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.

I fixed his draft as it was lacking the flow and coherence of the text, removed unnecessary words and phrases and fixed standardized the capitalization and punctuation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I fixed his draft as it was lacking the flow and coherence of the text, removed unnecessary words and phrases and fixed standardized the capitalization and punctuation.

We actually spell it "angsizing". Don't know why, it's just a historically established neologism.

The first paragraph should be adjusted a little. The need to show a large and small object at once is a possible cause for inconsistent depiction, not the inconsistent depiction itself.

Maybe we would adjust it more in the direction of:

When evaluating the size of objects depicted by an author, it's important to consider that the author may have depicted them inconsistently for artistic reasons. A primary example occurs if the author has to show a large object and a comparatively small object at the same time. In such a case they might have to depict the two objects as similar in size for the sake of making both easily visible to the reader. When deciding on the appropriate size scaling to use, such inconsistencies should be taken into account.

As a general guideline, it's preferable to use a scaling where the measuring stick used is of similar size to the object being scaled, rather than a scaling where the measuring stick and object are of very different sizes. However, this guideline should not take priority over other criteria that may cause similar or greater uncertainty in the scaling.

For instance, one method may involve more scaling steps than another, or one method may use angsizing while another uses exclusively pixel scaling. Additionally, the size of one measuring stick may be much less certain than the other or the perspective in one method may prevent precise results. The general consistency of the sizes obtained by various methods should also be taken into account.

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.

?

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk's latest suggestion seems good to me as well.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Based on my analysis, it appears that DT made only minor corrections to the text, which did not significantly alter its meaning or impact.

 

[Therefir]

Looks good to me, I think we can safely add it.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It looks good. Glad we all finally came to a consensus.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, it seems so, but which page should the text be added to?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Calculation guidelines.

 

[Antvasima]

The following page?

Calculation Guide

A calculation (referred to as calc for short) is a method of determining a statistic (referred to as stat for short) of a character (usually Attack Potency or Speed) in cases where it cannot be directly determined. It makes use of scientific formulae and mathematical equations to calculate any...

vsbattles.fandom.com

If so, is somebody here willing and able to properly make the addition in the right part of the page?

 

[ImmortalDread]

If I am not wrong, it should be under "Angular size"

 

[Antvasima]

The following page?

Calculation Guide

A calculation (referred to as calc for short) is a method of determining a statistic (referred to as stat for short) of a character (usually Attack Potency or Speed) in cases where it cannot be directly determined. It makes use of scientific formulae and mathematical equations to calculate any...

vsbattles.fandom.com

If so, is somebody here willing and able to properly make the addition in the right part of the page?

If I am not wrong, it should be under "Angular size"

@CloverDragon03 @Therefir @Damage3245 @Armorchompy

Does this seem correct to you, and if so, should the text be placed at the end of that section or somewhere else?

 

[DontTalkDT]

@CloverDragon03 @Therefir @Damage3245 @Armorchompy

Does this seem correct to you, and if so, should the text be placed at the end of that section or somewhere else?

I think it would either be put at the end of the "Pixel Scaling" section or into a separate sub-section of the "Frequently Used Measuring Techniques"-section.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is fine with me. Are you willing to add it please?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think it would either be put at the end of the "Pixel Scaling" section or into a separate sub-section of the "Frequently Used Measuring Techniques"-section.

I wanted to say pixel scaling but i generally got confused where to put it. Thanks for help

 

[DontTalkDT]

Okay. That is fine with me. Are you willing to add it please?

Done. I added it like this.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The thread can be closed

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so then.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.