Amaz0ns Forum
Dec 02, 2008, 06:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Login with username, password and session length
News: Some boards are only visible to users who are logged in and have more than 20 posts.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Here's how to "measure" your drawn muscle women  (Read 4804 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MuskelGrothe
Site Elder
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 107



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2008, 08:33 PM »

I'm a math midget.  I'm not entirely certain I understand exactly how your ratios work.  Is there a chance you could give it to me in other words?

Well for the width-to-depth ratios, let's say you take a limb 10 inches deep. A 0.7 ratio would be 7 inches wide for every 10 inches of depth, so width = 7" and depth = 10".  If the image is taken from somewhere between a width cross-section, and a height cross-section, then the image's cross-section's length would be somewhere between width and depth.  The formula I gave assumes the cross-section's length goes steadily from width (0 degrees) to depth (90 degrees).  So if the rotation is estimated at 22.5 degrees (1/4 of 90 degrees) rotation, the length of the cross-section would be

7+(10-7)*(22.5/90)
=7+3*1/4
=7+0.75
=7.75"

So if you measure about 7.75 scale inches on the photo or art, finding width and depth would be like this

Ratio (r):
r=0.7

Intermediary between r and 1, corresponding to the image's cross-section (t):
t=r+(A/90)*(1-r)
=0.7+(22.5/90)*(1-0.7)
=0.7+0.25*0.3
=0.7+0.075
=0.775

Measurement (m):
m=7.75"

Depth (d):
d=m/t
=7.75/0.775
=10"

Width (w):
w=d*r
=10*0.7
=7"

a & b radii for ellipse:
a=w/2=7/2=3.5
b=d/2=10/2=5

pi Approximation:
pi=3.14

Approximate Circumference (C):
C=sqrt(2*(a^2+b^2))*pi*r
=sqrt(2*(5^2+3.5^2))*3.14*0.7
=sqrt(2*(25+12.25))*2.198
=sqrt(2*37.25)*2.198
=sqrt(77.25)*2.198
=8.789*2.198
=19.318"

----

For the height ratios, it's just % of total height.  You either need to guess what your character's height is, or you can use the real height of the person you are morphing or otherwise basing the art off of.
Logged

1st_Tsurugi
Site Regular
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 29



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2008, 10:13 PM »

I think I understand most of the individual things you laid out, but my math deficient mind can't quite put it all together as yet.  I guess it'll make sense later.  Thanks for trying Smiley
Logged
JimmyDimples
Site Superhero
********
Gender: Male
Posts: 1054



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2008, 06:03 AM »

Thanks very much for helping crunch the numbers, and show the terms.  While I don't draw this stuff, it's good to know when I put the physique into words.  Smiley
Logged

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. --Margaret Thatcher

Who's writing this issue... the geniuses behind She-Hulk? --Strong Bad
MuskelGrothe
Site Elder
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 107



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Jun 14, 2008, 09:09 PM »

Ok, now I'm trying volume and weight.  I ran a test on a very muscular FBB, and got the following percentages.

PART (Shape x (copies)) ..% of volume (all copies)
THIGH (Ellipsoid x 2) ....21.1%
ANKLE (Frustum x 2) ......1.8%
CALF (Ellipsoid x 2) .....9.2%
BUTT (Ellipsoid x 2) .....9.7%
ABDOM (Frustum x 1) ......14.2%
CHEST (Cylinder x 1) .....28.4%
TRAP (Ellipsoid x 0.5) ...0.6%
NECK (Cylinder x 1) ......0.9%
BICEP (Ellipsoid x 2) ....6.0%
FOREARM (Ellipsoid x 2) ..4.7%
DELT (Ellipsoid x 1) .....3.3%


I'm leaving out Head, Feet, and Hands as they don't differ much from person to person in weight or size.  I may need to get a common skeletal weight to figure in for weight.  Do most of these volume proportions look correct, for anyone familiar with the subject?

The bodybuilder in question was 5-6 (66 in), and photographed at about 180 lbs.  Her "muscle volume" came to 4174 cubic inches.  In other words, if she was redistributed into a cube, all of the cube's dimensions would be 16".
Logged

MuskelGrothe
Site Elder
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 107



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Jun 16, 2008, 02:03 AM »

I may not have perfected the method (as one could imagine it is pretty hard to get exact off just a picture), but I have put together a spreadsheet to be used for approximating weight off a picture.  Far from an exact science, it at least beats trying to guess the weight just by eyeballing.  Right now it is hosted on my Yahoo! group (you have to sign up for the group).  If anyone wants to host it elsewhere, be my guest.

Weight Measurement Aides

Here is an illustration of the volume zones used.


Of course, part of the fun of drawing amazons is guessing the weight.  Even so, I grew tired of just guessing and wanted a better method.  My guess have been pretty accurate for the two fantasy girls I tested out.  I also tested it on a few real FBBs, and the weights seemed to hold up.  With the inexact method, there will still be some guesswork involved, but now you can at least have a "neighborhood" to place your guess in.
Logged

trilliwig
Site Hero
******
Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Jul 17, 2008, 09:06 PM »

Hi MuskelGrothe.  Many thanks for creating this useful tool!  I've been trying to apply it to a commissioned piece of artwork, and run into a couple issues for which I have questions.  Huh

First, the example spreadsheet entries for the chest appear to use a width greater than the length (75 pixels versus 45 pixels).  Your diagram shows chest width as the measurement from collarbone to abdomen, while the chest length is the measurement across from side-to-side, so by the diagram, length should be greater than width.  Which is correct, or does it matter?

Second, your ratios width/depth for thighs, biceps, and calves don't give guidance for a normal, non-muscular woman.  I tend to use the ratios closest to 1 in that case.

Third, the weight sheet contains an input for Target weight in pounds.  Isn't that what we're trying to calculate?  So what purpose does that serve?  For now I've been putting in something that approximates 0.036 lb/in^3, erring on the low side for less muscular women and on the high side for more muscular women.

Also, I've put in a row for elliptical circumference using Ramanujan's approximation, which is

pi*[3(a+b) - sqrt((3a+b)(a+3b))]

where a and b are the major and minor radii.  This seems to work out pretty well.  An example formula is

=PI*(1.5*(C8+C9)-0.5*SQRT((3*C8+C9)*(3*C9+C8)))*$B18/$B17

which gives a circumference in inches.
Logged
Lingster
Amaz0ns BSD
Administrator
Site Superhero
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1911


mightylingster
View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: Jul 17, 2008, 10:04 PM »

I love this thread.
Logged

trilliwig
Site Hero
******
Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Jul 18, 2008, 12:43 AM »

Heh, sure, what's not to like?  We get to apply our analytical skills to one of our favorite aesthetic subjects!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
RocketTheme Joomla Templates