roadrunnermt
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 110
Truly amazing work and I personally thank you for all the time and research you put into this. You have an awesome talent and hope one day you can connect with LE forces with your special touches and get some income flow out of it.
Sorry this took so long to answer. In my analysis, the sex of the subject and the body shape was generic from the start. The final animation does not represent my starting point, but rather a final conclusion from the evaluation of the entire video. I outlined my techniques on a previous post, not sure if you saw that. Either way, Ill try to keep it as concise as possible yet still comprehensive. The short answer is research, external evaluation, knowledge of anatomy, and common sense.
The long answer is actually long, so bear with me. Its a lot to chew through.
(Skip this paragraph if you already read my previous post on how the animation was done). I tracked the movements of the subject in the video frame by frame, marking the location of joints first in order to determine limb length ratios and joint angulation, etc. Even at that early stage, that framework reveals clues about the sex of the subject. But that isnt what determined my overall body shape. I made no assumptions about the body beneath the gear at that point. I simply eliminated bulk. Using data points to locate the thinnest areas where the costume hugged the body or shifted/pulled away, I was able to eliminate bulk at each of those points. Those data points then became fixed, meaning they were applied to all other frames in the sequence and that body part was revealed. I used over 100 data points in that brief few second long sequence of frames.
So thats how the initial frame and body shape started to appear. Youve asked about the hips, several data points and reference revealed a narrow hip, not wide. So early on it was clear the subject does not have a pear-shaped body.
So the general silhouette is established. From this point the subject can only become thinner than the basic silhouette, not heavier. But there are some places on the body that the costume doesnt reveal data points to eliminate bulk. Those areas are the back, the upper front torso, and the outer thighs. In order to determine the approximate shape of the body beneath those concealed areas, I have to use other methods:
Research. The subject is wearing an ordinary tactical vest with pouch pockets over a jacket or coat. We know that because we can see evidence of it quite clearly in several segments of the video. I have researched tactical gear exhaustively. I was able to locate a vest very similar to the one subject is wearing after eliminating around 100 similar styles. (see Fig 1) This vest is close in design, with similar pocket locations and other visual clues. It has specific dimensions which I have applied to the subject in the video. The stacked pouch pockets which are around 6.5 x 4 x 2.5, and darted chest pockets which are 4 x 3 x 1.5 (presumably deeper when full) are my baseline. Including the interfaced flaps and vest (which may also be lined), plus any jacket underneath, the lower pouch pockets would protrude 3-4 minimum, and if full, perhaps more. A vest identical to the one pictured, but with POLICE patches was sold on eBay last October. The vest is just one aspect, and my numbers are just a starting point, but you can see how just a few inches in layers of bulk must be accounted for rather than trusting what the eye sees and assuming "flesh".
Evaluation of the entire video. I start by referring to other frames of the video which are outside the sequence I animated. In these isolated frames, you can see the silhouette outline of the vest, showing the pockets and gaps between. In other frames, its clear the vest and/or jacket is either lined/padded or not close-fitting, due to the way it protrudes from the torso when the subject moves his upper body. Using these frames, I used a combination of subtraction of minimum vest dimensions along with the euclidean geometric axiom (applied to general anatomy) to determine the approximate body shape and size beneath the pocketed vest/jacket. This same technique was used for the tac cargo pants with pouch pockets. These single frames (see Fig 2) capture shapes that are not body weight. Why?
Knowledge of anatomy. Body mass cannot not fluctuate or shift significantly over the body frame. A belly won't suddenly slide around to the back. Arms won't be lean one moment then bulging the next. Every data point that eliminated bulk during the first phase became fixed - in other words, that bulk did not get re-added because an earlier or later frame showed a lump or bulge in a place where it was eliminated. In addition to that, flesh sits on the frame in pretty predictable ways. Muscle bulk is predictable. To a lesser degree, fat deposits are predictable. The human body is also predictably symmetrical - if an outer thigh pouch pocket containing a pry bar bulges out to the side, I am going to conclude the bulge on the opposite side isnt likely muscle or fat. If the tactical vest has a protrusion on one side of the chest and not the other, Im going to conclude its a pouch pocket and not a person with one breast. While anomalies like this do occur (asymmetrical or atypical body shapes, oddly-placed bulges, missing body parts, etc.), I did not create unnecessarily complicated scenarios to accommodate those anomalies. Some might ask How do you know some of those shapes dont contain body mass?"
Common sense. Common sense dictates that what we are seeing throughout the entirety of the video is a tactical vest with pouch pockets. The bulk from the tactical vest does not suddenly become body bulk in places where the video isnt as clear. It remains a tactical vest throughout. And while we dont know whats in the pouch pockets of that tactical vest, common sense also dictates that there aren't holes cut through the backs of those pouch pockets to insert breasts, belly fat, etc.
It may be difficult to believe by looking at the video, but I did not arbitrarily remove hips, belly, or chest in order to fit a male shape. Those were determined by scientific methods, not eyeballing or feelings or even conformation bias. As I stated earlier, the body can be thinner, but not heavier. The one area that is concealed most is the middle torso. It is possible that that area is actually thinner than my animation - more hourglass shaped. So that particular final piece was based on the combination of all other clues put together. The limb length, the upper torso/lower limb ratio, the posture/gait, and my height estimations. All of these clues point to a male, so I declined to arbitrarily narrow the waist. At the request of others, I have created illustrations featuring more female characteristics within the parameters of my data. Long hair, narrow waist, etc. My conclusion is still male, even with added artifice. My final conclusion, using everything here, plus my height evaluations, is male and likely on the lean side.
