The Breast Reformation Thread

Hillside_Moose said:

It's a good rule of thumb.

Ironing board = flat chest
Less than a handful = small
Handful = medium
More than a handful or face-sized = large
Bigger than her head = huge
Spine-breaker = gigantic

The problem is, it's hard to determine the border between "medium" and "large" through vision. I think it's so close it's almost nonexistent.

Jarlath said:

Large is where the average sized (non basketball player) hand can contain less than 50% of the breasts in question. If it can't cover most of the volume, it's at least a 34-36D.

Maybe we can simplify this? I mean, much like we determines a large breast size by comparing it with face, how about we add an additional base calculation on the wiki? Like, "if the size of the hand can cover more than half of the breasts, it's medium breasts. Otherwise, it's large breasts"

Medium = breasts that can fill a hand.

Large = breasts whose volume is sufficient to overflow the hand. At this point, the hand can't contain the breast, but at most act to cover 50% or less.

It's like the difference between a large orange and a large grapefruit.

Jarlath said:

Medium = breasts that can fill a hand.

Large = breasts whose volume is sufficient to overflow the hand. At this point, the hand can't contain the breast, but at most act to cover 50% or less.

It's like the difference between a large orange and a large grapefruit.

So, medium breasts is the one who can be completely covered by hand?

More like it fits the hands. Small breasts can be completely covered by the hands as well.

Sacriven said:

So, medium breasts is the one who can be completely covered by hand?

Medium breasts fill the hand when cupped - fully covered is small. Flat is.... Well, if your hand can lie flat on their chest.

Or if you want fruits:

Grape - flat

Plum - small

Apple - medium

Large grapefruit or pomelo - large

Pineapple or durian - huge

Typical large watermelon - gigantic

And then you go into chibis which is a whole other story.

Sacriven said:

The problem is, it's hard to determine the border between "medium" and "large" through vision. I think it's so close it's almost nonexistent.

Please take a look at the examples listed under "Distinction".

Here you can see a fine grained breast size comparison based on a wide-ranging breast size chart.

As you can see there is a huge gap between small breasts and large breasts.

tapnek said:

And then you go into chibis which is a whole other story.

reiyasona said:

tapnek said:

It's just that some chibis have pretty sizable breasts and they could be tagged as such.

Yes, the breasts of chibi characters should be tagged by taking other more complex factors into account (e.g., breast to body ratio OR body fat OR body type).

Rules that are based on fruits, hands and heads are not always applicable. We have to get used to it.

reiyasona said:

I adjusted my comparisons based on post #2168938 a little bit:

The size of most large breasts I encounter on a daily basis ranges from number 14 to 20.

Before changing any definitions, I'd like to receive a little bit more feedback regarding my observation and BrokenEagle98's suggestion.

I disagree about the border between huge_breasts and gigantic_breasts here. gigantic_breasts is defined as a "tremendous volume", or twice the volume of the owner's head. I wouldn't include 28-29 from the chart in that definition, and arguably not 30 either. Numbers 31 and up are where the breasts get really tremendous and clearly not just huge.

Here's the problem
post #2452785 , post #2452783 , post #2452786

I tag those with large breasts after I calculated these using breast = face comparison. The result is all of them roughly in the size of face.

But, if I use different comparison (i.e. hands), then you can see it falls into medium breasts category.

It seems we need a single, absolute base comparison rather than comparing it with many different things. The results are completely different.

It'll be pretty near impossible to get an accurate and objective standard to make a solid measure on breast size due to the limited perspective we get on art done in 2D. The best I can suggest, which is what I was trying to use hands and fruit for - as easy and relatively accessible shortcuts for measuring volume and shape to determine the category in seni-realistic to realistic character designs where the anatomy follows or at least approaches normal human proportions.

post #2453725 is what I'd consider almost the archetype of flat_chest - no real volume or shape beyond a very gentle curve that could be the movement of the pectoral muscles under the raised arm.

Small breasts through to large breasts can be seen in post #16047 - Yukino on the far right is small, with enough curve to be visible but relatively small volume compared to her face or body.

Natsuki Kruger (the long haired one to the left of Yukino) is just curved enough to be medium with the volume that would barely be a handful. Maria Graceburt is definitely a medium, having a distinct curve and volume of breast to fill out that blouse. Youko (in the middle with the bra) is medium to large, with Shizuru being barely large due to shape (enough breast to have an outward curve on top as well as bottom, unlike Maria) and volume displaced relative to face and body.

Haruka and Yukariko fall squarely into large due to curves in both top and bottom of the breast, as well as being prominent enough due to volume to visibly overhang the rest of the torso below.

For huge, I need to leave My-Otome and its relatively realistic designs for KanColle. Seaport-hime in post #2008697 is huge - each of her breasts has enough volume to be at least head sized relative to to her and the others, and curve is no longer a factor save on how severe the change is between shoulder and waist when she's seen in profile. Both Airfield and Battleship are medium to large at best,with Airfield suffering the worst in the comparison.

post #2074742 is better at showing the difference between huge (overhangs the torso, has a lot of volume and a very visible curvature) and medium (Airfield has a inward curve up top her breasts, making them more pointy, whereas Battleship has less volume here making her appear flatter and smaller).

post #2452356 shows Ooyodo has small breasts - much less volume and curve then someone like Tenryuu (post #2071251) who is large due to volume that approaches the size of her head and is proportionally large compared to the shoulders/chest/waist) as well as being very curved outwards on both the top and bottom of her breasts.

Mikuma (post #2440523) is small in volume, gentle on curve, and he breasts do not touch. Ri-class (post #1927749) is just barely medium as there's enough volume and curve to be distinguished from a short distance. Yamashiro (post #2423143) is also medium due to Volume and proportions - this is unlike Haruna (post #2440775) where the prominence and volume edges her into large. Mamiya (post #2423152) is large as each breast is almost the size of her head.

Huge and gigantic breasts are much easier to tag, compared to the rest, as the proportion of breasts to body or head is so skewed that they'd be visible from a great distance and are extremely obvious. Gigantic is when I'd start looking at flagging art due to proportions unless the rest of the figure matches.

And with chibi or extremely stylized characters? I don't think we can properly measure of define breasts for them. They're either going to be small in proportion to the head or shrunken body, or huge just to be visible.

Let me put together a TL:DR version of the above post together, which might seem familiar to by us who've shopped with or for girlfriends that might help tagging.

Flat chest = no really visible curve from a short distance and breast does not protrude from the torso. No bra required.

Small = very shallow curve and prominence compared to the rest of the torso, low circumference. Bra size typically low-numbered AA to A-cup in North American measurements for bras.

Medium = prominent curve and height difference from top of breast to the torso, with enough circumference to have volume visible at a short distance. Bra size will typically be between a B to C cup, somewhere between 28-34C in American measurements.

Large = very prominent breast with a great height difference from front/top of the breast to the torso. Large circumference to the point where breasts are obvious across a large room. Bra and cup sizes get higher, going from 36D up into the large letters due to circumference.

Huge = extremely prominent breasts, very large circumference to the point where the volume makes the breast to torso proportion high enough that they're visible at fairly long distances. Bra fitting is going to be... problematic.

Note that we're primarily dealing with volume and circumference - a character with large proportions in all areas will have large breasts to go with everything else.

Gigantic = beyond merely huge; past the limit of reasonable human anatomy; clearly unnatural on a normal human. Breasts are visible at any distance where the character is. Bras will have to be custom-made. This is the tag to use for breasts near, at, or beyond the ToS restriction on anatomy "far outside the realm of normal human proportion", and is required on posts that meet that definition.

For now, I'll tag using hand-to-breasts comparison. I assume the breast size using closed hands placed on the under part of the breasts. If the closed hands covers less than nipples, I'll assume that it's a large breasts

Didn't know that there is so much "science" going on here. Well, I think we have our breast size definitions and in border cases, nobody will rip someone's head off (I think). And these cases are pretty much everywhere (clothes, perspective, breast grab and surely other cases) and if you can't figure out the breast size by simply looking at the thumbnail with the tag script, it is always worth to look at the "big" picture.

Sacriven said:

For now, I'll tag using hand-to-breasts comparison. I assume the breast size using closed hands placed on the under part of the breasts. If the closed hands covers less than nipples, I'll assume that it's a large breasts

I'd be using the open hand around the breast for comparing sizes - a clenched fist is at best a medium breast, if not a small, for most people. You're trying to measure volume, which is what breast sizes are usually determined with.

Jarlath said:

I'd be using the open hand around the breast for comparing sizes - a clenched fist is at best a medium breast, if not a small, for most people. You're trying to measure volume, which is what breast sizes are usually determined with.

Of course I also measure the volume.

lkjh098 said:

I disagree about the border between huge_breasts and gigantic_breasts here. gigantic_breasts is defined as a "tremendous volume", or twice the volume of the owner's head. I wouldn't include 28-29 from the chart in that definition, and arguably not 30 either. Numbers 31 and up are where the breasts get really tremendous and clearly not just huge.

I'm torn between starting gigantic_breasts at 30 or 31. There is no real size difference between 29 and 30. 30 just got sagging_breasts.

Sacriven said:

Here's the problem
post #2452785 , post #2452783 , post #2452786

I tag those with large breasts after I calculated these using breast = face comparison. The result is all of them roughly in the size of face.

But, if I use different comparison (i.e. hands), then you can see it falls into medium breasts category.

It seems we need a single, absolute base comparison rather than comparing it with many different things. The results are completely different.

post #2452785: large breasts
post #2452783: large breasts
post #2452786: large breasts because of bad_anatomy (right shoulder)

The problem is that there are not always fruits or hands visible in the picture (sometimes not even heads). Projecting these with realistic proportions can be tricky without good reference points in the image.

Jarlath said:

It'll be pretty near impossible to get an accurate and objective standard to make a solid measure on breast size due to the limited perspective we get on art done in 2D. The best I can suggest, which is what I was trying to use hands and fruit for - as easy and relatively accessible shortcuts for measuring volume and shape to determine the category in seni-realistic to realistic character designs where the anatomy follows or at least approaches normal human proportions.

I agree that heads, hands and fruits are good shortcuts, but more realistic classification techniques should take more expressive anatomic factors into account, such as height, body fat or body shape/type.

I would have tagged the posts you mentioned as follows:

post #2453725: flat_chest
post #16047: large_breasts large_breasts medium_breasts medium_breasts medium_breasts small_breasts small_breasts (L -> R)
post #2008697: medium_breasts huge_breasts (left + middle)
post #2074742: medium_breasts small_breasts huge_breasts (L -> R)
post #2452356: small_breasts
post #2071251: large_breasts
post #2440523: small_breasts
post #1927749: small_breasts
post #2423143: medium_breasts
post #2440775: medium_breasts (approaching large)
post #2423152: large_breasts

Jarlath said:

Let me put together a TL:DR version of the above post together, which might seem familiar to by us who've shopped with or for girlfriends that might help tagging.

Flat chest = no really visible curve from a short distance and breast does not protrude from the torso. No bra required.

Small = very shallow curve and prominence compared to the rest of the torso, low circumference. Bra size typically low-numbered AA to A-cup in North American measurements for bras.

Medium = prominent curve and height difference from top of breast to the torso, with enough circumference to have volume visible at a short distance. Bra size will typically be between a B to C cup, somewhere between 28-34C in American measurements.

Large = very prominent breast with a great height difference from front/top of the breast to the torso. Large circumference to the point where breasts are obvious across a large room. Bra and cup sizes get higher, going from 36D up into the large letters due to circumference.

Huge = extremely prominent breasts, very large circumference to the point where the volume makes the breast to torso proportion high enough that they're visible at fairly long distances. Bra fitting is going to be... problematic.

Note that we're primarily dealing with volume and circumference - a character with large proportions in all areas will have large breasts to go with everything else.

+1

Jarlath said:

Note that we're primarily dealing with volume and circumference - a character with large proportions in all areas will have large breasts to go with everything else.

Yes, in most cases.

Regarding size differences we need to remember that we have to always look at the breast to body ratio. A mini girl doesn't necessarily have miniature breasts: post #36521: small_breasts (normal sized girl) + large_breasts (minigirl)

lkjh098 said:

Gigantic = beyond merely huge; past the limit of reasonable human anatomy; clearly unnatural on a normal human. Breasts are visible at any distance where the character is. Bras will have to be custom-made. This is the tag to use for breasts near, at, or beyond the ToS restriction on anatomy "far outside the realm of normal human proportion", and is required on posts that meet that definition.

IRL gigantic breasts :P

Provence said:

Didn't know that there is so much "science" going on here.

xD

Provence said:

Well, I think we have our breast size definitions and in border cases, nobody will rip someone's head off (I think). And these cases are pretty much everywhere (clothes, perspective, breast grab and surely other cases) and if you can't figure out the breast size by simply looking at the thumbnail with the tag script, it is always worth to look at the "big" picture.

I agree. Having some posts with breast size tags that are lightly off-target is clearly better than nothing. However, breasts that can not be measured because of an inconvenient perspective or a blocked view should only get the breasts tag.

I have a little concern about the huge_breasts tag. There are nearly 50k posts tagged with huge breasts, but during my process tagging every breast-post with the specific size, I almost never use this tag. It most often happens when I tag deleted posts. Now I didn't look through the huge breasts posts, but I think most of them are just large breasts. Maybe someone wants to do tag gardening about that and if not I'll take a look after Nitrogen and I have reached the 1M Id mark. This just seems fishy...

Just looked through the first two pages and almost 50% are tagged wrong in my eyes. Would want confirmation about that (not that I'm the one who is mistaken :P).
If yes, tag gardening should definitely be done.

I went down 4 pages at a time starting from page 35 on a huge breasts search, and the first one I found that really doesn't match the huge breasts description was on page 123 - or about 450 pictures in. There were a good dozen or so borderline pictures before that, but even if you'd tag all of those as large breasts, that's still only around 1 in 40 pictures that you'd tag differently.

It's worth bearing in mind that huge breasts are probably far more likely to have already been tagged than other types.

edit: I have 20 images per page - I had forgotten this could be changed.

Provence said:

I have a little concern about the huge_breasts tag...during my process tagging every breast-post with the specific size, I almost never use this tag.

Concur. I noticed the same trend. About 1 in 100 are huge, and 1 in 500 are gigantic.

Also, while we're at it, the cleavage tag seems to be a big wrench in tagging breast sizes. About 25-50% of the time, it's damn-near difficult to tell the size because all that is drawn is just a tiny line to indicate cleavage and that's it. If it wasn't for that tiny line, the girl could be flat-chested for all I can tell. I'd like to propose removing the cleavage -> breasts implication.