The Breast Reformation Thread

Post count for: order:id id:..500000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 14
Post count for: order:id id:500000..1000000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 5
Post count for: order:id id:100000..1500000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 15
Post count for: order:id id:1500000..2000000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 184
Post count for: order:id id:2000000..2500000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 463
Post count for: order:id id:2500000..2700000 breasts -small_breasts -medium_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts -flat_chest: 911

Most of what is left are animated, comic or id:>2700000. But I'm a little concerned that the number of post with breasts but without size qualifier is still raising by a hundred each day.

@Rignak

Once again, thank you for your diligent breast tagging work! :D

For my part, I use breasts by themselves as a tag only when I'm not confident that I can properly gauge the size due to the style used or the amount of coverage in front of them - but feel compelled to tag it because cleavage is shown.

There seems to be some continued disagreement on the definitions for some of the labels, especially medium_breasts and large_breasts, see conversation in post #2780528. Based on what I saw earlier in this thread where there was some work on the definitions based on post #2168938, I added my own comments there.

Since most people think of breast sizes in terms of cup size, perhaps we might be better served in looking at ratios of breasts size to torso size instead of head size? Especially as artists can use different head to torso proportions, I think this may make more logical sense.

I believe a working definition this thread and the breast tagging project was that if diameter one breast was at least one-third the size of the woman's face then it was a case of large breasts. Although perhaps it may have been the head rather than face; I've been going with face. I think there was apprehension about making this an official part of the definition.

To clear this up I think some pinging is in order - @reiyasona @BrokenEagle98 @Rignak what say you?

I think it would be useful to have the one-third thing a codified part of the lower bound of the definition. Maybe some tweaking if necessary.

I'm not sure if or when that one-third thing was ever a part of this thread, but it seems worth mentioning that "one-third of the volume of their head" was, at one time, the cutoff for flat chest. Funny that now we're talking about applying it to large breasts.

iridescent_slime said:

I'm not sure if or when that one-third thing was ever a part of this thread, (...).

@iridescent_slime

Chinatsu was probably referring to this part of the thread.

large breasts:

• Lower bound:
• Greater than the volume of a sphere with the same diameter as the character's facial area
• Upper bound:
• Less than the volume of the the character's head

The above was the decided metric, as it allows for easy reference and visual comparison.

Contrast that with using the torso as a reference, where the dimensions of the torso are often if not always more obscured than the head is due to clothing, body angles, artist skill, etc. Additionally, the torso is much larger than the breasts or head, which increases the error in measurement and comparison.

Finally, any system we decide on will be flawed since we cannot actually measure the girl. However it is of my humble opinion that using the head as the golden standard will provide the best consistency with tagging and the lowest degree of variation.

@reiyasona

Regarding the linked post, are you sure you meant three-fourths the volume and not three-fourths the diameter? A sphere reduced to 75% its volume is still over 90% the diameter of the original. This, as a lower bound for large breasts, seems a bit on the high side.

iridescent_slime said:

@reiyasona

Regarding the linked post, are you sure you meant three-fourths the volume and not three-fourths the diameter? A sphere reduced to 75% its volume is still over 90% the diameter of the original. This, as a lower bound for large breasts, seems a bit on the high side.

I meant three-fourths the diameter.

Lower bound:
Greater than the volume of a sphere with the same diameter as the character's facial area

Um, guys, I think the crucial problem here is that it calls for a sphere.

Breasts are not spherical. So having a single breast be the same size on the image as the character's face area... is at best 2/3 of the requirement above.

Both put together = volume of such a sphere sounds more legit. And then there's the torso size problem for a woman's presentation...

How about an alternative option for a judgement of large_breasts is producing cleavage without assisting clothing?

reiyasona said:

I meant three-fourths the diameter.

Gotcha. That sounds more reasonable. It also seems roughly equivalent to the standard @BrokenEagle98 cited.

^The sphere thing IMO is not meant to be taken LITERALLY... pictures are 2D after all. For myself, I measure across the largest diameter of the breasts and compare that to the width of the face. With breasts that are close to the width of the face either above or below, I make a subjective judgement call based upon the rest of the picture.

Guardian54 said:

Um, guys, I think the crucial problem here is that it calls for a sphere.

Breasts are not spherical.

It doesn't matter what shape the breasts are; what matters is that a breast has volume greater than that sphere. The choice of a sphere is a simplication to make the comparison easier to visualize. Of course breasts aren't spherical, but if you can imagine the sphere described, any five year old can tell you whether the breast is as big as the sphere.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that anyone ask five year olds to evaluate breast size.

Both put together = volume of such a sphere sounds more legit.

Now you're suggesting that we calculate the sum volume of two breasts in our heads and compare them to the same imaginary sphere. How is this supposed to be an improvement over the current method? You're complicating things and compounding your stated problem with breasts not being spherical.

And then there's the torso size problem for a woman's presentation...

There is no such problem. The size of breasts is completely unrelated to the size of a woman's torso. Breasts that are large on a petite teen don't just stop being large if you put them on a burly Amazon queen.

How about an alternative option for a judgement of large_breasts is producing cleavage without assisting clothing?

This just adds a ton of unnecessary variability and subjectivity into the calculation. If the woman is clothed, you have to imagine how her breasts would behave if unclothed. After that, you have to consider her pose; breasts that touch each other in one position may have a conspicuous gap between them in another position. There's too much guesswork involved here, and when you force people to make assumptions, you can't expect that they will make the same assumptions, so as a result, tagging becomes wildly inconsistent. Given that we have a hard enough time getting people to agree on things like how many hair colors there are, any system for tagging breast sizes needs to have as little room for individual interpretation as possible.

The current system works because it is simple and consistent. Any replacement method that doesn't meet both of these criteria may be dismissed out of hand as unworkable.

iridescent_slime said:

The current system works because it is simple and consistent. Any replacement method that doesn't meet both of these criteria may be dismissed out of hand as unworkable.

So...when can the definition be changed to "breast diameter being comparable to the width of the character's face, or about the distance from chin to eyebrows." instead of "sphere with diametric cross-sectional area equal to facial area"?

Because that latter bit is how I read the current definition, which would be neither simple nor consistent if you consider that hime_cut chops off a lot of facial area.

Well I meant to say two-thirds not one-third, and yes I was thinking of the three-fourths proposal. My apologies, although I pinged certain users to get clarification if I was mistaken.

Guardian54 said:

So...when can the definition be changed to "breast diameter being comparable to the width of the character's face, or about the distance from chin to eyebrows." instead of "sphere with diametric cross-sectional area equal to facial area"?

Because that latter bit is how I read the current definition, which would be neither simple nor consistent if you consider that hime_cut chops off a lot of facial area.

It seems that your intent on changing the definition some how, in some way despite it being pretty clear cut. To get to this point mind you, people have re-tagged thousands - perhaps millions of images with breasts using the definition in the wiki. It's proved fairly intuitive and applicable, whereas your proposals would not apply to all cases.

Guardian54 said:

So...when can the definition be changed to "breast diameter being comparable to the width of the character's face, or about the distance from chin to eyebrows." instead of "sphere with diametric cross-sectional area equal to facial area"?

Because that latter bit is how I read the current definition, which would be neither simple nor consistent if you consider that hime_cut chops off a lot of facial area.

You're way over-complicating things unnecessarily. I demonstrated the facial area technique at the following link using post #1662398.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B39jDgCtzVHuU1NnX2s2bEN0dWc

From the above picture, I would tag...

• Girl 1: Large breasts
• Girl 2: Borderline large/medium breasts
• Girl 3: Medium breasts
• Girl 4: Small breasts
• Girl 5: Large breasts
• Girl 6: Flat chest

I used a photo editor above just to demonstrate the principles behind it, but I usually just eyeball it, or if it's close try to measure it on the screen using something like my finger or a piece of paper.

BrokenEagle98 said:

You're way over-complicating things unnecessarily. I demonstrated the facial area technique at the following link using post #1662398.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B39jDgCtzVHuU1NnX2s2bEN0dWc

From the above picture, I would tag...

• Girl 1: Large breasts
• Girl 2: Borderline large/medium breasts
• Girl 3: Medium breasts
• Girl 4: Small breasts
• Girl 5: Large breasts
• Girl 6: Flat chest

I used a photo editor above just to demonstrate the principles behind it, but I usually just eyeball it, or if it's close try to measure it on the screen using something like my finger or a piece of paper.

I agree with you completely on those labels.

"A sphere with the same diameter as the character's facial area" however is VERY different depending on whether the forehead is covered. THAT is why I wanted to clarify the diameter as USUALLY the face WIDTH.

...After all, you used the WIDTH for EVERY face circle you drew up there.

Guardian54 said:

I agree with you completely on those labels.

"A sphere with the same diameter as the character's facial area" however is VERY different depending on whether the forehead is covered. THAT is why I wanted to clarify the diameter as USUALLY the face WIDTH.

...After all, you used the WIDTH for EVERY face circle you drew up there.

Well, most faces in drawing are based on circles, and the hair is usually drawn in last. That's why when it says "A sphere with the same diameter as the character's facial area" it makes perfect sense to me. However, I can see how it may be possible to get stuck in the literal interpretation of that phrase, especially if you're not thinking about it from a drawing point of view.

I'll go ahead though and add the above visual example to the wikis as a clarification, but I'll still leave the phraseology the same as it still is the most concise and accurate way to describe the technique IMHO.