Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
Like I said, I am going to be posting all the research, evidence and information I can find relevant to the Iris Method. I am kinda slow with these posts, sorry about that, but they are still coming.

Here are a few articles giving statistics on iris diameter I was able to find. I was content with just one but since SOME people are doubting how consistent and reliable it really is I decided to go find more. Each article sourced is accompanied with a screenshot with the relevant data, if you want to contest any of the articles you can find them yourself and confirm their reliability. You should find that they all agree on the range of iris variation (a few measured up to 13mm but most say around 12.5) and the average iris diameter (around 11.8mm). Do keep in mind that irises grow until a person reaches puberty, one of the articles had a single statistic that included children, which got a lower range of around 9mm iirc but you should know that is not reflective of the population. Also the diameter of the cornea is related to the HVID and both may be used interchangeably.

I have included a demonstration of how different unpredicted iris diameters skew the measurements on my database, linked in my signature. Most measurements are only affected by a few mm in either direction, with an exception of the bizygomatic width and the width of the lower third, unfortunately. The measurements for individual zygomatic bones ALSO vary by only a single mm, which sounds paradoxical but the reasoning behind it is explained in the Magnification section of my other post. Basically even though we can't be as confident with bizygomatic and bigonial width estimates (unless they're low), we CAN be confident in the size of the cheek bone itself, and I think we can all agree that that is what's important.

Enjoy and good luck looksmaxing




Davis, Robert L., and P. Douglas Becherer. “Applying Predictable, Scientific Fitting Strategies Can Offer Your Patients the Best Possible Lens Fit.” Techniques for Improved Soft Lens Fitting, 1 Aug. 2005.








Mashige, K. P. “A Review of Corneal Diameter, Curvature and Thickness Values and Influencing Factors*.” African Vision and Eye Health, vol. 72, no. 4, 12 Dec. 2013, doi:10.4102/aveh.v72i4.58.









R??fer, Florian, et al. “White-to-White Corneal Diameter.” Cornea, vol. 24, no. 3, Apr. 2005, pp. 259–261., doi:10.1097/01.ico.0000148312.01805.53.








Rosen, Chad, et al. Visible Iris Diameter with the Volk Eye Check Device. 2015, www.irissmedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Iris-Diameter-with-VEC-Poster-BCLA-2015-v41.pdf.








Thainimit, Somying, et al. “Iris Surface Deformation and Normalization.” 2013 13th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT), 2013, doi:10.1109/iscit.2013.6645910.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,206
Reputation
1
retroshortfacedsubhuman said:
Cliffs

Pretend like you have to explain this to elementary school kids with a short attention spane
GET A VERY ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THE IRIS BECAUSE IT DEVIATES LESS IN PEOPLE AND USE THIS MEASUREMENT TO CHECK PEOPLE'S SKULL SIZES BY USING THE RATIO
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,206
Reputation
1
Pinhead said:
AhaanPandeyFAN said:
GET A VERY ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THE IRIS BECAUSE IT DEVIATES LESS IN PEOPLE AND USE THIS MEASUREMENT TO CHECK PEOPLE'S SKULL SIZES BY USING THE RATIO
pretty sure an old user davo did this and concluded that andrew garfield had a 13.1cm skull
ITS A NICE ATTEMPT BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOT VERY LEGIT.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
AhaanPandeyFAN said:
Pinhead said:
pretty sure an old user davo did this and concluded that andrew garfield had a 13.1cm skull
ITS A NICE ATTEMPT BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOT VERY LEGIT.
can someone explain to me what that even means
 

FLAYER

Slayer
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
2,975
Reputation
0
I’ve got monster fucking eyeballs with 20/10 vision , 1.2” eye diameter and 14 mm irises
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
Pinhead said:
headsupdisplay said:
can someone explain to me what that even means

Seems like bullshit tbh

Noszka 135mm zygomatic arch breadth? sean opry broader arches than dolph lundgren? lmfao
umm

If you paid closer attention, you would see that both Sean O'Pry and Dolph Lundgren have about the same sized zygomatic bones. It isn't like the bizygomatic width alone can give you a measurement for the size of the zygomatic bone. Check my thread history for an explanation.

Sean O'Pry's eyes are farther apart than Dolph's, which does account for some of the difference. If you want I can send you a link with their measurements and an Inaccuracy Table so you can see exactly how the measurements change with different HVIDs, and the probabilities of those sizes occuring.


It is pretty clear to me that Matthew Noszka isn't as wide as you guys think he is. Him being any more than average seems like a mathematical impossibility. But I suppose you can believe what you want
[hr]
I thought Sean O'Pry was considered good looking on this site?
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
Pinhead said:
I just don't see how the breadth for noszka adds up considering his cranium looks VISUALLY smaller than his zygomatic breadth (this usually means they're similar in total size) which would be absolutely ridiculous in his case considering the rest of his face is proportionate and his skull doesn't look out of place on a 6'1-6'2 body
I don't think the size of the cranium is the same as the bizygomatic width in most ppl. I can go back and check if I really cared, but the size of the cranium isn't rly important to me. Measuring it from a picture would be a bitch and a half. The articles YOU can look at to see the size of the cranium are in the thread I made for the research I did on bizygomatic width, good luck digging that shit up



And how do you know what size cranium or cheekbones would look disproportionate? Even if you accept that some ppl's heads look too big or too small, you don't know how big THOSE heads are, so you have no point of reference. I measured ppl with acromegaly SPECIFICALLY to get this point of reference, and the measurements I got for their BZ width make sense considering the distribution of BZ widths I found, which also adds to my credibility I feel

The size of the top of his head does seem smaller than the BZ width but again I don't think that matters. You can't just say that you don't personally like the results, that's not an argument. Literally no one has demonstrated that my methods are not useful and nobody has ever took the time to check any of my work, everyone just seems to like to talk
[hr]
The data I could get for Noszka IS low, but I am still pretty fkn close boi
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
2,206
Reputation
1
UR STILL UNDERESTIMATING HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE THIS RANGE MAKES. IF I KEEP 12 AS THE MULTIPLIER OR 12.5 AS THE MULTIPLIER, THE DIFFERENCE IS HUGE FOR A LARGER FACE MEASUREMENT, HUGEEEEE

10.5 TO 13 MM IS A HUGE RANGE.
[hr]
*NOT 
JDFICZ;
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
AhaanPandeyFAN said:
UR STILL UNDERESTIMATING HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE THIS RANGE MAKES. IF I KEEP 12 AS THE MULTIPLIER OR 12.5 AS THE MULTIPLIER, THE DIFFERENCE IS HUGE FOR A LARGER FACE MEASUREMENT, HUGEEEEE

10.5 TO 13 MM IS A HUGE RANGE.
[hr]
*NOT 
JDFICZ;
why do you type in all caps all the time

Every single measurement on my database is broken up into smaller measurements to isolate individual problems and individual inaccuracies.

Every measurement except the jawline, that is, idk what to do to make that more accurate, but idk if I even need to in the grand scheme of things. Maybe jaw widths could be treated like male "cup sizes" with increments of 5 mm

As a general rule, the longer the measurement is the less important it is to be perfectly accurate. In the same way you don't care how tall you are to the mm
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
Pinhead said:
headsupdisplay said:
I don't think the size of the cranium is the same as the bizygomatic width in most ppl. I can go back and check if I really cared, but the size of the cranium isn't rly important to me. Measuring it from a picture would be a bitch and a half. The articles YOU can look at to see the size of the cranium are in the thread I made for the research I did on bizygomatic width, good luck digging that shit up



And how do you know what size cranium or cheekbones would look disproportionate? Even if you accept that some ppl's heads look too big or too small, you don't know how big THOSE heads are, so you have no point of reference. I measured ppl with acromegaly SPECIFICALLY to get this point of reference, and the measurements I got for their BZ width make sense considering the distribution of BZ widths I found, which also adds to my credibility I feel

The size of the top of his head does seem smaller than the BZ width but again I don't think that matters. You can't just say that you don't personally like the results, that's not an argument. Literally no one has demonstrated that my methods are not useful and nobody has ever took the time to check any of my work, everyone just seems to like to talk
[hr]
The data I could get for Noszka IS low, but I am still pretty fkn close boi
I'm basing it off of my own stats, weight and height. 

I'm 5'11" with broader zygomatic arches than you report for noszka (mine would be your average at 140mm) and yet on my body my head looks both too short and too narrow and i'm 3 inches shorter and probably 30-40lb lighter than noszka. My cranium also LOOKS broader than my zygomatic arches, this would mean the opposite for noszka is true (since his cranium looks narrower than his arches) meaning he would have literally 1st percentile cranium stats which just doesn't make sense given his height and weight and height to shoulder ratio (his body is above average in all dimensions) except his skull is 15th percentile? is this a joke?

there's no need to do any of these calculations with your toe length, all you have to do is look at a male (whilst knowing his height) to know if he's small headed or not. 135mm would be a small head for 6'2 and yet noszka looks totally normal. 



He'd be fine even at 6'4 with that skull. Me on the other hand with supposedly broader arches? I'd look absolutely fucking ridiculous. 

59mm IPD would put him at 7th percentile. 135mm zygomatic breadth would put him at 10th percentile. His cranium would be even lower



My head breadth is 45th percentile at 15.3cm (my skull circumference being 22.9, slightly big occiputal and slightly broad forehead) yet is visibly wider than my 140mm arches. Say Noszka has head breadth equal to his arches (which isn't the case, it's smaller for sure) this would tie him for the SMALLEST cranium out of a study with 4,000 sample size



Which is simply false. His head looks completely normal at 6'1-6'2" height. 13.5cm cranium breadth would look deformed even at 5'7 (notice how the smallest female one is 13.1)

Just compare O'Prys full body shot to Noszkas



O'Pry supposedly has 1.5cm broader arches and 1.3cm greater face length (from the inner canthi to bottom of chin) yet has a WORSE skull to body ratio than noszka despite being at least 1" shorter

https://www.celebheights.com/s/Sean-OPry-49829.html

https://models.com/newfaces/modeloftheweek/41867
The head breadth measures the width of the cranium. Idk why having a normal head breadth would make your head look too "short"

Like I said, everyone's cranium is wider than there bizygomatic width. I literally never seen a person who's head tapered after their cheekbones, that would be weird.

The measurements for Matthew Noszka's cranium would have to be in his hair, which I obviously can't do, and is something you didn't consider

The guy in the middle OBVIOUSLY has a below average skull, come on dude

His IPD is pretty small, atleast according to the measurements. There is a possibility that I am wrong, and I would probably have to make an Inaccuracy Table for him so you can relax, but tbh the BZ width doesn't matter. Statistically, there is a 14% chance that his zygomatic bone is 1 mm bigger than I predicted, and a 2.5% chance that it is 2 mm bigger than I predicted. I am willing to put my faith in the data gathering methods since I am able to isolate inaccuracies to a couple of mms at worst for virtually all of my measurements.

But the BZ width measurement IS one of the least accurate, but also the least important.


Also wtf is a skull to body ratio supposed to be and how would a few cm in the difference between their faces even be noticeable when both of those ppl are 6 ft tall at the least

And why is it that ppl always complain about the yellow measurements when I already said that they don't matter

And why is it that ppl care so much about how wide their face is anyway, if the width comes from your wide set eyes then you still have a problem
[hr]
Sean O'Pry obviously has broader cheekbones than Noszka though, me being wrong about that is a mathematical impossibility. Both the BZ width and the size of the cheek bone reflect this.

And wtf is a "WORSE skull to body ratio"

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PPL AND RATIOS
 

Voidepp

Incel
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
176
Reputation
0
i think when comparing such pictures it also depends with what focus lenght the foto was shoten





also when i look inmirror really really close i probably get a pic like the 8mm one lol the further i go away the better it looks, my passport photo for example looks much much better than any selfie, because my eyes look smaller there and my face broader similar to when i look at myself from a mirror like 2 m away.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,562
Reputation
104
Pinhead said:
Yes because this proves anything. I kept it biased in your favour by saying they're equal breadth despite the arches being bigger visually. This would put him at deformed levels of cranium breadth which would clearly look off at his height & body weight. You don't need to consider his hair when it's visually smaller even with the added advantage of volume from the hair. There's also plenty of pictures with him buzzed or very short sides, something I ofc considered



His inner canthi to bottom of chin distance at 105mm, equal to the face height of justin bieber who is at least 5.5" shorter than noszka and yet look at his face height to body ratio compared to noszkas (keeping in mind the massive height difference)





As for the green stats/accurate stats they are also false. Not going to prove it because it would mean posting pictures of me meassuring my face but i'm equal to many measurements in IPD, face length, chin height, nose breadth etc and yet STILL my face looks visually small on my body at 181cm 135lb. 


Dolph lundgren EnM-Gn 118

Sean O'Pry EnM-Gn 118





???

Not to mention Chicos EnM-GN distance being SHORTER than my fucking EnM-GN and my skull looks stunted and SHORT at a height 3.5-4" shorter than chicos

ridiculous useless mental masturbation stats tbh
Ok so uhh
The measurement for the head breadth is the WIDEST part of the head above the cheeks. That would be about where Noszka's hair fades off in the pic, and would be wider than his cheeks EVEN in that pic

I still don't know what fucking ratios your talking about

I literally showed ALL of the math involved in gathering measurements, including EXACTLY how off they can be. You can LITERALLY download all my pictures used, copy the chart, and try it yourself. It still doesn't change the fact that the important things WILL be accurate.

Listen man, idk what your head looking small on your frame proves or even means, but, like, the proof is more than in the pudding. You don't even have to show me any pics, you could try the method out for yourself and see if it works. I wouldn't be pushing this information if it didn't work for me. If the measurements ARE wrong, you can use the Inaccuracy Table to see how off they were, and how much of a difference that makes.

Idk what Dolph Lundgren and Sean O'Pry having literally one measurement in common proves. All it says is that the distance from their eyes to their chin is the same. It doesn't say anything about the width or projection of the chin, or the length of the ramus, or the quality of the skin, or the width of the jawline, or anything else that CLEARLY contributes to why they look different. It doesn't even say how much of that length is due to the mandible and how much of it is due to the maxila.

And it's funny how you used random candids of their whole bodies to try and disprove how their faces have something in common, maybe to make it harder to tell clearly. I had images of their faces ON THE CHART IN HIGH QUALITY, you had to know this when you downloaded that pic of Noszka


Srsly, what fucking ratios are we talking about here? did you measure ratios? I didn't
[hr]
Voidepp said:
i think when comparing such pictures it also depends with what focus lenght the foto was shoten





also when i look inmirror really really close i probably get a pic like the 8mm one lol the further i go away the better it looks, my passport photo for example looks much much better than any selfie, because my eyes look smaller there and my face broader similar to when i look at myself from a mirror like 2 m away.
Yeah, that is true

The farther away the picture is, the less foreshortening occurs and the more accurate the measurements are.

The higher the resolution, the easier the scaling is, and the more accurate the measurements are.

Of course these are difficult to have together, since having one usually means losing the other. I always make it a point to use the farthest high quality images I can, which usually means taking them from websites that sell watermarked images. They tend to use quality cameras and take the pics from far away, since paparazzi being close to the celebs is always an issue. The images are also infinitely less likely to be edited, too, since they are intended to be sold, not displayed on a magazine.

I took pictures of myself from arms length away and the measurements were accurate to the mm.