Robert Comsol wrote:
Sorry, Robert Comsol, I gotta go with blssdwlf on this one.
No need to be sorry. This is not about supporting a rationalization theory (I got one for later today regarding the interpretation of the TWOK torpedo bay footage).
I would just like to remind that the issue that started this discussion was not
"how to exactly measure the max. width of the connecting dorsal based on pictures" but
"would the dorsal's width in an orthographic drawing be 48% of the torpedo bay launcher's width or rather 59%?"
Bob, since there are other pictures that show a less than 59% ratio that would tell you that the methodology you used to arrive at 59% has a flaw in it.
My wireframes are there to illustrate the complexities of these shapes and perspective distortion. I hope you took the time to understand why the visual measurement is difficult with just screenshots with short focal length and short distances.
Robert Comsol wrote:
On the left side we have exclusively stern views of the dorsal while the two on the upper right are bow views. Unfortunately the width of the torpedo bay launcher as a reference point is 67 mm (on my screen) on the left and 6% less on the right side.
All the three on the left are orthographic renderings while the three on the right are simulations of how they'd appear in pictures and the like with the inevitable distortions you get because objects further from the viewer will appear smaller / narrower than objects closer to the viewer (especially with a diagonal connecting dorsal in contrast to the "straight" conning tower of a submarine).
However, since we are looking at a basic "ovoid" dorsal shape the edge of the dorsal's bow is too narrow to "hide" the wider dorsal areas behind.
On my screen this orthographic rendering on the left shows the maximal width of the dorsal to be 37 mm, the "picture view simulation" on the top right takes the distortion into account and therefore yields only 29 mm (- 6% = 27 mm) where the dorsal rests on the torpedo bay because the maximal width of the dorsal is further from the viewer than the launchers of the torpedo bay - it therefore appears narrower than it is in relation to the observable width of the launchers.
Conclusion: The max. width of the connecting dorsal part (that rests on top of the torpedo bay) in pictures appears narrower than it would be in real life compared to the observable real life width of the torpedo launcher (reference point for measuring)
That the dorsal's width in the above picture near the torpedo bay roof measures "only" 56.7% (and not 59%) therefore doesn't come as a big surprise because the widest part of the dorsal is not near the bow and atop the torpedo bay launchers
but further behind and at a greater distance from the viewer and/or camera.
I don't think you realize why I picked the max width of the torpedo bay and the lowest part of the dorsal.
The max width of the dorsal will generally be visible
while the max width of the torpedo bay will generally be obscured
due to perspective. The lowest portion of the dorsal happens to be closest to the torpedo bay and thus closest in relation since a frontal view will make the top portion of the dorsal appear wider since it is closer to the camera.
This shows that the ratio is smaller than 59% and that depending on the focal length of the camera and the perspective distortion that number will fluctuate. 56% is just from this screenshot. If you do some more comparisons you'll see that number go up and down depending on the focal length and distance. Just a random sampling there is a photo from Mark Dickson/Mike Emery that is at 51.2% and I can find one in excess of 60%.
Since that number can fluctuate then the methodology of attempting to measure it with the forward or stern perspective shots will be inherently inaccurate