Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD

[mvp2v1]

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I believe everyone has smaller jaws than they should.

Its clear that small jaws and vertical growth leads to orbitals which appear to be closer set and narrower:

When I look at cases of people with close-set eyes I notice that they often have very narrow-looking orbitals (judging by the lack of "stretching of eye area soft tissues")

Example:

Something seems off even after a good OBO. Obviously, our first reaction would be oh its because of narrow PFL he needs tripod!

Note that the medial canthus and the broader PFL both appear to come from a wide orbital.

But I wonder, could it be that all he needed was wider orbitals? Looking at the image on the right:

It would seem like there is not much difference in how far apart the orbitals actually are (looking at image on right), most of the difference is in the width of the orbitals which I think causes the eyeballs to sit further apart. The eyeball should naturally be centered in the orbital.

With that said when looking at the simulation on the left it would seem like the orbitals are indeed somewhat further apart. And its probably a more trustworthy data point.


So what's the solution?

Theoretically, the ideal solution would be OBO+tripod.

Or bone remodeling.

TLDR: I suspect that orbital width both impacts PFL and IPD.

 

[Deleted member 29651]

Okay

 

[Deleted member 65224]

Okay

nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro
nigger coon faggot negro

 

[Akatlyn]

Well I have low IPD but good PFL so I guess that my orbitals are not that narrow

I know people with ultra wide IPD and small PFL too

 

[mvp2v1]

Well I have low IPD but good PFL so I guess that my orbitals are not that narrow

I know people with ultra wide IPD and small PFL too

yes there is a notable genetic component. The main point of my post was to say
that orbital width notably contributes to IPD (in nature).

 

[Clavicular]

this got giga burried by a bunch of shitspew so i missed it but amazing thread

 

[Rivers of Nihil]

good good

 

[thecel]

@Narroworbits

 

[realshit]

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I believe everyone has smaller jaws than they should.

Its clear that small jaws and vertical growth leads to orbitals which appear to be closer set and narrower:
View attachment 2814898View attachment 2814897View attachment 2814896

When I look at cases of people with close-set eyes I notice that they often have very narrow-looking orbitals (judging by the lack of "stretching of eye area soft tissues")

Example:
View attachment 2814885
Something seems off even after a good OBO. Obviously, our first reaction would be oh its because of narrow PFL he needs tripod!
View attachment 2814887Note that the medial canthus and the broader PFL both appear to come from a wide orbital.

But I wonder, could it be that all he needed was wider orbitals? Looking at the image on the right:
View attachment 2814899
It would seem like there is not much difference in how far apart the orbitals actually are (looking at image on right), most of the difference is in the width of the orbitals which I think causes the eyeballs to sit further apart. The eyeball should naturally be centered in the orbital.

With that said when looking at the simulation on the left it would seem like the orbitals are indeed somewhat further apart. And its probably a more trustworthy data point.


So what's the solution?

Theoretically, the ideal solution would be OBO+tripod.
View attachment 2814888

Or bone remodeling.

TLDR: I suspect that orbital width both impacts PFL and IPD.

io thinking at this
pull your lateral orbital bone with your thumb , Is autistic?

 

[woops]

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I believe everyone has smaller jaws than they should.

Its clear that small jaws and vertical growth leads to orbitals which appear to be closer set and narrower:
View attachment 2814898View attachment 2814897View attachment 2814896

When I look at cases of people with close-set eyes I notice that they often have very narrow-looking orbitals (judging by the lack of "stretching of eye area soft tissues")

Example:
View attachment 2814885
Something seems off even after a good OBO. Obviously, our first reaction would be oh its because of narrow PFL he needs tripod!
View attachment 2814887Note that the medial canthus and the broader PFL both appear to come from a wide orbital.

But I wonder, could it be that all he needed was wider orbitals? Looking at the image on the right:
View attachment 2814899
It would seem like there is not much difference in how far apart the orbitals actually are (looking at image on right), most of the difference is in the width of the orbitals which I think causes the eyeballs to sit further apart. The eyeball should naturally be centered in the orbital.

With that said when looking at the simulation on the left it would seem like the orbitals are indeed somewhat further apart. And its probably a more trustworthy data point.


So what's the solution?

Theoretically, the ideal solution would be OBO+tripod.
View attachment 2814888

Or bone remodeling.

TLDR: I suspect that orbital width both impacts PFL and IPD.

They aren’t narrow per say - they are just long, which is exactly what makes them look more compact AND appear closer together. Higher eye aspect ratio = less rounded look.

 

[mvp2v1]

They aren’t narrow per say - they are just long, which is exactly what makes them look more compact AND appear closer together. Higher eye aspect ratio = less rounded look.

I dont understand, are you saying they arent narrow but rather vertically long?

 

[mandiblade]

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I believe everyone has smaller jaws than they should.

Its clear that small jaws and vertical growth leads to orbitals which appear to be closer set and narrower:
View attachment 2814898View attachment 2814897View attachment 2814896

When I look at cases of people with close-set eyes I notice that they often have very narrow-looking orbitals (judging by the lack of "stretching of eye area soft tissues")

Example:
View attachment 2814885
Something seems off even after a good OBO. Obviously, our first reaction would be oh its because of narrow PFL he needs tripod!
View attachment 2814887Note that the medial canthus and the broader PFL both appear to come from a wide orbital.

But I wonder, could it be that all he needed was wider orbitals? Looking at the image on the right:
View attachment 2814899
It would seem like there is not much difference in how far apart the orbitals actually are (looking at image on right), most of the difference is in the width of the orbitals which I think causes the eyeballs to sit further apart. The eyeball should naturally be centered in the orbital.

With that said when looking at the simulation on the left it would seem like the orbitals are indeed somewhat further apart. And its probably a more trustworthy data point.


So what's the solution?

Theoretically, the ideal solution would be OBO+tripod.
View attachment 2814888

Or bone remodeling.

TLDR: I suspect that orbital width both impacts PFL and IPD.

Great thread. These few threads also piggybacked on this idea

Is IPD/bizygomatic (ESR) a bad ratio? A new ratio for eye spacing?

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set. I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even...

looksmax.org

What a "wide head" actually is

Is not the size, and (surprisingly) not the shape. It's the measured distance between zygos and gonions Normal FWHR but face still feels wide asf If you draw a line in her gonions, the first pic will be curved while the second one will be straight. my head kinda looks like this but not this...

looksmax.org

 

[AscendingHero]

Something seems off even after a good OBO. Obviously, our first reaction would be oh its because of narrow PFL he needs tripod!

Note that the medial canthus and the broader

This dude looks like he has orbital dystopia along with Hypotelorism and shortened and upturned palpebral features, like an awful gene mutations, looks dysgenic, much more than sheer inter orbital distance plaguing him

2nd photo is stretched out, guy is squinting and furrowing, looks normal, far better proportions but even his orbitals aren't anywhere near perfectly wide

Gonçalo Teixeira, has good orbital width (selfie frauding or not) but it's not galactic supper mogger anyways and his jaws aren't THAT developed either, nice lip shape though


You talked about how everyone would have wider PFL if their jaws were wider... elaborate on that... that's assuming the orbitals grow directly off the jaw, according to enlow they rather remodel + primary displacement, I mean it's a pretty nuanced growth pattern

@thecel @mandiblade @Lookologist003

Note that the medial canthus and the broader PFL both appear to come from a wide orbit

Muscular attachments/too much soft tissue components to solely attach it to hard tissue, length of the tendon itself, how it compresses on certain muscular movements, surrounding bone (ie nose bridge, nasal root, etc)

 

[Lookologist003]

has good orbital width (selfie frauding or not) but it's not galactic supper mogger anyways

We haven't discussed it in depth, but the width of the nasal aperture (that is the triangular hole where the nose would be on a skull) contributes to the full width of the face. There is a certain Chadly proportion of true ESR and PFL. The concept of true ESR is important to understanding why some guys who own a long PFL don't seem awfully Chadly, it is that their true ESR is too low. True ESR as I define it is inner canthal distance to IPD. My description of true ESR:

The way I imagine this is two spheres separated by a distance, which is IPD. The radius of each sphere is the inner canthal distance. There is a certain distance between the two spheres in relation to their size which makes them look aesthetic and sexy.

The whole concept of true ESR is allowed because of the related concept of temporal plane angles.

Please exclude the crudeness of this morph bellow. The example is to show true ESR and how expanding that man's IPD while preserving his inner canthal distance increases the feeling of dominance of the face (yea, I probably should put effort into the morph, but it's a fucking Monday). The principle of it is true. And note well that I say inner canthal distance, one endpoint to the measure of PFL, because increasing PFL symmetrically would distort some guy's temporal plane angle.

This is the next topic we should focus on @thecel how to link true ESR and temporal plane angles. Together they will explain each class of Chadly or deformed eye areas.

I hope I am understandable

 

[AscendingHero]

We haven't discussed it in depth, but the width of the nasal aperture (that is the triangular hole where the nose would be on a skull) contributes to the full width of the face. There is a certain Chadly proportion of true ESR and PFL. The concept of true ESR is important to understanding why some guys who own a long PFL don't seem awfully Chadly, it is that their true ESR is too low. True ESR as I define it is inner canthal distance to IPD. My description of true ESR:


The whole concept of true ESR is allowed because of the related concept of temporal plane angles.

Please exclude the crudeness of this morph bellow. The example is to show true ESR and how expanding that man's IPD while preserving his inner canthal distance increases the feeling of dominance of the face (yea, I probably should put effort into the morph, but it's a fucking Monday). The principle of it is true. And note well that I say inner canthal distance, one endpoint to the measure of PFL, because increasing PFL symmetrically would distort some guy's temporal plane angle.
View attachment 4160046

This is the next topic we should focus on @thecel how to link true ESR and temporal plane angles. Together they will explain each class of Chadly or deformed eye areas.

I hope I am understandable

Basically Inter Orbital distance, A Dacryon width

Please exclude the crudeness of this morph bellow. The example is to show true ESR and how expanding that man's IPD while preserving his inner canthal distance increases the feeling of dominance of the face (yea, I probably should put effort into the morph, but it's a fucking Monday). The principle of it is true. And note well that I say inner canthal distance, one endpoint to the measure of PFL, because increasing PFL symmetrically would distort some guy's temporal plane angle.

Yea no problem


Stretched out the photo but the ICD was invariably widened

@Korea kinda speaks about it, more importantly is wide enough inter orbital distance including ICD (you also widening his lips/fwhr/forehead/orbital box-supraorbital ridge) which give him a more alpha look....

Whilst having slightly longer wide pfl, that alone gives a more alert slith sith gaze

You cannot be an apex mogger/fogger without adequate transverse proportions

Check these Geralt mini morphs, widen the PFL and IPD a little bit more and the face just looks more threatening, changed the eye angle too

Peep how the face changes on the relative ICD, OCD, IPD, tilt changes, might go more in depth playing around with this later

This is the next topic we should focus on @

@thecel how to link true ESR and temporal plane angles. Together they will explain each class of Chadly or deformed eye areas.

What's the importance of the link between those two?

Facial fifths?

There is a range of sheer inter orbital distance and temporal angles that are ideal, you should just try and find yourself between that