Measurements or Ratios?

[NuclearGeo20]

Do measurements or ratios matter more for beauty? Ideal ratios don't require ideal measurements. But ideal measurements mean the ratios will be perfect. For example the average IPD for a white male is 65mm. The average bizygomatic width is 143mm. 65/143 equals .454 which is the perfect esr. But lets say we make the IPD 65 and the bizygomatic 149. Does the IPD become unideal because the esr is off. Or does it mean the eye spacing will look good, and the cheekbones will look off. If anybody knows, it's @RealSurgerymax

Another example. Since 65 ipd and 143 bizygo is ideal, would 66 ipd and 145.2 bizygo be ideal too since that would also be .454 esr. Or would the IPD and the bizygomatic both become unideal since they are both over the average.

Another example. Let's say we take all the measurements of the face like the IPD, nasal height, bizygomatic width, etc. and scaled it up/down (except for the pfl and eyeballs as the eyeballs have an average diameter of 24mm among all humans), will that face still look good and proportional or will it be unideal.

 

[PajeetHvnter]

autist ramblings

 

[imontheloose]

The average isn't generally the ideal. Definitely not in this case, at least. IPD being on average 64mm-65mm and bizyg being about 140-143mm are descriptive statistics, not prescriptive ideals. An IPD of 65mm may be average, but not ideal for everyone, it could look too wide/narrow on a narrow/broad face respectively.

Ideal can be above/below average. For example, a model/actor may have a slightly narrow IPD I don't think IPD is anywhere near as important as ICD, but that's a different discussion, or a wider bizyg than average, yet look Chad.

For a 0.454 ESR, you can have:

• A man with a 63mm IPD and bizyg of 138.7mm -> ESR = 0.454
• A man with a 67mm IPD and byg of 147.5mm -> ESR = 0.454

Both have the same ratio, but one is under-average, and the other is above. They won't necessarily look equally as GL, even with the same ESR. Why? Because absolute scale influences how we perceive everything, not just proportion. Perception isn't dependant totally on ratios. It's biological and contextual.

The measurement 65mm IPD alone in a vacuum isn't ideal. It only becomes ideal in relation to other measurements. The problem isn't the IPD itself, it's how it's being framed by the overly wide/thin face. Assuming 65mm IPD is fixed, a common average, then the bizyg becomes the issue now, not the IPD, because it breaks the proportional balance.

Ratios are necessary for beauty. But measurements must still be biologically scaled to the individual. Having the right ratio at an oversized scale doesn't automatically look good if the rest of the face and/or body doesn't support it.

Even if you scale up the entire facial skeleton and keep ratios like ESR constant, the eyes remain ~24mm in diameter; they won't scale. So they appear disproportionately small, which throws off your face's harmony. The result would be a face that looks mathematically correct, but visually off like CGI or a mannequin.

If you scale the skull and bones without scaling the eyeballs, you violate a visual harmony, even if mathematically the ratios are perfect.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Because absolute scale influences how we perceive everything, not just proportion. Perception isn't dependant totally on ratios. It's biological and contextual.

What do you mean by this?

 

[NuclearGeo20]

The average isn't generally the ideal. Definitely not in this case, at least. IPD being on average 64mm-65mm and bizyg being about 140-143mm are descriptive statistics, not prescriptive ideals. An IPD of 65mm may be average, but not ideal for everyone, it could look too wide/narrow on a narrow/broad face respectively.

Ideal can be above/below average. For example, a model/actor may have a slightly narrow IPD I don't think IPD is anywhere near as important as ICD, but that's a different discussion, or a wider bizyg than average, yet look Chad.

For a 0.454 ESR, you can have:

• A man with a 63mm IPD and bizyg of 138.7mm -> ESR = 0.454
• A man with a 67mm IPD and byg of 147.5mm -> ESR = 0.454

Both have the same ratio, but one is under-average, and the other is above. They won't necessarily look equally as GL, even with the same ESR. Why? Because absolute scale influences how we perceive everything, not just proportion. Perception isn't dependant totally on ratios. It's biological and contextual.

The measurement 65mm IPD alone in a vacuum isn't ideal. It only becomes ideal in relation to other measurements. The problem isn't the IPD itself, it's how it's being framed by the overly wide/thin face. Assuming 65mm IPD is fixed, a common average, then the bizyg becomes the issue now, not the IPD, because it breaks the proportional balance.

Ratios are necessary for beauty. But measurements must still be biologically scaled to the individual. Having the right ratio at an oversized scale doesn't automatically look good if the rest of the face and/or body doesn't support it.

Even if you scale up the entire facial skeleton and keep ratios like ESR constant, the eyes remain ~24mm in diameter; they won't scale. So they appear disproportionately small, which throws off your face's harmony. The result would be a face that looks mathematically correct, but visually off like CGI or a mannequin.

If you scale the skull and bones without scaling the eyeballs, you violate a visual harmony, even if mathematically the ratios are perfect.

For example Zayn Maliks IPD is around 51mm and his esr is .42. His esr doesn't look too off which makes me think that your right when you say the average measurements aren't the ideal when it comes to every person

 

[NuclearGeo20]

For example Zayn Maliks IPD is around 51mm and his esr is .42. His esr doesn't look too off which makes me think that your right when you say the average measurements aren't the ideal when it comes to every person View attachment 3743271

But I would say he doesn't look too dimorphic because of it. He's still very handsome obv
'

 

[NuclearGeo20]

T

This is the averaged white face when you add dimorphism to it. I would say this is the ideal skull and face.

 

[imontheloose]

What do you mean by this?

Even with perfect ratios, our perception of beauty depends on the absolute size of features and how they relate to biological constants like eye size or skull shape. Beauty is not just about proportion, it's also shaped by biological realism and the context of the whole face and body.

For example Zayn Maliks IPD is around 51mm and his esr is .42. His esr doesn't look too off which makes me think that your right when you say the average measurements aren't the ideal when it comes to every person View attachment 3743271

Exactly. Perfect average measurements aren't needed to look ideal. Ratios and how features read visually matter more.

Ratios only tell part of the story. Soft tissue, bone structure, and facial feature prominence shape the final aesthetic.

But I would say he doesn't look too dimorphic because of it

Spot on. His low ESR makes him look less dimorphic, but not less attractive. If anything, it uniquely contributes to his appeal, strange enough.

This is the averaged white face when you add dimorphism to it. I would say this is the ideal skull and face.View attachment 3743278

What makes that face especially ideal isn't just dimorphism. It's that all traits scale together proportionally. Nothing looks out of place. No one measurement dominates or breaks the harmony. That's quite rare in faces. But it's obviously what a morph will aim to show.

That is definitely a pretty good idealised template. I agree with the connection of dimorphism + correct ESR as a benchmark for attractiveness.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Even with perfect ratios, our perception of beauty depends on the absolute size of features and how they relate to biological constants like eye size or skull shape. Beauty is not just about proportion, it's also shaped by biological realism and the context of the whole face and body.

Exactly. Perfect average measurements aren't needed to look ideal. Ratios and how features read visually matter more.

Ratios only tell part of the story. Soft tissue, bone structure, and facial feature prominence shape the final aesthetic.

Spot on. His low ESR makes him look less dimorphic, but not less attractive. If anything, it uniquely contributes to his appeal, strange enough.

What makes that face especially ideal isn't just dimorphism. It's that all traits scale together proportionally. Nothing looks out of place. No one measurement dominates or breaks the harmony. That's quite rare in faces. But it's obviously what a morph will aim to show.

That is definitely a pretty good idealised template. I agree with the connection of dimorphism + correct ESR as a benchmark for attractiveness.

w response