Measured porn stars??

[Lance Bass]

Didn't mean to quote about Mann, I knew you meant Boz. He looks longer than Mann but not by that much imo. We know Mann is around 8x6

So if Mann is 8x6 how big is Boz?

And what are the thoughts here or your thoughts on Justin Slayer size?

 

[turooso]

Manuel 6,1 X 6
Nacho 7 X 6,3
James Deen 6,7 X 5,3
Mark Ashley 7,3 X 6,2
Mick Blue 7 X 5,6
Lex Steele 8,4 X 5,75
Ian Scott 7,1 X 6,2

Hey Fiodor, if you don't mind can you also do Moe Johnson, Jordi El nino Polla, Johnny Castle, Bill Bailey, and DFW Knight?

 

[Lance Bass]

Hey Fiodor, if you don't mind can you also do Moe Johnson, Jordi El nino Polla, Johnny Castle, Bill Bailey, and DFW Knight?

What about Justin Slayer?

 

[FIODOR]

You are not the first nor will be the last to advocate pseudoscientific methods in this thread. Hmmm so you are not interested in looking at measurements with ruler or tapes but doing your own photogrammetry bullshit. Well that is up to you. Some of your figures are massively downplaying certain pornstars though.

If a man has his dick measured with a tape on screen that is the closest thing you will get to knowing his true size in the real world. The photogrammetry nonsense you have made up is no different than that other hand quackery that was done on this thread. It is delusion pal. Snap out of this.

I honestly do not think you have a clue how photogrammetry is used, much less you have tried to read the posts that, with total transparency, I included pages back explaining how it applies.
It is a system that I use daily in my work, and with it maps are elaborated and used for the design of search strategies.
It is easily verifiable by anyone who has notions about the subject what kind of mathematical tables are applied, the tables of relations of approaches and lenses that are international and that I exposed in its moment and the classes of steps that are followed for its elaboration. The problem, as I have been able to verify every time you are contradicted in this forum, is that your calculations are based on beliefs and superstitions without solid proofs, both you and those who like your posts, if they do not tell you what you want to believe you attack other users without demonstrable evidence or methods. You have your reason, or I have it, it is clear that I have explained how I elaborate my deductions, and anyone who enters the world of the frames, factors of magnification, lenses, etc. can verify what I say (not my "own" method). Your method, however, is still unexplained, supposedly based on photoshopped pics and, above all, on religion and dogmas. I think that will help users see who has more credibility. I have nothing more to add to your intransigence, already famous in this forum.
Anyway, I encourage you to continue dreaming of your calculations of hands and fake photos of your own interest

 

[FIODOR]

radius=C/2π
where:
C is the circumference of the circle
π is Pi, approximately 3.142

Volume = πr^2h of a Cylinder

Alternatively, I used these two formulas and got the same answers for the total volume of cubic inches for a Lex Steele, Nacho and Mark Ashley
Lex Steele 22.101 ci
Nacho 22.109 ci
Mark Ashley 22.330 ci

Do you get different results ?

Congratulations .... A user who uses math and not his exciting dreams in this forum is not usual. It's called OBJECTIVITY.

 

[strivingforperfection]

Congratulations .... A user who uses math and not his exciting dreams in this forum is not usual. It's called OBJECTIVITY.

In the case of Nacho Vidal, his dildo show 7x6.25. It looks like your methods are very accurate.

 

[FIODOR]

Richard Mann was demonstrated at 8x6 earlier in this thread

Totally agree, He is 7,8-8 X 6

 

[FIODOR]

I will explain once more how the method works, which must be combined with the mathematics Zaromski has objectively explained. I feel bored by the majority of users ...
Because of my usual work, I use highly developed Photogrammetry programs. This knowledge is intended, with great precision, to the location of landmarks by cartographic scales.
Well, when we have a frame, a series of angles, lines, distances and perspectives materialize that we can extrapolate by following the appropriate methods, isolating the elements and assessing their proportions in reality.
There are several steps to follow:
- When we know a reference object, we can use it to calculate the rest of the elements of the frame / photo. It is simply by calculating the concrete space occupied by that object with respect to the total, and thus we will know the rest of objects. In the case of porn, for example, underwear, a sofa, a lamp, a bottle, another actor ....
- This previous step requires the following contrast, since it can create a high margin of error in the calculation due to the lack of PERSPECTIVE and the VOLUME OF BODIES. This next check consists of finding the "pixel length" on the monitor via "logical unit". For example, according to the computer, it can be 234 px equivalent to 1cm. This step has the advantage of not needing a known reference element. Once the pixels are determined, through specific software, we can use a virtual measuring ruler.
- However, with these steps, we would still not fully tune, because the TRIDIMENSIONALITY is lacking and, of course, to correct deviations, lens / angle changes, altered approaches, distances, perspectives in short. The final step would be to make use of the VISION FIELD / ANGLE concept. The majority of cameras have different fields of vision, which apply to the capture of the image altering their records, and some cameras have a 1/2 calculation (if it is a 50mm reality will reflect half the image, 25mm) or alternate values . Do not confuse, be careful, with ANGLE OF COVERAGE. To know the type of lens used, and consequently the reflected alteration, there are EXIF metadata. Part I continue.........

 

[FIODOR]

............Part II continues
SubjectDistance: This is the focus distance. Under the XMP format of Adobe it is found as <exif: SubjectDistance>
FocalLength: Focal length of our optics. In XMP it is given by the tag <exif: FocalLength>
In the same way, we can also help us with angular approaches:
The Wide Angle covers between 100º and 60º, the stardard between 50 and 25º, telephoto (which isolates the objects better) between 10º and 15º .... And by the frontality, contrapicado or verticality of the shot in scene (apart from, as I said, metadata and excluding, by the easy to determine, the "fisheye")
With this data, unless we are using extension tubes for macro photography, where we must also know the length of the tube or set of tubes, we can perform almost all calculations.
Then we divide the sensor width by the magnification factor, for example for a focusing distance of 0.45m and a 50mm optics, the magnification factor is 0.15.
And, how to know the lens with which the image was taken? For comparison, the human eye has a viewing angle of about 140 ° by 80 °. The usual is 36 mm × 24 mm (ie 135mm film or 35mm full-frame digital cameras using 36mm width, 24mm height, and diagonal 43.3mm d in the above formula) Compact digital cameras Declare the focal lengths of their equivalent 35mm lenses. We make the mathematical calculation of measurements between diagonal, horizontal, vertical and focal length and we will have the lens used, which will eliminate later, knowing the alteration that presents said lens on projected objects, twists, distances, perspectives and volumes, locating all The elements of photography in parallel, two-dimensional.
All this long process (it is easier to have the right software) eliminates the margins of error in photogrammetry leaving it to a maximum of 0.09, so our measurement will be very correct.
For example, this system serves to find out even the complicated measurements of a marine bubble of a photo in reality, being a round and three-dimensional element, decentering and tilting. Well, this method applied to porn videos and photos, which are susceptible to the same analysis, is the one I use in most cases. For that I review several photos and videos, not just one, and I do the calculations on all of them. Then, to finish, there are even clear signs and "less scientific", such as the navel / pubis distance. All you have to do is add up all, do the average and give the result. With these applications I found out that in some videos and photos, Mandingo reaches 23.9776 cm (9.44 inches), being now its general measurement 23,1902cm (9,13 inches). Criss Strokes in many videos / photos, applying all the steps and software, results in the majority between 7.5 / 7.65 inches. Lex Steele, when you get more, 8.57 inches, Chris Diamond 7.42 '' and so on ... If in some posts I expose photos "without applying" my method is because it is so evident that, serve as an example, Mandingo is More than 1 inch larger than Wesley Pipes, does not need much discussion, even in spite of those "hands" that are valued so much and of the lenses (whatever) that are used.
I add a FIELD OF VISION table below internationally used:
Longitud focal (mm) 13 15 18 21 24 28 35 50 85 105 135 180 210 300 400 500 600 830 1200
Diagonal (°) 118 111 100 91,7 84,1 75,4 63,4 46,8 28,6 23,3 18,2 13,7 11,8 8,25 6,19 4,96 4,13 2,99 2,07
Vertical (°) 85,4 77,3 67,4 59,5 53,1 46,4 37,8 27 16,1 13 10,2 7,63 6,54 4,58 3,44 2,75 2,29 1,66 1,15
Horizontal (°) 108 100,4 90 81,2 73,7 65,5 54,4 39,6 23,9 19,5 15,2 11,4 9,80 6,87 5,15 4,12 3,44 2,48 1,72

 

[Lance Bass]

............Part II continues
SubjectDistance: This is the focus distance. Under the XMP format of Adobe it is found as <exif: SubjectDistance>
FocalLength: Focal length of our optics. In XMP it is given by the tag <exif: FocalLength>
In the same way, we can also help us with angular approaches:
The Wide Angle covers between 100º and 60º, the stardard between 50 and 25º, telephoto (which isolates the objects better) between 10º and 15º .... And by the frontality, contrapicado or verticality of the shot in scene (apart from, as I said, metadata and excluding, by the easy to determine, the "fisheye")
With this data, unless we are using extension tubes for macro photography, where we must also know the length of the tube or set of tubes, we can perform almost all calculations.
Then we divide the sensor width by the magnification factor, for example for a focusing distance of 0.45m and a 50mm optics, the magnification factor is 0.15.
And, how to know the lens with which the image was taken? For comparison, the human eye has a viewing angle of about 140 ° by 80 °. The usual is 36 mm × 24 mm (ie 135mm film or 35mm full-frame digital cameras using 36mm width, 24mm height, and diagonal 43.3mm d in the above formula) Compact digital cameras Declare the focal lengths of their equivalent 35mm lenses. We make the mathematical calculation of measurements between diagonal, horizontal, vertical and focal length and we will have the lens used, which will eliminate later, knowing the alteration that presents said lens on projected objects, twists, distances, perspectives and volumes, locating all The elements of photography in parallel, two-dimensional.
All this long process (it is easier to have the right software) eliminates the margins of error in photogrammetry leaving it to a maximum of 0.09, so our measurement will be very correct.
For example, this system serves to find out even the complicated measurements of a marine bubble of a photo in reality, being a round and three-dimensional element, decentering and tilting. Well, this method applied to porn videos and photos, which are susceptible to the same analysis, is the one I use in most cases. For that I review several photos and videos, not just one, and I do the calculations on all of them. Then, to finish, there are even clear signs and "less scientific", such as the navel / pubis distance. All you have to do is add up all, do the average and give the result. With these applications I found out that in some videos and photos, Mandingo reaches 23.9776 cm (9.44 inches), being now its general measurement 23,1902cm (9,13 inches). Criss Strokes in many videos / photos, applying all the steps and software, results in the majority between 7.5 / 7.65 inches. Lex Steele, when you get more, 8.57 inches, Chris Diamond 7.42 '' and so on ... If in some posts I expose photos "without applying" my method is because it is so evident that, serve as an example, Mandingo is More than 1 inch larger than Wesley Pipes, does not need much discussion, even in spite of those "hands" that are valued so much and of the lenses (whatever) that are used.
I add a FIELD OF VISION table below internationally used:
Longitud focal (mm) 13 15 18 21 24 28 35 50 85 105 135 180 210 300 400 500 600 830 1200
Diagonal (°) 118 111 100 91,7 84,1 75,4 63,4 46,8 28,6 23,3 18,2 13,7 11,8 8,25 6,19 4,96 4,13 2,99 2,07
Vertical (°) 85,4 77,3 67,4 59,5 53,1 46,4 37,8 27 16,1 13 10,2 7,63 6,54 4,58 3,44 2,75 2,29 1,66 1,15
Horizontal (°) 108 100,4 90 81,2 73,7 65,5 54,4 39,6 23,9 19,5 15,2 11,4 9,80 6,87 5,15 4,12 3,44 2,48 1,72

How big is Justin Slayer and BOZ?

 

[deleted978960]

In the case of Nacho Vidal, his dildo show 7x6.25. It looks like your methods are very accurate.

measured pics are more accurate, chris diamond and voodoo both are longer than nacho

 

[FIODOR]

measured pics are more accurate, chris diamond and voodoo both are longer than nacho
View attachment 762550 View attachment 762552

LOL. Just kidding!!

Almost all the photographs are manipulated, and you never count on the deformations, length of focus, factor of magnification, etc. It is very difficult to find a completely "clean" pic. And indeed, according to mathematical calculations (the same actor has several measures in different photos, another reason not to trust them), Chris Diamond has a bigger one than Nacho (7.35) and Voodoo slightly above.
In addition, not all actors have photos measuring the member .... how do you will try to calculate their measurements?
Anyway, I think I will continue using my method, and that other users draw their own conclusions

 

[deleted978960]

LAST ANALYSIS:
FRANK MAJOR: 7,25
IAN SCOTT: 7,1
STEVE HOLMES: 7,6
LOGAN LONG: 7,3
MIKE ANGELO: 6,6
ROCCO SIFFREDI: 7,1
JAKE STEED: 7,4
BRAD KNIGHT: 6,8
SEAN LAWLESS: 7,15
SCOTT NAILS: 7,2
ALEC KNIGHT: 7
ED JUNIOR: 7,5

ian is shorter than chris diamond he is not over 7
steve him self claimed no more than 7.5"
rocco's dildo is only 6.5"
logan long is not longer than sean lawless

 

[FIODOR]

ian is shorter than chris diamond he is not over 7
steve him self claimed no more than 7.5"
rocco's dildo is only 6.5"
logan long is not longer than sean lawless

IAN is shorter than CHRIS DIAMOND: 7,1 / 7,3
STEVE claimed he was between 7,5 & 8 . I was in FICEB BARCELONA 2002, and it is true. One girl measured him on live, he was 7,75. In my calculations, 7,6 when bigger.
ROCCO DILDO isn`t the ROCCO COCK. He is 7+ ( 6,5? you again kidding. Kid Jamaica, Cristian Clay or Nacho are similar to him, and all are 7 or 7+ )
LOGAN LONG is longer than LAWLESS, no doubt. Whoever can see it........

Do u have any proof other than pics?

 

[FIODOR]

CHRIS DIAMOND ANALYSIS ( in spanish , check interview & comment posts )

https://www.orgasmatrix.com/entrevista-chris-diamond/

 

[Lance Bass]

measured pics are more accurate, chris diamond and voodoo both are longer than nacho
View attachment 762550 View attachment 762552

He isn't longer than that monster can

 

[Lance Bass]

CHRIS DIAMOND ANALYSIS ( in spanish , check interview & comment posts )

https://www.orgasmatrix.com/entrevista-chris-diamond/

Justin Slayer
John Depth

 

[deleted978960]

IAN is shorter than CHRIS DIAMOND: 7,1 / 7,3
STEVE claimed he was between 7,5 & 8 . I was in FICEB BARCELONA 2002, and it is true. One girl measured him on live, he was 7,75. In my calculations, 7,6 when bigger.
ROCCO DILDO isn`t the ROCCO COCK. He is 7+ ( 6,5? you again kidding. Kid Jamaica, Cristian Clay or Nacho are similar to him, and all are 7 or 7+ )
LOGAN LONG is longer than LAWLESS, no doubt. Whoever can see it........

Do u have any proof other than pics?

lol kid jamaica is a solid 8" he is much bigger than rocco he was measured before but i am sure a pic with a tape is not a convincing proof to you

 

[deleted978960]

lol kid jamaica is a solid 8" he is much bigger than rocco he was measured before but i am sure a pic with a tape is not a convincing proof to you

i apologize i thought u mean kid bengala, not sure about the jamaica guy size

 

[Lance Bass]

lol kid jamaica is a solid 8" he is much bigger than rocco he was measured before but i am sure a pic with a tape is not a convincing proof to you

Links to Kid Jamaica???