Extremely precise player scaling chart based on basketball perspective/diameter

Okay, I've been working on this for a while hunting for extremely specific types of photographs (taken from a distance from the subject, with lenses of the type that eliminates as much optical distortion as possible) tell me what you guys think of this so far, the image contains players with both known measurements, and players with unknown measurements:

(preview size)
[IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J6UDKSe1T_k/UQN1mHSuhHI/AAAAAAAAECc/8_Spjtm5BhQ/s800/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scaleWIP2.jpg[/IMG]
(full size)
[url]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J6UDKSe1T_k/UQN1mHSuhHI/AAAAAAAAECc/8_Spjtm5BhQ/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scaleWIP2.jpg[/url]

Dwight Howard measured at age 19, 6-9 w/o shoes. If the scaling is accurate indeed he does appear to have grown about a quarter inch after being drafted because I even subtracted 1.25" for his shoes - I will do more images of him, if this is a consistent result, I will admit that I'm wrong and stop correcting everyone left and right that he's "just" 6-9 w/o shoes :D

Wes Unseld was listed at 6-7 but is cited more specifically at 6-7.5 a few times in newspapers from that era - which appears to be his height minus the fro in the image

Bill Russell was listed at 6-9 in the NBA but was listed in the NCAA and Olympics at 6-10 and is most often cited at 6-10 in his era. A sports illustrated article from 1956 specifies his height (from Bill Russell's own words) at precisely 6-9 and 5/8ths. This roughly appears like it should be his height in the image if the odd angle of his head is taken into account.

Nate Thurmond was listed 6-11 in the NBA. The only article I could find specifying anything other than 6-11 was a college article from sports illustrated that cited his height at 6-10 as a sophomore in college, and stated that Nate had "grown a half inch over the summer" since that time (which would mean he was 6-10.5 at the time). He appears to be about 6-11 and 1/4" w/o shoes in the image.

Willis Reed was listed 6-10 in the NBA, though articles often cite him as being in reality "just under" 6-10. This definitely appears to be the case in the scaled image, although it is hard to tell exactly due to the tilt of his head - it actually almost seems like he's closest to 6-9, only just at or barely above 6-9, no more than 6-9.5 at the most.

Elvin Hayes was listed 6-9 in the NBA, but is precisely stated as being 6-9.5 w/o shoes on in an article that discusses his actual measurements (wingspan included) while a Junior in the NCAA. This, or perhaps even 6-10 appears to be his height w/o shoes in the image that is scaled.

Kevin Love is listed 6-10 in the NBA, but he wears huge 1 and 3/4" shoes. He measured 6-7.75" w/o shoes in the draft. This appears to still be his height when his shoe heal height is subtracted.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was listed 7-2 in the NBA and measured specifically 7-1 and 7/8ths w/o shoes his second year in the NBA, this appears to be his height in the scaled image

This one was interesting to me, Lebron is listed 6-8 in the NBA though is often cited as "6-9". He measured 6-7.25" in the draft at age 18. In the scaled image he actually appears to be a legitimate 6-8 w/o shoes now, even with a 1" shoe thickness subtracted. He also looks absolutely massive in stature but I guess he should at ~260lbs ballpark

Wilt I will discuss at a later time, when I put in an image of him standing/straightened out like the others.

LeBron looks so much bigger than K-Love.

Earl Clark was 6'8.5" coming out of college, and Dwight's way more than half-an-inch taller than he is. He's even slouching in that Team USA picture. I'd say he's at least 6'10".

[QUOTE=Scoooter]Earl Clark was 6'8.5" coming out of college, and Dwight's way more than half an inch taller than him. He's even slouching in that Team USA picture. I'd say he's at least 6'10".[/QUOTE]
Shoulder height has a LOT to do with perception of height, much more so that height to the top point of ones head. Dwight has really high shoulders, which may be why he looks so much taller than Earl Clark.

Good job. I hope you can also do a height chart for the SG and PG.

:cheers: Thanks for your work!

Are you thinking about putting more players in there (particularly guards?). It would be really nice if you could do the top 50 players on that ISH list, but that'll take ages.

Anyhow, great stuff.

[QUOTE=fpliii]:cheers: Thanks for your work!

Are you thinking about putting more players in there (particularly guards?). It would be really nice if you could do the top 50 players on that ISH list, but that'll take ages.

Anyhow, great stuff.[/QUOTE]
I've been trying to get all the top 10 centers of Wilt's era so that I can eventually put them next to a top 10 of the last half decade and it's taken me weeks just to find these few images (Still missing Bellamy/Lucas/Lanier/Cowens) so I highly doubt I'd ever get a chance to do a "top 50" chart :oldlol:

My aim is to finally put the stupid Wilt faced weak/short centers myth to bed. Then I'll move on to pretty much any wide variety of players. I'm still figuring out how zoom lenses effect distortion though, Lebron looks a bit too full compared to the other players on that scale chart IMO, and I'm thinking ultra long telephoto zoom lenses might be altering the persepective more than I thought. 400+ telephoto lenses seem to be "filling out" the subject significantly more (and more unnaturally) than the 35-200mm shots now that I look closer at it. This means I'll have to be even more selective and have even fewer possible images that meet requirements for scaling.

*EDIT* added a new pic of Lebron from a source w/o such an extreme telephoto lens and the illusion is fixed, so now I definitely know not to use images with too much zoom

Get Bol on there.

more than half the players arent standing straight... this is not precise at all

The balls that you are using to scale aren't in the same relation to each player. look at the kevin love. The ball is in front of him and so if you scaled it to the other balls love would be in the background. Just look at the guy next to him. His ball is behind his torso slightly

[QUOTE=selrahc]more than half the players arent standing straight... this is not precise at all[/QUOTE]
Haters gonna hate, listen kid, the images are scaled using a consistent diameter of a basketball are they not? meaning whether or not the players posture is standing straight (though I did try to find images where they are straight as possible) isn't the ultimate point. The point is just getting a vague idea of how "big" these guys actually are. P.S. what have you ever contributed to the ISH community? Anything? :rolleyes:

not even close to precise and why did u waste your time with this stupid shit? find a hobby.

could you Also scale laker shaq into the pic?

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]The balls that you are using to scale aren't in the same relation to each player. look at the kevin love. The ball is in front of him and so if you scaled it to the other balls love would be in the background. Just look at the guy next to him. His ball is behind his torso slightly[/QUOTE]
Your correct, that's why I've been finding images where the camera was a great distance away from the source - because it greatly reduces any scaling changes with perspective. The aim is to get the camera far enough away from the sources and using lenses ideally in the 35-100mm range so that the scaling differences when the ball is within a foot of the same plane becomes basically negligible. Also, as you can see, I am making an effort to keep the ball as close to the plane of the subject as possible in every image.

[QUOTE=Al Thornton]not even close to precise and why did u waste your time with this stupid shit? find a hobby.[/QUOTE]
11.26 posts per day on ISH for 4 years straight | tells me to get a life

:applause: