Topic: Tag implication: looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

romanicyte2 said:
The tag implication #67833 looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view is pending approval.

Reason: I'm not 100% sure about this one, but it's kinda hard to picture a character looking down at the camera without the camera being at a low angle or at worm's eyes (that implies low-angle view) without stretching the definitions at least a bit.

The character that does the looking can be on_back while looking_down towards the viewer.
post #3298927 post #5143274

Manitka

Member

watsit said:
looking_up, since they're looking upward from the ground/bed toward the viewer.

if i looked up (pun not intended) looking_up and found those i would be very confused. they look like the head is looking down, as if the viewer was at crotch level.

Watsit

Privileged

manitka said:
if i looked up (pun not intended) looking_up and found those i would be very confused. they look like the head is looking down, as if the viewer was at crotch level.

I don't think looking_up and looking_down should be relative to the character's body, but to the overall scene. These aren't looking_up:
post #5600677 post #5530112
despite looking in the exact opposite direction, away from the crotch. Because we understand the feral's body is parallel to the ground and their view is more level along the ground. Similarly, because the feral's body is lying on a bed, which we understand to be parallel to the ground, their view is more upward away from the ground.

Updated

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
If there was a third character doing the spitroast on the on_back character, what would be the direction tagged then if the latter was facing towards him?

You mean something like this:
post #4473748
except with the character on_back instead of on_front? Nothing for the middle character, unless there's something between looking_up and looking_down that I'm not aware of.

Or do you mean something more like this:
post #3257769
which I would say the character on their back is looking_up at the character leaning over them.

Updated

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

watsit said:
You mean something like this:
post #4473748
except with the character on_back instead of on_front? Nothing for the middle character, unless there's something between looking_up and looking_down that I'm not aware of.

Or do you mean something more like this:
post #3257769
which I would say the character on their back is looking_up at the character leaning over them.

Technically, it's looking_forward (defined as "looking forward relative to the direction of their body"), but I wouldn't tag that unless they are looking straight up at the ceiling.
My tagging perspective is more on the character's body orientation due to the above wiki definition, rather than basing it off the overall angle of the character relative to the scene.

The point I was making is that assuming we are viewing the same side_view angle, with the penetrated character on their back instead, I would tag it as:
post #874184

  • If their head is facing ➡️, I would tag it as looking_down between their legs.
  • If their head is facing ⬅️, I would tag it as looking_up above their head.
  • If their head is facing ⬆️ into the ceiling, I would tag it as looking_forward.
  • If their head is facing ⬇️ into the floor, I would tag it as looking_back.
  • If their head is facing towards the viewer of the back wall, I would tag it as looking_away or looking_aside.

If we had tagged by the relative angle of the scene, it would be vague in what direction they are actually looking at, such as looking_up possibly meaning all three ⬅️, ⬆️, ➡️ head orientations as long as their head is looking "upwards" relative to the scene.

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
The point I was making is that assuming we are viewing the same side_view angle, with the penetrated character on their back instead, I would tag it as:
post #874184

  • If their head is facing ➡️, I would tag it as looking_down between their legs.
  • If their head is facing ⬅️, I would tag it as looking_up above their head.
  • If their head is facing ⬆️ into the ceiling, I would tag it as looking_forward.
  • If their head is facing ⬇️ into the floor, I would tag it as looking_back.
  • If their head is facing towards the viewer of the back wall, I would tag it as looking_away or looking_aside.

I don't think looking_up and looking_down should be relative to the character's body. A character rolling on their front or back doesn't change a character's view relative to their body, so both of these:
post #874184 post #4473748
would be looking_up. That then means both of these:
post #5506634 post #5621435
are looking_up as well.

Then you get cases like these as looking_up:
post #2607475 post #3600898
and this looking_down:
post #5275535
All relative to their body.

FWIW, I also think this implication is bad because the view can be at a normal level relative to the scene as a whole, with a character's viewpoint being a bit higher looking down:
post #2967275
It's not a low-angle_view, but their head is high enough to be looking_down_at_viewer.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

watsit said:
All relative to their body.

As far as the example goes, in my book, all the anthro characters shown are correctly looking in the direction you have described.

However, I can see the issue is with feral (and in extension taur) bodies, which I will acknowledge does not perfectly work with the setup I had described.
In those cases, I would still tag them as looking_forward or looking_back if they were standing (e.g., direction of body considered as ➡️ if they were standing and looking straight, offscreen to the right), but differently if they were on_back or on_front (e.g., direction of body considered as ⬆️ if they are on_back, just like an anthro character).

But yeah, that is a discussion for another time since we are basically on the same page for this implication.