Avatar Sizing (Data Source)
Hi Clo3D team,
I understand the avatars and their respective sizing is consolidated from numerous body scans, and that this is supposed to be from ASTM body measurement standards.
Example: Clo3D's US_ASTM_MALE_T_38_Default Avatar
I looked into the ASTM body measurements and some of the standards refer to Alvanon as having provided the data and creating said standard. I have downloaded numerous Alvanon measurement tables (i.e. their US_ASTM_Men_v5.0 PDF), and whilst there are striking similarities in the measurements to the CLO3D model, there are distinct differences (CF Neck to Waist, CB Neck to Waist etc.).
I am yet to download the official ASTM standard from the ASTM organisation itself, however, given the discrepancy among sources for what is considered a standard, I would like to know more about the source of the data used in the CLO3D avatar sizing out of respect for measurement accuracy, demographic specificity, and relevance to current time.
I hope that makes sense, thank you in advance!
-
For an unknown reason, your reply has disappeared, however I had a chance to read it prior to its removal.
Thank you so much for your response. It was very insightful and answered my enquiry regarding data sourcing and also compatibility among body data platforms and their differences/similarities. A big thank you again!
0 -
When you post a copy goes to your email I generally delete a long comment, as a copy should be sent to you automatically.
If you go to motif.org and view some of the latest 3D tech Festival video discussions about Avatars you will see some of the latest thinking about the types being used at various stages in the digital sampling process and the differences between how the fashion software providers approach that.
0 -
Hi ottoline, could you please repost your reply? I have the same questions and can't find any answer.
Thank you
0 -
I will see if I saved that post reply. In the meantime 'standards' are an incredibly fickle area as you also need to factor in 'defacto' most popular datasources that might be embedded in resources, eg: Alvanon, so if your worksheet quotes a clothing standard > then you pick up a upstream development work tool that also quotes it is to a standard, they can all vary in subtle interpretations of the official 'standard' landmarks and measures. Which basically means the fashion sector has really poor adherence to 'standards' as there tends to be no repercussion if they break the rules like in other areas of design eg: engineering or architecture where standards and not adhering to them to the letter would introduce a safety risk. In clothing that is negligible as a risk so the interpretation is rampant across the industry dependent on nation state, marketplace, year of standard quoted, and interpretation of landmarks and measures when ported to software. So yeah it's a real hotch potch in fashion.
What you should always be able to do is take a elevator view of the problem. There is the official standard from the avatar/manikin sizes you can generally get for each country, which will state the current standards in use, that is a definitive - start point. And then there is the market position of what the prevailing most common avatar/manikin size is in use for the market sector you intend to enter into for a market demographic or cross section of nation states and body types. That is more about semantics, and research to capture what is most commonly used in industry even when faced with 'quoted standards'. For example Adobe pdf was never a digital document standard until it became the most popular de-facto market choice, there may have been other datafile exchange standards that were less popular but culturally .pdf won out as perhaps the most frequent document data-exchange through popular choice and hence you would need to factor in (regardless of standards) what does the market want and choose to use as the vehicle to drive consumption of digital documents. So semantically, if you disconnect yourself form 'standards' for a moment in the elevator view of 'correct standards' you need to consider in the chain of PLM and digital garment development what is the prevailing popular (cultural) system for avatar/manikins sizing and how does that impact on deviating from those models? So that is not so much about is it right or wrong, it is about what is the end market consuming, and will you need to acknowledge how deviating from the 'industry norm' will impact your digital avatar/manikin strategy for sizing? So that is the type of open mind you need to keep in fashion as 'clothing sizes' and vanity sizing can really confuse how and what is the cultural norm verse industry determined norm, they can be detached at some level. So then it comes back to what is on the spec sheet or the design development brief if you need to meet a minimum technical requirement, stick to the exact scope of that standard in your technical brief. Or if left more open, eg: marketing wants to meet the most popular sizing across a market space > drive more research into what that truly means relative to the existing choices for avatar/manikin being used. eg: CLO3D, Alvanon, Gerber, optitex, other, etc.
Falling back to the exact standards for avatar, it generally covers a set of industry landmarks on the avatar model and list of measures through those points. That doesn't mean that vendors of avatars don't also add additional measures that may not show up in a the standard minimum requirements, so that can be open to some interpretation. So what measure is different may simply come down to > is it in the standard as a measure or was it an additional measure they added in for convenience ? Of course none of this helps when you the user is trying to figure out what avatar and what measures are good and meant to be uniform across commercially listed product that claim they conform to set standard. Well the fallback is to get the officla industry standard for your end markets nation state and look at it. That is the definitive industry claim - BUT and it's a big BUT, that does not mean it's the most culturally accepted norm by the consumer and buyers. So you need to factor that in when you make choices on how to set up your digital avatars. Basically because there is so much noise in interpreting standards you need to feel confident you have it right. So how to do that ! Well again you can use the 80% / 20% principle to get it culturally just about right without to much in-depth research. If you don't have a niche market (and with a niche market I would always have custom avatars born from anthropometric research) you can say what does 80% of the market use for real world manikins and now digital avatars, that can cut your risk in getting it wrong (20%) because you chose the consumers popular choice in culture in the face of rigid standards, that often don't care for market popularity. So you can quickly see from the elevator view of choice, it is possible to refine a solution space to a few choice that de-risk what you use and the selection you make yet still meet popular cultural end market consumption - regardless of what a anthropometrist states in a spread sheet.
Technically at a documented level of database you need at least 'confidence' you meet the contractual terms of your manufacture (avatar calibration within quality control of fitted blocks) with the minimum set of landmarks and measures then any market driven measures are noted for convenience specific niche utility when fitting. eg: like natural waistline, etc
Alvanon is obviously one of the larger market manikin players, so ask your end market (buyers) or look on the past spec sheets to see what was used historically. Then ask are you deviating from this for pure conformity to standards for engineering means at the risk of then NOT meeting the demands of 'cultural popular market consumption', and if so what is that risk in that digital strategy ? So that is very much a semantic issue that fickle interpretation of standards and mix of interpretation of avatars differences between vendors is trying to answer, in their product offering, though maybe having additional measures and some variance from the official standard. So where deviance to the official standard - you need to assess that risk or adapt the digital avatar, probe the supplier of the avatar and ask why deviate, was it market driven because that is what the market consumes or was it some other reason - that might go some way to building confidence on the many choices on fit with digital avatars.
I will see if I can find that other post.
1 -
ottoline, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. I find it really difficult to understand how the avatar editor works. I'm not talking about how to use it, but how he processes the measures I insert and what the error that is reported depends on. I work with plus sizes and I already have my measurements, but when i start to edit the avatar It seems like my proportions are too far from those calculated by Clo. The result is a deformed avatar, I keep trying also changing the order in which i insert my measurements, but can't find any solution. I thought that it would be easier to edit the avatar meauserements if I know which are his standard measurements, but after reading your reply i changed my mind...
0 -
It's actually quite easy to use the CLO3D avatar editor, actually it may be one of the best as it is a relational database as it adjusts other measures close to where you need to be. So in that respect it's very good once you understand the process order (see link below).
My other comments are more to do with the overall state that ALL digital avatars have with regard to marketing and then nation state standards. Yes there are hard documented standards , but equally there is what the market buys irrespective of exact standards, so that is down to each person being diligent to investigate that aspect (the semantics) on fit based on what they technically need to meet and what they adjust outside of that scope. It's not that any one avatar provider has it perfect, it's that you can use an avatar platform (like CLO3D or Alvanon or others) that permits you to adjust and get what you want when you know what table of measures you need to meet relative to standards and marketing needs for each nation state/demographic. So having a good adjustable avatar editor with a relational database like CLO3D to speed the avatar sizing as a start point is actually really good. Hope that swings you right.
You can definitely get a CLO3D avatar to a speedy custom size in minutes, and you can also add in custom tape or length measures. But what you can also do is take a human scan into CLO3D and match the avatar to that scan to get a perfect avatar. So in that function CLO3D is one of the best custom avatars editors you can use for clothing.
Please keep an open mind, yes there are black and white standards and we often need to conform to those for manufacturing but the wiggle room comes from what your end market needs also.One may be more important than the other is some cases. eg: a commercial high volume general clothing company brand may need to meet US ASTM sizing, for north American sales therefore they default to those size standards and avatars. But a custom niche fit sportswear company with a demographic of +40 year old consumers whom buy ski-mobiles would maybe need a smaller slice of clothing sizing, maybe done through a customer market fitting session to collate that niche data, and then custom avatars at size break points that better fit that niche market of consumers, with big waists for example and thickset upper arms. So you see it is not always about fixed standards, it can be open to end market demands and the constraints or importance you place on fit as you balance your products market entry, to give you the best opportunity to sell appropriate sized clothing. That is down to each company/person to come to terms with for their project or contractual obligations if in a technical brief.
In the manual >> You need to start with some ordered workflow steps relative to the measurement detail option in the editor (basic, advanced-human body, advanced-dress form ) >> that will make it a little easier to get a basic fit and then tighten those additional measures to fine tune a custom avatar.
They have a .pdf avatar editor guide >> with a stepped workflow guide on page 15 ... check out their tips. It's a good read with information you will not find so easily on the website.
The error is explained in the document on pg: 13
If the error reading is large this is likely to do with a dimension outside the standard measurement database of 'relational' measures, and as such you may need to look at other measures like bust,waist, hip and torso length are closely set to the ASTM size avatar before you start fine tuning. For example on larger models XXL the waist gets harder to determine from the natural waistline to tailoring waistline, so there is often some custom measures you need to place in addition to the avatar editors default waistline, and then you can manually read off that value on the tape as the editor has fixed measures/tapes/lengths.
When you start your avatar, progress from a ASTM model size that is close, then adjust. Or if you start from a small avatar, do a basic shape change with a few key measures, that will automatically change the other ones in order from the database and get you closer to a proportional model based on the data available to the editor. Then shift to the advanced human form if it's about a matching a fitters manikin, or if you are wanting a tailoring form go up a gear to using the advanced-dress form. If you progress that way you should be better off.
Note: when adjusting the basic avatar size the crotch height, high point shoulder (HPS) height, bust girth, waist girth, hip girth and >> vertical trunk << are key measures to check are within scope of industry norms before you start. The vertical trunk measure can change the avatars posture as it passes through a number of other related measures, so what you can find is that a few key measures can dramatically change the avatars proportions and it swing wildly outside what you may want. So perhaps start with a basic model and see if you can get that close, then progress to adding other lesser impactful measures and see how that works for you.
2 -
Ok, really thank you for your help!!!!
0 -
See scan into avatar post about process into CLO3D >> Link
very easy to use.
0
Comments