huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody first learns or uses the more 'realistic'(and average looking) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system in addition to looking better has everything just fit nicely while also being plausible, it might not be the average but it's still well within the realm of possible, it's 'idealised'. But then to make something look extra heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in live 3d and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it. E: (or it's a gait/movement thing, they look normal when sat or stood still but it has affected their movement and their balance to make it awkward and unnatural)

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody first learns or uses the more 'realistic'(and average looking) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system in addition to looking better has everything just fit nicely while also being plausible, it might not be the average but it's still well within the realm of possible, it's 'idealised'. But then to make something look extra heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it. E: (or it's a gait/movement thing, they look normal when sat or stood still but it has affected their movement and their balance to make it awkward and unnatural)

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system in addition to looking better has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it. E: (or it's a gait/movement thing, they look normal when sat or stood still but it has affected their movement and their balance to make it awkward and unnatural)

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system in addition to looking better has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it.

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system in addition to look better has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it.

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5 inches I think. But the surgery does it in the femur first from what I'm reading here, and then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two with different pros and cons according to this other website.

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it.

Or some combination.

huh. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5inches. But the surgery does it in the femur first? Then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two?

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it.

Or some combination.

h. I can't decide if you're right or not. And I was just working on proportions and stuff, so yeah I had a think about this.

In art and sculpting, basically nobody uses the more 'realistic'(and average) 7.5 head system, because of a few reasons. It's far more difficult for one, with all the landmarks falling at weird spots, but the 8 head system has everything just fit nicely right while also being plausible. But then to make something look heroic, people will go further and into an 8.5 or even 9 head system if pushing for a Greek god body, and the way you do that (at least when going to 8.5) is 90% in the shins. Just take an 8 head-scale body and extend that part of the leg down and it all just works, makes them look better even. And if you consider 6 foot the norm, the amount that going to an 8.5 head system from 8 heads stretches things is 4.5inches. But the surgery does it in the femur first? Then the shins for some extra if needed? Or it's a choice between the two?

I wonder if perhaps there are certain people who it would fit, people who are already disproportionate in that their lower legs are actually a touch short, but that if this were a selection criteria this would exclude a lot of people from the profitable surgery. Or perhaps the limit of it still looking natural is lower, let's say you can get a mere 2 inches without it looking disproportionate, but the people who feel they need this surgery are so short that 2 inches won't help anything so invariably they shoot for more. Or they're going for the femur for mechanical/health reasons so it just doesn't look good as compared to the tibia/fibula. Or its the 'no makeup/good plastic surgery' effect where when done right and done subtly, we don't notice, it's only the bad disproportionate ones that we see and blame. Or in motion and with full texture, as compared to some static art or sculpture, it does look weird to have those proportions. Or perhaps it is that although 90% of the stretching is done in the lower legs in art, there are still some minor adjustments elsewhere, but you simply can't do that bone break and stretch surgery on all parts of 4 limbs, all that trouble 4 times over for just minor adjustments, hardly seems worth it.

Or some combination.