Golden ratio / Marquardt Phi mask fitwhat a photo can give, and how we take it.
The measured optima instead of 1.618: Pallett's ratios (0.36 vertical, 0.46 horizontal), which are the values raters actually preferred — scored like every other proportion.
What we report
The measured optima instead of 1.618: Pallett's ratios (0.36 vertical, 0.46 horizontal), which are the values raters actually preferred — scored like every other proportion.
Why not the clinical number itself
Refuted with morphometric methods. Holland (2008) showed via Procrustes and thin-plate-spline analysis that the mask is ill-suited to non-European populations and best describes MASCULINIZED white women — the opposite of what raters prefer. Khoshab et al. (2022), a PRISMA systematic review of 27 studies across six ethnic categories, found no ethnic/gender group consistently approximates either the neoclassical canons or Φ. Pallett et al. (2010): "there was never any proof that the golden ratio was special. As it turns out, it isn't."
Sources
- Holland 2008, Aesthetic Plast Surg — doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9080-z
- Khoshab et al. 2022, Aesthet Surg J — doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab339
- Pallett, Link & Lee 2010, Vision Res — doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.003
Ratios of near-coplanar frontal distances, angles relative to the interpupillary line, and skin appearance — each with an error bar, each against a population you choose. Start an analysis or read the methodology.
How every bone-level measurement is taken here · all insights