4 ms·

Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Do both and

Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Do both and a 3D fitting room wouldn't be necessary to begin with.

ezekg 5y ago
This is especially true for Gap. Their sizing is bonkers compared to the norm. I stopped shopping there a long time ago because it was too much of a hassle to go and try things on in person. Instead, I order online from retailers that have consistent sizing and that I know fit me well.
doikor 5y ago
One problem with that is that not all the articles are the same size. You can order 1000 t-shirts in the same size from a manufacturer and not all of them will be the same size (especially if you order the cheapest you can find). This is mainly due to cheap fabrics stretching unevenly (roll to roll difference and beginning of the roll can stretch differently from the end) and if you cut them by pressing through a thick stack the ones at different spots in the stack stretch differently during the cut and thus end up different size even if "cut" to the same size.
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  As someone totally ignorant of this industry... how can those problems be fixed? Is it an issue of using higher quality materials, or some factory process change?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Inexpensive, quality of construction, reliable sizing. Pick two.
- rhacker 5y ago
  What if we ended up with a system where I know I'm a B29. Then after every shirt made, it's tested against the B26 - B34 (since it's probably somewhere in there) and then labelled as a fit for B29. Then I just go shopping for B29s.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it would not really help much.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      This is also a male / female -type body distinction. I'd argue men have about 4 primary body shapes (roughly, height:shoulders:waist:hips), within which most are +/- a bit. Women have... a lot more.
      - bee_rider 5y ago
        Yeah. I implicitly assumed we were talking about guys because the idea of simplifying women's sizes just seems intractable.
  - wtvanhest 5y ago
    Assuming B29 is a series of measurements, this is the right solution in my opinion. The challenge is the cost of measuring and tagging every item after production. The relationship to model out is cost of pre-measuring every garment vs cost of returns. If you could dramatically lower your return rate you may be able to be more profitable measuring every garment. But... even measuring successfully presents challenges. Going in to a store would seem absolutely insane if you could just order tons of stuff in your size and it all fits and you would not have to make returns.
  - 5y ago
brandall10 5y ago
Body types vary widely though. If you’re athletic you may have a strong shoulder to hip drop, getting shirts that are blousy in the midsection. Conversely, if you’re heavy set or short you may get garments that are overly long. Some companies do try to address this to a degree with slim or athletic cuts, and yes a tailor could take you the rest of the way ‘mostly’ there, but the future of clothing is 3D scanning and printing.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  A 3D fitting room isn’t going to solve the issues you mention tho. I also think what you’re describing could be easily solved with more measurements of clothing you’re considering.
  - zokier 5y ago
    3D fitting is first step for custom fitted to order clothes, like Amazons "Made for You" t-shirts https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-custom-fit-t-shirts-using-3d-tech-measurements-2020-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-custom-fit-t-shirts-u...
  - brandall10 5y ago
    I’ve done just this, with a tailor doing tours for a MTM business. Took about 15 minutes to do 18 measurements. With those in their system, I can custom order any number of (dress) shirts customized in a variety of ways and they do fit well. The issue is it just doesn’t scale well abd is limited by types of garments on offer, no standardized way to share measurements with other manufacturers, and requires we redo the process or for me to ‘guess’ at adjustments if my body changes in any material ways - they only come to major cities once a quarter or so.
- mc32 5y ago
  As exemplified by the old threadbase post: https://web.archive.org/web/20160318074519/threadbase.com/unravelled https://web.archive.org/web/20160318074519/threadbase.com/un... The sizes vary within brands themselves. Traditionally the solution was to get a tailor take your measurements and make a pattern for you and cut from cloth to make you a garment. Obviously, in today's day and age, that gets a bit expensive for most people.
ghaff 5y ago
Sizing is pretty quantified. A tailor has specific measurements they make. (Presumably women's clothing is the same.) One problem is that you end up with a huge number of permutations, no one is "average"[0], people have different preferences when it comes to the type of fit, etc. This sort of thing has been being talked about for 20+ years. The problems include that you're probably never going to get to the equivalent of a tailored suit--even after taking all their measurements, tailors often will make some final adjustments. On the other hand, most people are fine with their day to day polo shirts, T-shirts, and trousers being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever for customization. [0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Sizing isn't really quantified at all. Brands use vague terms like "Small, Medium, and Large" that aren't even consistent within the brand, and depend on the cut and particular style.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Mass-produced clothing sizing is certainly inexact. But the body measurements for an individual are reasonably well specified.
    - mint2 5y ago
      What does “body measurements for an individual are specified” mean? Like body measurements on the size charts are specified? Those don’t tell one of the clothing will fit, only that there’s a possibility it will fit. And in reality the ranges they give are far too wide. And one can specify their body measurements all they like, but it barely helps selecting a size online or even in store.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever for customization. I bought a suit a while back - they tailored it (pants and jacket) for <$20. This is "really expensive" if it is a $10 t-shirt, but not that bad if it is an $80 point-down shirt, and even reasonable if it is a $200 pant/jacket combo
yeldarb 5y ago
A recent 99% Invisible dove into the history of standardized sizing that was really interesting (apparently most of the data on human measurements used in industry comes from US military research): https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/
mint2 5y ago
Actually one of the issues is also standardization. Finding someone that is average on just four or five dimensions is extremely rare. Bucketing people into a handful of clusters and taking those averages is only a marginal improvement. Brands standardizing to those same clusters make it impossible for many people to find fitting clothes. It’s just like shoes. For a given length, at most about 30-40% of the foot widths can be accommodated without offering multiple widths. And most shoes only come in one width.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Yes, it has. The problem is that nontrivial clothing requires multidimensional fit which is impractical for mass-produced off-the-rack clothing, and marketing of mass-produced clothes is therefore driven by all kinds of things, none of which is using the well-established standardization and quantification of fit, which is used only by people making bespoke clothing or altering off-the-rack clothes for specific individuals. Of course, unless it is paired by on-demand alteration, 3D fitting doesn't really address that problem. But its not meant to (though the for-the-public image may be that), its to deal with the problem that taking clothes to actual fitting rooms increases handling, damage, theft losses, and the resulting policing and remerchandising is a major source of labor requirements for shops. For the Gap, the problem this hopes to solve, or at least mitigate, is “retail employees”.
- na85 5y ago
  >Yes, it has. It most certainly has not. Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and inseam length), there are lots of variations between brands for garments with the same nominal size. I have 2 pairs of billabong board shorts that are slightly too big and fall down if I don't cinch the drawstrings extra tight. Size 34 waist. I have another 2 pairs of o'neill shorts that fit perfectly and don't fall down even if I don't lace up the drawstring at all. Size 34 waist. Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero".
  - noja 5y ago
    > Size 34 waist. If you want an extra shock: measure your waist. It's not 34 inches!
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". size zero at least makes sense if it's the smallest, and they're using zero based indexing. It really gets ridiculous when they have size 00.

ezekg 5y ago

This is especially true for Gap. Their sizing is bonkers compared to the norm. I stopped shopping there a long time ago because it was too much of a hassle to go and try things on in person. Instead, I order online from retailers that have consistent sizing and that I know fit me well.

doikor 5y ago

One problem with that is that not all the articles are the same size. You can order 1000 t-shirts in the same size from a manufacturer and not all of them will be the same size (especially if you order the cheapest you can find). This is mainly due to cheap fabrics stretching unevenly (roll to roll difference and beginning of the roll can stretch differently from the end) and if you cut them by pressing through a thick stack the ones at different spots in the stack stretch differently during the cut and thus end up different size even if "cut" to the same size.

clipradiowallet 5y ago
As someone totally ignorant of this industry... how can those problems be fixed? Is it an issue of using higher quality materials, or some factory process change?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Inexpensive, quality of construction, reliable sizing. Pick two.
rhacker 5y ago
What if we ended up with a system where I know I'm a B29. Then after every shirt made, it's tested against the B26 - B34 (since it's probably somewhere in there) and then labelled as a fit for B29. Then I just go shopping for B29s.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it would not really help much.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    This is also a male / female -type body distinction. I'd argue men have about 4 primary body shapes (roughly, height:shoulders:waist:hips), within which most are +/- a bit. Women have... a lot more.
    - bee_rider 5y ago
      Yeah. I implicitly assumed we were talking about guys because the idea of simplifying women's sizes just seems intractable.
- wtvanhest 5y ago
  Assuming B29 is a series of measurements, this is the right solution in my opinion. The challenge is the cost of measuring and tagging every item after production. The relationship to model out is cost of pre-measuring every garment vs cost of returns. If you could dramatically lower your return rate you may be able to be more profitable measuring every garment. But... even measuring successfully presents challenges. Going in to a store would seem absolutely insane if you could just order tons of stuff in your size and it all fits and you would not have to make returns.
- 5y ago

brandall10 5y ago

Body types vary widely though. If you’re athletic you may have a strong shoulder to hip drop, getting shirts that are blousy in the midsection. Conversely, if you’re heavy set or short you may get garments that are overly long. Some companies do try to address this to a degree with slim or athletic cuts, and yes a tailor could take you the rest of the way ‘mostly’ there, but the future of clothing is 3D scanning and printing.

endisneigh 5y ago
A 3D fitting room isn’t going to solve the issues you mention tho. I also think what you’re describing could be easily solved with more measurements of clothing you’re considering.
- zokier 5y ago
  3D fitting is first step for custom fitted to order clothes, like Amazons "Made for You" t-shirts https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-custom-fit-t-shirts-using-3d-tech-measurements-2020-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-custom-fit-t-shirts-u...
- brandall10 5y ago
  I’ve done just this, with a tailor doing tours for a MTM business. Took about 15 minutes to do 18 measurements. With those in their system, I can custom order any number of (dress) shirts customized in a variety of ways and they do fit well. The issue is it just doesn’t scale well abd is limited by types of garments on offer, no standardized way to share measurements with other manufacturers, and requires we redo the process or for me to ‘guess’ at adjustments if my body changes in any material ways - they only come to major cities once a quarter or so.
mc32 5y ago
As exemplified by the old threadbase post: https://web.archive.org/web/20160318074519/threadbase.com/unravelled https://web.archive.org/web/20160318074519/threadbase.com/un... The sizes vary within brands themselves. Traditionally the solution was to get a tailor take your measurements and make a pattern for you and cut from cloth to make you a garment. Obviously, in today's day and age, that gets a bit expensive for most people.

ghaff 5y ago

Sizing is pretty quantified. A tailor has specific measurements they make. (Presumably women's clothing is the same.) One problem is that you end up with a huge number of permutations, no one is "average"[0], people have different preferences when it comes to the type of fit, etc. This sort of thing has been being talked about for 20+ years. The problems include that you're probably never going to get to the equivalent of a tailored suit--even after taking all their measurements, tailors often will make some final adjustments. On the other hand, most people are fine with their day to day polo shirts, T-shirts, and trousers being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever for customization. [0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/

endisneigh 5y ago
Sizing isn't really quantified at all. Brands use vague terms like "Small, Medium, and Large" that aren't even consistent within the brand, and depend on the cut and particular style.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Mass-produced clothing sizing is certainly inexact. But the body measurements for an individual are reasonably well specified.
  - mint2 5y ago
    What does “body measurements for an individual are specified” mean? Like body measurements on the size charts are specified? Those don’t tell one of the clothing will fit, only that there’s a possibility it will fit. And in reality the ranges they give are far too wide. And one can specify their body measurements all they like, but it barely helps selecting a size online or even in store.
geoduck14 5y ago
>being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever for customization. I bought a suit a while back - they tailored it (pants and jacket) for <$20. This is "really expensive" if it is a $10 t-shirt, but not that bad if it is an $80 point-down shirt, and even reasonable if it is a $200 pant/jacket combo

yeldarb 5y ago

A recent 99% Invisible dove into the history of standardized sizing that was really interesting (apparently most of the data on human measurements used in industry comes from US military research): https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/

mint2 5y ago

Actually one of the issues is also standardization. Finding someone that is average on just four or five dimensions is extremely rare. Bucketing people into a handful of clusters and taking those averages is only a marginal improvement. Brands standardizing to those same clusters make it impossible for many people to find fitting clothes. It’s just like shoes. For a given length, at most about 30-40% of the foot widths can be accommodated without offering multiple widths. And most shoes only come in one width.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Yes, it has. The problem is that nontrivial clothing requires multidimensional fit which is impractical for mass-produced off-the-rack clothing, and marketing of mass-produced clothes is therefore driven by all kinds of things, none of which is using the well-established standardization and quantification of fit, which is used only by people making bespoke clothing or altering off-the-rack clothes for specific individuals. Of course, unless it is paired by on-demand alteration, 3D fitting doesn't really address that problem. But its not meant to (though the for-the-public image may be that), its to deal with the problem that taking clothes to actual fitting rooms increases handling, damage, theft losses, and the resulting policing and remerchandising is a major source of labor requirements for shops. For the Gap, the problem this hopes to solve, or at least mitigate, is “retail employees”.

na85 5y ago
>Yes, it has. It most certainly has not. Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and inseam length), there are lots of variations between brands for garments with the same nominal size. I have 2 pairs of billabong board shorts that are slightly too big and fall down if I don't cinch the drawstrings extra tight. Size 34 waist. I have another 2 pairs of o'neill shorts that fit perfectly and don't fall down even if I don't lace up the drawstring at all. Size 34 waist. Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero".
- noja 5y ago
  > Size 34 waist. If you want an extra shock: measure your waist. It's not 34 inches!
- gruez 5y ago
  >Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". size zero at least makes sense if it's the smallest, and they're using zero based indexing. It really gets ridiculous when they have size 00.