Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Bill

As per moderator request, I'm posting the chart here, showing why the stick Paranassus refers to is an unreliable locator.

stickchart.jpg

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

As per moderator request, I'm posting the chart here, showing why the stick Paranassus refers to is an unreliable locator

Thank you, Bill, for the reality check.

You're getting more than good at this............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Huntster:

It probably helps that I have what could arguably be the most comprehensive inventory of image data available, so I can cross check claims using the very highest quality images.

:)

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I gave some more thought to this whole issue of the claims Paranassus made, my response in his thread, which a moderator requested I move over here, and the whole challenge of having a post in one thread which must be commented on in another thread. I also thought about the core issue itself, where he went wrong in his flawed analysis.

So having thought it through, I felt the forum members deserve a complete explanation of his errors.

First, the chart he used was taken from one of mine, shown here in its entirety:

20103_5PGFandJGfilmscompared.jpg

It was part of a PDF file on my report website, specifically, TMR Release3_2 Part 3a

In the PDF document, it doesn't have a very high resolution, so it's not the best source for analysis, error one (it was intended in my PDF to simply illustrate the full range of McClarin's filmed path as compared to the PGF filmed path in the same general landscape.) The chart I made above is from source images about 10x higher in resolution, thus 10x more accurate for analysis purposes.

Next, that chart of mine which he used, wasn't intended for the purpose Paranassus intended, and making a chart like that path chart, which is essentially a composite of multiple images in a film sequence, requires blending those multiple images together so the landscape has an apparent continuity. But each single film frame has some peripheral distortion, and that skews the landscape proportions in the outer image areas (away from the center), a factor which slightly warps the landscape. He apparently does not know this, and thus would not know why that chart was wrong for his purpose. Second mistake.

(As a side note, this issue of peripheral distortion is one of the reasons my review of the lens issue is taking so long, because now that I have done more analysis of the lens and film frames, and can appreciate the factor of peripheral distortion, I need to find a systematic and reliable way to null it out, and document that effort, so other researchers can understand what was done and review the work appropriately.)

So now Paranassus has a chart not intended for his purpose, and a landscape which has trace elements of distortion (because it was never intended for his purpose) which he doesn't understand, and a low resolution which makes his margin of error far greater than optimum image material would have, and so he misses the fact that his locator, the "stick", has moved and is totally unreliable for his intended analysis. Error three.

Then he fails to see the feet of McClarin and "Patty" both are obscured, meaning we can't tell who is closer or farther, or if they are at the same point. Error four.

So his estimate of "Patty" being 5-8 feet apart from McClarin is just (as skeptics love to say) "garbage in, garbage out".

So on the subject side of the diagram, he's got nothing reliable or factual.

On the camera side, as I pointed out and asked him repeatedly, who are these "most" who agree that Green's camera is 10 back from the PGf camera. I have repetedly acknowledged I used to think that, but am revising my estimate and think now it's closer to 3-4 feet, but that final determination is still pending the analysis of the optical discrepancies between the PGf and the McClarin footage (which he is apparently oblivious to). So he just relies on "Most" to provide the distance, as his premise.

Yet he will not answer the simple and sincere question of what "most" he is referring to, most humans, most scientists, most BF researchers, most ????. And of course, he won't cite specifics or sources either. Error five.

So he's got no reliable distance on the camera side, and no relaible distance on the subject side, but that doesn't stop him from computing a reliable total distance difference, which conveniently allows him to downsize "Patty " to be remarkably close to the height of Bob Heironimous, his favorite guy in a fur suit. Seems like blatant agenda bias to me, misusing data to get to his chosen conclusion.

So that's where this whole thing stands. He simply does not understand the data and the variables, and thus isn't capable of offering a factual conclusion on this topic.

I'd welcome his rebuttal here, if he feels I have unfairly described anything, and I keep asking him to share with us his clarification of who those "Most" are, who all say the camera distances are 10 feet apart.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Yet he will not answer the simple and sincere question of what "most" he is referring to, most humans, most scientists, most BF researchers, most ????.

Most folks who think Patty is just Bob H in a suit. I would 'guess' that is who he is meaning when he says "most". B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Huntster:

It probably helps that I have what could arguably be the most comprehensive inventory of image data available, so I can cross check claims using the very highest quality images.

You're more than the best kind of resource!

:)

You have no idea how happy that face truly is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was completely unaware of the "stick"...I was basing my point about misalignment and mis-scaling on the whatever that is in the lower left corner of the two images I copied and annotated (the step looking thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree Bill. "Most" people are probably you and me based on your initial report, which I also quoted in my review. I'm not sure how the "stick" fits into the equation. I also independently calculated approx 8-10 feet difference in John & Roger's position based on frame 352 from Green's full frame copy of the PGF that you provided. However, I'm still reeling by the revelation that Green's copy was not full frame and I've had to re-evaluate lots of estimates. In particular, this puts John and Roger's camera positions closer, perhaps a difference of 3-4 feet, as you say. I've resorted to using Glickman's full frame to re-evaluate the differences.

GlickmanGreen.gif

Note that the vertical FOV in both frames were scaled to the exact same height and that the trees in the background matched up perfectly. This could only have happened if the same size lens was used for both cameras. This also tells me that the height of the apertures matched (the aperture width, however, did not). Also note the size difference between McClarin and Hodgson. At least 1 of them had the distance from the camera wrong.

It does look like Patterson or Green or both men moved their positions a bit during filming, but the differences probably only amounted to a few feet. John was slightly right of Roger's position and farther away from the debris in the foreground. If they had actually stood in the same spot using the same size lenses then every part of their frames would have matched up. But since they don't quite match it appears the cameras were a few feet apart. So to start with we do have to scale Patty's image down ~3% to reflect the difference in the camera positions. That said, this has nothing to do with McClarin & Patty's distances from the camera.

Here are a few blinking gifs showing Patty & McClarin at different parts of the trackway. The 1st 2 comparisons show them a step or 2 apart and in the 1st gif you can see the foreground log shift a bit. Patterson was closer to Patty by a distance relative to the shifted log in the foreground and the height of each camera above the ground. Looks like a difference of a few feet depending how close they were to the foreground log. However, if that were the case then Patty's image would have to be scaled down a bit to synchronize their camera positions. But Patty already appears to be the same height or shorter than McClarin in those frames.

jimpat5.gif

PGF_Green2.gif

By frame 352 of the PGF the shift in the foreground log is even smaller. This suggests that Patterson and Green were standing very close to the same spot. But for some reason Patty is now taller and considerably larger than McClarin, which would be impossible if the 1st comparison was accurate and McClarin followed the trackway exactly.

PGF_Green.gif

A dozen steps later McClarin appears taller than Patty, yet the shift in the foreground log suggests Patterson is standing closer to it than Green. So again Patty's image should be scaled down to sychronize their camera positions.

PattyMcClarin.gif

These comparisons tell me that Patterson and Green were fairly close with their camera positions then McClarin strayed from the trackway around frame 300. Then I think their trackways crossed over somewhere after frame 400, with the greatest difference around frame 352. IMO, this occured when when Patty turned right to look back at Patterson, then turned left to resume her course. This action created an "S" pattern in her trackway, which McClarin missed in his re-enactment. McClarin appears to have walked behind Patty at frame 352, crossed over around frame 400, and wasn't even on the same ground level by frame 480.

Unfortunately, frame 352 is one everyone seems to like to compare. But if McClarin followed the trackway exactly and Patterson and Green stayed put during filming, then there would be a consistency in their sizes over all the frames. But this was not the case. So even though Patterson and Green were close with their camera positions, Patty & McClarin were at different distances from the cameras during much of the trackway.

If we could determine their respective distances from the cameras then we could rescale their images accordingly. We should be able to get a rough estimate for McClarin's distance from the camera for various lenses (same lens for both cameras, IMO) and his body dimensions (derived from his known height). Bill, can you confirm that the vertical height for Green's camera aperture matched the K-100? The dimensions of your scanned frames should tell you (7.4mm?) Then we can crunch some numbers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

GF:

The way my scanning equipment was designed, I had the capability of ajusting the film plane closer or further from camera, amd I used a different film gate on the first scan of Green's material (including his McClarin footage)from the later Keystone projector I now use.

So if you take the original scan of his frames, and take a vertical aperture measurement on the scan, it won't correlate to the subsequent scans of the PGF contact print Mrs. Patterson has, until the various scans are rectified.

So what I do is crop images from base image area of one frame to the base image area of the next frame, the pulldown travel, which is a standardized 0.300", and then resixe that cropped image to 3000 pixels (it is usually about 2550 to 2600 in the source scan). That standardizes the images from different scan groups, and also makes a standard pixel to inch ratio of 1 pixel equals 0.0001". Then I compare photos at that point.

I'll see if I can get the info on the McClarin scan to you later today.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

GF:

I just checked a McClarin scan and rectified it to 3000 pixels high,frame image base to next frame image base (the 0.300" pulldown) and measured the aperture at 0.2945".

However, this is the magazine aperture, not the camera aperture, since Green's camera was modified to open the camera aperture and allow the full magazine aperture to define the film exposure.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

GF:

I just checked a McClarin scan and rectified it to 3000 pixels high,frame image base to next frame image base (the 0.300" pulldown) and measured the aperture at 0.2945".

However, this is the magazine aperture, not the camera aperture, since Green's camera was modified to open the camera aperture and allow the full magazine aperture to define the film exposure.

Bill

Excellent Bill! The film reflects the magazine aperture anyway and that's what we're using for a reference. Your scanner measured the film quite accurately and it seems that the image area for most 16mm cameras is standardized for the vertical dimension at approx 7.5mm (+/-.2mm). Makes sense to standardize the frame height to maintain an accurate film speed (frames/sec). You are correct that Green's magazine aperture was modified, but I don't think the vertical FOV was tampered with. It's the same as the K-100's, within .1mm.

Green's (Keystone?) camera and Patterson's K-100 had nearly identical camera apertures too. When the magazine apertures for both cameras were synchronized the background matched up exactly. No rescaling was required. John must have been standing pretty close to the same spot as Roger. IMO, unless a variable zoom lens was used, the next standard size lens for either camera would be apparent. Now to determine what lens they used. ;)

I think there's finally enough info (I hope) to get some reliable distance estimates. Providing there aren't any more surprises.

Thanks Bill! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So, what does all that say to us? I'm lost in all the technical verbiage...what do these new scans show about Patty and her height? IF she is as short as you SEEM to be suggesting, how does that affect the Heronimous claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mulder:

We can't do Patty's height until we sort out the lens issue, and it needs some experiments to finalize. So it's still a work in progress.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So, what does all that say to us? I'm lost in all the technical verbiage...what do these new scans show about Patty and her height? IF she is as short as you SEEM to be suggesting, how does that affect the Heronimous claim?

No, I'm not suggesting Patty was short. I'm saying we need to know her distance from the camera before we can calculate her height, since McClarin didn't follow Patty's trackway exactly. We can't use him as a yardstick unless they were the exact same distance from the camera. Otherwise, we have to calc Patty's height photogrammetrically (geez that's a long word!), which involves estimating distances from the camera.

Relevance to BH? The skeptics want to scale Patty down to BH size, of course. I just want accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

GF:

" I just want accuracy. "

You and me both. Whereever the math goes, we go there.

:)

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...