Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Guest

^

 

Thanks, Pat...that image is much nicer!... :drinks: ...

 

Patty-Jim-WalkComparison-HorizontalAngle

 

 

 

One thing I should have mentioned in my post, last night....this montage was only meant to illustrate my idea. If Giganto wants to work-out some figures for Jim's walk, he would have to collect the proper Frames...(probably from Bill)....to determine exactly how many steps Jim took between those two points....and what the length of his steps were.

 

 

I'll be posting more about this later, but from what I've been looking at lately, I think that the 25MM lens is the more likely candidate for what was on Roger's and John's cameras....rather than the 20MM lens. The 15MM lens has been definitively ruled-out, I believe. 

 

One related detail, for now...based on the fact that Jim walked onto a distinctly higher level of ground, shortly after the F352 spot...while Patty doesn't, in that section of her walk....I think that their paths don't converge/cross until well past the Tree TC-2 spot.

And, that would mean that earlier in their walks, at the F352 spot....Jim would be much further back in the scene than Patty was....possibly in the range of 20-30 feet further back.

 

 

Thanks, Pat....and...Go Pats!! :drinks:

 

I know you love Hockey, good buddy...but do you get into the NFL Playoffs, at all?? :)

Hey SY. Sorry about your Pats. GO SEAHAWKS!!!

The image you posted gives the horizontal field of view between frames 288 and 480 for a 15mm and 25mm lens. This was before the 20mm was even considered. That review was focused almost solely on challenging the 15mm lens theory. Since then the lens size seems to dwell some where between 20mm and 25mm. This is the head scratcher that keeps us from moving on.

Answer to your question is yes, I think a photogrammetric analysis of the trackways of both the PGF and the Green film would settle the lens issue. IMO, we need to set this project up in a separate thread to give this any validity. We must use the best imagery, as close to the source as possible. But this all starts with Mk Davis' digital scan of Pat Patterson's transparency of frame 352. This will be our backdrop for the trackway project. We will be focusing on the 16.8 steps that Patty took between frames 288 and 480. Her steps were regular at 11.2 frames per step and we have very specific frames that represent each 1/2 step in the trackway. I have isolated each of these frames and composed approximately 70% of the trackway. The same must be done for McClarin in Green's film. What I recommend you do is copy/paste McClarin's images onto frame 352.

The one thing we do know with certainty is that the focal length of the lens on Green's camera was within 2% of the K100's lens. Coincidentally, this is the difference between a 1 inch lens and a 25mm lens. But confirmation of a 25mm lens remains to be seen. Most significantly, the vertical frame borders should match when the background images are scaled to match. This is providing John stood in the same position as Roger while filming. But we know this was not the case. John stood farther back than Roger from the camera by as much as 10 feet. When registering the images, you can see how the foreground log shifts down the image for Roger, indicating he was closer to it than John. We hope this won't be significant in determining McClarin's distances from the camera.

I'm really busy these days so my input will be slow to come. But superimposing McClarin's images onto frame 352 and identifying McClarin's 10 point step cycle will go a long way to sorting this out. We need to map out their step cycles to measure their step lengths. You can use any frames as long as you identify their point in the step cycle. We can interpolate between steps.

Then use the shirt ruler to determine distances from the camera for 20mm and 25mm lenses and use frame 352 to measure the horizontal angles of each frame in pixels. Create trackway triangles for all the steps and make sure they are to scale. Then you can measure the average step lengths and see how they compare to a 20mm or 25mm lens.

Lots of work here, including acquiring the imagery. And in the end who will buy it? Only those that bother to follow the methodology. You can see why no one has bothered up to now.

Good luck with this one!

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Giganto wrote:

 

Hey SY. Sorry about your Pats. GO SEAHAWKS!!!

 

 

 

Hi Giganto....thanks for your response! :)

 

Thanks...I'm a bit disgusted with Brady's performance in the Playoffs......again!  But, I actually place most of the blame on Belichick, for not getting the team as motivated as they should be for the playoffs. If it was up to me...I'd keep Brady, and boot Belichick.

So....at this point....GO Seahawks!!! :drinks:

 

 

I'd be happy to work with you, on this exercise. I'll probably have lots of questions, so I'll correspond with you partly via PM.

 

It seems to me that solving the Lens 'Horizontal Angle-of-View' should be much easier/simpler to do, with Jim's walk than with Patty's...with more knowns, and fewer variables to deal with. 

 

My responses/input will probably be on the slow side, too...because of work, and projects at home. 

 

 

 

Lots of work here, including acquiring the imagery. And in the end who will buy it? Only those that bother to follow the methodology. You can see why no one has bothered up to now.

 

 

 

Well, it's an important line of analysis, I think. We really should have a definitive, and narrow, 'height range' for Patty. 

 

And as long as the science is sound/accurate...it will eventually be accepted! :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Giganto....thanks for your response! :)

 

I'd be happy to work with you, on this exercise. I'll probably have lots of questions, so I'll correspond with you partly via PM.

 

It seems to me that solving the Lens 'Horizontal Angle-of-View' should be much easier/simpler to do, with Jim's walk than with Patty's...with more knowns, and fewer variables to deal with. 

 

My responses/input will probably be on the slow side, too...because of work, and projects at home. 

Well, it's an important line of analysis, I think. We really should have a definitive, and narrow, 'height range' for Patty. 

 

And as long as the science is sound/accurate...it will eventually be accepted! :)

SY, to prepare for a formal photogrammetric analysis of Green's film and the PGF you must register (line up) the background features in Green's film to frame 352 (use MK's transparency scan), then both films will have the same horizontal and vertical angle of view. Green's camera was missing its aperture plate so the horizontal dimension of Green's film and the PGF do not match. Fortunately the vertical field of view was common for both films. It turned out that Green's film required very little rescaling to register it to the PGF, only a few %.

That meant that both lenses had the same focal length and the cameras had nearly the same POV. You can determine the relative positions of both cameras by measuring how the foreground objects are displaced when the background objects are aligned. If the foreground objects also match then you can assume the cameras were in the same position. In this case Green's film indicated that he stood just a few feet farther back than Patterson for most of the film. We can rescale McClarin to compensate for this, but first we must superimpose his images onto frame 352. Then identify McClarin's steps in the step cycle and we can reconstruct his trackway and compare it with Patty's.

I'm using MK Davis' transparency scan for frame 352 because it is a confirmed full frame from the PGF with the correct digital aspect ratio of height vs width. We need this info to determine the distances from the camera and the horizontal angle of view for both trackways. I recommend you superimpose McClarin's images onto frame 352 then we can make apples to apples comparisons.

4769_3453_f352_zps2658686a.jpg

In the 17 step sequence represented by frames 288 to 480, the "origin step" is frame 308, which is step 2, precisely. This is the only frame that can be positively identified as being at the beginning of Patty's step cycle to within an 18th of a second. Frame 308 shows the transition of force from the trailing to the leading leg and all other steps were derived relative to it.

vert_sole.gif

17 Steps

=======

Frame-Step

-------------

f285-00.0 (image unavailable)

f288-00.2 <-Start

f290-00.5

f294-00.8

f296-01.0

f302-01.5

f308-02.0

f314-02.5

f318-02.9

f319-03.0

f325-03.5

f331-04.0

f337-04.5

f343-05.0

f349-05.5

f352-05.8<-Transparency

f354-06.0

f360-06.5

f366-07.0

f372-07.5

f377-08.0

f383-08.5

f389-09.0

f395-09.5

f400-10.0

f406-10.5

f412-11.0

f418-11.5

f423-12.0

f429-12.5

f435-13.0

f441-13.5

f446-14.0

f452-14.5

f457-15.0

f463-15.5

f469-16.0

f475-16.5

f480-17.0<-End

I have registered 14 of the 17 steps and I will post all the images when I'm done. I recommend that you construct the same table for Green's film and superimpose McClarin's images onto frame 352. Keep in mind that each frame of Green's film will likely require a rotation to properly register it to the PGF. Then you must identify McClarin's images within his step cycle.

Feel free to PM me with any comments/questions/etc. Lots to do!

Cheers

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's a great start, Giganto. :)  I'll send you a PM later on tonight, with a few questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bump.

Any progress with the subjective analysis of the films? SY - you posted about McClarin being well behind Patty...I believe you are correct. I hope you will continue on this, or share the data with someone who will (Like GF)

Edited by comncents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Any progress with the subjective analysis of the films? SY - you posted about McClarin being well behind Patty...I believe you are correct. I hope you will continue on this, or share the data with someone who will (Like GF)

 

 

Thanks for inquiring, comn. :)  

 

I sure will continue working on this...with Giganto's help, also...if he's patient enough! I haven't made any progress, lately. I need to get some quality images from Green's film of McClarin walking, to work with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I have a question for Giganto, and Bill. In looking at older pictures of the Filmsite...I noticed that one of Rene Dahinden's pictures has markings on the 'Main Log'...and, I'm wondering if the lengths between those markings (of his) are known??...

 

ReneDahindenFilmsite4_zps7cdc5071.jpg

 

 

And also, do they correspond with any of the lines drawn on this diagram of his?...

 

DahindenMeasurements1_zpsb5a30a57.jpg

 

 

If the lengths between those markings are known, could it help determine what size lens was on the camera....via the 'horizontal angle-of-view'?

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Those markings on that log if known could answer many questions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's what I'm thinking, Crow. :)  

 

It has the potential to make a very nice ruler, measuring the horizontal angle-of-view for the lens used on Roger's camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

In the 'Thoughts on Munns' Book' thread, Bigfoothunter wrote:


 

So there you have it, Drew. What Munns has told me in the past is that another and more thorough look into the Photogammetry aspect of the film(s) needs to be conducted. Munns mentioned bringing in some other skilled individuals to help with this project. Until that time, I have no interest in debating with you by making wild guesses without the necessary variables being known .... that is if we are still interested in being accurate and not just wanting to tinkle in the wind so-to-speak.

 

There are however some aspects of what is seen on the Patterson film that you could address if you can. In the split image above it is apparent that the creature's body proportions far exceeds that of McClarins. Its arms are thicker than Jim's legs - its upper thighs appear to be as thick as Jim's waist - and its arms are quite a bit longer than Jim's as well. 

 

 

First, here is a larger version of the 'Jim/Patty F352' comparison...

 

McClarinPatty-F352HeightComp9_zps71561fd

 

 

As most everyone knows...the F352 comparison is skewed, by the fact that Jim is several feet further back in the scene than Patty is, at that particular point. But, that distance may be as far as 30 feet further back. 

 

In this comparison graphic of Bill's...Bill states that, with a 25MM lens on the camera, Jim calculates to being 132 feet from the camera....(approximately 30 feet further away than Patty was)....('click' to enlarge)...

 

th_MattTJimMccompare1_zps68015d4e.jpg

 

 

In agreement with that comparison, is this graphic of Bill's...illustrating Jim's pathway relative to Patty's, for a 25MM lens....(Jim's path is significantly further back than Patty's)...

 

MunnsReport-PathDiagram-25MMLens2_zps057

 

 

Here is Bill's graphic for the 20MM Lens...

 

MunnsReport-PathDiagram-20MMLens_zpsae8c

 

 

The '20MM solution' gives a pathway closer to Patty's...but the problem with that solution is that Jim would have passed-by in front of tree TC-2....which he did not do.

He walked behind it....so he must have been significantly further back than Patty at the (earlier) F352 spot.

 

 

Personally, I think Jim was 20-30 feet further back, at the F352 spot....and, if true, that would make the 'split-image F352' comparison significantly flawed, as a height comparison.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have to say, it's hard for me to believe that McClarin was 30ft further back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I agree - Jim wasn't that far off from Patty's trackway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Neanderfoot wrote:

 

 

I have to say, it's hard for me to believe that McClarin was 30ft further back.

 

 

'30 Feet' does seem too far a distance for Jim to be off of Patty's trackway, Neander. But, Jim is most certainly further back than Patty is...and, conservatively...a good 15' further away. As I said, I think it's somewhere in range of 20-30'.

 

 

Here is a crop from Bill's graphic, that I just posted...(with Bill's numbers below it, added by me)...

 

MattTJimMccompare1-Crop1B_zps835f4568.jp

 

 

The numbers for the test subject are definite numbers. For the McClarin image...the lens size is an unknown. But, if it was a 25MM lens...then Jim had to have been just about 132 feet from the camera....(according to the Lens Formula, and as shown by Bill's test filming.) 

 

I'll post more on this, later. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

This is a fantastic image. Where on Earth is an image of a hominin arm in any state of fitness where such a skinny underlying arm is wreathed in such flat and excessive extra tissue? The flailblogdotorg arms could almost distract from the comedy that is the breasts.

 

And this is your best evidence.

 

* 19 * 67 *

 

The year is 2015.

 

This is what Bigfootery comes to the table with.

 

You deserve this. You own this. You belong to every moment of strained incredulity in which a person suffers your finger-wagging that this is something compelling in your world view.

 

Where is Bigfoot? 

Everywhere yet nowhere.

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That...coming from someone who at one time said, about Patty...."Can't see a suit, no matter how hard I try"... :lol:

 

 

I have more contradictions of yours, kit...for you to "straighten-out". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...