Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Drew

Mulder:

The whole problem with the PGF/McClarin comparison is that up until now, nobody actually made a thorough appraisal of all the variables which influence the comparison.

So essentially every comparison so far, including parn's, is flawed by the lack of consideration of all variables.

That's where Gigantofooticus and I are trying to clear it up, between his efforts and expertise, and mine, because we are trying to factor all the variables.

Problem is, there are still real curious things about the cameras and optics which definitely impact on the comparison, and we're the first to even acknowledge those issues.

It's going slowly because some things need to be film tested, and I don't have a budget for that right now. But we will keep working it through to a final conclusion.

Bill

I think it is far more likely that McLarin is slightly taller than Patty.

Patty is clearly not 7'4" tall, and clearly not 4'7" tall. They are both clearly within +10% of 6' tall, and obviously not less than 6' tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Because Patty is obviously close to the same size as McLarin, and not 4'7"

Patty is not 4'7" also, because the McLarin footage discounts any claims of Roger using a different lens size, if per Bill Munns' study, Roger had used a different lens, then Patty would be either 4.5' or 7.5' tall (approx). and the trees and other things line up fairly well with the Green Footage, so if a different lens size were used, then the trees would change in size as well, but they don't, so I think the Green/McLarin footage rules out any drastic change in the lens size.

One thing to note: Green used a 1" lens, Roger Patterson's lens was in mm. 1" works out to 25.4mm, does that mean that John Greens lens was .4mm different than Roger's lens? or was a 25mm lens also actually 25.4mm?

This slight difference could be why there are slight differences in the two films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If we knew exactly where their paths crossed, Giganto, wouldn't a comparison of their heights...at that point...be a valid height comparison? Would it matter what the distances were, to Roger's and John's cameras...if the foreground and background objects are all matching-up, perfectly...or, very close to it?

Hey Sweaty, what took you so long to sign up? Not enough abuse here? :D

Yes, the point where Patty and McClarin cross over is the best bet to compare their images. However, Green is always a bit farther back than Patterson so Patty's image must be scaled down a few % once the cross over point is established.

One other thing...in just about every Frame of the film, Patty's legs are bent, at some angle....they never seem to fully straighten.

So, in comparing Patty's and Jim's heights, we need to account for Patty's very bent posture. In this comparison, Patty, if fully straightened-up, would appear to be a few, to several, inches taller than Jim...

PattyJimWalkComp4C.jpg

These comparison images are too cropped to tell if they have been scaled to match the background. Then of course you will have to scale Patty's image down to synchronize the camera positions. But I agree that Patty's posture and compliant gait reduce her height more than McClarin's.

Here is an attempt to stand them both up after matching the camera positions and assuming they were the same distance from the camera at this point in the trackway (which might not be the case).

PatJim.gif

Here is what Patty would look like if McClarin wore the suit (for his legs to fit). This is providing their tibias (shins) were equally foreshortened (which might not be the case).

JimPatTibia.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Because Patty is obviously close to the same size as McLarin, and not 4'7"

Patty is not 4'7" also, because the McLarin footage discounts any claims of Roger using a different lens size, if per Bill Munns' study, Roger had used a different lens, then Patty would be either 4.5' or 7.5' tall (approx). and the trees and other things line up fairly well with the Green Footage, so if a different lens size were used, then the trees would change in size as well, but they don't, so I think the Green/McLarin footage rules out any drastic change in the lens size.

If we can establish the lens size and come to a general consensus on the length of Patty's various body parts, then we can map out the trackway and all the distances from the camera. We can already do that for McClarin if we assume Green used a 1" lens. But that's putting the cart before the horse. ;)

One thing to note: Green used a 1" lens, Roger Patterson's lens was in mm. 1" works out to 25.4mm, does that mean that John Greens lens was .4mm different than Roger's lens? or was a 25mm lens also actually 25.4mm?

Yes, the focal length for a 1" lens is 25.4mm

This slight difference could be why there are slight differences in the two films.

Yes, could be. I think I have a geometric solution for determining the distance from the camera on the 2nd reel casting footage, which is independent of the lens size. So if that footage was shot with the K-100 (which I believe it was) and we have a full size frame from that footage (which I think/hope we do) then we can match the distance to the photogrammetric solution to determine the lens used. I'll post the results after double-checking the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Drew,

I would not discount the 4'7" height due to the McLarin comparison yet. We don't know how close the paths were to each other. As an example, consider the "Roger Casting" image. The second footprint ID'd by GF looks to be just inches away from the first, when in fact it is 41" away as shown by the overhead. They could look very close on film and be fairly far apart in reality. I do think it is the same lens and that it is 25mm or 1", which puts Patty closer to 4' 7" if the distance is right. IMO if you take a person that stands 5'2" or 5'3" ( straight up like at a Dr.'s office) and position them with two bent knees, a long stride, bent at the waist and neck, you can get that height fairly easily. I still have questions regarding the 17 step comparison. If Patty is taking 41" steps as reported by P&G, how far off does McLarin have to be to "appear" to cover the same path in the same number of steps? For McLarin to be taking 41" steps, he would have to be stepping over half the height of his body. That doesn't appear to be the case. I intend to post more on this later, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Drew,

I would not discount the 4'7" height due to the McLarin comparison yet. We don't know how close the paths were to each other. As an example, consider the "Roger Casting" image. The second footprint ID'd by GF looks to be just inches away from the first, when in fact it is 41" away as shown by the overhead. They could look very close on film and be fairly far apart in reality. I do think it is the same lens and that it is 25mm or 1", which puts Patty closer to 4' 7" if the distance is right. IMO if you take a person that stands 5'2" or 5'3" ( straight up like at a Dr.'s office) and position them with two bent knees, a long stride, bent at the waist and neck, you can get that height fairly easily. I still have questions regarding the 17 step comparison. If Patty is taking 41" steps as reported by P&G, how far off does McLarin have to be to "appear" to cover the same path in the same number of steps? For McLarin to be taking 41" steps, he would have to be stepping over half the height of his body. That doesn't appear to be the case. I intend to post more on this later, thanks.

comncents, if Patty had/wore feet that were 14.5" long, then the foot ruler would have to be distorted over 25% to put Patty at 4'7". That "walking" height is based on frame 352 being shot with a 25mm lens at ~100ft from the camera. But why is this distance to the camera cast in stone? Green missed Patterson's position and McClarin missed Patty's trackway. IF Green used a 1" lens then that puts McClarin over 130 feet from the camera at the same spot as Patty in frame 352 of the PGF. Roger's boot prints were all over the place and it would have been nearly impossible to determine where he was standing at frame 352 without a re-enactment film. And even then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

GF,

Maybe Patty's feet didn't make the tracks and aren't 14.5" long....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maybe, but that would mean that Roger (in the Patty suit) had smaller costume feet and he wiped out the trackway and replaced them with 14.5" tracks spaced 41" apart. And did it convincingly. The costume feet would have left tracks with toe prints so they could not have been confused with all the other boot prints. They had to go. And they would have been very close to the faked trackway. Personally, I don't think that would have been easy to pull off. The overhead view of the 4 prints that Bill stitched together from the 2nd reel show no signs of this. And I doubt that Roger merely stamped over his tracks because I doubt he could take 41" steps.

If you believe a 25mm lens was used then isn't it more likely that the distance from Patty to the camera was underestimated rather than Roger was the guy in the suit? Apparently, Green and McClarin got the distance wrong.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Mulder:

The whole problem with the PGF/McClarin comparison is that up until now, nobody actually made a thorough appraisal of all the variables which influence the comparison.

So essentially every comparison so far, including parn's, is flawed by the lack of consideration of all variables.

That's where Gigantofooticus and I are trying to clear it up, between his efforts and expertise, and mine, because we are trying to factor all the variables.

Problem is, there are still real curious things about the cameras and optics which definitely impact on the comparison, and we're the first to even acknowledge those issues.

It's going slowly because some things need to be film tested, and I don't have a budget for that right now. But we will keep working it through to a final conclusion.

Bill

What equipment would be needed for these tests? I'm assuming you would need a K-100 and a couple of lenses, some film and a good location. Are these things still available? And are there more items to add to the list? Admittedly, I'm ignorant of much involved. But I would guess that the film would be the most difficult thing to acquire (and process).

I'm in for a few bucks if this sounds feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

GF:

" I just want accuracy. "

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

:)

Bill

GF und Bill,

Ve finally haf you on record about your nefarious agenda!

Vere da math goes, somzing waits for me

A grimacin' face, a hairy embrace, two long arms to hold me tenderly

Vere da math goes, my Patty true vill be

She's valkin' down some creek in da woods und I know she's lookin's dar for me

Mit apologies to Konnie Francis

Der Pteronarcyd

Marking 5 full days of this Parnassus rebuttal thread being ignored by Parnassus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Marking 5 full days of this Parnassus rebuttal thread being ignored by Parnassus.

It has not been truly ignored.

Just avoided..........here..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Spazmo:

"What equipment would be needed for these tests? I'm assuming you would need a K-100 and a couple of lenses, some film and a good location. Are these things still available? And are there more items to add to the list? Admittedly, I'm ignorant of much involved. But I would guess that the film would be the most difficult thing to acquire (and process).

I'm in for a few bucks if this sounds feasible. "

The cost is a bit more, actually.

One part of it is my going up to BC to see if I can check the specs of Green's camera, so that's travel costs.

There's filming tests with several cameras and film processing. I have some of the cameras, might need to borrow a few to check consistency. Needs a lens distortion board to study lens distortion on several 25mm lenses and others.

There's filming to retest a simulated McClarin walk, since there are some issues with it needing to be checked.

And I'd need to make a rig to callibrate my HD Video camcorder to 16mm lens specs so in setting up some experiments, I can Videotape the setups, immediately download them into my laptop, and compare with PGF/McClarin frames to make sure the filming setup matches. Can't do it on film alone, because there's no way to monitor the setup to insure all's correct, until film is processed and viewed days later. So the Video callibrated footage is the "instant quality check" of the experiment.

I'd estimate it's at least $2500 for this effort, to do right.

Costs are potentially recoverable, if there's an agreement with sponsors that any use of the footage of the experiments by any TV documentary program requires repayment of the sponsors as a licene fee.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Well, shoot.

I was hoping we could knock one of the zeroes off that estimate.

Something for the "back burner", maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Spazmo:

I keep trying to think of ways to economize on this effort, but every idea cuts the quality of the effort.

If somebody in BC could provide lodging and ground transportation for me for a few days, that would cut hotel and car rental costs. Then the trip is just plane fare.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...