Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 4 - Extra Hands

Recommended Posts

Bill

Rogerkni:

"I'm just getting into these threads, and I have no costume expertise, but a glance at the Poser figure at the end of Part 6 seems to indicate that its hand can fit within Patty's wrist. Couldn't the fur above the wrist have been fluffed up, and the fur on the wrist have been tailored and cut "just so," to give the appearance of a natural taper of the forearm, and yet allow a hand to be placed just above the wrist? (I guess it would be a tight fit though.) I'm probably wrong, but I'd like a little more refutation."

The hand can be "folded inward" to minimize the width of the palm, but it ceases to be functional for manipulating the extended mechanical fingers of a hand/arm extension. Generally, arm extensions do try to have some animation capability in the extended artificial hand, and use the real hand to actuate the motions of the artificial hand. When the real hand is posed so it can operate a mechanism to move extended artificial fingers, the real hand tends to be open to it's widest form, and the mechanism the real hand operates adds bulk as well. So while the "folded inward " hand posture is theoretically possible, it's uselessness in assisting in any artificial hand motion usually disqualifies it from being the design of choice. Most arm extensions do want artificial hand motion, and the natural hand shape wider is the more common result, harder to hide as you described above. Most "cheats" with a real hand in the wrist of a fake arm extension also make the extended hands bigger, so the wrist seems small by comparison.

A "cheat" in shape caused by the fur fluffed up in one area, and smoothed down in another, to hide a bulge in the underlying structure, isn't the most reliable way to pull off the illusion, because any brushing of the fur of the arm against the body or other object can mess up the fluffed hair effect, and easily spoil the illusion. Moisture matting down fur can also spoil the illusion.

"Incidentally, regarding the Poser figure. I hope when the next version of that software comes out users will be given the option to select a heftier model. The one shown looks to be about 165 (?) pounds if it were six feet tall. Six-foot-one Heironimus has said he weighed a minimum of 190 pounds at age 26. (He said 190 on one occasion and 190-200 on another.) Presumably any Patty-mime would be as bulky as possible. So ideally there would be a 250-pound Poser figure to work with too. And a 350-pounder!"

On the Poser figure I used in the Part 6 "Comparative Anatomy" notes, the point of those comparisions was to try and locate body joints and position of extremities, essentially, and in that regard, the bulk of the person wasn't a determining factor. But if a study were to be done specifically trying to evaluate the bulk of a mime inside a theorized suit as compared, for example, to the amount of padding necessary and where such padding may be needed, then, yes, the Poser figure should be bulked up to appear as a man of more weight.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg

Bill:

....The hand can be "folded inward" to minimize the width of the palm, but it ceases to be functional for manipulating the extended mechanical fingers of a hand/arm extension....

There is no clear indication in the film that the fingers are functional ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic
Bill:

There is no clear indication in the film that the fingers are functional ..

There's no clear indication in the film that the fingers are not functional either. The little dummy hand gif that shows up from time to time where the hand turns and supposedly produces the illousion of finger movement is hardly convincing. IMO the hand moving or not is extremly big and not a function of camera distortion and blurr since some of the sequence I'm speaking of occurs at the apex of the arm swing when movement blurr would be minimal.

Edited by Crow Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights

In April 2007, in the thread "Bending Fingers Redux," Morgoth posted:

"Also relevant is Brian Penikas' statements about the PGF film in his email to me a few weeks ago. He is probably Hollywoods's current leading expert on ape costumes, and he has definitely given this film some thought and attention. Here is the relevant part of his email about the PGF:"

Having built many a creature suit over the space of 25 years, including the Bigfoot suit seen in "Nabisco", "Carlsburg Beer", "Taco Bell" tv commercials and the "SCARE TACTICS" and other tv shows, I can say there are tell-tale signs that give away a man in a suit. The main tell-tale sign is the shortening of the upper arm.

When we build suits on performers, much of the time the chest and shoulders are bulked up when we embellish the creature's anatomy, whatever that creature may be. This shortens the upper arm because now the actor's arm is sticking out through a hole in the suit's bulked up torso. We can make arm extensions that lengthen the forearm/wrists/ hands, but that does not change the location of the suit performer's own shoulder to elbow ratio. So most of the time, you can tell a suit by the shortened upper arm, no matter how well made the suit is. The Patterson footage does NOT have that shortened upper arm, which creeps me out!!! Could it be the real deal?

Care to comment, Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights

The quote is ambiguous. The key sentence reads:

"We can make arm extensions that lengthen the forearm/wrists/ hands, but that does not change the location of the suit performer's own shoulder to elbow ratio."

I interpret the phrase "but that does not change" to mean that the upper arm looks short in comparison to the rest of the body--because the forearm extensions didn't affect it. But Morgoth (or someone) should contact Penikas and get him to be more specific about what he intended to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg

Later..

Edited by Skeptical Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Rogerkni:

"The quote is ambiguous. The key sentence reads:

"We can make arm extensions that lengthen the forearm/wrists/ hands, but that does not change the location of the suit performer's own shoulder to elbow ratio."

I interpret the phrase "but that does not change" to mean that the upper arm looks short in comparison to the rest of the body--because the forearm extensions didn't affect it. But Morgoth (or someone) should contact Penikas and get him to be more specific about what he intended to say. "

I believe in my original notes starting this thread, I mentioned that one of the more obvious indications of arm extensions are the fact that the upper arm (shoulder to elbow) is not lengthened, while the lower arm (elbow to hand) is lengthened considerably, and once the elbow bends, that altered ratio (short upper arm, longer lower arm) is quite conspicuous. And shifting the apparent elbow bend is not easy or generally successful, so it is rarely attempted.

In my review of the PG Film, I don't see anything which appears to me as a traditional creature suit arm extension effect. And based on my Notes, part 6, on comparative anatomy, I tend to believe if the figure is a man in a suit, the man has an unusually long armspan (uncommon but not impossible, based on other people's contributions of NBA studies of men's armspan to height ratios).

Additionally, displacing the human shoulder significantly from the apparent suit shoulder is a "cheat" which tends to reveal itself if the mime inside swings the arms significantly in any direction other than just hanging down, so when shoulders are displaced in a suit, the mime tends to keep the upper arms going downward, and does most arm action from the elbow more than the shoulder. But in the PG Film, the amount of shoulder action with the arms swinging forward and back, suggests to me that the skeletol shoulder affecting the arm movement is in fact reasonably correct in it's position relative to the skin/fur surface.

That would be my appraisal.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Everytime I compare Patty to Bob H Bob's arms seem too short. Even in the Morris suit recreation Bob arms still look too short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Crow:

"Everytime I compare Patty to Bob H Bob's arms seem too short. Even in the Morris suit recreation Bob arms still look too short. "

I agree. So if it is a guy in a suit, It's not Bob H. in my opinion.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Viewing the film in motion and unzoomed seems to enhance the longness of the arms. Strikes me as being on the ragged edge of human range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg
Everytime I compare Patty to Bob H Bob's arms seem too short. Even in the Morris suit recreation Bob arms still look too short.

Seem too short ?

How much shorter ? Two, three, six inches ?

How about an actual comparative analysis ?

I don't see anything that couldn't be accomplished with some rubber gorilla hands, in which the the wearer's

finger tips extend to the palm of the glove ..

rubhand.gif

For the amount of detail that's visible, they could just as well be welders gloves ..

ESABBlackWeldingGloves.jpg

What can you show from the film that indicates otherwise ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Any link (BFF area) of the Munns report addressing the feet?  I assume any suit would have some sort of Rubber Foot or slip on foot to consider.  I know there are footprints/feet areas in the general PGF forums of the BFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×