Jump to content
norseman

The Munns Report

Recommended Posts

Drew

From what you have seen, is it possible to get that much detail from images you are working with?

And can you post the frame or tell me if it is in the Munns report?

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

The Cibachromes are well published already, such as in Chris Murphy's books, and nothing I have is better then those.

I haven't put that frame in my Report yet because I haven't got anything far enough along to be conclusive in any way.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Drew:

The Cibachromes are well published already, such as in Chris Murphy's books, and nothing I have is better then those.

I haven't put that frame in my Report yet because I haven't got anything far enough along to be conclusive in any way.

Bill

Bill- The question I am asking, is have you placed your hi-res scan, side-by-side with the Cibachrome F61, and noticed that the foot detail is not on the Hi-Res image? Can you post a link to the hi-res scan, so we can see if the Cibachrome has added detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

FWIW, I believe Bill has repeatedly made clear that his rights to utilize the imagery from the PGF is directly related to his work/analysis and he cannot just pull random images and post up hi-res captures as requested.

Perhaps you should contact Mrs. Patterson directly Drew, and offer her some coin for use of the images, she owns it after all - I believe she would determine the value of the particular image you want - she might even license Bill to provide it to you.

It is not like you are asking to borrow a cup of sugar. The skeptics have essentially accused her late husband of being a thief, a liar and a hoaxer of the highest/lowest caliber, I see no reason why she should not profit from the use of the images her husband left her.

Edited by infoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

It would certainly call into question the Dahinden cibachromes if they were indeed tampered with.

The only frame I can find is from LMS

d0ba2e52.gif

However, the Cibachrome shows the foot like this:

c397f523.jpg

Perhaps Bill could shed some light on this by posting a link to the hi-res image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

I've already stated the resolution of the film scans is not as good as the Cibachrome prints. To do further analysis, one needs to go to Eric Dahinden, in BC, and work out a research project with his permission (and maybe some financial consideration to him) and do more research on the Cibachromes themselves, to understand the process by which they were made.

To just release scans without doing a proper analysis of the cibachrome process and print history is pointless, and would just fuel reckless speculation. So if I release anything on the topic, it will after I've done the proper research and can speak from some authorty on the subject, and without a research trip to study the material Mr. Dahinden holds, I can't do that as yet.

Any research topic has a protocol and steps necessary to accomplish some meaningful result. I'll take the time and try to do it right. So until I can contribute something meaningful to the cibachrome print images issue, that's all I can say.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

Your questions about the Cibachrome image as compared to film frame scans deserves a thorough explanation, for all reading the forum thread.

With any image we use for analysis, we must question if the medium itself imposes any alteration on an image which could affect our analysis. For example, films, over time, sometimes fade or color shift, so we may not necesarily use an old film image for precise color analysis, because we know the colors may be altered by the film's age.

With the Cibachromes, they exhibit a level of detail not seen in any other scan or image derived from the PGF source original. As such, given the size of the filmed subject as compared to generally stated film lines of resolution, we must consider if something about the Cibachrome is real detail or false detail.

False detail can be produced by the process, and isn't in any way suspicious, but it must be recognized, and analysis not based on it. The copying of the original to a high quality transparancy, and then a cibachrome paper print, may have introduced a false detail to the imagery. This issue needs to be studied further.

False detail can also be introduced by re-touching the film or print, and this (If shown to exist) is more suspicious. But so far, there's no "probable cause" to suspect re-touching. Still, the question linders and a proper analysis of the cibachromes should be done.

I recognize the issues and the ways to approach an analysis of the matter, but don't yet have the means to move the analysis further. So that's why I don't go into the issue of the cibachrome quality more thoroughly now. And that's why I don't provide images to be used for comparisons, because without the process of evaluating the cibachromes to determine if any of the above occurred, such comparisons are not valid, and I choose not to support invalid comparisons.

If anybody else wants to tackle the cibachrome detail issue, I welcome their effort. I don't know when I will get to it, because it entails a research trip to Canada. But I see no value in feeding a speculative effort which isn't set up to give us some expectation of a relaible result.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I see no value in feeding a speculative effort which isn't set up to give us some expectation of a reliable result.

+1 There's a lot of intelligence in that statement! I wish more people shared your sentiments, Bill. : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

False detail can be produced by the process, and isn't in any way suspicious, but it must be recognized, and analysis not based on it. The copying of the original to a high quality transparancy, and then a cibachrome paper print, may have introduced a false detail to the imagery. This issue needs to be studied further.

False detail can also be introduced by re-touching the film or print, and this (If shown to exist) is more suspicious. But so far, there's no "probable cause" to suspect re-touching. Still, the question linders and a proper analysis of the cibachromes should be done.

I recognize the issues and the ways to approach an analysis of the matter, but don't yet have the means to move the analysis further. So that's why I don't go into the issue of the cibachrome quality more thoroughly now. And that's why I don't provide images to be used for comparisons, because without the process of evaluating the cibachromes to determine if any of the above occurred, such comparisons are not valid, and I choose not to support invalid comparisons.

If anybody else wants to tackle the cibachrome detail issue, I welcome their effort. I don't know when I will get to it, because it entails a research trip to Canada. But I see no value in feeding a speculative effort which isn't set up to give us some expectation of a relaible result.

Bill

In all the Cibas I ever made (owner/operator of Photo Concepts in Los Alamitos, Ca. ,) not once did I transfer the original image to another transparency. The Ciba process uses the original transparency (here being 16mm in size) and directly projecting it onto the paper medium. I mentioned to Rene that a new process (at the time) of scanning a transparency with a laser scanner on to 4x5 negative film might produce some interesting information but that Cibas most likely would produce even more, but with adding some contrast. Copying a transparency to a bigger transparency muddles things with unwanted contrast. Copying a transparency to a larger negative looses detail, lessens contrast and then you would make a print from that using 1/2 the info present.

When I learned that Rene had given rights to Bruce Bonney to work with the film in L.A. he said he had to go down and get the film for him. To me this indicated that Bruce worked with the original film, which would definitely have more detail. Cibas made off it would be far superior to anything we could produce now with copies of the film. This is the best I can see of that frame and with what I do see I don't doubt the toes are much more detailed in the Ciba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

DDA:

There's a detailed description of Bonney making the cibachromes, somewhere in my note archives, and in it, the note describes the PGF prints were done on a 4x5" transparancy first, and that printed onto cibachrome paper for the print.

I've done a little darkroom work in my youth, but never worked with cibachrome materials. SO I can only rely on the descriptions I've read. I can't actually personally vouch for them being correct.

That's actually one of the goals I see in trying to clear up the cibachrome issue, is to see if Mr. Dahinden still holds the source materials used, so the print workflow could be documented with certainty.

This issue really does deserve more analysis, but any resolution seems to hinge on the full cooperation of Eric Dahinden, and the efforts of a person well versed in the print/copy technologies.

I would have expected the actual 16mm film original to be set up in an enlarger/printer and a reversal/type cibachrome print stock to be on the receiving end, as the best way. So I was thrown off by the description of a 4x5 transparancy as a first stage.

Thanks for your info. I know your photo background more than fully eclipses mine.

I would love to test a 16mm film frame printed directly to a Cibachrome print stock, and then a transparancy interpositive done to make a print, and compare both to a direct scan of the 16mm film, just to see if there's any process alteration we can study. One of many experiments I envision to try and clear up some of these issues with actual testing.

:)

Bill

added:

I went back and found that description. Apparently is was a description by Bonney himself, the way the notes read.

"In January 1980, I participated in the first program to produce high quality color photographs from the original Patterson-Gimlin film. The original 16mm Kodachrome II film was first enlarged and printed on 4x5 inch Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film 6121. These 4x5 inch color transparencies were then contact printed on Ilford Cibachrome A color print material, the sharpest color printing paper available. This printing sequence resulted in the sharpest and clearest color prints ever made of the best frames of the film, having the highest resolution and greatest color fidelity yet produced. For the first time, we have prints, which clearly show the creatures face, with eyes, nostrils, and lips.

The maximum limit of anatomical resolution in the three sharpest Cibachrome prints is about one centimeter, meaning that details of the creatures body larger than one square centimeter in area are visible in the prints and are capable of basic identification. So, if the Sasquatch Mama creature is carrying a baby in the film, then the baby must be smaller than one cubic centimeter in volume, smaller than a marble or grape, because it is not visible in the Cibachrome prints. "

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Odd that he would go through that method. The internegative (to transparency) process looses resolution. He would have known that I am sure. It would also have blocked up the whites and deepened all the shadows, unless he did do the laser scan. I think Rene would have said so though. The laser scanning was only done at Laser Labs in Florida at the time. Probably would have taken a month for them to do that down there. I had several 35mm space shuttle slides made into 4x5 negatives but never into slides. Seem to remember Laser Labs saying the process could only go from transparency to negative, not transparency to transparency, but I could be wrong.

So now I wonder if Bruce had the inter-transparencies made at a lab and he did the Cibachromes on Ilfords consumers machine himself. He might not have had the ability to project the 16mm. He was a photographer though and should have had the means or opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

DDA-

In your scan above, don't the 'toes' look like they are really part of a branch?

The toes on the Cibachromes look as though they are toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In the still yes, but with other frames include,\d, not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I am comparing the 'Perfectfoot' image that you posted

post-85-041494100%201294116827_thumb.jpg

and putting it next to 'Blockfoot'

4381cc67.jpg

Perfectfoot, actually, has no toes, and looks like Blockfoot.

It looks like a branch or some debris is causing some paradolia, combined with some enhancements in the Cibachrome.

Here is another Blockfoot, the right foot, and I think it is from a Cibachrome, no toes visible

d2e081a5.jpg

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am comparing the 'Perfectfoot' image that you posted

and putting it next to 'Blockfoot'

Perfectfoot, actually, has no toes, and looks like Blockfoot.

It looks like a branch or some debris is causing some paradolia, combined with some enhancements in the Cibachrome.

Here is another Blockfoot, the right foot, and I think it is from a Cibachrome, no toes visible

Naw, the toes are there. Here's a comparison between frames 61 & 72. I scaled frame 61 as though those weren't toes. The lines in both frames are of equal length so their bodies should be the same size. But it clearly isn't. If you short-change 1 measurement by as little as 2 inches (length of the toes), the % difference in body size is quite apparent. Patty is obviously overscaled in frame 61 unless we account for the toes. If we do, then it's a perfectfoot/blockfoot match. The toes could have been "enhanced" on the Cibachromes, but they ain't pareidolia.

61NT_72.png

We can see toes on perfectfoot because the tilt of the foot kept part of the metatarsals in shadow which helped define them. It was also fortunate that there was minimal motion blur of the foot at that point in the stride. On the other hand, frame 72 shows the foot over-exposed in full sun. You need shadows to expose any foot detail, which frame 61 has.

So if we accept the foot had toes, then it should be straightforward to compare Patty's feet to a Morris gorilla suit circa 1967. If they don't match, then where did Roger get the feet..with toes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...