Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy

[Bill]

RN:

"If one could find that Patty's face was moving (eye brows, lips) in a manner more sophisticated than just a hinged jaw,

would this ad more credibility to the film being genuine?"

Based on the image quality, I don't see how you could find conclusive eviidence the face was moving. Skeptics will always point to the grain discrepencies and motion blur as alternate explanations for any apparent facial motion. So let's hold this thought until somebody does actually prove such movement is occuring.

Bill

Edited May 2, 2008 by Bill

[Guest Remember November]

You got it brother.

I'm putting that thought on hold.

[wolftrax]

Bill,

This is the problem I have with the estimate given for the head profile.

One reason is that the head turns, and of course the head is peaked towards the back, so the head will change shape as it revolves when viewed and measured on a 2d plane.

The other reason is that in your line work over the images, what is being cut out are elements that are consistent in their placement on Patty's head. First is the shadowed region at the peak at the top/back of the head. Next is the shadowed region above the browridge. Finally is the lighter brown area on the forehead.

See attached where the shadowed regions at the peak and above the brow ridge are lined in red. The lighter brown forehead region is between these two areas.

[Bill]

Wolftrax:

Thanks for taking the time to offer your ideas about the estimated head profile.

A few of my considerations is making the outline choices I did make are as follows:

1. Bumps of dark color I thought might more likely be attributed to hair masses than actual head shape, and i was trying to outline the essential head shape moreso than the fur outline.

2. I wondered about motion blur making a fuzzy edge, and so deferred to caution thinking if I drew my line midway between a true solid head color and the true background color, that I might account for potential motion blur.

3. I did think about how, if a face is longer than it is wide, the face is longest in exact true profile (pointing on a 90 egree perpendicular to the camera view of it) and as the head turns around to face camera, that front back head length does forshorten somewhat. But the shortening is minimul in the first 5-10 degrees of turn rotation, and becomes more noticable during turns beyond 20 or 30 degrees. Given we can't even say with certainty which frames have exactly which degree of turn from a true profile, or how many degrees, the choice of frames was of those which seemed closest to the true profile based on watching the head turns through their entire turn sequence.

Suffice to say, all elements are estimations, with ample room for alternate estimations, such as the diagram you provided, derived from mine.

And I continue to welcome thoughts and opinions from others who may have ideas how we can refine this exercise in estimating head shape.

Bill

[wolftrax]

The problem with trying to guess what is hair and where the flesh lies beneath is that the film is blurry and is of low quality, and if you are building an average estimation based on guessing where flesh is, you are basically making it up as you go along, instead of working with what the film presents.

Which fames do you consider true profile?

Don't you find it odd that it appears Patty has a high nuchal crest?

[Bill]

Wolftrax:

"The problem with trying to guess what is hair and where the flesh lies beneath is that the film is blurry and is of low quality, and if you are building an average estimation based on guessing where flesh is, you are basically making it up as you go along, instead of working with what the film presents."

Well, I spent many years working at fabricating figures of animals for movies, theme park robotics and museum exhibit models. Many times, to make the sculpted body form that I put the hair on, I had to look at photos of the live animals and essentially guess how to subtract the hair to make the body manniken, like a taxidermy form, which the hair was then added to. I guess I got pretty good at it, because the finished figures, with hair added on, looked fairly real and well proportioned.

So my estimations did draw from that experience, 20 plus years of it, and a lot of it doing primates. So in that sense, the film does present a photographic source, as I have used before on othe primates, and multiple views, which helps, and the underlying body mass should conform to some known primate norms for great apes and hominids, which I extensively recreated.

And I twice won "Best in World Recreation" at the World Taxidermy Competitions for the work, suggesting others also found my work well dome with respect to anatomical realities of known animals.

Not sure if all that qualifies as "making it up as you go along", but I suppose that is one way to look at it.

"Which fames do you consider true profile?"

My thoughts are frames 339, 340, and 341 represent good profiles, mainly because I'd expect the full profile to be the longest, front to back, and they are.

"Don't you find it odd that it appears Patty has a high nuchal crest? "

Yes, I do. I wonder if it has any connection to the massive humped shoulders, but this aspect of skeletol anatomy isn't my strong suit.

Bill

[wolftrax]

Yes sir, I have always respected your work and qualifications and didn't mean any offense, it's just that with such a low quality film, and trying to guess at what is going on, there is no real control. It's filling in the blanks, much like the midtarsal break, and it being stated it is shown in the film. It's not shown in the film, the foot is hidden by the ground and we don't see the break, but yet take somebody who has knowledge of the break and they expect to see it there, and then it is assumed it is there instead of having evidence it is there. In this case, yes you have a vast knoweldge of primate anatomy, but we have such low quality of a film that you are applying that valid knowledge to something that may not be valid, like the position of the flesh and fur.

The nuchal crest being at such a high position is not supported by what we know of bipdeal hominids, and it has to do with the bipedal posture.

[Bill]

Wolftrax;

"but we have such low quality of a film that you are applying that valid knowledge to something that may not be valid, like the position of the flesh and fur."

Yes, I'll agree the low film quality is the weak link in the estimation. And it makes any estimation a mere option (among many options) and would not support any presumption the result was definitive or conclusive.

"The nuchal crest being at such a high position is not supported by what we know of bipdeal hominids, and it has to do with the bipedal posture. "

Now that you mention this, I believe you are correct, in that the nuchal crest is more pronounced on quadrepeds where the head thrusts forward, instead of bipeds where the head rests atop the spine. The head hanging hunched over forward and low might be a factor here (just a thought) to deviate from a classic bipedal model.

Bill

[georgerm]

Wolftrax;

"but we have such low quality of a film that you are applying that valid knowledge to something that may not be valid, like the position of the flesh and fur."

With present video technology, why can't the film be run through a digital video clarifier that averages the blur region then creates an accurate crystal clear video? This would clear up some of the questions being discussed.

[Guest longtabber PE]

With present video technology, why can't the film be run through a digital video clarifier that averages the blur region then creates an accurate crystal clear video? This would clear up some of the questions being discussed.

You basically answered your own question. Any attempt to clear it up would be "art" thus no possibility of accuracy

[Guest Crowlogic]

With present video technology, why can't the film be run through a digital video clarifier that averages the blur region then creates an accurate crystal clear video? This would clear up some of the questions being discussed.

My sentiments exactly! If nothing else it could give a better understanding of the way the subject moves.

[Guest]

You basically answered your own question. Any attempt to clear it up would be "art" thus no possibility of accuracy

False. Tell that to the astrophysicists who use sample averaging methods to resolve images, such as speckle interferometry.

There are many motion analysis tools for measuring frames of video or film that do not involve artistic license. Image averaging, image stacking, deconvolution and feature tracking comes to mind. LT, all your assessments of "accuracy" seem to involve single images and not frame analysis. They are different animals. If you are not familiar with these methods, then you can't make any claims regarding what is possible and what is "art". And I'm going to call you on it every time you do.

Bill, aside from background/foreground interaction, this is not necessarily as much an issue of film quality as Patty's dynamic head hair patterns. The head hair is definitely bouncing and flowing as she walks. In particular, there is a hair pattern that starts at the brow ridge and extends back over the ears like a visor. This hair pattern joins up with longer hair that accentuates the jaw line. IMO, Patty has a patch of grey hair at the base of the jaw. I also suspect the nuchal crest is exaggerated by longer hair flowing back over the top of the head. All this moving hair can give the illusion of an undulating head shape that is being attributed to the poor quality of the film. IMO, RP must have used plenty of artistry to come up with this hair pattern.

Another consideration for your placement of the Poser's head inside of Patty's is scale. Dealing strictly with the head ignores the scale of the rest of the body. Fitting a human head inside Patty's is problematic anyways, but once you attempt to line up the eyes while keeping the head enclosed in profile, the Poser's body gets grossly underscaled. This is a significant restriction and it's why WT is objecting to your analysis. Suit theorists need to have Patty's head big enough so it doesn't refute the suit theory. They claim that these contradictions are the result of film distortion, foreshortening effects, inaccuracy and misinterpretation. I don't suspect this will ever change.

I would suggest using as much of Patty's body as possible while containing the Poser's head in profile. This should help confirm or refute your scale and placement. And inclusion of the head hair in the profile distorts the shape and size of the head to some degree, otherwise, your prediction of the profile under the hair looks well within any objectionable tolerances to me.

[Bill]

Gigantofooticus:

"Another consideration for your placement of the Poser's head inside of Patty's is scale. Dealing strictly with the head ignores the scale of the rest of the body. Fitting a human head inside Patty's is problematic anyways, but once you attempt to line up the eyes while keeping the head enclosed in profile, the Poser's body gets grossly underscaled. "

Actually, the head scaling was derived from the full body scaling of human to Patty.

Below is one of the body scaling renders I used. Then the human figure was simply reposed so the human head was a clean true profile, while keeping the same scale to Patty's body. And so the head scaling diagrams are reasonably correct, in terms of a human head being put inside Patty's.

Bill

Just to doublecheck, I went back into the DAZ software where I render out the comparisons, got frame 339 as my background, and reposed the figure over it. Below is the full body compare render, plus a head crop, and my original head compare closeup on my "Chart One" Head Study (the human/Patty heads overlaid at the far upper right of the chart) to check proportions.

Seems to check out correctly.

So I think the head scale in all the charts (human compared to Patty) is a fair scaling.

Bill

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bill

[wolftrax]

Despite Gigantofooicus' attempts to once again polarize the discussion, he actually was productive in providing the gif that confirms where I was heading with this.

Though these images are low resolution, you can see that when this black area in the background passes behind Patty's head that it oulines the forehead, and shows that the cranium color wise is made of 3 parts. The mid-tone brown at the back, the dark shadowed area in the middle, and the highlighted light area on the forehead, pointed out here with a red arrow in each frame.

With this information, and finding this in the rest of the frames, we can see how much fuller Patty's cranium is.

Edited May 6, 2008 by wolftrax

[wolftrax]

Midtarsal break?