Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy

[Bill]

Drew:

"Bill- do you have a running total of your margin of error estimates ? "

So far, just two margins, although I'm looking at ways to determine more.

Margin for error if viewing camera is about 100' as compared to viewing at 130' (proportional to a 6' tall subject), body pose discrepancies is 0.1% (one pixel difference for a figure rendered at 1000 pixels high), which translates to about 1/16th of a inch discrepancy.

Margin for error if viewing the subject at eye level of the subject, as compared to viewing the subject at subject's foot level (assumes viewing slightly uphill on a rise of 6' over 130 feet distance), the body proportions change position by 3 pixels over a rendered height of 1200 pixels, for a 0.25% range of discrepancy, about 3/16th of an inch for a 6' tall subject.

Both margins are well below the resolving power of the original film. Diagrams illustrating the methodology are also being prepared, so others can see the process and duplicate the experiemnt if they like.

I do hope to establish more margins and the methodology for their calculations. This is being worked through now.

Bill

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Except that the "padding" flexes and contracts through the hair. Any creature so closely related to homosapiens would have very similar dimensions to us. A suit would not replicate this muscular movement. Get me a suit on film that shows muscle flex & bone protrusion through the skin and hair and maybe I'll listen. There is no such suit (right?). Certainly not in 1967? (Seriously?) Even today in 2008? I can accept similar skeletal dimentions....but after that you might have me at a loss for an explanation. Best Regards-Sasquatcher

Edited September 12, 2008 by Sasquatcher

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Not in 1967.

[Guest BJohnson]

One thing to consider.

If you consider the 'needs' of a particular costume based on the 'script' of what the creature was going to be required to do, in effect they had a choice.

1. Create a $400 suit and not have the creature do more than walk away, maybe omit any 'look backs' or do them while partially covered by foliage, and from a slightly further distance away.

-or-

2. Create a $250,000 suit needed to do a complex and fairly close up walk and 'look back' which would reveal the all of the back and most of the front of the suit (meaning you couldn't have obvious front zippers).

IOW, you could get 95% of the 'effect' using a much cheaper suit with a less ambitious 'script'. Why bother to do that? Also, how would you know that there's be computer analysis and image enhancement in the future?

I guess my point is they somehow seemed to create a much more 'robust' sighting than was needed to get a credible film that would sell just as well in the end. Extend the distance by 20 feet, and add in a few bushes and there'd be no need for arm extensions and expensive flexible fur, or facial appliances needed to allow enough 'vision' to accommodate the ability to look back and not trip over a rock.

Yet, it appears they did that, or...it's a real creature.

BTW, great postings, Bill!!

[Guest MisterZelay]

Most "Imaginary" creature designing even the oddest and most unique derive from anatomy of some sort whether it be human or animal..in the end its a mix and match combination of the two and an understanding of how the bones, joints, muscles and overall biology of a being or creature works that counts. Starting with basic animal anatomy such as a quadruped mammal will teach you about how a real animals system works in order to achieve a believable "imaginary" animal/creature.

I myself could use a brush up and some help on a bone for bone break down of existing animals to further help my understanding of concept design in this area..we all could. So make sure you guys really read up on what was posted and even do your own research on these areas. Animal biology is complex, the skeletal system is complex enough in its own right let alone the muscles, nervous system and huge array of variation in anatomical structure from one animal to the next. Just think of it in terms as a huge library and source reference, something you should soak in for later on.

Moai, unless the images youre sending are confidential or work youve done..perhaps you should post links here to keep on hand. Assuming they are photos and not artwork. A list of photo links could be useful.

[indiefoot]

I'm not up on anatomy, but I've thought that Patty's leg looked as if it had all the right parts showing in the right places. I've pin-pointed what looks to me like hamstring tendons that are in the right place. There are also very large calf muscles. If I'm mistaken maybe someone with more expertise can explain.

[BobZenor]

I was thinking about that picture when I commented the other day in another thread about her seeming to be proportionately built for a larger creature. Those are some huge ankles and thighs. Just to expand on that a bit since we have that illustration and an appropriate thread. My brother explained this probably better than I could in an old thread. Basically a larger animal needs proportionately larger bones including the ankle. The stress on the ankles would increase relatively for a larger animal so it would need larger ankles beyond just being a bigger animal.

That is so huge that a side by side isn't even necessary. The normal pant leg effect of most costumes or skinny legs from someone that rides horses all day isn't at all apparent. Those are the legs of a power lifter and even then I have my doubts that any human alive would match that. It is beyond the call of a normal suit maker to anticipate the need for larger ankles.

Edited July 11, 2010 by BobZenor

[wiiawiwb]

First of all, there's no way any technology existed in 1967 to create that effect in a suit. Second, as Bob noted, the ankle and calf muscle, are huge. In order for Patty to be a hoax, it must have been a man with hair affixed upon him, rather than wearing suit, because NO suit back then would have produced that resulting muscle size and definition.

Do those who really believe it was Bob H. traipsing around the sand bar honestly think that slenderly-built guy had a calf muscle like that?

[Guest]

Quit using logic! You'll ruin PGF for everyone!

*in case nobody caught it I'm being sarcastic.

[indiefoot]

I was particularly taken by what appear to be the taught hamstring tendons. That would be appropriate since the figure is bearing all of it's weight and pushing forward on a single bent knee. I wonder if the same thing is visible in other frames that are on their way from Bill M.

[Guest Apeman]

What you're seeing as the lateral tendon is too medial (and too vertical) to be the hamstring tendon so it must be something else. Nice observation and thought though. :thumbsdown:

[indiefoot]

Thanks Apeman, I always appreciate your expertise and your willingness to share it.

How about this, two scenarios.

A. It's a mime in a suit..... What might the two lines that are lighter than the surrounding surface be?

B. It's an animal..... Same question.

[Guest Wheellug]

Are you looking just above the heel? I see a dark V shape. The lighter area would be the achillies tendon in the center of the V.

(ah.. nevermind.. I realized you were talking about behind the knee.. still going to post this though)

[Guest parnassus]

This mass on the back of the leg never relaxes and contracts like a muscle, like the subject in your illustration. It just sits there like a wad of cotton, and it isn't shaped right either, and can't see any Achilles tendon, though, like most issues with the subject of the PGF, the resolution just isn't good enough to say much one way of the other. The ankle area doesn't have that hourglass tapered area which is present in humans just above the ankle bone. (Of course the ankle hourglass can't be seen if you're wearing boots or pants.) That hourglass is there because there is no muscle there right above the ankle bone, just tendons and bone. The subject also seems to have an extra "donut" bulge there. I'd say it looks like some kind of padded and footed costume, with the lower pants/feet hiding the the ankle hourglass. These donut bulges are also present on the arms. Bill Munns was right about one thing: there wasn't any four way stretch spandex around in 1967. This costume isn't made of spandex, and nobody says it was. When you have a costume that isn't skin tight, isn't exactly the right length everywhere, and can't stretch and contract with movement, bulges appear. So some of the bulges are fabric, and some of the bulges appear to be fake muscles. The consensus of Hollywood suitmakers was that this was a guy in a suit.

[Guest Wheellug]

Okay.. :thumbsdown: