Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy


Recommended Posts

Guest soarwing

I'm about 6' 2"

I've got a 14.5" plank attached to my foot. If the filmed subject left the 14.5" prints, then she probably was about 6 feet tall +/- a couple inches.

Edited by soarwing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE

What this does ( based on the range derived from everyones approximations) puts the film subject well within the realm of human duplicatibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killain

Soarwing: Now I'm pissed off!!!!

When you had those bigfoots walking in your back yard...why didn't you pluck a few hairs?

Yes, it puts bigfoot well within the realm of human duplicity.

It also calls into question 99% of the personal experiences people have when they report the relative size they estimate the creatures to be. Looking at frame 72 in itself, one gets the impression of immensity, based on bulk and dimensions.

But if you look at a normal 6' man, you don't normally see 14.5 inch feet flapping through the underbrush either. I would expect someone with a significant amount of experience could walk over rough terrain with a reasonable gait and maybe even do so with fluidity and grace while not looking at their feet during a significant portion of the event. I'm still waiting for someone to recreate this effect, rather than just speculate as to how it could have been done.

Killain

Edited by Killain
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest soarwing
What this does ( based on the range derived from everyones approximations) puts the film subject well within the realm of human duplicatibility.

- - -

Absolutely and unquestionably within human range.

Soarwing: Now I'm pissed off!!!!

When you had those bigfoots walking in your back yard...why didn't you pluck a few hairs?

Yes, it puts bigfoot well within the realm of human duplicity.

It also calls into question 99% of the personal experiences people have when they report the relative size they estimate the creatures to be. Looking at frame 72 in itself, one gets the impression of immensity, based on bulk and dimensions.

But if you look at a normal 6' man, you don't normally see 14.5 inch feet flapping through the underbrush either. I would expect someone with a significant amount of experience could walk over rough terrain with a reasonable gait and maybe even do so with fluidity and grace while not looking at their feet during a significant portion of the event. I'm still waiting for someone to recreate this effect, rather than just speculate as to how it could have been done.

Killain

- - -

Sorry man....

I had been drinking vodka when I saw the beast and never thought to collect hairs or even say hello. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Soarwing's pics are about the best I've seen in putting a human being inside the outline of the PGF creature. More than ever now a suit can't be ruled out. What I find especially revealing is the way the board attached to the Soarwing's foot duplicates the so called extended heel of the PGF creature. This makes great sense as extending a foot completely to the front would look completley fake. Also Patty's foot does indeed look more like slab of wood or rubber than it does a flesh and blood object. That "paddle foot" frame has bothered me from the first time I saw it. IMO its the most telling element of the creature that points to a hoax.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
I would expect someone with a significant amount of experience could walk over rough terrain with a reasonable gait and maybe even do so with fluidity and grace while not looking at their feet during a significant portion of the event. I'm still waiting for someone to recreate this effect, rather than just speculate as to how it could have been done.

Killain

Heres more "sauce for the goose"

The majority of the recreations were done from the perspective that the PGF subject was 7' or taller. ( to include gait etc)

With all that scaled down to the upper 5' to lower 6' range- that gait perception is scaled as well.

So now maybe the focus should be in building a well fitting suit at 6' with a human around 5.8 in it and see if the ranges match

ETA- one other point- using the 14.5 foot for scale in CAD ( derived from the feet being held)- theres no guarantee or way to verify that the film subject's feet are in fact 14.5- they could in fact be another "false foot" attached to normal footwear and shorter.

Edited by longtabber PE
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is related but it is a well known aspect of filming people that the subject will typically say that the picture makes them look fat, and I'd heard that is a result of aspherical distortions in lenses, and not simple a matter of illusion. Is it possible that lens systems designed with the aspect ratio we commonly use with the horizontal dimension being the larger, might not distort the image so that it infact does measure a percentage point or two on the short side?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The measurements you mention are certainly rare. It would be interesting to know statistically, what perentage of people may have such an extended arm span ratio.

Hi Bill, first time I've directly responded to anything you've written, but a belated welcome to the board anyway.

For years my wife told me I had the broadest shoulders she'd ever seen on anyone of comparable height. (I'm 6' tall, 21.5" wide shoulders), and this recent mention of arm length inspired me to see how my own arm span compared to my height.

I used a standard metal measuring tape, one end held against the corner of the wall in front of the hall closet. Another daughter held the other end of the measuring tape, as I stretched my arms (fingertips of left hand touching the corner of the wall) while standing in front of hall closet. Since the fingertips of my right hand stuck out beyond the edge of the closet, the daughter holding that end of the measuring tape read off the applicable measurement, in addition to holding fast to the measuring tape at that exact point. The tape was not wrapped or laid against my back, merely stretched straight along the front of the hall closet.

My arms. from fingertip-to-fingertip, measured 6' 4.75" in relation to my 6' height.

That led me to dig up some previously posted info about shoulder widths. It's been suggested that the subject in the PGF has chest/shoulder measurements that are beyond the range of humans. Estimates have been made of the subject's shoulders, but no precise measurement is possible. Distance from the subject to the person with the camera has been given as 90' or greater.

Grover Krantz came up with a few estimates for shoulder width, 29.1", 28.5", 27" (page 106, Big Footprints), and 28.2" (pages 108 and 118, Big Footprints). None have been verified, but I remain unconvinced they are beyond the range of an appropriate human wearing padding.

My own experiment with two 13 and 3 eighth inch chessboards placed edge-to-edge, show how I measured nearly 27" without resorting to suits or padding of any type. In this photo I am standing approximately 10' from the camera, and have the chessboards pressed directly against my chest. There is no trickery or illusion involved.

26point75inches.JPG

Krantz also states:

"At 28.2 inches, these shoulders are 36.2% of the subject's full standing height, or 35.1% allowing for hair thickness at shoulders and head. My own 19.5-inch shoulders are only 26% of my 75-inch standing height--and I am rather broadly built for a man of my size. Human shoulders can be as much as 30% of stature, or even a bit more, but only in rather short men of extreme lateral build, like Eskimos. Most human shoulder breadths are about 25% of stature, or a little less." (page 108, Big Footprints)

My bare shoulders actually measure 21.5" and my height is 72", which works out to 29.86%. I am neither Eskimo, nor am I rather short. As shown in my experiment, my bare shoulders can appear to be almost 26" wide, which equates to 36.11% of my standing height, or very close to the 36.2% Krantz calculated for the film subject, and that's from only 10 feet.

If I can be built that broadly, isn't it possible for other, taller individuals to have similar broad builds, negating Krantz's claim that: "I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly". (page 118, Big Footprints)?

RayG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
I'm not sure if this is related but it is a well known aspect of filming people that the subject will typically say that the picture makes them look fat, and I'd heard that is a result of aspherical distortions in lenses, and not simple a matter of illusion. Is it possible that lens systems designed with the aspect ratio we commonly use with the horizontal dimension being the larger, might not distort the image so that it infact does measure a percentage point or two on the short side?

you are spot on- not only horizontal but vertical as well ( thus the "objectivity- ie aspect ratio of a lense) then the angles/distances from the lens and then add the flatness ( plane) of a film and you have it- the object will normally be distorted to the larger size ( thus fatter)

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Hi Bill, first time I've directly responded to anything you've written, but a belated welcome to the board anyway.

For years my wife told me I had the broadest shoulders she'd ever seen on anyone of comparable height. (I'm 6' tall, 21.5" wide shoulders), and this recent mention of arm length inspired me to see how my own arm span compared to my height.My bare shoulders actually measure 21.5" and my height is 72", which works out to 29.86%. I am neither Eskimo, nor am I rather short. As shown in my experiment, my bare shoulders can appear to be almost 26" wide, which equates to 36.11% of my standing height, or very close to the 36.2% Krantz calculated for the film subject, and that's from only 10 feet.

If I can be built that broadly, isn't it possible for other, taller individuals to have similar broad builds, negating Krantz's claim that: "I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly". (page 118, Big Footprints)?

RayG

Don't need cad to figure out that humans shown to be within those parameters could certainly explain the breadth in size of the PGF subject. Now back to "who",

"why", "what" is Patty really made of. Seems to be difficult to scale the PGF film without external referents. Would have been alot easier if one of the horses had run by Patty and she mounted up and rode off into the sunset.

Edited by bipedalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are going to probably find the actual size of the film subject is substantially smaller than 6-6.1 and this also can have an affect on the aspect ratios of the arms to trunk and maybe the ratio of leg. I cant give an accurate "guestimate" but based on my experience- you are looking at a film subject somewhere between 5-8 and 5-10.

I'll give you the short laymans version but as one CAD operator to another- if you want the techno version, we can take it offline to assist you in your further analysis.

The problem is between plane geometry versus Cartesian geometry. A picture is a plane geometry image of a 3 D object ( unless you are using multiple camersa, stereoscoped images etc- but thats not the case here)

Its no different than a map ( and everyone who has ever been in the military had this beat into them in map reading) which is a flat representation of an elliptical globe ( the earth) so there must be a GM angle ( the aspect ratio of distortion) to convert the compass readings ( the cartesian geometry) to be used on the map ( and vice versa)

This image distortion almost always distorts the 3 d image to the Long side with the exception of object at an angle to the lense which depending on their orientation can also shorten them because the plane image cannot account for "depth" in an included angle.

The only way to get a bullet proof dimensioning of the film subject would be to have known reference points ( linear) from lens to post subject ( 2 will do, 3 is better and 4 is wonderful)- then you have to know the subjects exact positioning between these coordinates- develop the X,Y and Z axes. This is tooling geometry and R&D 3D modeling 101.

Without those knowns- all else is guesswork ( good approximations- but still with a large range)

I've never done a GD&T analysis of the film ( only because I never thought about it and in reality, it cannot be done because of the lack of true coordinates) but after seeing your scaling- I have to say that you have done as good and professional a job as can be done and I'm impressed by it.

So, if you are doing a 1 D analysis and coming up with 6-6.1- then accounting for plane distortion ( which there isnt a standard equation because there are too many varibles) then the actual film subject is going to be somewhere ( estimated) 3-5% smaller in reality.

I knew I was in trouble with that statement. I was going to revise it, but too late. :) I understand what you're saying about the two geometries involved, but feel that since the photo is taken at about 100' from the subject that there would be minimal effect. Also the differences in plane (plane of the scaling foot and plane of other measuring points is very small as a percentage of the total distance from the lens. Frame 72 is about as ideal as you can get in the PGF since all planes involved are within inches of the scaling plane (the vertical left foot). If the vertical left foot is at 100' from the lens and other points are within inches, say 100'-6", as a percentage of the total distance, it is very small. I didn't intend to make precise measurements....as you state that is impossible......too many unknowns and variables. I have tried to address the variations of differing angles to the plane and have even shown how that can vary with different angles.

One thing that bothered me and now I'm clear about is the problem of aspect ratio. I wondered what the effect would be if that had been changed somewhere along the line. I purposely skewed the aspect ratio in the example below. My findings are that it makes no difference when the vertical scaling plane is involved since all vertical points are displaced proportionately. Notice that the vertical left foot is scaled to measure 14.5" and the overall height is still 64.5". Of course any measurements angled or horizontal would be skewed accordingly.

I also believe Patty is somewhat shorter, but for different reasons as stated in my post #36.

My best guess is that Patty is really close to 6'0", but went with the only physical measurement available of 14.5". Anything else is conjecture.

I was in the service, but the navigator took care of all the "map" reading. I was just along for the ride. :bonk:

Bottom line: Patty is not 9', 8', 7' or even 6'-6" (Loren Coleman in Wierd Travels). She is much closer to 6' and probably within an inch or two.

Edited by Jack
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
One thing that bothered me and now I'm clear about is the problem of aspect ratio. I wondered what the effect would be if that had been changed somewhere along the line. I purposely skewed the aspect ratio in the example below. My findings are that it makes no difference when the vertical scaling plane is involved since all vertical points are displaced proportionately. Notice that the vertical left foot is scaled to measure 14.5" and the overall height is still 64.5". Of course any measurements angled or horizontal would be skewed accordingly.

Bottom line: Patty is not 9', 8', 7' or even 6'-6" (Loren Coleman in Wierd Travels). She is much closer to 6' and probably within an inch or two.

I'll explain the aspect ratio and if you will indulge me- I'll go into deeper detail than you and the other CAD types need for the benefit of the readers who arent cad operators or draftsmen.

preamble

H & V are part of a 1 D drawing ( read any blueprint- thats what you see a drawing referenced to a X and Y axis)

When a drawing is scaled ( in a program such as solidworks,AutoCAD, TurboCAD etc and said drawing has all rasters and vectors in place) When you set a dimension- all parts of that drawing adjust to that dimension ( thus the "aspect ratio" the relative mutuality of the percentage of X and Y) ( or for people who do pictures- when you stretch at a corner- the picture grows/shrinks uniformly)

Thats accurate when you are dealing with plane geometry ( 1 D flat "thing")

This film is a 3D object placed on a flat surface ( this making it different from say a cartoon or clipart)

It has already been "distorted" just by the action of filming it ( twice actually) first from the lens and them from the film itself. ( thus why filming techniques such as panavision exist)

OK

The Z axis ( now we have gone from a square to a cube) allows for 3D ( any angle dimensioning)

Patty is walking at an angle ( looks like an arc actually) from the fixed location ( lens) and in doing so- she is twisting

( Imagine this- you are 90° in respect to a camera with your arm bent with lower arm forward)

you twist away from the camera- your arm appears "shorter" in 1 D because the fingers are further away from the lens than the elbow- 3D allows for that- 1 D cannot see "depth" or compensate for it.

So, in this film, we have all of that.

I didnt do a good job of breaking that down in laymans english but maybe I did good enough

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are going to probably find the actual size of the film subject is substantially smaller than 6-6.1 and this also can have an affect on the aspect ratios of the arms to trunk and maybe the ratio of leg. I cant give an accurate "guestimate" but based on my experience- you are looking at a film subject somewhere between 5-8 and 5-10.

Why?

The problem is between plane geometry versus Cartesian geometry. A picture is a plane geometry image of a 3 D object ( unless you are using multiple camersa, stereoscoped images etc- but thats not the case here)

Unless the object in the photo is too close to the camera, the projection (3D->2D) doesn't distort the image. The problem is to restore the Z component from a 2D image.

Its no different than a map ( and everyone who has ever been in the military had this beat into them in map reading) which is a flat representation of an elliptical globe ( the earth) so there must be a GM angle ( the aspect ratio of distortion) to convert the compass readings ( the cartesian geometry) to be used on the map ( and vice versa)

The curvature of the earth only comes into play at smaller scales, typically 1:5000 or smaller from an overhead POV. We wouldn't actually have to ortho-rectify Patty's image. The exercise here would be to account for the foreshortening effects due to orientation of a 3D object projected on film and the distance from the camera.

This image distortion almost always distorts the 3 d image to the Long side with the exception of object at an angle to the lense which depending on their orientation can also shorten them because the plane image cannot account for "depth" in an included angle.

Foreshortening effects?

The only way to get a bullet proof dimensioning of the film subject would be to have known reference points ( linear) from lens to post subject ( 2 will do, 3 is better and 4 is wonderful)- then you have to know the subjects exact positioning between these coordinates- develop the X,Y and Z axes. This is tooling geometry and R&D 3D modeling 101.

This is called mono-restitution. Restoring the Z component on a 2D ortho-image. The method you describe uses 3 or more control points and space resection to rectify the image. This removes the tilt displacement of the camera, but you still require distances from the camera and the relief of the object to restore the Z component. All this does is correct for the distortion caused by the projection (ortho-rectification). But it's not a good approach for "flattening" out Patty's image since we don't have enough information to do this. We would, however, only require to determine the nodes of the skeletal structure, and not the entire image.

Without those knowns- all else is guesswork ( good approximations- but still with a large range)

I think determining the range IS the exercise. This would tell us how much guesswork we're dealing with. We can't know until then.

I've never done a GD&T analysis of the film ( only because I never thought about it and in reality, it cannot be done because of the lack of true coordinates)

I wouldn't assume it can't be done. Just not with the method you described. This is a job for forensic photo-metrology.

So, if you are doing a 1 D analysis and coming up with 6-6.1- then accounting for plane distortion ( which there isnt a standard equation because there are too many varibles) then the actual film subject is going to be somewhere ( estimated) 3-5% smaller in reality.

This is a 2D analysis. In this case the distortion is strictly due to foreshortening caused by the orientation of the image and the relative distance from the camera. As Jack mentioned, if the object is 100+ feet from the camera then the image is distorted at most 2-3% due to the varying depth of the object. But this applies to the scale of the visible body parts, and is only significant at distances such as Soarwing's transparent overlay. In this regard, it's actually fortunate that Patty was filmed at far range. The closer to the camera, the greater the distortive effects.

There are several modern techniques for overcoming the quality of the film, namely feature tracking and frame averaging, which are methods of motion analysis. None of these methods have been applied to the PGF because the original full frame version has not been available for study. And no photogrammetric study is going to happen with the copyright issues involved. But it certainly can be done and whether such an analysis would glean any useful information is speculation at best. Otherwise, no one can know that it wouldn't.

Which brings me to Soarwing's transparency overlay. This is an invalid comparison. Soarwing is 30 feet from the camera, which means the length of his right arm and foot board is ~7% overscaled relative to his body. At any rate, there's way too much distortion for an accurate comparison. The shots of him farther from camera are more appropriate. But too much is being made of his girth matching up with Patty's. Unmatched body angles can give the illusion that he matches up in girth, when he doesn't.

Of particular note, his arm length definitely comes up short. His leg lengths and angles are difficult to determine for a comparison since his ankles aren't visible. But note how much higher his bent left knee is relative to his right knee compared to Patty's. I don't think their legs match up well at all. Too many assumptions are based on these comparisons.

Also mentioned was how spherical aberration might effect an image. It would depend how far the image is towards the periphery of the lens. You can really see this kind of distortion on the edges of Rick Noll's blowups under the microscope. The edges are quite distorted, much more so than from a normal camera lens. Since the quality of the lens for the K-100 was decent, the only significant distortion would occur outside the sweet spot. But there were plenty of images taken near the center of the frame. And aspect ratio is a film, not a lens feature. The transfer from 1 medium to another can also affect the aspect.

As wide as Ray G's back is, his ASH ratio is still under 1.10. I found it impossible to fit his image onto the "back" shot of Patty (I posted upthread). But this was due to his head not his back. Lining up his eyes/ears and rescaling his head and shoulders to fit just didn't work. Patty's head appears smaller relative to her body than Ray's. The point here is that individual body parts may not be outside the human limits, but IMO, collectively they make for a very disproportioned individual. The question is whether all this can be disguised inside a suit? Formal analysis 1st, speculation 2nd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To:

Lyndon, Longtabber PE, Soarwing, Killian, dogu4, Ray G, Bipedalist, Jack, Gigantofootecus,

Thank you all for contributing posts that are well reasoned, informative, civil, and constructive to everyone's understanding.

Just wanted to acknowledge all your fine contributions.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
H & V are part of a 1 D drawing ( read any blueprint- thats what you see a drawing referenced to a X and Y axis)

You keep saying 1D as Gigantofootecus points out it's 2D :)

Edited by The Punisher
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...