Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy

[Guest yetifan]

longtabberPE wrote:

Another problem with scaling ( which is based on the presumption it may be a suit as well as no known BF anatomy to base it on)- if its a suit- the construction and the fact its supposed to look like a BF builds in dimensions that when distorted may in fact appear to be out of human range when in reality it isnt

Bingo.

[Guest]

Hold your cards ladies and germs, we might not have a bingo. The whole point behind Bill's analysis is to determine whether the range of motion of Patty would reveal the mime's true body dimensions.

And the distortion is not a lens feature, it's a case of perspective. The right arm is a bit closer to the observer than the left arm, etc. The closer you are to the camera, the greater the distortion. This kind of distortion is readily accounted for, which doesn't reduce the size of the entire image. My estimate of 2% distortion doesn't apply to the entire body, only the difference between the nearest and farthest points on the body. In this case, the left arm is nearly the same distance from the camera as the body, so it would be only marginally overscaled. Especially at 150+ feet from the camera.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest JohnWS]

Hold your cards ladies and germs, we might not have a bingo. The whole point behind Bill's analysis is to determine whether the range of motion of Patty would reveal the mime's true body dimensions.

I must admit I'm losing track after so many threads and posts . Doesn't Bill's analysis base itself upon the premise of a rigid fur cloth, over a cut sheet foam support?

[Bill]

Guys:

I think we have some apples and oranges (and maybe a kumquit or mango thrown in for good measure here).

First, scaling from a photo of the three dimensional entity or object has some distortion based on the view angle and focal length of the viewing camera that took the photo. Extracting precise planar dimensions from the photo may be difficult.

Posing a 3D human figure and viewing that 3D digital figure through a similar camera subjects the photo (or render) of the digital human model to the same distortion as what was originally photographed. So where one is trying to extract planar dimensions from a non-planar source, the other is replicating a 3D object and viewing it through a camera perspective which reproduces the distortion.

My study, in this thread, was to use the range of motion in the PG film to provide multiple reference points to callibrate a human figure with an alignment of fixed points so i could better determine the probability of a human mime fitting within the physical body mass of Patty, as evidenced by the film frames.

So the intriguing debate between Longtabber and Gigantofootecus is the extraction methodology, whereas my methodology was the 3D replication methodology.

And Neither is inherently connected to the premise of rigid furcloth on a foam padding support. (sorry, John)

Maybe we should all step back and regroup, with some stated premise or foundation as to what our argument relates to, for clarity. Sort of qualify the issue before arguing for your conclusion?

Just a friendly suggestion to keep the flow of ideas from turning into intellectual chaos.

Bill

[Guest longtabber PE]

Here's the MM for interested parties who may not have seen it.

Nice bit of art & craft - budget seems to have run out at around waist height .

I remember when I used to date her, but Elvira won out

[Guest longtabber PE]

Guys:

So the intriguing debate between Longtabber and Gigantofootecus is the extraction methodology, whereas my methodology was the 3D replication methodology.

And Neither is inherently connected to the premise of rigid furcloth on a foam padding support. (sorry, John)

Maybe we should all step back and regroup, with some stated premise or foundation as to what our argument relates to, for clarity. Sort of qualify the issue before arguing for your conclusion?

Just a friendly suggestion to keep the flow of ideas from turning into intellectual chaos.

Bill

I think I see where GF and I have a disconnect ( and it appears to be an innocent one as we are looking at it thru 2 distinctively different eyes)

I'm going out on a limb here speaking for gf ( which I'm sure he will correct me if wrong)

I think he is doing his scale based on a scaler theory regarding pictures and imagry- I am viewing this as cutting the figure in a CNC mode ( to actually relpicate it in exact dimension)

I base that on the fact we both seem to be saying a lot of the same things but not maybe assigning the same values.

Thats my view as of today anyway

[Bill]

Just a thought, based on my experiences;

Occasionally we use the same words, but in our minds, assign different meanings to those words, and sometimes we use different terminology when we are actually thinking of the same thing.

I've had some fascinating misunderstandings in my youth because of that.

So, thanks, Longtabber for stepping back to qualify your methodology a bit.

Bill

[Guest longtabber PE]

Just a thought, based on my experiences;

Occasionally we use the same words, but in our minds, assign different meanings to those words, and sometimes we use different terminology when we are actually thinking of the same thing.

I've had some fascinating misunderstandings in my youth because of that.

So, thanks, Longtabber for stepping back to qualify your methodology a bit.

Bill

Thats a good thing Bill

its obvious and apparent there are several skilled CAD operators and photographers here ( at best, I dont know squat about picture referencing and dont pretend to) and the CAD guys are doing what they do.

I'm looking at this as the more precise measuring ( as in G code and replication)

We all seem to agree that exact measurements are not possible to glean from the film but stating it in several different ways.

I cant help it- I'm an engineer and analysist- I want "precision"- its not available in this film.

Thats fine for an estimate- heres the problem- the "range" between what is possible for a human V not is extremely small.

It could fit in either camp

[Guest JohnWS]

And Neither is inherently connected to the premise of rigid furcloth on a foam padding support. (sorry, John)

Hey not at all Bill - I'm the one getting konfoozed here.

[Guest xpert4u]

Huh?

[wolftrax]

Hi Bill,

What do you think about the anatomy of Patty's head compared to other hominids? What do you feel is the cause of the apparent peak?

Also, may I ask what is the source of the frames you are using?

[Bill]

Wolftrax:

The image quality in general doesn't really give me much to go on, estimating details of the head. There seems to be a bit of a sagital crest, (emphasis on "seems"). The brow, in the occasional profile, seems more gorilla-like or maybe Neanderthal. The muzzle seems short for an ape. From my hominid research, I'd say there was similarity to both A aethiopicus (knm-er 17000 skull) and the OH-5 Boisei skull.

My images came from another researcher. As far as i know, they are the same frames everybody else has access to, from the varied sources.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Hey Bill,

according to Meldrum, these stills show midfoot flexion.

How would this be accomplished with a suit?

Below is a representation of a Sasquatch foot compared to a human foot. As you can see they both flex in different spots.

Below I superimposed the human foot over the sasquatch foot to represent the mimes foot inside a suit.

How could the mime's foot flex at the ball, and the suit's foot flex in the midtarsus?

[Bill]

RN

"How would this be accomplished with a suit?"

With normal furcloths, very poorly, if at all.

Question is, based on the film resolution, would the different behavior of the furcloth base motion be apparent in such a film? That's as yet undetermined. One of the tests on my list once the callibration study is set up.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill:

so you agree with Meldrum that the foot is flexing in the midtarsus?