Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

[Bill]

Greg:

Whether it matters depends on what specifically you propose to study. If I were trying to determine a cause of motion, such as trying to determine if a movement apparent in the film was musculature moving or the dynamics of cloth and padding, or any mechanical actuators beneath same, yes, the sequence and time intervals would be very important.

But what I was trying to determine was a "Capacity" for deforming to a variety of shapes. Can the material achieve that change of shape, based on the physical substance the material is assumed to be composed of. That capacity analysis doesn't really care which shape came first or second, or even how long it took to change. It deals simply with the basic question, can the material change from one starting shape to the other shapes. Flesh and skin has some capacity to change shape. Cloths and padding have some capacity to change shapes. One can do things the other cannot.

I readily agree with your fine observation that "We have seen time and again, how changes in lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form.." This is a very important consideration and you were wise to bring it up. We must ask ourselves, if we look at a set of photos and see differences of light and dark tonalities in the picture (or specifically on the body in the photos),

a. "Can the change of tonality or shadow pattern be explained by some varying external object casting a shadow on the subject, (there's a few frames earlier in the sequence where a tree shadow crosses the back of the figure as it walks, one example)

b. can a change of light source position relative to the subject account for the apparent change of shadows in the images, (light source in this case was sunlight and skylight, and I'm not aware of either moving significently during the walk)

c. can some change of observer viewing angle explain the apparent change of shadows in the images, (the cameraman does walk along in the sequence, but apparently as I can see, in line with the figure, as opposed to rotating around the figure, and motions in line camera to subject do tend to have the least distortion of shadow patterns, whereas rotating motions around a subject do tend to have much more pronounced fluxuations of shadow pattern)

d. can changes in the 3 dimensional structure of the body in the images account for the change of shadow pattern. (which is what I personally concluded was the most likely explanation)

e. can changes in the external pigmentation or light reflective/refractive material optics acount for the changes of the shadow pattern. (given we are not looking at a cuttlefish, I don't expect any pigmentation shifts, and the reflective/refractive optics I did discuss in the Neck Hackle section, so I did factor this in my thinking, and some of the shadow may be changes of reflective optics changing because the 3 dimensional tissue rolls do change the angle of the hair on the surface to a different angle with respect to the light. So this may be a factor, if influenced by above "d")

I would say the one that matters is the one more probably having occured, especially when the probability of the others is evaluated and discounted.

If I missed a shadow on the body from something in a tree or sky, a sudden shift of sunlight angle, a camera move rotating around the subject in that ending sequence, or a pigmentation shift, please feel free to bring it to my attention.

Bill

Edited addition:

Drew: Thanks for bringing up the old 40's gorilla movies. I just went to Amazon.com and bought 7 vintage DVDs from the 40's with gorillas in them (seems they were pretty popular then) and they'll be valuable research references.

Bill

Edited February 29, 2008 by Bill

[MikeZimmer]

...

Drew: Thanks for bringing up the old 40's gorilla movies. I just went to Amazon.com and bought 7 vintage DVDs from the 40's with gorillas in them (seems they were pretty popular then) and they'll be valuable research references.

Bill

You did get Africa Screams with Abbott and Costello of course? :coverlaugh:

[Guest Apeman]

I just went to Amazon.com and bought 7 vintage DVDs from the 40's with gorillas in them (seems they were pretty popular then) and they'll be valuable research references.

Hope you didn't pay too much, you could have borrowed mine! And I think that A&C one is all on Youtube or some similar site. It only has about 1 minute of gorilla costume footage from what I remember. And DDA started thread somewhere with a looonnnnngggg list of gorilla costume movies, also I found a funny website on gorilla costume movies that I'll try to dig up. I think I posted it here somehwere?

-A

[Bill]

Mike & Apeman:

Thanks for the tips on the old videos.

I don't like Youtube, except for an occasional watch, because they aren't full resolution (at least on my screen) and I haven't figured out how to save them or so screen captures. The only successful time I copied some video off You Tube was to set up a video camera to film the display on the screen, and then pipe the DV file back into the computer, for some neat nature film of Hoatzins.

With the Gorilla DVD's at least I can copy segments into the computer, and save out frames in Abobe premiere.

Most of them were a buck or so, plus shipping.

Missed the Abbott and Costello one. Might go back and check it out.

Bill

[Guest Killain]

Who says it doesn't matter?

We have seen time and again, how changes in lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form..

But I'm sure you, expert that you are, are aware of that .. I'm surprised you contend it doesn't matter ...

Lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form?

On a static figure that does not have changing form, lighting and angle might give such illusions...but on a moving form, the "lighting and change of angle" accentuates the form being observed. The lighting allows for shadows to illustrate the form far better. I'm surprised an "expert" scoftic like yourself, didn't realize this.

K

[Drew]

Bill,

I hope you got a couple of Crash Corrigan gorilla movies.

If you did, while watching them, think about the connection of Roger Patterson, working at Corriganville, with many of the great Gorilla suit actors and creators of the time. His fascination with filming a bigfoot was probably fostered there.

I'd also like to ask you if you see the similarity in these two images.

Longtabber-

Don't worry, they are attacking the arguer instead of the argument, it's been done before, so don't worry about it. When people question somebody's decision to protect someone or defend themselves, I always fall back on the immortal words of Frank Drebin.

Well, when I see five weirdos dressed in togas, stabbing a man in the middle of the park in front of a full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards, that's my policy.

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form?

On a static figure that does not have changing form, lighting and angle might give such illusions...but on a moving form, the "lighting and change of angle" accentuates the form being observed. The lighting allows for shadows to illustrate the form far better. I'm surprised an "expert" scoftic like yourself, didn't realize this.

K

Lighting illustrates things better ? Really ? What year of physics did you latch onto that gem ?

I guess you missed all the ' bending finger ' discussions ...

Do I really need to trot out examples of changing lighting and angle creating the illusion of movement ? ( even with moving subjects )

Don't answer.. I really wouldn't bother...

Why don't you take Bill to task for concurring with the point I was making ?

Bill:

I readily agree with your fine observation that "We have seen time and again, how changes in lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form.." This is a very important consideration and you were wise to bring it up. We must ask ourselves, if we look at a set of photos and see differences of light and dark tonalities in the picture (or specifically on the body in the photos),

I really do make mistakes sometimes .. Try to catch one where you know what you are talking about ..

[Guest Killain]

"Lighting illustrates things better ? Really ? What year of physics did you latch onto that gem?"

Holy crap Greg...are you even suggesting that lighting is not often used to illustrate contour? If you are, you don't even belong in this company!

My gosh, the very thought that shadow cannot "illustrate" surface definition smacks of...well you get the point.

Shadow and angle do not give the illusion of changing form. They highlight changing form!

No, I didn't miss the bending finger discussion. And yes, it was demonstrated, using Barbie dolls...or were they Ken dolls...that changing a view could give the illusion of a plane bending. At the same time, while that discussion gave rise to the "theory" that Patty's bending fingers "could" be an illusion, I simply cannot recall if the explanation was consistent with the photographic evidence, or that it was conclusively proven that light, shadow and angle was the explanation for Patty's bending fingers.

What I do see here, is someone who, like a trifling puppy, nips at the heels of people who do a lot of careful and meticulous study, without actually giving them credit for their work. It's as if you have proven that they are wasting their time. Not because they will never discover a fact that will seal the evidence, but that they will "never" discover a fact, no matter how telling, that will "seal" it for you. You will always shift to another question, without saying...ya got me there! Good show!

K

Edited February 29, 2008 by Killain

[Guest Killain]

"five wierdos" stabbing someone in the park is a considerable difference from an unidentified shadowed form in the distance slowly approaching.

But, I'm sure your support is gratifying.

K

[Guest Remember November]

Well Bill, I've been image searching Gorillas until my eyes fall out and these are the only two images I can find that resemble the bulge on Patty's waist. :coverlaugh:

[Drew]

You can't compare Patty to a quadrupedal gorilla. Unless you are willing to say that Patty is a Gorilla.

Bill is right, if it is going to be proven that Patty is real, then a comparison must be made with Patty film and Costumes, because it is useless to speculate until you objectively rule out costume.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well Bill, I've been image searching Gorillas until my eyes fall out and these are the only two images I can find that resemble the bulge on Patty's waist. :coverlaugh:

Hi

My example..... Opp's were talking BF

Peace

Tim

[Bill]

RM:

Nice reference photos. But I wouldn't expect zoo gorilla photos to have the same bulges (they may have some, not necessarily in the same places) because zoos now wisely try to keep their gorillas a bit lean and more healthy, after the experiences in the 40's and 50's of bulking up their gorillas so they could claim they had the biggest one,(some tipping the scales at over 600 pounds, like the two raised by a New York Woman (see the film "Buddy" about her true life with a gorilla pet), one of two actually donated to zoos, and they both were fattened up and they got diabetes, high blood preasure, high colestoral, etc, all the human effects of obesity).

Anyways, the gorillas, being more tropical acclimated species, may not do seasonal fatty deposit buildups, and zoos ration their food so they don't over eat.

Plus, with Patty, we may be dealing wih a hominid, and the human linnage of primates has significantly different configurations of sub-cutenious fat tissue than the other apes.

But the photo, especially the silverback, does have a wonderful show of varying hair patterns and light dark shifts, both of pigment variety and hair reflectance shifts.

Drew;

The challenge of comparisons with other animals is always to sort out relevence of features and what causes those features to occur on that animal. So, yes, we might expect different configurations of soft tissue on a quadreped as compared to a biped, but we may find similarities in soft tissue contours of one real animal to another, as opposed to soft tissue folds on one real animal as compared to folds in a fabricated suit.

But is is good, when a comparison is offfered, to qualify the basic justified similarities as a foundation. I will certainly try to do that as my work continues.

Tim:

Love the baby. LOL!

[Guest Remember November]

Drew:

I have compared Patty to a suit. I compared her to the 1940's image you posted. My next thought was to compare her to a known species. As has been shown on this forum Patty's anatomy most resembles a Gorilla. If I could compare her to another image of a sasquatch I would but it's just not in the cards now is it?

[Bill]

RN:

I've been doing some image searches, inspired by your effort, and I was looking at orangutans, especially big males, and while their fatty tissue isn't in the same place, they sure have some massive bulges and folds.

Also I was looking at proboscis monkeys, and they have quite a few curious bulges near and above the waist, when they are sitting upright.

Gives me anothe rnote of research ideas.

thanks.

Bill