Creature Suit Analysis Part 11 - The next Step

[Bill]

RN:

it was technically possible to make an arm extenstion with articulated fingers (that bend), A prosthetic arm extension with both fingers bending and wrist moves may have been beyond the technical capabilities of the time. I can't say with absolute certainty, but i was not aware of any design that could do all that then.

But finger moves, yes, could have been done then.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

RN:

it was technically possible to make an arm extenstion with articulated fingers (that bend), A prosthetic arm extension with both fingers bending and wrist moves may have been beyond the technical capabilities of the time. I can't say with absolute certainty, but i was not aware of any design that could do all that then.

But finger moves, yes, could have been done then.

Bill

Bill, is this a detail you would have included if you were behind the Patterson film.

[Bill]

RN:

"Bill, is this a detail you would have included if you were behind the Patterson film."

For anything I would build, the amount of detail would have been in direct relation to the amount of money somebody had to pay me to include details.

But frankly, with all respect to your question, I'm trying to stay out of all speculation of what Patterson may or may not have done. My notes on the probability study are as much as I intend to do on hoax posibilities.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill:

I am no expert, but if I were Patterson I would'nt have had arm extensions with moving fingers. Not for less than 60 seconds of footage filmed 80 feet away from the subject.

[Guest Remember November]

Bill:

in your opinion,in the clip below do you see Patty's shoulderblade moving or are we seeing something else?

[Bill]

RN:

I did look at the shoulder on a larger frame sequence that included that section, and I did see some shifting of the form in the shoulder blade area. Can't say with any certainty it's a shoulder blade though. definitly an option, though.

I still need to go through the DVD when I have some free time, and see those sequences as well.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill:

I cant be sure either, I cant think of what else it would be.

Is there anything in a suit that would create this effect on its own?

[Bill]

RN:

"Is there anything in a suit that would create this effect on its own? "

Obviously, in a custom made suit, theoretically anything could be put under the fur, but as a generality, in the shoulder blade area, I would expect to find, the real person's shoulder, some padding, the furcloth, and maybe some tailoring seams, and possibly a closure seam up the spine. But i wouldn't expect to find anything rigid or suggesting skeletol anatomy put there in a suit.

Bill

[Bill]

Study Update Information

This study is being discussed outside this forum, and some fine contributions were made on the film issues.

One is a suggestion of using Velvia 50D film stock instead of my presumed Ectachrome 7285. I have no familiarity with this film stock, but think it would be appropriate to test it along with the Ectachrome, in the first round of analysis tests. If anyone has familiarity with this film stock, I welcome the information.

Another contribution offered this info on the Kodachrome II film stock reported to have been used on the PF original.

"Kodachrome II. That film has a stated resolving power of 63 lines / mm. "

A comparison of this to the lens resolution would be useful to see which resolves less sharply, and I will presume the less sharp resolving element is the "proverbial weakest link" in the resolution estimation.

I would also wonder about the resolution of copy film stocks. As I recall, in general, they could be very fine grain, because the exposure issue wasn't a problem, and the lab could increase the amount of light needed to properly expose the copy stock without concern for a real time 24 fps or 16 fps shutter. But if the copy stock has less resolution than the original, I need to factor that into the resolution issue as well.

Other issues brought up were film handling as relates to image quality (like not refrigerated until used), and potential degradation of the original by projection before copies might have been made. So I'm thinking of getting an old High School AV projector, and taking one test segement and running it through the projector a few dozen times before sending it out for copying, to see if any image loss can be seen.

So these contributions of information are being factored into the research plan

Bill

[Guest]

Can't wait to see the results Bill..

As far as this one goes..

One is a suggestion of using Velvia 50D film stock instead of my presumed Ectachrome 7285. I have no familiarity with this film stock, but think it would be appropriate to test it along with the Ectachrome, in the first round of analysis tests. If anyone has familiarity with this film stock, I welcome the information.

My only qualms about using Velvia film stock is the accentuation of colors it produces. The images look great, but I wouldn't say they were truer. If you've ever used Photoshop's Velvia filter you'll know what I mean (which is something you could do after digitizing the film, if you do). Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with Ectachrome. JMHO.

[Bill]

Gigantofootecus

"My only qualms about using Velvia film stock is the accentuation of colors it produces. The images look great, but I wouldn't say they were truer. If you've ever used Photoshop's Velvia filter you'll know what I mean (which is something you could do after digitizing the film, if you do). Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with Ectachrome. JMHO. "

Thanks for the thought.

From my estimation now, the most critical film component is grain structure and resolution first, contrast second, since the perceptions of detail and contrasting light and shadow are critical components of the expected study. Color saturation, or even fidelity of colors, is probably a lesser concern, since a lot of the animals I may film wouldn't have the same color fur as Patty, and the artificial furs have lots of colors to choose from.

So if I can't get a film which seems to be almost exactly like the original PGF stock, in terms of image result, then I'd prioritize the components as grain and resolution first, contrast second, color balance third. I'm still a ways from getting the equipment thing finalized, so the film issue is still an open discussion at this point.

Bill

[Guest colobus]

If the film used was Kodachrome II, and there is good reason to believe that's the case, then:

Kodachrome II film emulsion resolution varies from low to high contrast areas.

Printed material for the public from Kodak gave these values:

Low Contrast: 63 lines/mm*

High Contrast: 100 lines/mm

Industry documentation however states that Kodachrome II could resolve 200 lines/mm in high contrast. That was beyond the resolution of all but the very best lenses available, but most decent lenses could (under ideal conditions) resolve 100 l/mm.

The K-100 camera used had an excellent 25mm lens.

* This is the value used in a previous statement concerning the resolution in the film. That statement (Fahrenbach) also used Nyquist's Sampling Theorem to mistakenly divide the already understated resolution by half. However, the resolution in lines per mm ALREADY is a measure of the ability to distinguish two lines of a given distance apart. That analysis, with its errors, yielded a predicted maximum resolution of “slightly over 2 inches on Patty's body.â€

[Guest Remember November]

Color saturation, or even fidelity of colors, is probably a lesser concern, since a lot of the animals I may film wouldn't have the same color fur as Patty, and the artificial furs have lots of colors to choose from.

dont forget Bill....Gimlin says Patty's fur was not the color seen in the film...it was more brown than black....for what ever thats worth.

[Guest comncents]

Is there any update on this filming experiment?

I think this method has more potential in allowing a true understanding of the film than any other analysis. My understanding is that multiple "takes" would be performed with multiple suits and variations of detail. (braids, hand opening...).

Both sides of the argument over the film use details (or lack of details) as a basis of their aurgument. Neither has any reference to show what they are seeing is actually on the subject on the film or not. One end of the spectrum sees hair braids, gunshot wounds, muscle movement etc. and the other simply states there is no data in the film because it not high enough resolution. Nether side has a reference of comparison.

As convincing as Mr. Munns previous threads are, he is making the assumption that if it is a suit, it is a custom, form fitting suit. All of his arguments are based on this. I hope at least one of the "takes" incorporates a more simple suit as described by BH or one most people believe Patterson could have accomplished given his background and finances.

Analysis of the takes needs to be as "blind" as possible. Good Luck

[Bill]

Comncents:

Thank you for your thoughts.

All your considerations are factored into the proposed experiments.

The current status is that I'm still exploring options to fund the experiments, but have not yet finalized anything. I am also reviewing the footage and still frames, sorting out discrepencies, and trying to get a better sense of what artifacts and image alterations have occured over the years, to have more confidence that I am referencing the most authentic frame and film versions.

So, in essence, the experiments are still planned, pending some funds to carry them out.

Bill

ps: intriguing screen name.