Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis Part 12 - Hip seams


Recommended Posts

wolftrax

Taking the images you posted and compared in an animation.

I'd have to agree on film grain playing a role, I think in regards to the differences there often is background colors blending in with Patty's light colors of fur. Add to that the constant challenge we face when we stabilize it, is seeing things then having to go back and see what could be streaking or smearing because of camera movement, blur, and the distance of the camera from the subject. This all has an effect on visibility of seams, and interpretation of muscle movement, folds. etc.

If you look at the forehead of frame 339, you can see the lighter tan line that could be the fur back lit, and matches the forehead as seen in frame 344.

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remember November

Bill:

Mabey the difference in the shape of the face is due to the hackles. Just a thought.

On page 183 Meldrum says, "Emotional expression is not only limited to facial displays. The hair of a sasquatch, especially over the head and shoulders, has been reported to occasionally bristle or stand on end, an action that is called piloerection. One particular witness to an encounter with a saquatch noted the hair rise and fall repeatedly as the sasquatch stared at him."

Edited by Remember November
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

mrlopez:

"Can anyone explain why the subject's feet in the P/G film are white on the underside? "

One likely explanation is simply that some types of clay in the ground tend to be a bit sticky when moist, and stick to other surfaces, like feet, shoe soles and the bottoms of costume feet. Ceramic clay is a good example, and a whitish clay residue sticks to the hands of a person throwing a pot on a wheel.

So the foot (real or costume foot) of the figure walking in the film can reasonably have picked up some clay residue which whitens as it dries, given we are talking about an area with a stream bed and water pools the subject may have walked through. There is no particular reason to assume the whitish coloration is the natural color of the bottom of the foot. Given this possibility, I personaly consider the color of the bottom of the foot a non-issue, in that a logical explanation would apply equally to a real creature and a person wearing a creature suit.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Can anyone explain why the subject's feet in the P/G film are white on the underside?

I remember Krantz attributed that to the stratum corneum being thicker on soles of feet. He said something to the effect that even in hominids with dark skin the bottom of the foot tends to be much lighter. The stratum corneum is the layer of dead skin on the outside that I believe lacks pigment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest grump13

I read a report that some analyst made that estimated the height of patty at 7 ft 2 inches , stride at 83 inches, weight over 1900 lbs, circumference of chest 84 inches, i went back and looked at the film several times, this animal is not taking 7 foot steps, nor does it weigh a ton. also it does not have a flat gorilla like nose,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grump13:

It sounds like the NASI Report you are referring to.

The weight estimate in it is incorrect. If the Patterson creature is 7' 2", it's weight would be in the 400-550 pound range.

As for the stride, I think it refers to a left and right foot step to get that distance, so one step would be half of that, about 41.5", which would scale correctly to the height (if the height is validated).

The weight error has been widely reported in other parts of the forum, I believe.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone explain why the subject's feet in the P/G film are white on the underside?
I remember Krantz attributed that to the stratum corneum being thicker on soles of feet. He said something to the effect that even in hominids with dark skin the bottom of the foot tends to be much lighter. The stratum corneum is the layer of dead skin on the outside that I believe lacks pigment.

Or it could be a characteristic of the costume. (I think this is an old Dfoot photo)

Edited by Drew
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Guest greyfox
RN:

Thanks for finding the suit photos. Looks like Janos in one of his suits. Obviously not real high on the "realism" scale, but a common suit of the era.

Greg:

Between the hair length and good tailoring, we shouldn't see any seam. But he does have a line/break at the base of the body across the hip, as many point out as the line on Patty's two piece suit claim, and we shouldn't see it on a perfect suit, but we do on the one pictured here. The difference i felt was important about Patty as compared to this is the way the shadow lines on Patty seem to change too much over varied frames, and that inconsistancy is not to be expected in a costume. Now here, it may not be a seam (although the reports of Janos designing suits with splits there make one assume it's a seam), but it may just be a fold of furcloth from the fat body into the narrower leg parts.

Crow, I believe that's what you are refering to as well.

BP: thanks.

I just have to disagree on your common statement.Janos' ape suits were the best of the best in the 60's and 70's my point being if he didnt do it then it was second rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Guest Apeman

Hi Bill,

After two-plus years finally commenting...sorry!

1. I personally see your argument here as advancing rather than dispelling the possibility of a basic waist seam. I do not see any obvious inconsistency with the placement of your blue line, especially if the "shirt" piece is curved sort of opposite to man's dress shirt- that is high over the butt, lower over the hip.

2. I realize the "data" here is limited but since the shadows and shading can play tricks, have you thought about looking for other landmarks- colors, textures, specific light or dark spots? What I would be in interested in seeing is whether there is any indication that the top and bottom (above or below a waist seam) move independently along a possible seam (even an uneven one) as the figure twists.

I've traditionally put some faith in Glickman's analysis failing to find any seams, but since he really didn't document that process and I assume it was just some algorithm looking for pixel lines in static images, it would be nice to see something more comprehensive. I know you're neck deep in other things but maybe you've put more thought into this since starting this thread?

-Apeman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apeman:

I have been doing more work along this line, yes. Basically, I'm trying to determine what is the best way to visually convey the ideas, and I would like to do some kind of experiemnts with real furcloth in various configurations as well to illustrate principles more factually and systematically.

As far as I know, no one has ever built a suit simply to study motion dynamics of the fur material, and then run comprehensive tests with it. I feel that would be a valuable contribution to settling many issues. So that's the goal.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apeman:

"What I would be in interested in seeing is whether there is any indication that the top and bottom (above or below a waist seam) move independently along a possible seam (even an uneven one) as the figure twists."

Following up on my earlier comment and your question:

I set up a few images, a few frames apart in the twist to look back, and there was a really nice continum of elastic twisting through the torso down into the pelvic area, which would be across any waist split seam, when I clicked the images to cycle on off to compare.

I still want to do the tests on suit materials, but this quick refresher look pretty much reinforced my perception that it's all one skin, and not two fur suit pieces.

But I do have a lot of work on the proof.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg

I'm sure we have gone over this before, but since this thread has been re-visited, can you tell me why you discount what appears

to be a folding or subduction of the upper thigh into the pelvic area.

The blue line delineates that sort of scallop feature on the pelvic area, and shows the bulging line across the top of the

thigh rising up to meet the blue line..

( credit to Bob Zenor - this .gif was extracted from the .gif that used to be his avatar )

Edited by Skeptical Greg
Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

Thank you Greg for quoting someone that has kind of lost objectivity lately. That isn't really true but I have become less objective at least lately.

I just want to point out that Bill could easily make a video which would probably be much more reveling than mine. All he would have to do is stabilize the background and then....

<>edit to remove witch

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