Guest Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 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 appearsto 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 ) Just had another look and it's not the leg that is subducting into the torso, it's the other way round. Notice how the waist band (for lack of a better term) expands, which in turn reduces the lighter space (your blue line). Not sure how a suit would cause expansion at the waist, unless it's just longer hair flopping or light reflecting off a changing hair pattern. No subduction tho and IMO you never see an obvious gap at the supposed interface between legs and torso. Also, this must be right at the limits of film resolution to make absolute conclusions regarding body markers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) Bob Zenor: Thank you Greg for quoting someone that has kind of lost objectivity lately. I was just giving you credit for the .gif, which is one of my favorites.. I have been meaning to ask why the stills.. like this: .... that Bill has been posting from ( I suppose ? ) his scans of a first generation copy of the film look all sepia toned and washed out .. Lacking the detail that can be seen in LMS and some of the poor quality stuff seen on Youtube .. Edited July 15, 2010 by Skeptical Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) Just had another look and it's not the leg that is subducting into the torso, it's the other way round. Notice how the waist band (for lack of a better term) expands, which in turn reduces the lighter space (your blue line). Not sure how a suit would cause expansion at the waist, unless it's just longer hair flopping or light reflecting off a changing hair pattern. No subduction tho and IMO you never see an obvious gap at the supposed interface between legs and torso. Also, this must be right at the limits of film resolution to make absolute conclusions regarding body markers. I don't see how you reach that conclusion when the ruffle/scallop pattern of the area (leg opening of the furry diaper ) I'm delineating doesn't change shape like it would if it was subducting into the upper thigh. To the contrary - the area above that horizontal ridge ( wader line :thumbsdown: ) on the upper thigh is shrinking - i.e. - subducting into the pelvic area - not the torso ... The blue line appears to move down because that is the apparent direction of movement of the subject , due to the stabilization .. It's there to show the shrinking area I am describing.. Edited July 15, 2010 by Skeptical Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 Greg, I won't bother to zoom in on an iso of the waist, but have another look at the interface between the waist and the midsection, then watch that line w.r.t. the Walas line. That area expands, no??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Yes it does.. Looks like another area to take a closer look at .. To what end ? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to support the idea that there is nothing that could be construed as seams or folds .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 Greg: I seem to have missed the indicators of postings to this thread so I'm sorry for getting back to you so late. Also, the board at the moment has some technical thing about some of the images not displaying. But to answer your question, as best i can. I do see something like a stretching and contracting along the thigh, where I believe you call it the subduction. It varies on different copy sources. So I try to look at as many sources as I can (cibachromes, My scans, the LMS copy, Noll frames, even some beckjord scans.) Also, I'm hoping to run some actual fabric material tests and film them, to see what various types of fur material and under padding do during a walk cycle. I have expectations in my mind of what I'd expect fur materials to do in motion, but the issue deserves actual studies of materials, filmed to more effectively determine how various fur material motions look. I haven't done it yet because it costs money I don't have yet to invest in the experiments. I'm still trying to work that out. So I prefer to offer conclusions on those thigh shapes and motions after the tests are done. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 Greg: I think I finally found what you are talking about. It's from Frame 367 to 368, and it is a fascinating shift of patterns on the right thigh. The fact that it's occurring in 1 /16th of a second or less and is stable in the frames before and after is a curious issue, because costume motions don't tend to be so rapid and isolated to one instance only in a walk cycle that repeats. Plus the motion of the thigh is relatively fixed, but the lower leg is in a bend cycle to move the foot forward. But I'll certainly keep it in mind and continue to explore options for what it could be caused by. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts