Jump to content
Guest Bipedal Ape

Pattys Height

Recommended Posts

Guest

If you take the time to watch any video of gorilla's, you will see that "seam" come and go regularly. If you take the time to look at any art work of gorilla's you will find that enough people see that seam that they often include it in their paintings and sculptures. That mysterious seam , seems to show up a lot in nature.

This is one example of many

post-3077-0-79515500-1331806316_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Subducting thigh line vs the clay stage of a bronze silverback gorilla sculpture by the hands of Caesar Yanez...

bronze_gorilla_6.jpg

Like, forget video, forget photos, we'll go straight to art.

Caesar's next project is the sofcoated wheaten terrirer in bronze in which you can also see what could hopefully turn out to be another couple of subducting lines across the legs...

softcoatedwheatenterrierSIDE.jpg

Hands of Caesar...

http://www.handsofca...sculptures.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

Do you know the difference between claiming it is so, and proving it is so?

I don't see any proof there, just a claim.

A proof includes data and analysis methods of the walk cycle for that particular walk. Got any?

Please quit bluffing. You have no evidence that can be impartially evaliuated to support your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CT Seeker

red.jpg

Here's a picture of a red horse like that which Hieronimus declares that Gimlin used in his suit. The similaries with Patty are uncanny! Oops, I spelled "ridiculous" wrong.

I have to agree with Bill, Parn. "Evidence" like the red horse I posted above are the kinds of "proof" we are getting from the Hoaxer crowd. The other kind of "proof" of a hoax we're hearing about is the kind no one is allowed to see. That might be difficult evidence to declare in court. And if someone were claiming a created-suit in a court of law, personally I would ask to show me the suit. If it had been destroyed or unavailable I'd try to be accommodating and say, "OK, just recreate it for me!"

45 years later.........NADA....

When Hieronimus was asked to recreate the suit, he came up with this winner. Imagine putting on this mess and expect an observer to see muscles flexing (including CLEAR calf flexion) as well as large and obvious Trap muscles.

BODYSUIT.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Bill,

Any and all measurements are estimates. They vary in precision, but all have an attached error, though we seldom acknowledge it. We say that a person is 6 ft tall, we say that as if it were a fact, with no error attached. But really it is just an estimate, even though we used a tape measure on the living person. Maybe the attached error is .1 inch, maybe it's 1 inch. Sometimes this error can be quantitated through statistical means, other times it must be estimated. This is true of any method. The lens equation, which is just two simple ratios of "size"/distance" on either side of the lens,

size of image on film/distance to film=size of object/distance to object

is just math. It is intrinsically no more or less "scientific" than the "foot as ruler" method. Both depend on several measurements aka estimates. Each measurement has an attached error. The more the attached errors in each measurement/estimate, and the more measurements, and the more times you multiply them together, the greater the attached error in the final result.

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

Any more smoke screen you want to lay down to distract from your having no evidence to show how your stated conclusion was arrived at?

Any more bluffing you wish to indulge us with. The above discourse of measurements is a generalization that can be applied to anything measured, so what is the relevence? To show you can write something that sounds "scholarly"?

And the lens formula just happens to be one of the foundation principles of the optical sciences and a cornerstone for applied photography. The "foot as ruler" idea is a quirky little novelty of an idea that has little imapct on anything outside the PGF debate. And you think they're on the same level scientifically?

What planet are you from, if I may ask?

Evidence looks like this:

Walkcompositesideview.jpg

or maybe this:

16panelwalkcompare.jpg

got any, to support your claim?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

If she were 5' 6" tall as posed, she'd be about 145 feet or so away from camera with a 25mm lens.

Thanks, Bill. With the same height as posed, what would the distance be with the 15mm lens? Quite a bit less, I would imagine. If I use the 5' 6" height (or even round up to 6') and use 145 feet as a maximum distance, the use a shorter distance based on the 15mm lens, that should cover a range of distances that could have been expected. If it were a lens in between those two, like a zoom lens that was not being actively zoomed while filming, just set at some arbitrary point and left there, that range should cover how much foreshortening one would still expect to see. So with the 15mm distance, I can shoot two sets of foot panels to measure...

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

It is intrinsically no more or less "scientific" than the "foot as ruler" method.

when you remark about the lens formula as compared to the "foot as ruler" thing, perhaps it escaped your attention that things which tend to be more "scientific" are things which are published in scientific, academic, or professional publications, with explanations of principle and applied practice,, such as the lens formula as described below in the ASC Manual:

ASCManualLensFormula.jpg

Would you be so kind as to share with us an example of the "foot as ruler" concept published in a scientific, academic, or professional publication which explains the principle and applied practice, to support your intriguing statement that the two (lens formula and foot as ruler idea) are on equal standing as scientific concepts or principles?

Thank you for providing the requested data to clear this up.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

parnassus wrote:

in order to foreshorten a 14.5 inch foot length by an inch, the plane of the sole would have to be angled by about 22 degrees in the relevant plane.

Except for Spiderman's foot. It can rotate without foreshortening. Just ask kitakaze. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bill, Isn't it clear that Parnassus is referring to the standard GIGO rule?

Sure, your formula is precise, but it is only as precise as the input you are putting into the formula.

The distance from the camera? A guess

The lens size? Up in the air, in fact, didn't you, at one point think Patty was either 8'4 or 4'9? Was that not based on the formula in your book?

The aperture size? You measured a similar camera, I am certain that modification of apertures on specific cameras was undertaken regularly.

I would assume we are solving for the object size, so we obvously don't have that measurement.

I have lots of formulas in front of me for my work, they are not much different than yours, but If I don't have exact airflow measurements, or if there is a duct elbow too close to the fan inlet, I can't tell a customer exactly how a system will perform.

Can you say you are dead-nuts on the distance from the subject to the camera? how about the lens size? Did you measure the aperture on Roger's camera? or another camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Giganto,

Perhaps we can approach the other potential errors in the method, and perhaps then use error analysis to come to a better idea of the probable range of results.

Sure, fill your boots.

the angle at which we are seeing the foot and leg, and the lack of any angulation in the ankle joint from this perspective, make it quite unlikely that the foot is foreshortened by anything near an inch:

How do you know the foot wasn't overextended past vertical?

311_336.gif

Note that this angle is also affected by the cosine of Patty's foot orientation from the line of sight. IOW, if Patty was walking directly away from the camera, the foot would appear vertical for all angles. So what was the angle of the foot along the line of sight?

Hint: (use frames 61 & 72) measure the length/width ratio for the images of the feet and the casts. Estimate each foot's orientation angle relative to the line of sight. Add a correction factor to your ratios according to the foreshortened width. Compare your ratios to the controls of the casts that Roger is holding. The differences represent the cosine of the angle of the foot relative to the camera plane. This will rectify your foot ruler and you can then measure Patty's image height for that frame in her walk cycle. But then what?

in order to foreshorten a 14.5 inch foot length by an inch, the plane of the sole would have to be angled by about 22 degrees in the relevant plane. This would be immediately apparent, since, by the oblique perspective, we can see the lack of angulation in the two principle relevant directions of foot angulation, that is, dorsiflexion/plantar flexion and leg rotation. The other direction of movement in the ankle joint is side to side tilt, which would not affect apparent foot length in this view. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that the foot is foreshortened by an amount approaching an inch. Would you agree? Given what we see, I don't see how the a foreshortening angle could be much more than 5 degrees, but even at 10 degrees the error would only be a quarter inch. I would suggest that is the max expected error due to foreshortening.

The foot isn't frozen to the leg. It articulates at the ankle and the MTB ;) as it moves thru the step cycle. You are treating it like a rigid object whose velocity vector follows tangentially along an arc. The foot actually moves thru a more complicated periodic motion than that. It's not just a matter of when the foot reaches it high point. What about frame 61? Why can we see the toes and not in frame 72? Horizontal motion, line of sight motion, overexposure? What's your guess?

ProTip: Use frame 61 and scale Patty's body to match frame 72. Then compare their footlengths. And note that an angled (foreshortened) foot can only overestimate Patty's height (unless it is too close to the camera). What is your estimate of how foreshortened Patty's foot is in frame 61? It's reasonable to estimate orientation angles since they affect foreshortening by the cosine of the angle, which only becomes significant for larger angles.

Lastly, why are you assuming Patty's feet were 14.5"???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Foot as ruler technique

I do not endorse any attempt thus far because I feel that all variables haven’t been properly accounted for, and a reliable analysis should account for those variables. This is a generalized description of concerns, since the foot as ruler method has been attempted many times by various people, using varying degrees of consideration in their analysis.

Bill,

Is it accurate to say that your unaccounted for variable 5 could contribute to either under- or over-estimation of Patty's height, but variables 1, 2, 3, and 4 all contribute to underestimating her height?

Pteronarcyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Gigantofootecus wrote:

. The differences represent the cosine of the angle of the foot relative to the camera plane.

Except for the case of Spiderman's foot... :smoke: ......dude...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pteronarcyd

Is it accurate to say that your unaccounted for variable 5 could contribute to either under- or over-estimation of Patty's height, but variables 1, 2, 3, and 4 all contribute to underestimating her height?

1. The body angle relative to camera - Knowing this angle is a factor in determining length of all body parts which are bent or angled in some way, because those bends and angles must be corrected for to determine a standing erect height.

Can impact either way, body larger or smaller, depending on if an estimated angle is more or less than the true angle.

2. The camera distance to subject - Since the body is in a posture where the lifted foot may be behind the torso, the torso leans forward, and the head is drooping forward and low, clearly all the various body parts needed to constitute correct standing height are not on a true vertical perpendicular to the camera view line of sight

margin of error diminishes with distance, but margin of error in estimating accuracy of body and head lean angles increases with distance, because greater distance results in less accurate depth perception, needed to try and estimate body lean angles

3. Motion Blur - In a walk cycle, once the rearward foot lifts off the ground, it must accelerate to a motion faster than the gross body forward motion, to go from behind the body to in front of the body to plant the next forward step. So once lifted from the ground, the rear foot is potentially one of the fastest moving body parts, thus most suseptible to motion blur.

Motion blur tends to expand apparent object sizes, and falsely expanding apparent foot size would result in falsely smaller body height estimate. But motion blur is also influenced by #4 below. The two need to be considered together.

4. Image contrast bloom - When a photographic image is copied, contrast usually builds up. Areas that are pale may shift to more white, and areas that are dark may shift to more black. A pale sole of the foot, with pale sides of the sole, and a pale heel, may shift to an apparent solid white, making the foot seem larger than it actually is. Slight blur of a pale foot against dark fur or surroundings has the potential to create a halo effect which, with increased contrast, can also enlarge the apparent size of the foot.

May enlarge or shrink an object, depending on where the light value midline is set and that affects what shifts lighter or darker in an image. Comparing landscape objects seen in exceptionally sharp frames to same object in foot studied frame would help provide a base reference for extent of image contrast bloom.

5. There is a final consideration which should be considered. That is the question of whether the person doing the "foot as ruler" analysis is arguing from a premise that the filmed subject made the 14.5" footprints that were subsequently cast, or whether the trackway and casts were derived from some falsified trackway.

If the foot seen in the film didn't make the tracks measured, then the two are disconnected and one has no bearing on the size of the other.

Drew:

GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is an enternal challenge to anything measured, or to any source data. It's a universal and never-ending source of debate. People define quality vs garbage data endlessly, so all you've provided is a vague generalization that doesn't advance this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze, Post 43, ya got a plus from me ! Show me wild animals...an that alone...plussed ! She is truely a fascinatin' primate, incredible !

An the squarish shape at butt, can't recall off the top of my head, but(t :D ) I think it was her left hand if I recall.

I completely disagree with you on the suit suggestion, that in my opinion, is a sasquatch.

As for hieght, shorter people have shorter limbs, the human body bein' generally proportionate, when you add paddin' to create mass, those limbs appear shorter, even on tall folks. You don't increase the length, only the width. The sasquatch filmed does not appear to have shorter limbs created by paddin', yet she appears massively thick everywhere. There are a few frames from behind, when her elbows are both visible an out to the side, I get the impression of her bein rather tall. Look at the Blevins suit from back, elbows out, arms appear shorter do to paddin' compared the P/G subject.

Pat...

ps: Now the seam is said to be in the upper thigh ? Might be a tight fit tryin' ta get those big ol' shoulder pads(the widest part) through the narrower waist, least I'd think.

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...