Jump to content
Guest

Was Patty's Arm Length "inhuman"?

Recommended Posts

xspider1
BFF Donor

Yep, it's like RF said, Transformer. The image of her hand blends into the background causing the illusion that I think you are referring to. This might help:

post-131-0-76882100-1337010006_thumb.jpg

Great topic and OP, Gigantofootecus!

:rock:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

SWEATY!!!

Yeha!!!!!!!!

We're getting through to you!! Thanks, and a plus one from me............for not reposting that Gif.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

Xspiker in the first photo you posted in the comparison you can see that the fingers are a different color and texture because of no fur covering and they are long and thin. When the hand is back I agree that it is difficult to see the long fingers because they get lost in the background. That does not mean that they just fall off nor does it mean that they are flexed because we do not see them actually flexing because what I see is the wrist flexing in the wrong direction (remember the palm is up). Another question I have is how many frames does it take to see the alleged flex from start to finish and open again and could somebody post all of those consecutively with the frame numbers please? And the next question that follows is how much time in real time does it take to go from straight to flex again in the fillm? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

You're kidding, right? Or you seriously can't distinguish background from the fingers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Particle Noun

Giant +1 on this. Fantastic, well reasoned post. This *should* start a really good discussion. So far, it is missing one side of that discussion, but I do look forward to a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

You're kidding, right? Or you seriously can't distinguish background from the fingers?

No I'm not. I can easily see the long skinny hairless fingers in the still shots but I cannot see those same long skinny hairless fingers in the gif. I can see what appears to be movement in the gif either caused by real movement or artifacts of course. The other questions I asked about the frames and timing are very important too. In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

Excellent opening, Giganto. Well done. Can you show the photograph that you used to measure your own body for reference? We have the image of Patty that you are using as reference for her measurements, it's only fair to check your work on both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I measured my own unforeshortened maximums for a 6' 3" average proportioned human using a tape measure. I wanted physical values, not photo units. For the eye to wrist measurement, I held 1 end of the tape to my right eye, tilted and turned my head to my left to maximize the distance from my right wrist, then I extended my right arm into various positions until the distance between eye to wrist was maximal. Wrist to elbow was straight forward and eye to elbow was eye to wrist minus wrist to elbow. Measure yourself and see what you get. Maybe I measured wrong.

I was acting as a surrogate for Bob H since I didn't have his measurements except for his height. Bob H is the one who supplied the photos as the "average" human. The contention was that Bob H's average arm length (for his height) matched Patty's. Since I'm a bit taller than Bob, he was getting the benefit of the doubt by using my maximums.

But if you think I should have used a photo of an average human with known measurements, then fill your boots. Take a photo of yourself in the same pose and show me how an average human can appear to have forelengthened arms relative to their height. That is, arms that appear to be longer than they actually are. That's really the only way to refute the photo-measurements. You must identify and demonstrate that Patty's arm length is an illusion. And if you still really think that Patty's arm length was average, (which I'm sure you do) then there's no excuse not to demonstrate it with an example of how a photo can fool you. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

I'm not challenging you on the foreshortened or forelengthened arms. I'm only trying to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. You measuring your arms in 3D space is not at all the same thing as measuring Patty as a 2 dimensional photograph. The PGF frames double as still photographs. We are viewing patty from the side in a still photo, and measuring from the top of her head, and from her eyes, to various parts of her body, in side view. Whereas in your case, you are measuring your own body with very discreet distances that are most likely best referred to as from the front, or would it be the side, or what? Can't tell, as we don't have the same sort of reference shot to compare with. Patty was photographed at what, roughly 100 feet form the camera? I would think it most fair, and most similar, to photograph yourself, or someone else as a stand in model, form a similar distance, measure them however you want in real life 3D, but then to reconcile those measurements with the photograph of you or the model. Apples to oranges is measuring Patty on film to you in real life. Apples to apples is measuring Patty on film and you on film, as shot from the same distance.

All I'm saying is that your work is good, but I think you are starting out with an inconsistent comparison, setting your foundation upon two dissimilar standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tontar, you're still missing the point. I want UNFORESHORTENED maximum measurements in 3-space as my control. Then I can test whether Bob's 2D image is foreshortened relative to my 3D measurements. You can't determine foreshortening without 3D measurements. Otherwise, you're comparing 2D to 2D, which is not the same as apples to apples. That's why CGI can't measure foreshortening. Right?

If you think your way is correct, then go for it. But I know it isn't, so I'll pass.

ETA: Patty was > 100' from the camera and Bob H was closer by an unknown amount. That means the closest parts of his body to the camera were overscaled. IOW, his arm should be scaled down relative to his height. But you don't want me to do that, do you? :)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

I don't see how you can legitimately claim to compare measurements form eye to elbow, or eye to wrist, if you are unwilling to show, visually, your work. If you measure on a flat plane, as if you were back to a wall, planform view, and measure straight down your centerline from eye level to elbow level, to wrist level amounts to one sort of measurement. But you turn 45 degrees and measure with your body turned partway, arm extended rearward (like Patty) and you will get an entirely different measurement.

We don't have a full frontal shot of Patty. We have a twisted side shot that is being used as a reference for her dimensions. Patty's eye to elbow measurement is going to have additional length automatically because of her pose, she has swung her shoulder rearward. She's also stepping down on her right foot, which when watching the movie play out you can see her dip the right shoulder as she swaggers onto that right foot. She also swaggers to the left as she steps on the left foot. So you have this up and down cycling of the shoulders due to each step causing her to rock side to side. Measure Patty form eye to elbow when she's stepping on the right foot, with right arm swung back, you get an inflated measurement. Measure eye to right elbow when she is stepping on the left foot and swinging the right arm forward, and rocking to the left, you have a condensed measurement.

I never got to see John Green's methodology when he claimed a certain arm to body to leg proportion. While you describe your methodology well, we have also not seen your methodology either. I like what you are trying to do, but I still want to "see" your work. You can say what you want, but I'd personally like to see it backed up with photographic evidence that brings both comparisons closer together on the same table.

I can say my way is more correct, and then describe in detail how I go about my comparisons, but I guarantee you that you would not accept a single bit of it without graphic representation of if. I'm only asking of you the same thing you would ask of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't see how you can legitimately claim to compare measurements form eye to elbow, or eye to wrist, if you are unwilling to show, visually, your work. If you measure on a flat plane, as if you were back to a wall, planform view, and measure straight down your centerline from eye level to elbow level, to wrist level amounts to one sort of measurement. But you turn 45 degrees and measure with your body turned partway, arm extended rearward (like Patty) and you will get an entirely different measurement.

Patty's arm was foreshortened, mine was not. Yet she beat me (and Bob) anyway. What part don't you get?

We don't have a full frontal shot of Patty. We have a twisted side shot that is being used as a reference for her dimensions. Patty's eye to elbow measurement is going to have additional length automatically because of her pose, she has swung her shoulder rearward. She's also stepping down on her right foot, which when watching the movie play out you can see her dip the right shoulder as she swaggers onto that right foot. She also swaggers to the left as she steps on the left foot. So you have this up and down cycling of the shoulders due to each step causing her to rock side to side. Measure Patty form eye to elbow when she's stepping on the right foot, with right arm swung back, you get an inflated measurement. Measure eye to right elbow when she is stepping on the left foot and swinging the right arm forward, and rocking to the left, you have a condensed measurement.

What was her MAXIMUM? We don't care about her other orientations. An image can NEVER be longer/wider/taller than reality. There is no forelengthing. Does her foreshortened maximum beat my unforeshortened maximum? That's all that matters. Patty's arm was likely LONGER than it appeared on any frame of the PGF.

I never got to see John Green's methodology when he claimed a certain arm to body to leg proportion. While you describe your methodology well, we have also not seen your methodology either. I like what you are trying to do, but I still want to "see" your work. You can say what you want, but I'd personally like to see it backed up with photographic evidence that brings both comparisons closer together on the same table.

WTHuh? The graphics I posted were the results of the methodology. Didn't "see" my methodology or didn't like my results? The only thing I didn't SHOW you was a video of me measuring myself. But I suggested that all debaters measure themselves to confirm my numbers. Did you miss that part?

I can say my way is more correct, and then describe in detail how I go about my comparisons, but I guarantee you that you would not accept a single bit of it without graphic representation of if. I'm only asking of you the same thing you would ask of me.

All you have to do is measure your own eye to wrist and post the result. The more measurements the better. Then we can take an avg. And do it any way you want, just make sure it's maximal. Surely you can handle that? But I doubt you will because all you seem to focus on is something you think I am unwilling to do. But why would you accept my 3D measurements if I showed you a 2D picture of myself? You wouldn't of course.

This one is soooo simple for you to refute and you could even rub my face in it since I can't hide behind the numbers. They're out there like a big matzo ball ready for you to devour. But instead you obfuscate and claim that I'm not showing my work. Why exactly are YOU unwilling to measure yourself and answer your own questions? I suspect that you already have and just didn't like the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

You're challenging me to measure myself? You started this topic, it's your work, why turn the tables on me and say it's now my responsibility to do it? I don;'t have a problem with doing my own research, but this is your stage; challenging me to finish it for you is a bit odd.

If you care to read what I have been saying, I am not arguing with your efforts, and so far I have not chosen to challenge your results as wrong. I am only asking for a complete project, in order to verify your numbers, verify how you went about it. You don't have to get you panties all in a twist about it.

You propose a comparison between yourself and Patty. You list the reference numbers. You show the picture of Patty you are referencing. Then you show pictures of other people, who, by the way, are not shot from the same distance as Patty. In your mind this is all about foreshortening and forelengthening, which is fine, it's FINE. But, the only numbers you represent as the basis for your argument are based on yourself and Patty, and yet you seem to have a big problem with providing photographic evidence to verify your measurements. I find that odd considering what lengths you seem to have gone to to argue the point.

I can tell you right now that I have measured a dozen different frames form the PGF, not just one frame, not just two frames, but a dozen frames from the PGF. And the results I have come up with are astoundingly uneventful, as Patty measures out as completely average on the human scale of proportions. I have also taken her proportions as a basic set of metric numbers and normalized them to my own size and the proportions are extremely close to my own, not two inches off, not three inches off. Patty's arm length to my arm length, and leg length to my leg length, is extremely close when scaled to my height. Not just one photo, but a dozen different frames. So, knowing that I have done that, and confident with those results, is what causes me to question your basic foundation assumption, your measurements versus Patty's measurements. If you don't think that's a fair thing to ask in a discussion you started, then why start the discussion? Why not just make a proclamation and call it good, say no discussion, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Humor us, Tontar. What are you measurements based on Ginganto's OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×