Jump to content
Guest Theagenes

Did The Stablized Pgf Change Your Thinking?

Recommended Posts

Guest Theagenes

I'm new here so I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I didn't see it anywhere. I'm curious if seeing the stabilized version of the PGF changed in any way how you perceived the film. It's certainly a different experience to view it stabilized just as it is with the Zapruder film. Did it make you feel that the PGF was more likely to be real? Did it look less real? Or did it not effect your opinion at all?

To give you my perspective, I have waffled back and forth over the years on the reality of the BF phenomenon as a whole, and today I'm probably more on the skeptic side, though I remain open-minded and intrigued. But to me the PGF was always one of the things that really made it seem possible. But when I first viewed the stabilized version, I have to say for the first time I could see how it might just be a man in a suit. The "turn and look" in particular just did not appear natural to me once stabilized. But that was just my experience.

But I imagine everyone here had vastly different experiences when they viewed the stabilized version for the first time and I'm very curious to hear some of those experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The stabilization solidified my view of the foot when it lifted the toes and the angle of the legs. If you try to get the angle the trailing legs do and, most importantly lift your toes and step, we cannot do it. I had three people here at work try to replicate the just the angle of the trailing leg as it goes back then forward, and somehow dislocate the front portion of the foot to flexation upwards. Just a creppy detail now comming to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I had the opposite experience with the stabilized film than you did- I could more easily see and track the anomalies that I felt made it look like a suit (I have a number of years of suit and costume construction experience in Hollywood), and let me see a few things like the foot curve and other details such as those BadVooDoo suggests that I hadn't seen before as well.

St. G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

One interesting thing that I just recently noticed...in this stabilized animation, of MK Davis'...

http://www.bigfooten...k_davis_pgf.gif

....is that the animation is running at a rate of only 14fps.....not the 16, or 18fps that the Film was supposedly shot at. This has implications, regarding the likelihood of Patty's walk being easily reproducable, by a human.

More on this....to come. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I also wondered why that stabilization was playing so slowly. It looks as if, right after the look-back, Patty's right arm swings forward, and an inordinately long forearm is apparent. This does not necessarily point to a hoax, but it makes it more likely that the arm proportions are replicable. Since hand/finger movement is visible, there would have to be some sort of apparatus to achieve this.

IMO, the proportion issue is not a reliable indicator of authenticity. People are just too creative to discount the idea of a hoax based on this aspect of the subject. However, the stabilizations of other portions of the film, showing leg/foot detail, seem to highlight very realistic anatomy which appears difficult to fake. In any version, the subject, under close scrutiny, is impressive regardless of authenticity.

Edited by hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest poignant

SweatyYeti:

i.e. this stabilization is a slo-mo version of its actual walking speed...correct? :)

Edited by poignant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti:

i.e. this stabilization is a slo-mo version of its actual walking speed...correct? :)

Well, we don't know precisely what speed the camera was running at, poignant. :) So, for all we know....it may have actually been running at 14fps....(or even slightly slower)....and, hence...the 'stabilized animation' may be showing us Patty's true walking speed.

Even though 14fps is below the lowest setting on the camera dial....it is possible for the camera to run at a slower speed...due to tolerances in the mechanism, and also due to the 'main spring' being wound-down, after running for a while.

I see one possible indicator of a filming speed slower than 16fps...in a detail of Patty's walk, during the 'look back' segment. I will be posting a shorter animation, sometime soon...that shows that detail. :)

But...even if the camera was running at 16fps, poignant....then, as you were saying....Patty was walking faster than what we see in the animation....and that detail, itself....(a faster pace)....only tends to make it less likely that a human could have accomplished the walk...(with all of it's unnatural knee-joint/lower leg/foot angles....smoothness...and two 'spin moves').

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Without the stabilization I thought the PGF was really shaky.

edited to add: hope that helps.

Edited by Ace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

It made me realized how stable she was when she was walking. When I made this I was only trying to stabilize the background but she moved so precisely with the camera that it stabilized her as well just by panning.

Patty.gif

It also increased the resolution and made certain features easier to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

Very nice animation, Bob... :)

Your animation, btw....is running at a rate of 16.6 fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Keep in mind that if the camera filmed at a rate higher than the projection rate than it would appear slowed down. If it was filming at a slower rate than the projection rate than the figure would appear sped up.

If the camera was filming at 18 (non synch) then projecting at 16 would not really change anything so much perceptively (12% slower), but being a non synch camera there could easily be a 2fps +/- variation throughout the shot (maybe more depending on spring wind, etc).

If the camera was filming at 24 (non synch) then projecting at 16 would look 33% or so slower.

If the camera was filming at 16 (non synch) then projecting at 24 it would look 33% or so faster.

The reason I say non synch is that cameras such as those use not only are not accurate when setting the fps shooting speed, but do not necessarily keep at that rate over the course of filming.

St. G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Good point St. George. The stabilized versions of the film from MK have always amazed me. I thought that the animal in the film looks real the first time I ever saw it and better images, more research, etc. etc. just make it seem more so. Good topic. :B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Keep in mind that if the camera filmed at a rate higher than the projection rate than it would appear slowed down. If it was filming at a slower rate than the projection rate than the figure would appear sped up.

If the camera was filming at 18 (non synch) then projecting at 16 would not really change anything so much perceptively (12% slower), but being a non synch camera there could easily be a 2fps +/- variation throughout the shot (maybe more depending on spring wind, etc).

If the camera was filming at 24 (non synch) then projecting at 16 would look 33% or so slower.

If the camera was filming at 16 (non synch) then projecting at 24 it would look 33% or so faster.

The reason I say non synch is that cameras such as those use not only are not accurate when setting the fps shooting speed, but do not necessarily keep at that rate over the course of filming.

St. G-

The picture is much simpler than what you described, St. George....the Film was shot at 18fps....or slower.

For a couple of reasons....I'm thinking it was filmed somewhere between 16 - 14fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

I know MK Davis might be a little out of touch with reality, but his stabilization work on the film is awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Has anyone asked Bob to weigh in, to the best of his ability, on the subject's speed? It's certainly been a while, but I think he'd still have a sense of how quickly he was walking while wearing the suit.

Jk but maybe BG could give some insight. 14 fps seems too slow to me just based on the stride/gait. There's no reason for the creature to move so slowly (unless it's enormous) when it's presumably trying to vacate the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...