Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Is There More To The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I see, thanks for the explanation Bill. That easy even a caveman Sasquatch could understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Bill - I never really understood what you just explained about film copies being affected by differences in the film grain, thank-you. Was the best film you ever examined a 3rd gen copy?

In regard to digital copies; I would only add that most of the image files available online have been degraded with various levels of image compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It depends on the image file type. JPG and GIF are notorious for losing colours. TIF, PNG & BMP are lossless. But BMP are too large, as are TIF but they can hold 3D data. PNG actually applies lossless compression which is the best format for storing and posting files BTW. Even MS Paint supports it.

That said, JPG has a 1 to 10 level of compression, which affects the losslessness (new word!) of data. Large JPG photos, for example, do not lose much information because the images are invariably resized before viewing or printing. The mega-pixel thing is all about how big you can blow something up for printing. The mp level now in most cameras is overkill and the JPG effect is negligible.

As far as the PGF goes, the best of the best are the transparencies which the Cibachrome prints were made from. They were created from the original Kodachrome film stock. MK Davis' digital scan of frame 352 is correct in aspect, full framed and as good as it gets. A photogrammetric analysis should be applied to that image file IMO.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Bill - I never really understood what you just explained about film copies being affected by differences in the film grain, thank-you. Was the best film you ever examined a 3rd gen copy?

In regard to digital copies; I would only add that most of the image files available online have been degraded with various levels of image compression.

xspider1:

Here's the text from an upcoming scientific paper Jeff Meldrum and I are collaborating on, and it explains the copy film grain issue, so I just copied that section to answer your question.

Bill

(From Paper)

An original 16mm film can be copied in two ways. The more common and mechanically simple is a full frame contact print which simply bipacks a film copy stock tightly against the original source film, and a light is shined through the source film onto the copy stock, thereby creating a duplicate of the film image data, same size, full frame.This type of copy is the ideal one for analysis of the film itself, for such purposes as a stereo-photogrammetry analysis of the landscape where the PGF was filmed.

Alternately, a film can be copied by a more sophisticated method, using a device called an optical printer. This device is, in essence, a film projector coupled to a film camera, but with a zoom lens between the two which allows the source image frame to be copied near true full frame, or copied while zoomed in so a small portion of the source image frame is magnified to full frame on the copy stock. By zooming in and enlarging the source image, this method changes the source image data in relation to the copy stock grain size, and is conducive to retaining more detail (image data) from the source original image. For example, a 2x zoom in print has four grains on the copy side for every one of the original source image, the better to hold the original grain image detail. A 4x zoom in print has 16 grains on the copy side to one source image grain, and even has higher potential to hold image detail.

So the ideal way to hold as much image data from the original film is to magnify the crucial aspect of the image (the hominid pictured) and eliminate peripheral landscape image aspects, by a 2x or 4x zoom in on the optical printer. An alternate, which Roger Patterson also did, was to commission the Kodak Laboratories to take his camera original 16mm film and make 4x5“ transparency copies of select frames (a total of 5 known today). Enlarging the original 16mm film (which has an image area of 0.4“ wide and 0.3“ high to a transparency measuring 4“ high by 5“ wide (which includes some black borders because the image aspect ratios are not the same). This represents a vertical enlargement of 13.33x and an area grain count enlargement of 177 transparency image grains to 1 original film image grain, thus insuring a near loss-less copy.

Similarly, there are 12 individual film frames which were printed in larger format from the camera original film, by a high quality photographic process generally referred to as the Cibachromes. They represent an excellent quality source of data for anatomical study, particularly in the fact that a few were printed from source film frames two steps apart in the 16mm film sequence, and this allows the anatomical motions and dermatological shifts to be studied at a two frame interval as the leg extends or contracts.

So these zoom-in enlarged frame copies are the ideal source data for studies of the PGF Hominid anatomy because they hold the highest fidelity to the camera original in terms of anatomical detail that can be reliably studied.

The three groups of zoom-in copies best for study of the PGF Hominid are the 2x and 4x copies made by Green & Dahinden in 1968, the 2x and 4x copies made by ANE in 1970-1971, and the Cibacrhromes made by Dahinden & Bonney in 1980.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

"An alternate, which Roger Patterson also did, was to commission the Kodak Laboratories to take his camera original 16mm film and make 4x5“ transparency copies of select frames (a total of 5 known today). Enlarging the original 16mm film (which has an image area of 0.4“ wide and 0.3“ high to a transparency measuring 4“ high by 5“ wide (which includes some black borders because the image aspect ratios are not the same). This represents a vertical enlargement of 13.33x and an area grain count enlargement of 177 transparency image grains to 1 original film image grain, thus insuring a near loss-less copy."

I can write that much more succinctly and powerfully:

Patterson gave critics ample opportunity to shoot his film full of holes.

Yep, sounds like a hoaxer to me. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I can write that much more succinctly and powerfully:

Patterson gave critics ample opportunity to shoot his film full of holes.

Yep, sounds like a hoaxer to me. Sheesh.

I honestly don't know what is in the PGF because I only ever seen the low quality versions that float around on the 'net. Could be a man in a suit, could be a legitimate Bigfoot. And while I doubt it was a hoax, but if it was Petterson and Gimlin were the victims of it not the perpetrators of it.

None of this is really important because for the purposes of this thread I'm running off the assumption it was a legitimate Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The original is currently "unaccounted for". There is a strong expectation it still is in the possession of a person, but it could be legally argued to be "stolen property" and if so, that would make the holder reluctant to admit having it.

We stil expect it will surface one day, and be available for analysis.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BOQUK

Bill, I thought you studied the original film at Patricia Pattersons for one of the documentaries? Getting confused now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

No, that story has undergone some embellishment as it's told and retold over the internet. Patricia's Archive Copy (PAC), the one she keeps in a safety deposit box, is her best copy from those Roger first made right after the filming.but it is not the camera original. The American Paranormal - Bigfoot producers somewhat embellished their narration of the program, where they filmed me scanning that copy, and once people started talking about the program on the internet, the description of the film and what I did with it have evolved into more embellished descriptions than the facts.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Would it have been stolen from Patterson if so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Patterson gave the original to the ANE Company (under what terms we don't know) but it remained in their possession after Roger died. A few years after that, the company went bankrupt. At their bankruptcy auction, someone bought a lot of miscelaneous office furnishings, file cabinets, etc. and found buried in one file cabinet the camera original. Thus they legaly acquired it as physical property. They put it in a film storage vault in Southern California. In 1980 or thereabouts, Rene Dahinden used his 51% rights/ownership court judgment (which he purchased from Bob Gimlin) to bluff the film vault people into thinking he had majority ownership and thus a right to check out the film for study. He actually didn't have such a legal right.

The film was never returned to the vault facility.

The true legal owners remain the person or company which bought it at auction. If they choose to file a claim of theft, they would be entitled to do so. To our knowledge, they have not, thus far.

That's where it stands.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wufgar

Wow, Bill!

That's slapping a mystery onto the enigma!

My bet is on Dan "D.B." Cooper possessing the original.

Edited by wufgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's a rather strange tale, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. I think, but I have no evidence this is true and it's likely just groundless speculation so don't take this as true, that the original may have been destroyed in some fasion and the story of it being in some unidentified third party's hands may just be an urban myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BOQUK

Thanks for you reply Bill and wow, that opens up another avenue of intrigue. This just gets more and more complicated - how do you manage to maintain your sanity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...