Jump to content
Drew

Is This The Complete Reel Of The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Drew, Cool ! Thanks ! One thing that popped in my head was I recall kitakaze, I think, mentionin' water droplets on the lens believed ta be from when Roger crossed the creek, but we see those same "droplets" in the earlier frames. Just an observation is all. Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat:

The "droplets" are in a copy artifact, most likely when the film was scanned for conversion to video.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bill, Ahhhh...thanks ! Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Thanks for the info on the pistol grip Bill. In that case I would have to correct my previous post and say, despite any jumps and jerks, that was actually very smooth hand held camera work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I noticed that in the early parts of the film, the shadows are all on the right side of the subject/horse, but the in the last scene before Patty, the shadow is on the left side. I guess they had come around a switchback in the road between these shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Bill, didn't you say you had a connection with the second reel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

roguefooter, I recall kitakaze sayin' he had a copy, or at least found a copy. Recall him sayin'/bein' confident it proved the filmin' a hoax, but...hey...it was kitakaze ! ;) Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Roguefooter:

Kit said he had a person who claimed to have it, and in my conversations with Kit, I know who that person is. But he has only about 17 seconds and a full reel should be 3.5 to 4 minutes so it obviously isn't anywhere near complete.

It's probbaly the trackway, the Roger standing by tree with two casts, maybe the roger casting a footprint, and such, all of which others have as well.

Sooner or later, I'll likely see that footage, but I'm not expecting any surprises.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Bill, any chance to examine the touring film that recently surfaced and shown by Mike Rugg at the Discovery Museum in Felton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I've seen Mike Rugg's reel, and aside from a brief segment of Roger casting a track (which is different from the usual one we see and everybody thinks is second reel), the rest of the 1/2 hour reel Mike got is Al DeAtley talking to camera about Roger's film, which is one the second half of that show reel set, but Mike hasn't got.

We're still looking for that second theatrical show reel too.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

http://www.ebay.com/itm/bigfoot-yeti-sasquatch-/140961050198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20d1eeee56

An ebay sale on a second generation copy given in Russia now for sale from Michigan it seems.

Got a spare 17,500 bucks sitting around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Someone help me out on this one. If Bill scanned 3850 frames, then we know that this is in essence the full reel(+/- the allowance Bill mentioned.) And we know it clocks just shy of 3.5 minutes at a known playback speed. Why is there contraversy over what speed the camera was set when Roger "shot the monkey"?

If Roger inadvertently increased the filming speed while dismounting there should be a negative delta to the total predicted runtime of the entire 3850 frames correct?

And there should be a similar positive delta if he inadvertently slowed the filming speed down correct?

Did projectors of that era have a myriad of playback speeds so this can't be definitively determined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Willinyc:

 

16mm film has 40 frames per foot of film. So exactly 100' is 4000 frames.

 

But a 100' day;light load (such as Roger used) is actually about 105-107' long, because several feet is washed out by light exposure both loading and unloading the roll. Now exactly how many feet is washed out depends on the way the person loaded the roll and ran the camera with the door open to test the film loop on each side of the gate. So a person shooting a 100' daylight roll could end up with anywhere from about 102' to 95', depending on how they loaded it. That's a range of 4080 down to 3800 usable film frames with good images and no light washout. So Roger's first reel frame count of 3850 frames is just about right.

 

Nothing about filming speed or projection speed alters the actual frame count. It just affects the viewing duration.

 

If you watch 3850 frames at 24 frames/per/second, it'll run 160.4 seconds, or 2 minutes and 40.4 seconds.

 

If you watch 3850 frames at 16 fps, it'll run 240.6 seconds, or 4 minutes and 0.6 seconds.

 

If the projector has variable speed and you set it at 18 fps, then it would run 213.8 seconds, which is 3 minutes and 33.8 seconds.

 

So for that first reel seen on Youtube, in all likelyhood, the person who did the TV conversion scan to video had a way to set the conversion film projection speed at 18fps, which is then convered to the video standard of 30 fps (by blending frames to add to the number and keep the apparent speed of the subjects moving in the film).

 

But since we don't know who did that video conversion, when or with what kind of telecine equipment, we can't draw any conclusions about Roger's camera running speed based on that video.

 

You can take a 16mm film shot at 16 fps and do a video conversion and tell the video service people it was shot at 24 fps, and they can do the conversion, but everything that moves in your resulting video just moves faster than if you projected the film at 16 fps to match the camera speed. You can also take a film shot at 24 fps and tell the video people to do the conversion at 16fps and the resulting video will slow down all the movements.

 

So the video conversion doesn't really tell us anything reliable about Roger's camera running speed, unfortunately.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well you could count the number of match frames in the transfer, and see how many there are.  This would give you an idea of the total number of frames put into the video transfer by whatever program was used.  For example it would if shot at 15 fps, and transferred to 30fps video, then each from would appear twice (at least that is my understanding).  18fps would have an odd number of frames doubled (of course we have to account for video actually being 29.97fps which is really negligible in this situation).   (Since we have the original film, this math and conversion is really unnecessary, however).

 

From the number of frames doubled, we could get a close approximation of the actual number of frames shot, and this could give us an idea of actual shooting speed by running that at various speeds without a video conversion but at 24fps (standard for film projection).  Depending on how "fast" the subject looked and how "natural" that speed appeared, we could get a better idea of the original filming rate.  For instance if shot at 16fps, and projected at 24fps, the subject would look "fast."  If shot at 36fps and projected at 24fps the subject should appear to be moving at 2/3 speed.  If shot at 8fps and then through processing converted so that each frame is repeated 3 times for the 24fps playback, you get a playback where the motions take the "normal" amount of time, but, have a smeared surreal quality to them such as in the Jackie Chan film Thunderbolt from about 1:13:30 to 1:15:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg5H82ztP7A.  The conversion takes what would otherwise be "sped up" motion and runs it at normal speed but with a surreal "smeared" motion blurred quality to it.  If the PGf were shot at fewer than 24fps, and then converted in video to 24fps, we should expect to see more motion blur than normal from the doubling of multiple frames.  The blur comes from the fact that when shooting at fewer than 24fps, the shutter is open longer than "normal" and anything moving in frame has time to "move" within the shot, resulting in a blurring motion.  Anything shot at a "slower than normal" fps rate has more blur than something shot at a "faster than normal" fps rate.  Moving objects shot at faster than 24fps appear much sharper- if the speed is fast enough they appear almost as series of stills if laid out individually such as in this slowed down video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGzBI26vbUc.  Notice how there is little or no motion blur when the motions are slowed down. 

 

Ironically, motion blur (or really lack thereof) was how it was 100% possible to show that the Cottingley Fairy pictures were bogus as James Randi so nicely demonstrates here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oveXCII3w30.  His point that there is blur on the motion of the waterfall, but not on the fluttering fairy wings shows how motion blur appears in a video.  Similarly, in a stop motion film, such as the original King Kong, the lack of motion blur on Kong, because each tiny motion was captured with a still frame, leads the motion to look a little odd and not quite natural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuRQH_hLcTw.  This was combatted through the construction of models that moved with the motion speed timed to give the appropriate amount of "blur" such as in the model dragon sequences in Dragonslayer: from 3:06-3:12 and 3:20-3:30 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuRQH_hLcTw.

Photoshop and other effects and animation programs will add in motion blur to make objects appear natural in their movements such as in the Final Fantasy Spirits Within Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnE64DbnUzY.  Stop the trailer around 8-9 seconds in and look at the action.  You will see that the computer generated images have been blurred to make them have realistic looking motion.

 

Sorry to ramble.  Motion blur has a direct relationship to frame rate and motion within the frame.  Although this can only give us a relative measure, we can get an idea of whether or not the subject of the film is moving at a "faster" or "slower" than normal pace.  This could be surmised from getting the total run of the original film, and running it at 24fps, and comparing the blur on Patty to the blur on a walking subject. 

 

Again this measure would be relative, but could help us decipher the original frame rate, and the speed at which Patty was moving across the creek bed.  This could help us find out whether or not the subject was "slowed down" to make it look "bigger", i.e. shot at a faster rater than the projected rate.  If that were ruled out, then we would have a firmer position to show that Patty really did have the weight/bulk Patterson and Gimlin stated she has, and if that were true, it would just be another link in the chain of evidence proving Patty was a real 600+lb creature. 

St. G-

Edited by St. George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill,

I get what you’re saying.  I’m not seeing the video conversion rate or the length of “flash†being relevant because projector timing (rates)  should be known and the fact that you know there are exactly 3850 frames in the complete footage is why I’m seeing the rate at which Patterson “shot the monkey†should be something that could be definitively determined. Apply what you just stated to what we know.

 

 

Stick with what you just said and apply those 3 film rates to a 16mm playback projector. For the sake of simplicity we’ll use your same rates you already stated:

A= 24fps playback rate on a 16mm projector gives a runtime of exactly 160.4 seconds

B= 18fps playback rate on a 16mm projector gives a runtime of 213.8 seconds

C= 16fps playback rate on a 16mm projector gives a runtime of 240.6 seconds

 

In essence we know what the predicted playback runtime is exactly for the respective playback speeds. Right?

 

Break the complete footage down into two segments:

  1. The scenery shots.
  2. Roger chasing the monkey.

What you’re telling me is that we know exactly how many frames are in each segment. Correct?

And that we know the exact runtime for each respective playback speed (on a 16mm projector) for 3850 frames. Correct?

 

Let’s say for the sake of simplicity that Roger shot the first segment at 18fps.  Then we know that if segments 1 and 2 were shot at 18fps then the total runtime at the correct playback speed should be 213.8 seconds. If the total runtime for the entire segment is less than 213.8, then it’s fairly obvious that Roger inadvertently increased the rate at which he was burning film for segment 2 to cause the negative delta to the total runtime.

 

Similarly, if the whole footage runs longer than 213.8, Roger inadvertently decreased the rate at which he was burning film to cause the positive delta to the total runtime.

 

Now reapply all that to the potential filming speed Roger could have used for filming segment 1.

 

Unless I’m really missing something, you’ve got more than enough information to solve for the unknown, where the unknown is the speed Patterson was burning film for segment 2. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...