Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Arms And Hands

Recommended Posts

MikeZimmer

Brachial Index for Patty Based on Measurement of Vision Realm Skeleton

 

...

See post 1169 on this thread (http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/4782-pattys-arms-and-hands/), Patty's Arms and Hands. Excerpt here:

 

“SweatyYeti, you have computed a humorofemoral index of 91.8.

 

 

 

Due to creeping senitlity, I failed to note that the quote had nothing to do with the Brachial Index. However, I believe that the rest still stands. I may still have a less extreme value for the arm ratio than does SweatyYeti. Mine can not rule out human, and and Sweaty thought that his did.

 

Brachial Index

 

Radius to Humerus Ratio: 81.19

Human Reference: 76.27

Standard Deviation: 2.30

Z-score: 2.14

Difference: 4.92

Hi Mike,

...

This framework is stored as 3D joined vertices known as a complex chain. Each vertex holds the x/y/z location including its position in the chain. Then we can derive the foreshortening of each vector and calculate the actual length of each body part. In all, it's a lot of work for likely little reward. Skeptics won't accept it if:

 

1) They don't understand it.

2) They don't like it.

 

Which covers most of the bases. I hope to have more time in the new year to work on this. Until then.

 

Happy New Year!

GF

 

Thanks muchly Gigantofootecus.

 

I have been thinking about how to do this all day, and that I might be able to find more information on how Vision Realm Entertainment did it.

 

This is somewhat complex, and will take some time to digest. I will have to experiment to make sure that I understand it. I wanted to do the solid body model metrics for the Vision Realm Entertainment model next, to see if I would come up with number comparable to the skeletal model. If I get the points of articulation correctly specified, I should be able to come within a small margin of error. I suspect that anatomists, and perhaps body workers, might have a strong intuitive feel for how to determine this less formally, and maybe some rules of thumb (or not).

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Hi Mike,

 

This framework is stored as 3D joined vertices known as a complex chain. Each vertex holds the x/y/z location including its position in the chain. Then we can derive the foreshortening of each vector and calculate the actual length of each body part. In all, it's a lot of work for likely little reward. Skeptics won't accept it if:

 

1) They don't understand it.

2) They don't like it.

 

Which covers most of the bases. I hope to have more time in the new year to work on this. Until then.

 

Happy New Year!

GF

 

Hi Giganofootecus,

 

More thoughts:

 

I probably won't attempt to do this, upon reflection. However, Vision Realm Entertainment (VRE) has done this. I don't know how carefully they guard their results. Is there literature explaining the degree of accuracy, to accepted standards, which can be achieved with the method used by VRE?

 

For science, it is necessary, I think:

 

1 - to show that the method itself is sound, and can eliminate bias; showing accuracy and reliability, with given bounds for error at a known level of confidence

2 - the VRE was competent in the use of the method

3 - that VRE can show the procedures that they followed

4 - that the work is repeatable by anyone who has learned the method and is competent in it

 

However, they are not scientists but animators.

 

Sometimes scientists attempt replication and fail, and it turns out that they did not follow the original protocol very well.

 

I don't give a hoot for the garden variety pseudo sceptics, but I would like to see some work done to a high standard, and published (maybe in Meldrum's Journal). It needs to be documented to a professional standard. Probably the standard academic paper is a poor model, but only because the standard of writing is usually so bad.

 

In the long run, this stuff will be accepted I believe.

 

Regards

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

I am starting to look for information on the technique, "reverse kinematics" used by Vision Realm Entertainment to make an animation of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Gigantofootecus talked about it above, but did not use the term "reverse kinematics."

 

Although I normally don't look at skeptic sites, I did find this, which I find interesting:

 

 

  spacer.gifpost_old.gif 4th October 2007, 05:51 PM   #7878
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
 
Originally Posted by Correa Neto viewpost.gif
"I believe they are real, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence at this moment to back this claim. The pieces of evidence may be enough to convince me and some others for one reason or another, but their quality is not good enough for scientific purposes, for example."
Hmmm... the above has some parallels to how I characterized my own stance on Cryptomundo a few months ago.

Quote:
I’m fine with folks who are agnostic about the existence of sasquatch. If you are a strict empiricist (and that’s a good thing in my mind), you might find the existing evidence to be ambiguous or even suggestive. However, you’ll need more before accepting that such a species is real. Although my position has vacillated over time, that’s the camp that I find myself in now.
I'm not even sure I would say I believe they are real, just that I don't dismiss the possibility on an a priori basis. I am open to either a zoological or sociopsychological explanation, such as Daegling's prankster-ecomessiah hypothesis.

Since this thread is on the PGF, I'll quote a recent e-mail I sent that touched on the subject.

Quote:
The challenge of replicating the PGF is a hollow one until it is based on quantitative measurements that can be agreed on beforehand as being reliable and valid, for which the film subject would far exceed the limits of a confidence interval for the human measure in question. Qualitative judgements are entirely subjective and amorphous.

I had hoped that the IM index would be such a measure. However, I am unable to get any information on the reliability and validity testing of the "reverse kinematics" employed by Reuben Steindorf, the forensic animator in Legend Meets Science. I must assume that, for the time being, no such testing has been done. In other words, it likely isn't a standardized measurement technique around which bias and variance has been established. E-mails to Steindorf only yielded minimal information, and then he stopped replying.

My hunch was that a rigorous 3-D modeling in motion would get around some of the issues in Bigfoot's Screen Test and supply something quantitative we could hang our hats on. Maybe it still can, and maybe it's this very procedure. I would need to know more about it though.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Found that the term "inverse kinematics" is used for the 3D modelling. This was used to model Patty by Rueben Steindorf at Vision Realm Entertainment (they may not be in business now - their website is not found).

 

At Wikipedia, there is a complex description, involving a lot of mathematics. It appears to be used in robotics as well as animation. Excerpt here:

 

Inverse kinematics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

220px-Modele_cinematique_corps_humain.sv

A model of the human skeleton as a kinematic chain allows positioning using inverse kinematics.
 

Inverse kinematics refers to the use of the kinematics equations of a robot to determine the joint parameters that provide a desired position of the end-effector.[1] Specification of the movement of a robot so that its end-effector achieves a desired task is known as motion planning. Inverse kinematics transforms the motion plan into joint actuator trajectories for the robot.

The movement of a kinematic chain whether it is a robot or an animated character is modeled by the kinematics equations of the chain. These equations define the configuration of the chain in terms of its joint parameters. Forward kinematics uses the joint parameters to compute the configuration of the chain, and inverse kinematics reverses this calculation to determine the joint parameters that achieves a desired configuration.[2][3][4]

For example, inverse kinematics formulas allow calculation of the joint parameters that position a robot arm to pick up a part. Similar formulas determine the positions of the skeleton of an animated character that is to move in a particular way.

....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've used inverse kinematics to program a robotic arm to X-ray scan fighter jet wings for imperfections. They used to scan the wings with hand held X-ray "scopes' with disastrous  consequences. At any rate the concept of inverse or reverse kinematics is to manipulate the 3D skeletal complex chain by tugging on its various parts to reposition it and re-project it onto a 2D plane. This, in effect is what photogrammetry does. It projects 3D objects onto a 2D medium such as your computer screen.

 

Inverse Kinematics is a technology that has been taken up by CGI animators. IK is used to manipulate digital models which is why Vision Realm never published their algorithms. They also did not conduct their analyses to scientific standards and all their s/w is proprietary. I would redo their analyses with today's animation s/w with a more transparent methodology. Otherwise, your work is too easily dismissed by the skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Regarding Vision Realm's 'Patty skeleton'....they got a couple of 'key lengths' wrong... 

 

F348-F364VRSkelAG2.gif

 

 

 

They are way off on the lengths of the leg bones....and they have the proportion of the arm wrong, also. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Regarding Vision Realm's 'Patty skeleton'....they got a couple of 'key lengths' wrong... 

 

F348-F364VRSkelAG2.gif

 

 

 

They are way off on the lengths of the leg bones....and they have the proportion of the arm wrong, also. 

 

 

Thanks Gigantofootecus and SweatyYeti. It has been hard to find anything of substance about their work on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
...

 

Radius to Humerus Ratio: 81.19

Human Reference: 76.27

Standard Deviation: 2.30

Z-score: 2.14

Difference: 4.92

 

I did some work to day on trying to get a better handle on SweatyYeti's thoughts on the ratio of lower to upper arm. I have posted it over at another thread, and some may be interested in trucking on over to http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49888-biometrics-and-the-ontological-status-of-sasquatch/#entry885037. If not, I reprint a summary graphic below:

 

seeing-it-graphically.png?w=182&h=300

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Just recently, I acquired the Documentary "Sasquatch Odyssey".....and, it happens to have the best-looking version of the PGF, that I have ever seen.

 

Here is one of the frames captured from it...an early Frame from the middle sequence...it shows Patty's right arm, bent at the elbow...

 

SO-MiddleSeq-F2_zpsf56afb1c.jpg

 

 

I highly recommend the dvd, for anyone interested in seeing a very clear version of the Film. In addition to the clarity...it's closer to a full-frame version than the LMS version of the Film is. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Just recently, I acquired the Documentary "Sasquatch Odyssey".....and, it happens to have the best-looking version of the PGF, that I have ever seen.

 

Here is one of the frames captured from it...an early Frame from the middle sequence...it shows Patty's right arm, bent at the elbow...

 

SO-MiddleSeq-F2_zpsf56afb1c.jpg

 

 

I highly recommend the dvd, for anyone interested in seeing a very clear version of the Film. In addition to the clarity...it's closer to a full-frame version than the LMS version of the Film is. :)

Sweaty, I think this frame has some classic ape suit tells in it.

 

Bill, do you agree that this frame shows characteristic shoulder pad reveals?  I mean this looks like a bad ape suit shoulder yoke to me.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty or Bill-

 

Regarding Sweaty Post http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/4782-pattys-arms-and-hands/?p=888242 

 

Do you know what frame number this frame corresponds to?

 

 

I don't know which Frame number that image is, Drew. 

 

 

 

Sweaty can you post other pictures from that DVD?  It seems really clear.

 

 

If it weren't for potential 'copyright violations', I would have posted a whole bunch of images from the dvd, already! :)

 

It is a very high quality copy...and, I think it may be Patricia Patterson's copy of the Film.

 

I may post one or two more Frames, to show how it compares with the LMS version...in the next day, or two.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Drew wrote:

 

Sweaty, I think this frame has some classic ape suit tells in it.

 

Bill, do you agree that this frame shows characteristic shoulder pad reveals?  I mean this looks like a bad ape suit shoulder yoke to me.

 

 

I don't think it shows any different 'right shoulder' detail than what the other Frames show, Drew.  There is some slight motion blurring in that Frame, and that may be causing it to look slightly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

looks like a fullback going into the game for third down

Edited by mbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sweaty, I think this frame has some classic ape suit tells in it.

 

Bill, do you agree that this frame shows characteristic shoulder pad reveals?  I mean this looks like a bad ape suit shoulder yoke to me.

 

Looks like she has no leg below the right knee and an extremely skinny left leg, plus a big black hump on her back as well but obviously not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...