Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Thanks for posting this, Roguefooter. I knew this method was flawed, but had not got around to demonstrating it with a visual. Glad to see someone else took the time to test it. It's amazing how a field test can tell us things that we may not totally understand otherwise.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Rougue's excellent post #15 shows why we can't always make assumptions about various things in the PGF. Many issues prove more complicated. 

 

Often we hear 'well it is just common sense that [this or that] would mean..."

 

As post #15 shows, what seems to be a 'common sense' way of doing something turns out to be well- meaning, but inaccurate.  If the method is not accurate we cannot trust the results.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The difference between Patty's walking height and her standing height always seems to cloud the issue. This is why I posted the image of Soarwing with the 14.5" board on his foot next to Patty in the OP. The point being that measuring his vertical height with the foot board put him at 5' 3", which is 17% shorter than his actual standing height. IOW, if you are going to measure Patty's vertical height in frame 72 by stacking the foot ruler you must add 17% to convert her walking height to her standing height. The walking height, however, varies over the walk cycle.

 

Humans walking normally fluctuate their vertical height by ~9%.

 

stepcycle-1.png

 

But if you walk compliantly with a 90 degree shin rise your walking height can vary by >17%. You also never attain your full standing height walking this way. This is why we need to measure Patty's BODY LENGTH using height vectors to determine her standing height. This is exactly how forensic photometrology measures a suspect's standing height captured on surveillance cameras.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yeah that method doesn't work. Tom Pate tried the same thing with Patty, and was shown why it didn't work using his own example-

 

yz880.jpg

 

He is 6 ft tall and his shoe is 12". If you use his shoe as a ruler then he only comes to about 5'3" tall.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29514-pattys-height

This analogy is true to a point, but it totally depend on the subjects distance from the camera. The closer the subject is to the camera lens the more distortion you get, making the closest object appear to be larger than it really is. I use this effect then taking pictures of the fish I catch. This bass is NOT really bigger then my head but it looks like it is.

lptoad1_zpse175a7c4.jpg

 This effect only comes into play at close distances to the camera. If the subject is some 90 to 120  feet away like Patty was the effect is almost nonexistent. Meaning that a object (like a foot) that is a few feet closer at that range is not out of proportion with the rest of the body. The rate of distortion for an object that is 6 feet from the camera is about 25% where the same object that is 100 feet away only has a distortion rate of about 1%. So fairly accurate measurements can be made with subjects that are far away from the camera lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good work in your opening post, Giganto. 

 

A little off, on the 'arm proportion'...but that's o.k.....it doesn't have much effect on measuring Patty's height. :)

 

Thanks Sweaty. I wasn't trying to place the elbow exactly (I've done that already). I could have used any unforeshortened body markers as a ruler as long as they were common to frames 61 and 352.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Giganto-

Assuming Patty is 6'3", what would you calculate the hip joint to ground distance to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Drew, Patty was a dynamic object whose hip joint height relative to the ground varied over her walk cycle. Be more specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

You calculated the height of Patty at 6'3" Patty was dynamic and moving around, but you used intersecting lines to calculate the height.

 

Can you do the same thing from the hip joint, to the ground using intersecting lines and pixels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

The difference between Patty's walking height and her standing height always seems to cloud the issue. This is why I posted the image of Soarwing with the 14.5" board on his foot next to Patty in the OP. The point being that measuring his vertical height with the foot board put him at 5' 3", which is 17% shorter than his actual standing height. IOW, if you are going to measure Patty's vertical height in frame 72 by stacking the foot ruler you must add 17% to convert her walking height to her standing height.

 

Gigantofootecus,

 

Because Patty is leaning far forward and with a greater knee bend than the man in the walking illustration - would not one need to add a greater percentage to her standing erect height to compensate for her posture in relation to his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

 This effect only comes into play at close distances to the camera. If the subject is some 90 to 120  feet away like Patty was the effect is almost nonexistent. Meaning that a object (like a foot) that is a few feet closer at that range is not out of proportion with the rest of the body. The rate of distortion for an object that is 6 feet from the camera is about 25% where the same object that is 100 feet away only has a distortion rate of about 1%. So fairly accurate measurements can be made with subjects that are far away from the camera lens.

 

Notice Patty's height compared to Jim McClarin. Jim was approx. 6'5" tall in the below film. If Patty were really a short subject like your measurement claims then Patty wouldn't be taller than McClarin:

 

mcclarin_comp_zpsf71c93da.jpg

 

The effect is clearly heavily in play even with Patty at a distance.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This analogy is true to a point, but it totally depend on the subjects distance from the camera. The closer the subject is to the camera lens the more distortion you get, making the closest object appear to be larger than it really is. I use this effect then taking pictures of the fish I catch. This bass is NOT really bigger then my head but it looks like it is.

 

 This effect only comes into play at close distances to the camera. If the subject is some 90 to 120  feet away like Patty was the effect is almost nonexistent. Meaning that a object (like a foot) that is a few feet closer at that range is not out of proportion with the rest of the body. The rate of distortion for an object that is 6 feet from the camera is about 25% where the same object that is 100 feet away only has a distortion rate of about 1%. So fairly accurate measurements can be made with subjects that are far away from the camera lens.

 

 Yes! "Closeness" to the camera distorts the images and the measurements. This is why it is fortunate that Patty was filmed >100 feet from the camera and the distortion on the film was negligible (<1%). IOW, Patty's entire body was undistorted and to scale in the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You calculated the height of Patty at 6'3" Patty was dynamic and moving around, but you used intersecting lines to calculate the height.

 

Can you do the same thing from the hip joint, to the ground using intersecting lines and pixels?

 

If you mean the leg vectors, then refer to my prev image and do the calculations, legs / height x 27.8". Then compare that to your own legs. Note that the 2nd leg vector includes the foot (tibia+foot). The femur vector is well established but the tibia (+foot) is derived in frame 352 because the endpoint is not visible. The extrapolated end point is based on matching a human's proportions, which is probably wrong. But this would imply that Patty's tibia/femur ratio was non-human and surely, you don't want that?

Gigantofootecus,

 

Because Patty is leaning far forward and with a greater knee bend than the man in the walking illustration - would not one need to add a greater percentage to her standing erect height to compensate for her posture in relation to his?

 

Isn't that what I said? Standing hgt = 17% more than compliant walking hgt. Humans = 9%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Notice Patty's height compared to Jim McClarin. 

 

mcclarin_comp_zpsf71c93da.jpg

 

 

I don't think there is any reference to indicate that the two images in that composite are scaled correctly.  Is there?    

 

From over 100 feet away, logic dictates that the size distortion caused by her foot being something like 1% closer to the camera would be negligible.  On the other hand, the bright color of the bottom of her foot may have 'bloomed' that part of the image somewhat which could mean that she is a bit taller than 6'3" but, I still contend that to be a very good estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^I think the composite was scaled by matching the land features. MK Davis (yeah I know) did a good video composite of the two:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r97G-nugi9w

 

The second half of the video is a close up. For the most part they walk slightly different paths, but at the point where he stops the video they're just about at the same point.

 

 

2qcnm6d.jpg

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

IMO, this is the most compelling comparison between McClarin and Patty. They were within a few feet of each other in this part of the trackway.

 

PGF_Green2.gif

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...