Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

Faenor

Since the height has been estimated has anyone bothered to calculate the volume of the figure? The mass should be easy to approximate after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

Gimlin always referred to how massive Patty was. That was the thing he continues to talk about to this day.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Since the height has been estimated has anyone bothered to calculate the volume of the figure? The mass should be easy to approximate after that.

If I am not confusing authors, I think that a fellow named Glickman did that, but a lot of folks disagree with his numbers - the feeling is that he applied the wrong formula, although he did a lot of really good analysis. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

Jeff Glickman figured a weight of 1900 pounds from a volumetric formula tied to primates. Seems like he was figuring with a height of approximately 7'3".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nice work Mike! Here's an old post of mine using the EEK ruler and photogrammetry to estimate McClarin's distance from the camera derived from his known height of 6'5".

 

After looking at Green's footage some more I thought I would do a quick estimate of McClarin's distance from the camera using the 1 frame Bill provided. This frame matches closely with frame 352 of the PGF (the turn). I would have done this long ago if McClarin's full body was in full view. We know his standing height, which would have to be translated to his walking height. Then we could use him as a ruler and his distance from the camera could be tested against the focal length of the lens. Unfortunately, we have to derive any body measurements since his legs are not in view. But even an approximation should allow us to calculate ballpark distances from the camera, which can be compared to the models.

For starters, let's assume Green used a Wollensak lens with 1" (25.4mm) focal length. McClarin's standing height was 77" (6' 5"). He appeared to be a lanky individual, of average proportions. Other frames showing his full body could confirm this. If this was the case, then we should be able to get some decent estimates of his body dimensions by measuring someone of equal height. My height is 75", which should be close enough to get decent approximations of McClarin's body dimensions, especially if I add 1 to 2 inches to my measurements. Here is McClarin's image and the 2 vectors I have chosen as a ruler, ear to elbow to knuckles (EEK).

McClarin_ear_elbow_knuckles.gif

When I adopted the same body position and measured these 2 vectors on myself I got 20.5" (ear to elbow) & 15.5" (elbow to knuckle). Since McClarin's full arm span is approximately his height, I am going to add 1" inch to these 2 vectors bringing their sum to 37". Since this is a derivation, I'll be generous with an error estimate of +/- 2". Now we have a ruler to estimate his distance from the camera.

Here is the optical formula:

Vertical field of view for a 1" lens = 17.02 degrees

Ruler = 37" = 190 pixels (image above, EEK)

Full frame height (at McClarin's distance from camera) = 39' 7" = 2438 pixels

Distance from the camera = 37 / tan((190 / 2438 * 17.02 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 133 ft +/- 7 ft

Seems farther than current estimates by around 20 feet, but that's no reason to disqualify it. If we could accurately define these physical distances between body markers on McClarin, the derived distances to the camera could be within a foot of accuracy. That is if the lens is known, i.e. a 1" Wollensak.

Let's test this distance to the camera. If McClarin was 133 feet from the camera, then by most measures, Patty was about 10% closer to the camera. Let's say Patty was 123 feet from the camera in frame 352. Now we can refer to Bill's very useful graphic which compares the heights of Patty and McClarin against figures shot with a 25mm lens, where all 4 frames were scaled to a common frame height. So based on these new distance estimates, I re-scaled Patty and McClarin for a re-comparison with 1 of the figures.

123_133_102.gif

How about the guy in the right-most frame? Does the EEK measurement work for him? Since he's 75" tall (same as myself) I repositioned my arm to match his and re-measured the ear-elbow vector (the elbow-knuckle vector remained unchanged). I found this vector increased by about 1.5".

75inguy.gif

Here is the formula for his distance to the camera:

Vertical field of view for 25mm lens = 17.26 degrees

Ruler = 38.5" = 121 pixels (image above, EEK)

Full frame height = 1154 pixels

Distance from the camera = 38.5 / tan((121 / 1154 * 17.26 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 101.5 ft

This is very close to his actual distance from the camera of 102'. For this case at least the EEK ruler works.

Bill Munns calculated McClarin to be 132' from the camera for Green's equivalent of frame 352 of the PGF.

Now let's pretend Patty's standing height was actually 6'3" so we can apply photogrammetry to see how far Patty was from the camera in frame 352.

VAV.gif

DistFromCamera.gif

Here is a table showing the correlation between the height, lens and distances from the camera for Patty in frame 352.

Dist2CamTable.png

For a 25mm lens and 75" standing height, Patty was 125' from the camera. Which means Green was either farther from Patty than Roger and/or McClarin was farther from Roger than Patty, by approx. 8 feet. This means McClarin's image needs to scaled up ~8% to compare it to Patty.

McClarin_110_zps0b9c83c0.png

This comparison is only valid if McClarin was ~10' farther from the camera than Patty.

GF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Good work, Giganto. :)

 

But, this is approx. where you lose me...

 

"For a 25mm lens and 75" standing height, Patty was 125' from the camera. Which means Green was either farther from Patty than Roger and/or McClarin was farther from Roger than Patty, by approx. 8 feet. This means McClarin's image needs to scaled up ~8% to compare it to Patty."

 

 

One question...regarding these two statements...

 

 

Now let's pretend Patty's standing height was actually 6'3" so we can apply photogrammetry to see how far Patty was from the camera in frame 352.

 

For a 25mm lens and 75" standing height, Patty was 125' from the camera. 

 

 

By 'standing height', are you referring simply to Patty's 'walking height', as seen in the image....or are you referring to her 'full standing height'?

 

I'm thinking you're talking about 'walking height'....since you didn't mention the 'correction factor' for converting her 'walking height' to 'full standing height'. 

 

 

If I don't reply for a couple of days...it would be because we lost power, in this major snowstorm. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good work, Giganto. :)

 

But, this is approx. where you lose me...

 

"For a 25mm lens and 75" standing height, Patty was 125' from the camera. [/size]Which means Green was either farther from Patty than Roger and/or McClarin was farther from Roger than Patty, by approx. 8 feet.[/size] This means McClarin's image needs to scaled up ~8% to compare it to Patty."[/size]

I knew that would be confusing when I wrote it. The bottom line is McClarin was ~10 feet farther from the camera than Patty, so McClarin's image must be scaled up by ~10% to put him at the same distance from the camera as Patty. IMO, Green was ~6' farther back than Roger and McClarin walked ~4' outside of Patty's trackway at frame 352.

 

One question...regarding these two statements...

 

By 'standing height', are you referring simply to Patty's 'walking height', as seen in the image....or are you referring to her 'full standing height'?

 

I'm thinking you're talking about 'walking height'....since you didn't mention the 'correction factor' for converting her 'walking height' to 'full standing height'. 

 

 

If I don't reply for a couple of days...it would be because we lost power, in this major snowstorm. :)

I always refer to Patty's standing height or body length (head+torso+legs). Her walking height is always a vertical line from the top of her head to the ground, which fluctuates over her walk cycle. Not as much as a human, however, because she walked compliantly. Her walking height can be derived for every frame we can see her standing height. For frame 350 her walking height was 6'3" - 15.6% = 5'4" (believe it or not).

350_zps87efade8.gif

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Regarding the Dahinden Measurement Diagram, linked-to at the top of the page...

 

DahindenMeasurementDiagram1_zps54d263b0.

 

 

There are a couple of errors in it. So I made this version, with a few corrections...(errors in red, corrections in green)...

 

DahindenMeasurementDiagram1Corrected1_zp

 

 

Rene Dahinden had the wrong location for Roger's location....he was about 20' too close to the Main Log. 

 

As far as I can tell...it appears that the 40' figure for Patty's position at F352 was something Rene deduced, from the two other measurements he made....(the distance from Roger's camera to the Main Log, and the distance from the Main Log to the Branch.)

 

If he was working with the notion that Patty was 102' from Roger...he would then have subtracted the two measured distances from the 102' figure...and arrived at 40', for where Patty was at F352.

 

But since his placement of Roger's position was wrong....then his placement for Patty was also wrong....by 20'. Correcting for that...Patty's position would be 20' closer to the Branch and Main Log....and significantly closer to the debris pile.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

Th

If I am not confusing authors, I think that a fellow named Glickman did that, but a lot of folks disagree with his numbers - the feeling is that he applied the wrong formula, although he did a lot of really good analysis. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

That's pretty cool. The 1957lb seems high. I think that's above the upper limit for male grizzlies. I couldn't access the paper by McMahon which developed the equation for primate scaling involving chest circumference.

Is 7'+ now considered too high and the estimate Giganto came up with, mid 6', the accepted height approximation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Th

That's pretty cool. The 1957lb seems high. I think that's above the upper limit for male grizzlies. I couldn't access the paper by McMahon which developed the equation for primate scaling involving chest circumference.

Is 7'+ now considered too high and the estimate Giganto came up with, mid 6', the accepted height approximation?

 

 

The latest estimate, by Gigantofootecus, the original post for this thread, is 6' 3" +/- 2".

 

It might be possible to redo some of Glickman's work based on that, but it would take a braver man than myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I knew that would be confusing when I wrote it. The bottom line is McClarin was ~10 feet farther from the camera than Patty, so McClarin's image must be scaled up by ~10% to put him at the same distance from the camera as Patty.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. :)

 

 

 

 

 IMO, Green was ~6' farther back than Roger and McClarin walked ~4' outside of Patty's trackway at frame 352.

 

 

How certain are you of that, Giganto?? I find that hard to accept...based on the diagram I made...working-out their paths, working backwards from tree T-C2.....(the earliest spot where their paths could have converged).

 

The two paths appear to have been in the range of 10-13' apart, back at F352.

 

Also, that is based on their paths converging/crossing just beyond tree T-C2....which I don't think actually happened. It looks to me as though their paths converged well beyond that point.

 

 

 

I always refer to Patty's standing height or body length (head+torso+legs). Her walking height is always a vertical line from the top of her head to the ground, which fluctuates over her walk cycle. Not as much as a human, however, because she walked compliantly. Her walking height can be derived for every frame we can see her standing height.

 

 

Thanks. So, you are referring to her 'full standing height'....via the 'length vectors' placed on her body. IOW...her 'zig-zag' height. :)

 

 

 

 

 For frame 350 her walking height was 6'3" - 15.6% = 5'4" (believe it or not).

 

 

I can believe that. In fact, I think that it indicates a 25MM lens being on Roger's camera.

 

Bill Munns calculated, for the 25MM lens, a 'walking height' for Patty of about 4'11"....not too far off of the 5'4" figure. And it looks to me like Bill made one significant error, in how he figured Patty's percentage of the 'Frame Height'. He underestimated it.

 

This is a crop of one of Bill's graphics. He has Patty's height marked by the black lines...but the line for the bottom of her feet is too high. He has it aligned with Patty's right foot...which is still in the air. Her left leg is the supporting leg, and that foot is lower. I highlighted where it is, reasonably closely, with the pink line...

 

F350-FullFrame-PattyLines-Corrected2_zps

 

 

Correcting for that error would bring Patty's 'walking height' up very close to 5'4"....(with a 25MM lens on the camera).

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

Scaling down the a Glickman chest circumference and using McMahon's equation with a 6'4" patty gives a weight of 1336 lbs. I think anything with a height of 6'4" would need a lot more girth to get up to that weight. Something appears to be broken in Glickmans analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Scaling down the a Glickman chest circumference and using McMahon's equation with a 6'4" patty gives a weight of 1336 lbs. I think anything with a height of 6'4" would need a lot more girth to get up to that weight. Something appears to be broken in Glickmans analysis.

interesting analysis - I don't think that many believe he got it right on that figure, but it appears to be more than just a height issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Sweaty, based on that incorrect placement of the bottom of the foot, that would also mean that Bill Munns' other estimate of 7'4" (with the other lens) would be under estimated as well. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

 

 

This is a crop of one of Bill's graphics. He has Patty's height marked by the black lines...but the line for the bottom of her feet is too high. He has it aligned with Patty's right foot...which is still in the air. Her left leg is the supporting leg, and that foot is lower. I highlighted where it is, reasonably closely, with the pink line...

 

Just a thought.. the line Bill has for the forward step vs the trailing step.  Would it not be possible for the trailing foot to also be incorrect as the heal may be lifting?

Possibly the heal is landing first on the forward step?  it's really hard to tell either way.    Just a thought.. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...