Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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?

 

 

Yes, that would be the case, Drew. The information should be available on Bill's Report website, but I would think he used the same 'percentage of frame height' for Patty...for both lens calculations. 

 

Without 'running the numbers'...just using a visual comparison, here is a direct comparison of how tall Patty would be, next to a 6'2" tall person....(if there was a 15MM lens on Roger's camera)...

 

Munns-LensComparisonSubject2_zps60664117

 

 

It looks to me like, when fully straightened-up...Patty would be at least 7 1/2' tall....if not taller. :huh:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkmoon67

I think the issue of height could well be the key to resolving this mystery surely if a height of seven and a half foot could be proven then how can this be fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Don't get your hopes up for Patty being over 7-feet tall, pinkmoon....she wasn't. The 15MM lens has already been definitively ruled-out, by Bill and Gigantofootecus.

 

Patty was under 7'....most likely somewhere within the range of 6'2" to 6'7".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

In doing some reading on Bill's Report website, I came across this filmsite measurement diagram of John Green's...

 

Green-SiteMeasurements1B_zps23ahpex6.jpg

 

 

I'm posting it because it contains one particular measurement which may be helpful in solving the Lens issue. It's the horizontal measurement...(of 15 or 16')...between the two small trees, on either side of the Big Tree.

 

Here is a slightly clarified version of the diagram...

 

Green-SiteMeasurements4_zpsuflqyjio.jpg

 

 

A question for Giganto...do you think that cross-field measurement could help you solve for the horizontal angle-of-view??

 

Also, did you already have that information? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Sweaty,

 

A lot has already been tested re the 2 "near" trees as well as their shadows casted on Patty. The "Tree Triangle" was of great interest to Bill and myself to try and resolve the lens issue, however, it was found that the distance between those 2 trees was too small to settle anything. The triangle calculated the focal length of the lens to be midway between 20mm and 25mm +/-5mm. It's the +/-5mm part that is the bugger. It's that high because the distance between the 2 trees was relatively small. The farther apart those trees were the smaller the relative error. Unfortunately, they were too close together to resolve the lens issue.

 

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Thanks for your reply, Giganto. :)

 

But, actually, I was asking about the two small trees in the background...on either side of the Big Tree...

 

F352-TwoSmallTrees1B_zpsi04avdxp.jpg

 

 

I didn't know if you had seen John Green's measurement of the distance between them...and whether or not this measurement would be enough to distinguish between the 20 and the 25MM lenses. 

 

Even though they're not very far apart....they are a long distance from the camera, so I thought that a 15' length, at that distance away, might be enough to make the distinction between the two lenses.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sweaty, I thought you meant TC2&3(?). It certainly can't hurt to test other trees if we know the distances between them with confidence. But like the other 2 trees, they are pretty close together with the same large relative error of uncertainty. But here is how to test it anyway:

 

1) Start with MK Davis' transparency scan of frame 352. I predict this will be the holy grail of future PGF photogrammetry. Use this image for all future analyses.

 

post-337-0-88421300-1425337783_thumb.jpg

 

Unfortunately, the BFF rescaled the image when I uploaded it so I will have to post a link to the full size image. In the meantime..

 

2) The pixel resolution of the image is 4769 width x 3453 height. Aspect ratio = 1.38 (which jibes with Glickman's measurements using calipers on the K100's aperture gate). Let this represent a full frame from the PGF. Use any resolution you like (bigger the better) as long as you crop the image to match the aspect ratio of the aperture gate dimensions.

 

3) You need to construct an overhead triangle between the camera and the 2 trees. If we know the distances of all 3 sides then we can derive all the angles and compare them to the measured angles on the film.

 

4) The angle of the triangle between the 2 trees is: (hz pixels between 2 trees) / (pixel width full frame) X (hz angle of view for a full frame for a particular lens). Test for 25mm & 20mm lenses and compare the angle to your triangle then post your findings! Or post your preliminary  measurements and I'll grind the numbers for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Thanks for posting the image, and the information, Giganto. :)  I downloaded the image, and I will definitely work on the problem this week. 

 

 

One question I have, for now....in your review of Bill's Lens Analysis, you provided this information...

 

 

 

"We know the horizontal FOV for a full frame is 23.26 degrees (25mm) and 37.86 degrees (15mm)."

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

But, I'm wondering....what is the horizontal FOV for a 20MM lens? Is it 30.56....(half-way between the two figures above)??  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...