Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty Stabilization From Reddit

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

A bloke to be named later... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

 

Which bloke and which suit does it look like? Please post a comparison of a bloke in a suit that looks like that. Needs to be in motion well. Don't forget the non-oversized head and the low elbow location. Thanks.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

Interesting that one of the first few comments made on the linked page was someone saying they could not come up with a good reason why the subject in the PGF looked back towards the camera. I have lost track of how many deer - coyotes - bobcats - or bear I have come upon and as they fled they would periodocally turn to look back at me.

 

And as Gimlin said - the creature turned and looked back at him when he rode his horse behind Roger - it just happened to be that Roger was between the two (Patty and Gimlin)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^

Yes, I've seen lots of footage of various animal that looked back and neither froze nor took off like a spooked deer. Patty obviously wasn't a deer so no reason for her to either freeze or take off terrified.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I actually had a poster argue this point saying Patty looking back was somehow suspect.

 

The British show X creatures actually has the narrator saying how Patty walking off is an usual reaction.  

 

They will never tell you what the 'usual' or expected reaction should be.  They also will not admit animals walking off and often looking back is what happens all the time in the wild.  Somehow though, Patty's reaction is just wrong. That same reaction of 99% of the animals our there.  

 

I remember reading somewhere how Roger saying Patty looked back at him more than once was evidence he was a liar.  Well, a more modern version of the film clearly shows this is exactly what happened.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkmoon67

I actually had a poster argue this point saying Patty looking back was somehow suspect.

 

The British show X creatures actually has the narrator saying how Patty walking off is an usual reaction.  

 

They will never tell you what the 'usual' or expected reaction should be.  They also will not admit animals walking off and often looking back is what happens all the time in the wild.  Somehow though, Patty's reaction is just wrong. That same reaction of 99% of the animals our there.  

 

I remember reading somewhere how Roger saying Patty looked back at him more than once was evidence he was a liar.  Well, a more modern version of the film clearly shows this is exactly what happened.

 

Backdoc

when scripting the film a hoaxer would make pattys reaction more dramatic also he would make patty a lot faster so to disguise the fake suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The reddit responses were typical amateur "gut feeling" comments. The stabilization was originally done by MK Davis and someone used his frame 352 transparency and superimposed a circle cropping from MK's stabilization GIF to remove the frame borders. It looks pretty good but this is pretty easy to do. I would have cropped the outline of Patty for each frame instead of a circle, which would be the ultimate stabilization. But first I would want to redo MK's original stabilization because he didn't get the rotation right for many frames. If we had access to MK's imagery we could up the ante considerably. Who knows, it could still happen.

 

 

It looks good on a small scale, but it is far from ideal. As Gigantofooticus noted, there is no rotational stabilization, and the optimum overlay of Patty should be cropped to her alone, not the background in the Noll frames that are overlaid.

 

A second necessity of an ideal stabilization is to divide the base image (the full landscape frame) into a foreground layer and a background layer, so Patty can walk behind all the objects in the foreground layer and those objects will be fully stabilized as the background is. The Disney Animators from the 1940's realized this when they developed the multi-plane animation stand, so a cel drawn character could be inserted into a scene and could both pass in fronrt of and behind objects of the landscape. A special Effects company, Introvision, in the 1980's took this same concept and made a split front projection systen whereby they took a still picture and divided it into foreground and background elements, and thus allowed live action filming to occur within the picture, not just in front of it. One of their notable successes was "Outland" with Sean Connery.

 

So an Ideal stabilization of Patty's lookback would be using a scan of the Kodak transparency Mrs. Patterson has (two such scans have been done, by myself and MK Davis, respectively) and then the Noll scans of the lookback would be the Patty source frames, because they have the closest color balance and level of detail to the transparency) and then the Noll frames must be scaled to correct proportion going into the background, and then both positional and rotational stabilizing must be done.  Then Patty needs to be carefully extracted from the rest of the Noll scan, and this needs to be done almost 200 times, for the full frame sequence of her lookback.

 

It's work. I'm evaluating the process now, to see how labor intensive it is.

 

I think the stabilization is excellent and the best we have ever seen to date. I think the creator is to be commended.

 

The walk is utterly human and unremarkable and absent is any jolting misstep.The actual location of the elbow is obviously not inhuman and the static nature of the diaper bum is equally obvious. When I was a believer and thought Patty was real, I had the advantage of much less detail than we've been given in the years since I abandoned belief. The more detail made possible, the more clearly the hoax is apparent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

kitakaze also "thinks"...

 

 

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it.

 

 

And:

 

 

 

I would think it is reasonable, and this is really pushing it, four American states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California and two Canadian provinces - British Columbia and Alberta. That is where I think if the 1% were to be a reality, would be the only reasonable places. 

 

 

Hey kit, is it "reasonable to think that Bigfoot may exist within the PNW only??"

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and, yet you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

 

 

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW", regarding Bigfoot's existence being probable....or shouldn't we?? :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hey kit, is it "reasonable to think that Bigfoot may exist within the PNW only??"

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and, yet you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

Yes, I was indicating that we should not pretend as if Bigfoot is only reported in the PNW when the majority of sightings are from outside it. If Bigfoot was to actually exist, I think it would have to be like the kermode bear, but on a far lesser scale. Regardless, if the sightings from outside the PNW can all be hoaxes/mis-ID's/wishful thinking/etc, so can all the sightings within it.

I was speaking about the PGF stabilization. Would you like to do that, as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty thats funny...

 

 

Yup, Itsa....it's kitakaze's best/most perfect contradiction yet. :)

 

Yes, I was indicating that we should not pretend as if Bigfoot is only reported in the PNW when the majority of sightings are from outside it.

 

 

 

How about a direct, unambiguous 'yes' or 'no' answer to my question...."Is it reasonable to think that Bigfoot may exist within the PNW only??"  

The gobbeldygook words you wrote after your 'yes' do not speak directly to my question. 

 

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and yet, you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW", regarding Bigfoot's existence being probable....or shouldn't we??  :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You need only ignore that when I said not to talk to me about the PNW/remote wilderness, I was indicating that we should not pretend as if Bigfoot is only reported in the PNW when the majority of sightings are from outside it.

"Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

How about a direct, unambiguous 'yes' or 'no' answer to my question...."Is it reasonable to think that Bigfoot may exist within the PNW only??"  

The gobbeldygook words you wrote after your 'yes' do not speak directly to my question. 

 

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and yet, you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

 

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW", regarding Bigfoot's existence being probable....or shouldn't we??   :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The walk is utterly human and unremarkable and absent is any jolting misstep

 

How many TV shows, writings, and other things have specifically referred to the 'odd' or '*****' or 'not human-not ape' walk?

 

This may be your opinion. That is fine.  But the reason the walk has been studied and talked about in scholarly areas is the simple fact the walk in NOT like you say it is.  Now we can argue as to why that is.  The walk itself is practically famous for being not like that of a person regardless of why.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...