Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Photogrammetry 101: Solving The Trackway Triangle

Recommended Posts

Drew

Fascinating.  So what lens is on the Revere camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Giganto,

What are the implications of this wrt your calculations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^Nada. I agree that Green was probably using the Revere, not the Keystone cam. However, the stock lens for both cams was 1" (25.4mm). I think it is possible that Green and Patterson both used 20mm lenses or a combo of zoom lenses, but that just bogs us down. I choose to explore the PGF beyond the lens issue. Others can explore the alternatives. Whatever floats your boat. So Drew, what are you fishing for?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew
 So Drew, what are you fishing for?

 

 

I'm simply wondering why you posted this misleading info?  Were you hoping this would make it into the Halls of Bigfoot Legend, to be accepted as fact in a couple months, as it gets repeated over and over without anyone questioning it?

 

 

Green inexplicably removed the camera's aperture plate before shooting McClarin.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51765-photogrammetry-101-solving-the-trackway-triangle/page-1#entry923446

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Halls of Bigfoot Legend? :D So you are fishing to discredit me are you? You need to get a life. I didn't just pull this out of my keister, this was all discussed years ago. Try using the search feature for a change. I've already wasted too much time doing your homework for you.

To this day Green is convinced he shot the McClarin footage with his Keystone camera, which he claims is the only 16mm camera he has ever owned. And he only has a stock 1" Wollensak lens for it. The dimensions of the aperture on the film does not match his Keystone's aperture plate but it does match the magazine's aperture. So either Green opened or removed the aperture plate or he was mistaken about what camera he used.

Daniel Perez posted a photo of Green looking thru a Revere camera, which appears to have been taken at Bluff Creek. This might be why the film doesn't match the Keystone's aperture but that is far from conclusive. We need to examine the aperture of the Revere to support this hypothesis, otherwise, it looks like that Revere camera had a 1" stock lens on it. But that is also far from conclusive.

The main reason to eliminate the Keystone camera from the equation is because Green only has a 1" Wollensak lens for it. Since Green doesn't even remember using the Revere camera, he also wouldn't remember what lens was on it. This opens the door for Bill's 20mm lens hypothesis. But Patterson would also have coincidentally used a 20mm lens to shoot the PGF. So as a skeptic, why would you support the same non-standard lens on both cameras hypothesis? Especially when the photogrammetry doesn't support it? You do realize that if you repeat my calculations for a 20mm lens, then that puts Patty in the 6'8" height range, don't you? Not what you were looking for was it?

If you actually read and followed this thread you would not have to ask how this affected my calculations. Your motives to stir things up are transparent. Let's get this straight, I don't subscribe to the lens controversy. Hopefully, more study of the film might settle it, but until then you should be asking Bill these questions, in his thread, not mine.

Have a nice day. :)

GF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The idea Green's Keystone Camera aperture plate was modified, that was an early theory of mine, now since set aside as not applicable. Given there is practically zero technical information about the dual aperture plates of a 16mm magazine camera (one plate on the camera and one on the magazine), and a technological contradiction as yet unresolved (that camera makers put camera ID shapes on camera apetures but they do not show the pattern on the film of magazine cameras because of the dual aperture configuration) results in some technical confusion about magazine cameras which I am still trying to resolve. Thus occasionally ideas are presented which later seem misleading but were sincere expressions of what was known at the time. The technical design of the magazine camera's aperture plate and camera ID shapes is a technical mystery we are trying to unravel. Camera makers deliberately put something into a camera which is functionally useless, and the mystery is why they did so, when we would presume they tested their cameras and somebody in their design/engineering team must have seem that the feature was useless, and they should have changed it to be useful or eliminated it as unnecessary, but they did not.

 

What the camera makers did 60 years ago is illogical, and thus creates confusion today as we try to reconstruct their engineering intent, and we cannot find old engineering documentation about this confusing issue and likely all the camera designers who were involved are deceased today so we can't ask them.

 

When I get to the bottom of this, I hope to publish a complete technical review of the issue for camera technology historians, because it is a curious thing. At present, it's still confusing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It's certainly the case when designers decided to change the internal mechanism on movie cameras so to run at 18fps from the original 16fps. They did so while not changing the dials which misled many people into thinking the camera was still still filming at 16fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Giganto wrote:

 

 

But Patterson would also have coincidentally used a 20mm lens to shoot the PGF. 

 

 

There is a problem with the logic/reasoning behind the scenario of Roger putting a 20MM lens on his camera....that he was taking down to Bluff Creek, to hopefully capture a Sasquatch on film.

 

It would be counter-productive to what he was trying to accomplish.  A 20MM lens vs. a 25MM would make the subject appear smaller within the film frame. It would be 'zooming-out' on the subject, as opposed to zooming-in. It's a non-sensical scenario.

 

And neither does it make sense for the camera rental shop to put a 20MM lens on the camera....instead of the more common 25MM, for the same reason.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Roger was first and foremost going to the tracks that brought him there in the first place - so who would want them to be made to look further away?  In fact, if it can be better determined if those images were shot with a 20mm lens or a 25mm lens - then the creature was also shot with the same lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I don't understand your point, BFH. Can you elaborate on it, a little? :)

 

The fact that Roger and Bob planned on staying there for an extended period of time, which they did, indicates they were hoping to capture a Bigfoot on film. Also, Roger said he used only one strap on the saddlebag, just in case they ran across a creature....and had to get the camera out quickly.

 

 

Just hoping to cross paths with a Bigfoot creature would be reason enough to keep a 25MM lens on the camera...rather than switching it for a lens which would only serve to shrink the creature within the film frame. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^

 

I don't understand your point, BFH. Can you elaborate on it, a little? :)

 

The fact that Roger and Bob planned on staying there for an extended period of time, which they did, indicates they were hoping to capture a Bigfoot on film. Also, Roger said he used only one strap on the saddlebag, just in case they ran across a creature....and had to get the camera out quickly.

 

 

Just hoping to cross paths with a Bigfoot creature would be reason enough to keep a 25MM lens on the camera...rather than switching it for a lens which would only serve to shrink the creature within the film frame. 

 

I agree about the reasons concerning the lens, and I also believe from my own experience that not fastening any more straps than necessary would lessen the time needed to get to the camera in the event they actually ever saw a Bigfoot.

 

But first and foremost was their wanting to film tracks, which was the most likely thing they could have half-way expected to accomplish. Let us not forget that they were cruising the dirt roads after the work crews were done for the day so to look for foot prints and then looking everywhere else when the crews were back to work the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

OK, I'm dumb and going to sound dumber in a minute....

 

I thought the lens size could be determined by the number of frames per second.  I've been searching through the forums and www.themunnsreport.com looking for where this was discussed and I can't find it.

 

Can someone enlighten me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

I agree about the reasons concerning the lens, and I also believe from my own experience that not fastening any more straps than necessary would lessen the time needed to get to the camera in the event they actually ever saw a Bigfoot.

 

But first and foremost was their wanting to film tracks, which was the most likely thing they could have half-way expected to accomplish. Let us not forget that they were cruising the dirt roads after the work crews were done for the day so to look for foot prints and then looking everywhere else when the crews were back to work the next day.

 

 

 

That may well have been true, BH....but what I don't understand, is what relevance that has to the point I made regarding the lens?? 

 

What I explained in my last post, was that even if their "primary reason" was to film footprints....Roger would not have switched a 25MM lens to a wider-angle 20MM lens....since that would have been counter-productive to their hope to get a Sasquatch on film....(trying to prove they exist).

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

OK, I'm dumb and going to sound dumber in a minute....

 

I thought the lens size could be determined by the number of frames per second.  I've been searching through the forums and www.themunnsreport.com looking for where this was discussed and I can't find it.

 

Can someone enlighten me?

 

The speed at which the camera runs is what determines the frames per second. The lens determines how something is viewed through the cameras eye. What Munns did was to make a 3D model of the film site and checked what the backgrounds would look like with each lens option against the model. Only one in his view was a match.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...