Jump to content
Guest Jack D

How Tall Is Patty?

Recommended Posts

Guest Jack D

A couple of years ago, I posted my work in the old BFF's showing how I measured Patty. At the time, few took me seriously. Since then, during my absence from the forums, I have enhanced, added to, and tested my work. I know Bill Munns is working on this from a different angle and It will be interesting to see how we compare. I could post my work here, again, but it is all on my website and much easier to post a link. The bottom line is Patty is between 5'11" and 6'2" standing erect, and I'm leaning toward ~6'1".

I welcome questions and constructive comments.

http://www.metalsmithpro.com/PGF%20CAD.htm

Edited by Jack D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hi, Jack. Great to see you back. Just in case you weren't aware, Bill has abandoned 7'4" Patty and pursued other avenues of making Patty real. Patty being around 6ft tall is something that continually becomes evident through various methods...

896149ab4ae788f13.gif

Your method appears to be very precise. I'm wondering, if I posted an image of myself showing me standing, would you be able to tell me fairly precisely how tall I am without me telling you first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Hi, Jack. Great to see you back. Just in case you weren't aware, Bill has abandoned 7'4" Patty and pursued other avenues of making Patty real. Patty being around 6ft tall is something that continually becomes evident through various methods...

896149ab4ae788f13.gif

Your method appears to be very precise. I'm wondering, if I posted an image of myself showing me standing, would you be able to tell me fairly precisely how tall I am without me telling you first?

Yes...if you take that photo at 100' distance (that is the about the distance of the camera to Patty), standing upright like a doctor would measure you (if you're slouching, it won't be accurate) with an object in the immediate vicinity (like patty's foot) of known measurements that is on the same plane (or very near it) as your photo. In other words, give me something that I can scale the photo to. Be glad to take the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

OK, here we go. This image is not 100 ft away, but might be tricky due to the perspective. I'm the guy on the right. Your object for scale is my friend's left foot. He's a size 10.5 so that make that foot you see 10.81 inches. Now using your CAD method, see if you can figure out how tall I am...

PortRen3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Not a fair test. I don't know the distance your buddy is from the camera or how far you are behind him. All I can do is estimate and that's hard to do in a two dimensional photo. Pulling figures out of the air to plug in, I'd say your buddy is around 5'6" and you are approx. the same. Perspective is huge, close up. Try holding your hand at arms length and see how much territory it covers 2-3 feet behind it. If you look at my perspective test drawing, a 1' circle at 8' from the camera, will cover a 1'3" circle 2 feet behind it. Now put an object the same size as your hand in front of something 2' behind it and back off 100' and see how much territory it covers.

If you look at the ladder test on my webpage, you will see that at 100+ feet, the CAD dimensions and the actual dimensions are nearly identical. At 10' there would be a huge difference. At 100', perspective is not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yeah, the perspective is tricky in that one. Would it help if I said the camera is 2 meters from my friend and I am maybe a foot max from where his left foot is?

The one thing that I see as a issue with your method is that it relies on the tracks cast being made by Patty, which I don't think they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

I wasn't there so I can only say that if her foot is 14.5", then the measurements are accurate within reason. That is stated in my assumptions.

I'm an old duffer and don't know a meter from a kilometer. I think in inches, feet, yards, etc.

If you're really interested in knowing the accuracy of the CAD method, it needs to be a test at ~100', which is ~where Patty is from the camera in Frame 72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Hi Jack...welcome to the Forum... :)

In your calculation for Frame 72, it doesn't appear that you've made an adjustment for the 'blooming' of Patty's left foot.

So, regarding Fact #4...

Fact four; If her foot length is ~14½" as reported, then her walking height is ~66.12" or ~5'-6" (14.5" X 4.56 = 66.12").

Adding ~6", makes Patty ~6'0" standing erect.

The 'bloom' of the foot....due to overexposure...adds to the 'apparent length' of Patty's left foot....so, let's use a figure of 16" for the foot, instead of 14.5"...

16" x 4.56 = 73" . Adding 6" to that, for bent posture, brings her standing height up to 79"....or, 6' 7".

Another possible 'error factor'...which would need correcting for...would be the difference in elevation, between Patty and Roger.

Patty was on a higher level of ground, than Roger was....and in Frames 61 and 72, her head appears slightly 'compressed'...compared with later Frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Jack;

Welcome back to the forum.

I do find you work fascinating, and my only reservation, which does not question your method or your analysis skill, is that I wonder if Patty's foot appears larger than it actually is, due to motion blur and film copying of images. If those processes enlarge the apparent size of the foot, than Patty calculates smaller.

But I haven't done the motion blur tests yet, so I'm certainly not in a position to say yeah or ney to your effort, just that until that lingering question about motion blur/copy alteration is answered, I don't know how accurite the foot measure, taken from the film, is. I know the image from the PGF can be shown, and one could say, "see how sharp the foot is, where's the motion blur" but I personally want to actually test motion blur before I form any conclusion myself. But that's a personal thing for me, that I want to challenge assumptions, and test what I can to see if something is not as it seems. Over the last 3 1/2 years, I've sure had enough curveballs thrown at me, in terms of what I assumed and what really was provable, that I like to test everything I can to be certain.

So personally I'm undecided about the methods and results you describe, just because of that lingering motion blur issue that's still untested. But as I said, it's not any criticism of your skill or your process.

If I do ever get to do the motion blur tests, I'll be glad to share with you the results of those tests. I'd even welcome your running those film test images through your process, if you don't mind (when I finally get to do them, of course).

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've come back around to the position that the absolute height isn't as big an issue as the height INdependent long bone ratios and other dimensional measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Hi Jack...welcome to the Forum... :)

In your calculation for Frame 72, it doesn't appear that you've made an adjustment for the 'blooming' of Patty's left foot.

So, regarding Fact #4...

The 'bloom' of the foot....due to overexposure...adds to the 'apparent length' of Patty's left foot....so, let's use a figure of 16" for the foot, instead of 14.5"...

16" x 4.56 = 73" . Adding 6" to that, for bent posture, brings her standing height up to 79"....or, 6' 7".

Another possible 'error factor'...which would need correcting for...would be the difference in elevation, between Patty and Roger.

Patty was on a higher level of ground, than Roger was....and in Frames 61 and 72, her head appears slightly 'compressed'...compared with later Frames.

I actually did account for bloom in the foot in frame 72. I think if you blow up the image, you will see how much. Was it enough???? There doesn't appear to be any "bloom" in the other photo (earlier) where the toes are plainly visible. Problem with that photo (number unknown) is that I cannot see the plant foot. But it (walking height) is still in the ball park.

The difference in elevation, IMO, is slight and not significant enough to make any difference at 100'. That is also a perspective thing that is significant at close ranges, but not so much at 100'. I could test that if you think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

The one thing that I see as a issue with your method is that it relies on the tracks cast being made by Patty, which I don't think they were.

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Jack;

Welcome back to the forum.

I do find you work fascinating, and my only reservation, which does not question your method or your analysis skill, is that I wonder if Patty's foot appears larger than it actually is, due to motion blur and film copying of images. If those processes enlarge the apparent size of the foot, than Patty calculates smaller.

But I haven't done the motion blur tests yet, so I'm certainly not in a position to say yeah or ney to your effort, just that until that lingering question about motion blur/copy alteration is answered, I don't know how accurite the foot measure, taken from the film, is. I know the image from the PGF can be shown, and one could say, "see how sharp the foot is, where's the motion blur" but I personally want to actually test motion blur before I form any conclusion myself. But that's a personal thing for me, that I want to challenge assumptions, and test what I can to see if something is not as it seems. Over the last 3 1/2 years, I've sure had enough curveballs thrown at me, in terms of what I assumed and what really was provable, that I like to test everything I can to be certain.

So personally I'm undecided about the methods and results you describe, just because of that lingering motion blur issue that's still untested. But as I said, it's not any criticism of your skill or your process.

If I do ever get to do the motion blur tests, I'll be glad to share with you the results of those tests. I'd even welcome your running those film test images through your process, if you don't mind (when I finally get to do them, of course).

Bill

I agree totally. Garbage in-garbage out. As I said in a previous post, I did take bloom into account, but that is subjective and maybe should be more or less. That's one factor that affects the margin of error. And that, too, is subjective. I'd be happy to put anything you can come up with to the CAD test. What I have done to date is the best I can do with what I have to work with. All of my images come from either LMS or the internet and none are of good quality. The ladder test is proof of the method's accuracy. For better output, we need better input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvnVUlW25Y8



What about the McClaren comparison?

I mean the rocks and the stumps, all seem to line up to me. But I'll admit that I'm nowhere as technical as Bill and others such as yourself concerning the film.

But what strikes me as so impressive is not the height, it's the bulk. I've read where people talk about the "diaper butt" on Patty........ Diaper butt? I'm 6 ft 3 inches and weigh 260 lbs, and you would have to bubble wrap me countless times to get me up to anything like the bulk that Patty is packing around. It's not just her butt, it's her everything.

I think I would look like the kid from the Xmas story.



:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Hi Jack...welcome to the Forum... :)

In your calculation for Frame 72, it doesn't appear that you've made an adjustment for the 'blooming' of Patty's left foot.

So, regarding Fact #4...

The 'bloom' of the foot....due to overexposure...adds to the 'apparent length' of Patty's left foot....so, let's use a figure of 16" for the foot, instead of 14.5"...

16" x 4.56 = 73" . Adding 6" to that, for bent posture, brings her standing height up to 79"....or, 6' 7".

.....

Too funny. You need to go back to figgerin' school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...