Jump to content

How Tall Is Patty?


Guest Jack D
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Why don't you show us how it should be figgered?

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All the McClarin comparison needed was for Patty to be as far from Patterson as Green was away from McClarin. But we don't know if that was the case. IMO, it wasn't.

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.

Agreed. How is the torso filled out by an actor inside the suit without padding? Bob H never talked about padding in the mid-section. Patty's bulk is an anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

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

Jack

Glad to see you. I take it you use TurboCAD in your shop. Many of us have performed the same calculations with the foot length. How did you deal with the bloom issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack

Glad to see you. I take it you use TurboCAD in your shop. Many of us have performed the same calculations with the foot length. How did you deal with the bloom issue?

How did you deal with it? :D

See a reoccurring theme here? If you are going to criticize someone's methods, then offer a correction instead of a snide remark. You are mistaking this forum for one where you can insult people behind their back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This...from someone who figgers' that Bob H. was Patty... :lol::lol:

Too funny...

How is that 'PattyBob' thing workin' out for ya', these days, parn? Found a way to reconcile the HUGE difference in 'arm proportions' between Patty...and 'Bob-in-a-Patty-suit' (with his lower-arm extended)??

The difference is far beyond any 'fuzz factor' associated with the Film.

The necessary extension of the lower-arm is the reason behind that....it makes the differential even greater than it is, before the extension is added.

'PattyBob' is dead. Too funny... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you deal with it? :D

See a reoccurring theme here? If you are going to criticize someone's methods, then offer a correction instead of a snide remark. You are mistaking this forum for one where you can insult people behind their back.

Thanks, Giganto... :) parnassus has clearly lost sight...(if he ever had it)...of what the greater purpose of a Discussion Forum is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jack D

Bloom is different than motion blur. I see some bloom in her foot in frame 72. I have tried to exclude that bloom in measuring and scaling the photo to her foot. In this view, greatly magnified, you can clearly see what I consider to be bloom around the foot. My measurements are inside that bloom on what looks to me to be solid flesh. I don't see any motion blur of the foot. Motion blur, as I'm familiar with it, appears as streaks.

post-1451-039165700 1305395590_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jack D

In this exercise, also a couple of years old, I tried to match the log on the ground behind McLaren and Patty to the same size. It appears that the two cameras are in slightly different positions and maybe even the subjects. For what it's worth..........

post-1451-065266400 1305406620_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloom is different than motion blur. I see some bloom in her foot in frame 72. I have tried to exclude that bloom in measuring and scaling the photo to her foot. In this view, greatly magnified, you can clearly see what I consider to be bloom around the foot. My measurements are inside that bloom on what looks to me to be solid flesh. I don't see any motion blur of the foot. Motion blur, as I'm familiar with it, appears as streaks.

Here you go, Jack..I pasted Patty's right foot, from Frame 61, into Frame 72...

FR72Frame61FootInsert.jpg

It looks like you didn't compensate quite enough, for the 'blooming' effect.

Here are the images, as they were scaled...and, from which I took Patty's 'right foot'...

FR61FR72CibachromeAG3A.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

How did you deal with it? :D

See a reoccurring theme here? If you are going to criticize someone's methods, then offer a correction instead of a snide remark. You are mistaking this forum for one where you can insult people behind their back.

Wow, you are way off base. Way.

Take a deep breath.

I asked Jack a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

t.bmp

Obviously this is very crude, but given the similar scale/position, it seems these two had similar proportions, just in a different stance. The lower leg of Patty doesn't appear too short here does it?

Sorry if off topic

Edited by hunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

Bloom is different than motion blur. I see some bloom in her foot in frame 72. I have tried to exclude that bloom in measuring and scaling the photo to her foot. In this view, greatly magnified, you can clearly see what I consider to be bloom around the foot. My measurements are inside that bloom on what looks to me to be solid flesh. I don't see any motion blur of the foot. Motion blur, as I'm familiar with it, appears as streaks.

Thanks, I know nothing about the bloom issue and wondered how one would detect and deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

In this exercise, also a couple of years old, I tried to match the log on the ground behind McLaren and Patty to the same size. It appears that the two cameras are in slightly different positions and maybe even the subjects. For what it's worth..........

I agree that the both the subjects and cameras were in different positions. And if you look at later frames McLarin appears taller than the PGF subject when passing the various landmarks. In his book where he describes his filming of McLarin, John Green says that no tracks were visible to follow in the important area of the walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thanks, I know nothing about the bloom issue and wondered how one would detect and deal with it."

Ideally, the following would be done to detect bloom:

1. Set up a walking subject with dark leg and pale foot. Set that person to walk against a neutral middle tone grey background, in sunlight, with similar sun angle to the PGF (as best can be determined)

2. Film the walk with a 16mm camera, color film, and test for both 16 fps and 24 fps. Also test for several sizes of foot to frame image size, because the modern film stock may have a different film grain scaling than the PGf, so testing various sizes of foot to frame size will resolve this.

3. Simultaniously film the foot in extreme close up, with a HD video camcorder, at 30 fps (or higher if possible) as the higher frame rate reduces motion blur, and makes this filming the "control" for the foot shape.

4. Once the 16mm film is shot, process it.

5. Copy the orignal, and then copy the copy, and again, copy the second copy. This produces 4 generations of image.

6. Isolate one frame across the 4 copy generations and compare the foot with actual image overlay in Photoshop.

7. Compare the HD Video frame scaled to the film scan, as the control for actual foot size.

The tests should show that the pale colored foot "blooms" (enlarges in size) as each copy increases contrast and shifts lighter tones toward white, where they clip and expand as a white shape.

Motion blur can also be tested because the higher frame rate of the HD VIdeo means less motion blur, as the control. So the HD Video control, compared to the slower film frame rate, will show any motion blur occurring on the film original (which produces the fuzzy edges which can then bloom on copying of the film.)

That's what needs to be done to resolve this issue.

It's on my list of tests, once funding is secured. Others are encouraged to run such tests as well, if they are so inclined.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...