Jump to content
Guest Jack D

How Tall Is Patty?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I agree with Bill that Patterson used a 15mm lens, of that there can be no doubt. Instead of using something in the picture as a reference to calculate height, he used calculations from photogrammetry (lens size, focal length, distance to target), with which I am very familiar as it is a subfield of land surveying (I've been a surveyor for 20 years). On page 5 of the report is a 3 photo comparison, showing a frame from the PG film in the middle (not sure what #) scaled to size for a 15mm lens, a 6'2" man on the right scaled the same, and a man of the same height on the left scaled to size for a 25mm lens. All 3 figures have been cropped and aligned so that their feet are at approximately the same level. For the purposes of my analysis, I discarded the 25mm subject as I am convinced that Patterson used a 15mm lens. For reference, I also referred to page 33, which shows the results of Bill's calculations for Patty's height with the 15mm lens, from a distance (camera to subject) of 94' to 110'.

Surveyor, I agree that a photogrammetric approach is our best bet here but the big unknown is the distance Patty was from the camera. Without this info the photogrammetry amounts to GIGO. We can try to rule out a particular lens by making assumptions of what Patty's height was, and/or the historical distances from the camera, but in the end we don't know how reliable the measurements are. I doubt them.

After Bill wrote his report, he noted some conflicts with the 15mm model and has since reconsidered it. However, he still questions a 25mm lens since the photogrammetry does not seem to work with the historic distances to landmarks as documented by Green and others. Also, Bill's original report was based on Patricia Patterson's full framed copy of the PGF for FOV estimates. It turned out this copy had been cropped and the FOV was reduced by approx. 8%. I'm sure this was enough to skew the results somewhat. It did for me.

IMO, the following graphic demonstrates the most compelling evidence against the 15mm lens theory. The key here is that the Green/McClarin footage was shot with the same size lens as the PGF (or very close such as 25mm & 25.4mm).

HgtCmp2.gif

1) Patterson somehow missed Patty's tracks & cast the wrong ones (doubtful to me)

Doubtful to me too.

2) The distance of 102' from the camera is not accurate (seems plausible, and looks even moreso when viewing the man & Patty side-by-side)

IMO, this is the weak link in the eqn. I don't think 102' is accurate. We have to assume that Green measured from where Roger was standing to exactly where Patty was at the turn. We know Green did not stand exactly at the same spot while filming and McClarin was not 102' from the camera, that is if Green had a 1" Wollensak lens on his Keystone movie camera. That would put him approx. 133' from the camera. But how could Green have got the distance so wrong? Or did McClarin not follow the trackway? How likely was it that Green accurately measured from Roger's boot print to Patty's track for exactly frame 352? How much guesswork was involved and what was the range of uncertainty?

123_133_102.gif

3) The picture used in the side-by-side comparison is somehow distorted, or does not line up as suggested (potentially true, I have no way of knowing)

Here's the most recent comparison with the best quality images available. But Patty & McClarin weren't at the same distances from their respective cameras.

PattyMcClarin-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Gigantofootecus, in the 2nd pic from the bottom in your post, I am assuming McClarin is in the middle, next to Patty. I want to make sure that I understand your narrative correctly: are he & Patty scaled in that side-by-side comparison to appear 102' from the respective cameras that filmed them? If so, there does not appear to be much difference in height or arm length, but mostly in bulk. It is difficult to tell anything about the legs due to the position of McClarin's. All of that is supposing their feet are at the same level, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

KIT how close am I?

kitfv.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Off by 5 inches. I'm just over 6'2". Probably the angle and the fact I'm tilted a bit to the side. Still, a fair bit better than the 5'6" that Pat and Jack put me at.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just to clarify, my current appraisal of the lens issue is in a two part PDF document numbered Release 3.2.5.3, titled "Comparing the PGF and McClarin filming, and camera and lens analysis"

Summing up, I found the 15mm spec would work fine for the PGF alone, but cannot work for the McClarin filming, if we assume John Green's site measurements are reasonably accurate. Since my estimation of the two cameras and their lenses is that they are within 1mm of each other, (like both rated the same focal length, but one off spec too long, one off spec too short), so if a 15mm is unlikely for Green's camera, it follows to be unlikely for the PGF camera.

I continue to find a 25mm lens simply has many problems and a wider lens (shorter focal length) I find less problamatic. I am inclined to think a 20mm lens is the likely one, but I still want to run more camera and filming tests, including a recreation of McClarin's walk, to try and resolve the issue. The above noted PDF documents explain my current appraisal in detail, so anyone interested should refer to them.

AS Gigantofooticus notes, we cannot yet position the PGF subject with total assurance, even though I find one tree shadow on the subject very compelling as an indicator. But A site visit on or about Oct 20, and an analysis of tree shadows, would help erase lingering doubts about the subject's position relative to the tree designated T-C2.

Because I under-estimated the number of variables in the first evaluation of this issue, I am deliberately being extra cautious in trying to account for all the variables in this re-evaluation, in the hope that once it is complete, it will stand as a solid and reliable determination.

But I am encouraged that by my opening the door, so to speak, others with expertise in this matter are also examining the subject and searching for answers. More minds on the problem means more variables recognized, and from that, a more comprehensive solution is possible.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Off by 5 inches. I'm just over 6'2". Probably the angle and the fact I'm tilted a bit to the side. Still, a fair bit better than the 5'6" that Pat and Jack put me at.

Does that mean we should add 5+ inches to Patty's height? I'm okay with that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Off by 5 inches. I'm just over 6'2". Probably the angle and the fact I'm tilted a bit to the side. Still, a fair bit better than the 5'6" that Pat and Jack put me at.

.

Actually, I think it is the low camera angle. That totally screwed me over when I totally guessed at the angle.

Your friend must be about 4'9 if you are 6'2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Off by 5 inches. I'm just over 6'2". Probably the angle and the fact I'm tilted a bit to the side. Still, a fair bit better than the 5'6" that Pat and Jack put me at.

kitakaze,

Once again you have me shakin' my head... :wacko:

"Still a fair bit better than the 5'6" that Pat and Jack put me at." It's stuff like this that really makes me shake my head, either you don't read what is written or you do, an say whatever ya like or...you just make a lot of mistakes an don't bother to check. This is one of the reasons it's so easy an necessary to question your findin's, observations an comments. At least for me.

Regardin' your height kitakaze, you can go back an check again. I said "...but I'd have guessed over the 5'6". " (I didn't even give a height guess) Just keepin' it real. :whistle:

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Pat, my apologies. I misread your post. You are correct that you were saying you'd have guessed over the 5'6" that Jack guessed. I missed the word "over." Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Pat, my apologies. I misread your post. You are correct that you were saying you'd have guessed over the 5'6" that Jack guessed. I missed the word "over." Sorry about that.

kitakaze,

Apology accepted.

Now...ta guess your hieght...I'd sayyyyy...a little over 6'2". :D

Cheers !

Pat...

ps; kitakaze, for future reference...I'm seldom wrong ! Ahhh ! ha ! ha ! :lol:(i'm kiddin'...right ;) )

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Has anyone calculated the distance from the camera using Bob's height, the 25mm lens, and the height of Patty on the image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

FuzzyGremlin:

if we use Bob H as being about 6.2' tall in his suit, and the 25mm being a true 1" lens (actually 25.4mm), and his height in F352 calculated to be 0.0475" on the film, full frame, and straightened up, the calculation I got was 130.52' from camera.

If you use a true 25mm (0.9842") then he calculates at 128.46' away from a camera.

There's some wiggle room in the estimate of size in frame. Other's get slightly different calculations

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Has anyone calculated the distance from the camera using Bob's height, the 25mm lens, and the height of Patty on the image?

Here is a table showing distances from the camera for frame 352 if Patty was various heights.

Dist2CamTable.png

This table is based on the following graphic:

352StandingHgt.png

The sum of the line segments is Patty's standing height (489 pixels). The full frame height is 2896 pixels. We want this ratio to determine the actual image height on the film. The physical frame height is 7.36mm so Patty's standing height on the film is 489 / 2896 * 7.36 = 1.243mm. Now we can use the focal length of the lens to get the distance from the camera, for example: 1.243mm / 25mm = standing height(SH) / distance from the camera(DFC), or DFC = SH / (1.243 / 25) = 122.4 feet

For 6'2" Bill gets 130', I get 124'. Pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm not following your table. How can the subject height increase in inches yet remain constant in millimeters?

Never mind, I understand what you're doing. Just a poor choice of column headings.

Edited by FuzzyGremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm not following your table. How can the subject height increase in inches yet remain constant in millimeters?

Never mind, I understand what you're doing. Just a poor choice of column headings.

That's because you don't understand it. Take out your ruler and measure Patty's image height on frame 352 from the film. The physical image height never changes. We are letting the standing height of Patty vary to calculate the distances from the camera. The column heading is exactly right. Get it now?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...